Presented by

Robert Pryor,

Division Director

June 24-26 2018

Intermodal Division (IMD)

Airport Consultants Council (ACC)/TSA Security Capabilities

Workshop Briefing

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

2

Agenda

IMD Overview 3

Capabilities Assessment & Qualification Branch (CAQB) 5

Surface Security Technology Branch (SSTB) 18

Airport Infrastructure Protection Branch (AIPB) 25

0

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

3

Intermodal Division (IMD) Overview

0

IMD integrates TSA’s mission with local surface transportation and airport security providers.

Our mission is to provide security technology

recommendations and solutions for surface,

aviation infrastructure, and public areas by

evaluating existing security technologies and

developing requirements for new technologies.

Understanding marketplace, testing, demonstrating, and

piloting of current and emerging security

technology capabilities

Helping local transit authorities & law enforcement integrate these capabilitiesinto their security programs

Sharing risk information, security recommendations,

technology support, and security best practices with

end-users around the country

1 2 3

IMD MISSION FOCUS AREAS

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

4

Where IMD Operates

0

Each branch executes TSA’s mission in surface transportation, air cargo, and airport infrastructure domains, respectively. IMD’s legislative requirements are memorialized in Title 6 U.S.C., Presidential Policy Directives (PPDs), Executive Orders, and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP).

Together, these branches focus on TSA’s mission requirements and responsibilities in the nation’s non-

passenger aviation transportation modes.

SSTBSurface Security Technology

Branch

CAQBCapability Assessment &

Qualification Branch

AIPBAirport Infrastructure

Protection Branch

Mission Functions

Enable the security of surface

transportation modes through technologyenhancements and marketplace

stimulation

• Capability Gap Development and

Maintenance with Industry• Technology Assessments

• Industry Engagement• Security Recommendations

Qualify technologies meeting the mandate

to screen air cargo at a level commensurate to checked baggage

• Capability Gap Development and

Maintenance with Industry• Product Qualifications

• Technology Evaluations• Modeling & Simulations

Partner with local airports to improve

security through surveillance capabilities

• Airport Public Area and Infrastructure

Threat Reduction via Technology Use• OTA Management

• Requirements Development

Capabilities Assessment &

Qualification Branch (CAQB)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

6

6

Security for air cargo must meet TSA approved methods. The air cargo industry is the primary owner/operator of these air cargo security screening technologies.

1

2

3

4

Evaluates and qualifies technologies that detect explosive threats

being transported in air cargo on passenger aircraft.

Analyzes currently fielded technologies through system performance

analysis

Develops and updates technology components of standard security

programs

Publishes list of authorized screening devices, known as the Air

Cargo Screening Technology List (ACSTL)

5Leads technology capability gap development in collaboration with

stakeholders

Air cargo technology activities are centralized within TSA’s Capabilities

Assessment and Qualification Branch (CAQB):

CAQB Overview

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

7

Air Cargo Capability Gaps

TSA Reference ID Capability Gap

AS-16-401Stand-alone cargo screening

document

AS-16-402Domestic and International cargo

screening procedure alignment

AS-16-403Clarify and Standardize cargo

screening policy

AS-16-404

Improved screening capability for

anomalous air cargo (e.g. human remains, high density cargo)

AS-16-405

Common work station by

technology type vice manufacturer unique user

interfaces

AS-16-406Develop and evaluate next

generation systems

IMD is collaborating with the ASAC Research & DevelopmentSubcommittee to determine capability gaps. The following Air Cargo capability gaps were identified in FY17.

Capability Gaps

TSA Reference ID Capability Gap

AS-16-407Mid-lifecycle technology

assessment

AS-16-408 Develop an International standard

AS-16-409Develop commodity verse

technology analysis

AS-16-410Prevent unauthorized access to

cargo facilities

AS-16-413 Screening of sealed containers

AS-16-414

Screening of heterogeneous and

high-density cargo in palletized configurations

Explosive Detection Systems (EDS)Challenges in Air Cargo

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

9

Overall Challenges with EDS in Cargo

Although technical progress is being made with implementing EDS for the air cargo environment, very few industry users are willing to make this type of investment. Challenges include cost, rotating gantry vs. fixed array, parcel size, meeting evolving detection standards, and lack of either effectiveness or suitability in screening many cargo commodity types.

Currently qualified EDS are much more expensive than other cargo screening devices:

*Smiths Detection purchased Morhpo Detection in 2017

**May be as high as approx. $1M

Rotating gantry systems:

• Heavier and more mechanically complex• Typically more expensive than the emergent

fixed array EDS

Fixed array systems (in the process of being qualified):

• Tend to be simpler, mechanically • Cost may be reduced over time• Offer the best potential for growth in

aperture size (important in air cargo)• More RMA problems until technology

matures, primarily due to detector blocks• Higher false alarm rates

Challenge #1 - CostChallenge #2-

Rotating Gantry vs. Fixed Array

Device Price

Reveal R SED S $385,000

Morpho Detection* MSEDS-9800 $940,000- $1,240,000

Fixed array systemsStill being

determined**

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

10

Overall Challenges with EDS in Cargo

Although technical progress is being made with implementing EDS for the air cargo environment, very few industry users are willing to make this type of investment. Challenges include cost, rotating gantry vs. fixed array, parcel size, meeting evolving detection standards, and lack of either effectiveness or suitability against many cargo commodity types.

• Current systems are not suitable for screening many of the air cargo commodity types

• Processing speed of current and emerging CT systems is not fast enough to be fully incorporated into all cargo carrier integrated systems

Challenge #4:ECAC

• No CT systems on the market are fully prepared to grow to EU standard 3.2, without additional modifications

• Current systems that may be qualified to TSA 7.2 have unacceptably high rates of false positives

Challenge #5: Commodity Types

• The maximum size of the parcel admitted by even the most advanced CT available in the foreseeable future will be only slightly bigger than current checked bag size

• See the following slide for more information

Challenge #3:Parcel Size

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

11

Challenges with EDS in Cargo: Parcel Size

Even the most advanced EDS that will be available in the foreseeable future will only be able to admit a maximum parcel size that is equal to the current checked bag sized.

Fixed array’s largest parcel size will be the same size as the largest parcel size of systems currently available for checked baggage.

Maximum Parcel Size of Current & Emergent EDS

Rotating Gantry EDS Max Parcel

Size:

Smiths Detection 10080 XCT =

39.0 x 31.5 in.

Fixed Array EDS Max Parcel Size:

L3 MV3D =

39.0 x 31.5 in.

Explosive Trace Detection (ETD)Current Landscape

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

13

ETD History and Path Forward

The timeline below outlines CAQB’s efforts to bring to market next generation technology capable of detecting the new threats in the air cargo security landscape.

TODAY2017 Smiths Detection

IONSCAN 600 passed Stage 1 Lab Testing

2019 IONSCAN 600 will potentially be

Qualified on ACSTL, provided they pass Stage II testing

One or more devices will potentially be Approved on ACSTL, provided the vendor/s pass Stage I testing

2016 Grandfathered all ETDs on the

ACSTL Published new PS to meet

detection standard 6.2 and to enhance other requirements

2018 IONSCAN:

Approved on ACSTL

Entered Stage II testing

Deployed to Test Bed

Potential Vendors:

Enter Stage 1 lab testing

2020 One or more devices will

potentially be Qualified on

ACSTL, provided that the

vendor/s pass Stage II

testing

2021 ETDs at lower

detection standard removed from ACSTL

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

14

ETD Detection Standard 6.2

In 2016, CAQB issued a performance specification, commensurate with TSA standards, including a new detection standard (6.2) for ETD devices. CAQB grandfathered all ETD devices qualified on the ACSTL, as they no longer met 6.2.

Since 6.2 has become the Detection Standard for ETDs, only the Smiths Detection IONSCAN 600 has passed Stage I Lab Testing

of the Air Cargo Security Qualification Test (ACSQT).

Capable of detecting new threats in the cargo landscape

Enhanced password protection capabilities

Improved data recording features

Notable Improvements to the Performance Specification

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

15

Air Cargo Technology Sites

CAQB’s Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) Test Bed, Infrastructure Protection (IP) sites and X-Ray sites lead to increased security in air cargo transportation. The following map shows the approximate distribution of these sites across the country.

*Certified Cargo Screening Facilities

By expanding the test bed and IP sites, and refreshing technology, CAQB is working towards enhancing global air cargo security.

ANC

ATL

ORD

LAX

DEN

PHX

MIA

BOS

SJU

STATISTICS

~1 VOTI X-Ray XR3D-6D

~14 Current IP Sites~20 Closed IP Sites

~75 ETD Sites Domestic Only

8 ETD Participants Air Carriers and CCSFs*

~104 Morpho ETDs Itemizer DX

~72 Smiths ETDsIONSCAN 600

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

16

2018 ETD Test Bed Refresh

The ETD Test Bed is designed to reflect the current air cargo technology landscape. Therefore, CAQB continuously refreshes the test bed with next generation technology meeting currentdetection standards. The test bed is designed to better inform the screening marketplace and drive technology innovation.

In 2017 IMD procured Smiths Detection IONSCAN 600 ETD devices

In 2018 IMD deployed Smiths devices and will phase out the Morpho ETDs over the next few years

FY18 ETD Test Bed Partners

By replacing Grandfathered ETDs with Approved systems, CAQB ensures the Test Bed remains representative of the current market place.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

17

• Numerous vendors are developing data packages to prepare for the ACSQT process to bring their ETDs to market

• CAQB has been approving a limited number of waivers for purchase of Grandfathered ETDs

• However, all Grandfathered devices still must be replaced by February 21, 2021

• Currently entering Stage II Field Testing• Pending successful completion, will be listed on the Qualified section of

the ACSTL

• Making improvements to their 4DX device to meet 6.2 and enter testing• CAQB does not currently have an official date for the 4DX to enter

testing

While there are currently no ETDs listed in the Qualified section of the ACSTL, CAQB is working collaboratively with all interested vendors to expand the marketplace, and is pressing to have more than one Qualified ETD by February 2020.

Current Status of the ETD Marketplace

Smith Detections IONSCAN 600

Rapiscan Systems Itemizer 4DX

Promising ETD Vendors

Waiver Requests for Grandfathered

ETDs

Surface Security Technology Branch

(SSTB)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

19

SSTB Overview

0

SSTB partners with end-users to address stakeholder identified capability development opportunities and provide security technology options to stakeholders.

Mission: Develop requirements and evaluate security technologies for an extensive set of surface transportation

modes and security missions

Justification: Aligned with legislative requirements memorialized in Title 6 U.S.C., Presidential Policy Directives

(PPDs), Executive Orders, and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP)

SSTB collaborates with industry and other stakeholders to:

• Analyze industry needs/requirements

• Perform market research

• Conduct demonstrations, studies, and assessments,

scalable to meet threats

• Conduct operational technology assessments

• Provide security technology recommendations

Mode Infrastructure

Technology Insertion

Explosives Detection

Chem/BioDetection

Rad/NuclearDetection

Behavior DetectionIntelligent Video

Intrusion Detection

Networking,Communications

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

20

At-Range Passenger Screening

0

Detection at-range (DaR) uses technologies to detect concealed objects (e.g. handguns, explosives) through naturally emitted millimeter waves (MMWs) and terahertz (THz) waves from the human body.

DaR is a security tool to enhance operations-not to replace law enforcement experience or operations.

The systems are anomaly or differential detectors that identify differences between individuals and their environment.

Concealed objects block naturally occurring waves and emit/reflect

different amounts MMW/THz waves than others around them

Wave transmission depends on temperature and material properties (i.e.

leather versus nylon jackets)

Limited in automatic detection capabilities

Cannot differentiate between material types

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

21

Device Overview

0

QinetiQ’s SPO-NX and Thruvision’sTAC screen passengers at range with no radiation emitted. However, there are differences in basic operation.

Each technology has its own advantages and limitations; deployment decisions should be based on

local operational considerations.

Tripod Device

Touchscreen or Joystick

controls

Mountable or Portable

Device

Touchscreen

THz Window Video Feed

“Green Ghost” avatar;

object is dark contrast

relative to avatar

No anatomical details

SPO-NX(Predecessor: SPO-7R)

Thruvision TAC (Predecessor: TS4)

Device Details

Operator View

Real time image with

indicator bar

No anatomical details

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

22

Detection at Range

0

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

23

Critical Infrastructure Protection

0

BART MV 13/14

BART Hayward Rail Yard

LA Metro Gold Line Rail

Yard

WMATA

Intrusion Detection

Intrusion Detection and Surveillance Technologies

Instrumented Rail

System (IRiS)

Redscan Laser Sensor

Additional Technology under investigation

RDC Ground Sensor

Yard

Tower

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

24

Rail Undercarriage Screening (RUS)

0

The RUS is a photographic system with automated target recognition software that screens undercarriages of railcars in motion.

• Enhancing systems to be able to screen railcars at operational speeds

• Higher image resolution

• Lowering false alarm rate

• Evaluating application in additional rail environments (e.g., yards, freight rail, high speed rail)

• Potential improvements in technology would enable screening of vehicles traveling at speeds up to 35 mph

Installed VUE 2.0 at NJ Transit

RUS Focuses On:

RUS Gatekeeper Technology

Airport Infrastructure Protection

Branch (AIPB)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

26

AIPB Mission

0

AIPB provides airport infrastructure protection

expertise and capabilities to Federal Security

Directors and other airport security providers to improve

airport security through increased operational

awareness and technology integration.

AIPB integrates technology with security

objectives and operations to ensure technologies are

used appropriately and effectively to protect our

nation’s transportation systems.

The proposed FY19 budget does not allocate CCTV OTA management & engineering support funding to

the branch, and could force the termination of existing projects.

Questions?