June 24-26 2018towards enhancing global air cargo security. ANC ATL ORD LAX DEN PHX MIA BOS SJU...
Transcript of June 24-26 2018towards enhancing global air cargo security. ANC ATL ORD LAX DEN PHX MIA BOS SJU...
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?