The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, enacted in November 2001, assigned TSA responsibility for security in all modes of transportation, which include aviation, maritime, mass transit, highway and motor carrier, freight rail, and pipeline. The act included requirements for deploying a federal screening workforce at airports and screening all passengers and property transported from or within the United States on commercial aircraft. While TSA has a more direct role in ensuring the security of the aviation mode through its management of a passenger and baggage screener workforce that inspects individuals and their property to deter and prevent an act of violence or air piracy, TSA has a less direct role in securing other modes—such as freight rail and highway and motor carrier—in that it generally establishes voluntary standards, conducts inspections, and provides recommendations and advice to owners and operators within those modes. Responsibility for securing these modes is shared with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector. However, TSA has responsibility for receiving, assessing, and distributing intelligence information related to transportation security in all modes and assessing threats to the transportation system. Within TSA, the Office of TSNM is responsible for setting policy for all modes of transportation. For example, the Mass Transit TSNM office develops strategies, policies, and programs to improve transportation security including operational security activities, training exercises, public awareness, and technology. TSA-OI receives intelligence information regarding threats to transportation and aims to disseminate it, as appropriate, to officials in TSA, the federal government, state and local officials, and to industry officials with transportation responsibilities. Although it is not an intelligence generator, the office receives and assesses intelligence from within and outside of the intelligence community to determine its relevance to transportation security. Sources of information outside the intelligence community include other DHS components, law enforcement agencies, and owners and operators of transportation systems. TSA-OI also reviews suspicious activity reporting by Transportation Security Officers, Behavior Detection Officers, and Federal Air Marshals. TSA-OI has deployed Field Intelligence Officers (FIO) throughout the United States to provide additional intelligence support to Federal Security Directors (FSD) who are responsible for providing day-to-day operational direction for federal security at airports—and their staffs. In addition, the FIOs serve as liaisons with state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials and intelligence fusion centers. TSA-OI disseminates security information through security-related information products including reports, assessments, and briefings. These products are also shared with intelligence community members and other DHS organizations. Table 1 describes TSA’s primary security-related information-sharing products. TSA is one of several sources of security-related information for transportation stakeholders. These stakeholders may also receive information from other federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Defense, and Department of Transportation, as well as, among others, state and local fusion centers and industry associations. TSA uses multiple mechanisms to distribute these products. Table 2 describes some of the mechanisms that TSA uses. Other mechanisms that transportation stakeholders may use to obtain security-related information include those operated by regional, state, and local entities such as law enforcement agencies and emergency operations centers, as well as industry-sponsored mechanisms such as the Association of American Railroads’ Railway Alert Network, among others. Because the private sector owns and operates the majority of infrastructure and resources that are critical to our nation’s physical and economic security, it is important to ensure that effective and efficient information-sharing partnerships are developed with these private sector entities. Both the TSISP and DHS’s Information Sharing Environment Implementation Plan emphasize the importance of two-way information sharing between government and industry through a framework that communicates actionable information on threats and incidents. In support of this endeavor, TSA is responsible for receiving, assessing, and distributing intelligence information related to transportation security and acting as the primary liaison for transportation security to the intelligence and law enforcement communities. TSA has developed security-related information products as part of its efforts to share security-related information with transportation stakeholders. Our 2011 survey results indicate general satisfaction among transportation stakeholders who received these products across each mode of transportation, but satisfaction varied by transportation sector. As highlighted in figure 1, 57 percent (155 of 275) of all stakeholders who responded to our survey question concerning overall satisfaction were satisfied with the security-related information they received, while approximately 10 percent (27 of 275) were dissatisfied. Survey results regarding satisfaction with security-related information products and briefings across transportation sectors indicate that respondents from five of the seven sectors we surveyed were satisfied. However, less than half of all respondents from both the air cargo (20 of 53) and class I rail (2 of 7) sectors respectively, were satisfied with TSA’s products, as shown in figure 2. We also asked survey respondents about their satisfaction with the transportation security-related information they received or obtained from a variety of other sources including the industry associations, FBI, and security consultants, among others. As discussed earlier, other organizations also provide transportation security information to state and local transportation agencies. Stakeholders were generally satisfied with the information from these other sources. For example, stakeholder satisfaction among respondents that received information from the industry associations, FBI, and security consultants was 81 percent (165 of 203), 69 percent (96 of 139), and 51 percent (52 of 102) respectively. Stakeholder satisfaction with TSA products was measured both in terms of overall satisfaction with all products combined, as well as across five separate dimensions of quality—accuracy, actionability, completeness, relevance, and timeliness for each product type. Regarding these specific dimensions, more stakeholders were satisfied with the relevance and completeness of these products, whereas fewer stakeholders were satisfied with the actionability of TSA’s products, as shown in figure 3. As shown in figure 3, an average of 72 and 69 percent of stakeholders we surveyed reported being satisfied with the relevance and completeness, respectively, of these products, compared to an average of 59 percent satisfaction with the actionability of this information. For the purposes of the survey, actionability was defined as the degree to which TSA’s security-related information products enabled stakeholders to make adjustments to their security measures, if such a change was warranted. In open-ended comments included in our survey, stakeholders from each of the sectors stated that actionable information also includes analysis of trends, practices, and probability that would allow them to adjust their security measures as appropriate. For example, of the 53 air cargo stakeholders that completed our survey, 6 provided open-ended comments in our survey that TSA provides very little security-related information to their industry concerning unscheduled air carriers such as on-demand cargo operations. These stakeholders stated that the information they receive is usually related to either large cargo companies like FedEx and UPS or passenger air carriers. While only one Class I rail survey respondent reported being dissatisfied with the security-related information their organization receives, five of the seven Class I respondents cited concerns with the lack of analysis associated with the information they receive from TSA. For example, one Class I respondent suggested TSA increase incident analysis and provide more detail on various terrorist approaches and how these methodologies may impact freight rail. According to this respondent, more rail-specific analysis would assist their industry with developing current countermeasures to be as effective as possible against mitigating potential threats. TSA officials stated that the GRID will provide a better opportunity for TSA to provide an analytical summary of law enforcement and open source reporting emerging in the last 30 days, including information on threats, significant airport and aircraft incidents, terrorist groups, security trends and new technologies, and intelligence and law enforcement advisories. freight rail stakeholders we interviewed stated that TSA’s security-related information products lacked actionable analysis and did not contain information that would allow them to take any specific actions. Also, 7 of the 18 stakeholders we interviewed across each of the three modes commented that opportunities exist for TSA to increase incident analysis and provide more detail on pre-attack planning as well as the trends identified in various terrorist attempts and how these may impact their industry. Our previous work on information sharing highlights continuing challenges that DHS faces in providing actionable information to its stakeholders. For example, we previously reported that most information- sharing and analysis centers established to share information with stakeholders from critical sectors have expressed concerns with the limited quantity of information and the need for more specific, timely, and actionable information from DHS and/or their sector-specific agencies. According to DHS, the federal government is uniquely positioned to help inform critical security investment decisions and operational planning as private sector operators generally look to the government as a source of security-related threat information. However, we found that a lack of actionable TSA data has led stakeholders to rely on other sources for relevant security-related information. Of the 275 stakeholders who completed our survey, 203 reported receiving security-related information from other sources. Additionally, Amtrak officials told us that they have contracted with intelligence analysts at Spectel to monitor open and sensitive data sources for rail-related security material. The analysts produce a weekly report called Railwatch that, according to these officials, helps them develop tactics to defend against terrorist activity. Amtrak officials told us that these analysts also work closely with government agencies, including fusion centers, to develop and share information that they described as much more rail-centric than the daily security information that DHS makes available to them. TSA officials noted that aviation stakeholders may receive security directives that outline required steps for enhancing security. They stated that providing prescriptive actionable intelligence is challenging as there is not always information available. However, they recognized the need to provide this information to stakeholders when available and to improve the analysis provided in their products. According to the TSISP, TSA’s information-sharing products represent an important part of its efforts to establish a foundation for sharing security- related information with all appropriate public and private transportation stakeholders.