SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - In the coming months, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will issue proposed rules setting security requirements for air cargo handling. For those who have been involved in the advisory process since late 2002, the agency does not anticipate any "huge surprises."

The proposed rules, which are currently being reviewed by the Homeland Security Department and the Office of Management and Budget, will "institutionalize a number of security measures that have already been imposed on the air cargo industry through security directives," said Pam Hamilton, director of TSA's aviation initiatives. Addressing the members of the Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA), Hamilton said she could not disclose the details until the internal review is completed. "We will have it up for public review. We don't think there will be a huge amount of industry push back."

As operators of smaller aircraft, most RACCA members fly aircraft not currently governed by air security rules. Current rules apply to any plane weighing more than 12,500 pounds. However, Hamilton could not comment if the proposal will apply to the smaller aircraft.

"What we have tried to do is take an approach that one-size security does not work," she said, but instead the agency tries to apply a "threat-based approach. From a regulator's standpoint, we don't consider the threats [of the sub-12,500 class] the same [as a passenger jetliner]."

Yet, Hamilton added a cautionary note. The recent theft of a small cargo plane raised "red flags" at the highest levels of the TSA with officials wondering if "we should do something about it." Hamilton added that after talking to RACCA members she was able to dissuade any immediate action.

The purpose of the proposed rules is to create a level playing field for the handlers of domestic and international cargo. "We understand there are distinctions, but at the same time we think it is appropriate for a level field," Hamilton said.

"Complacency" is a problem as time passes without another attack, Hamilton said. "As the commercial aviation sector tightens its security," she said, "there is a fear that the air cargo sector may appear to be more vulnerable to exploitation.

"Screening 100 percent of the cargo makes no sense as the industry would grind a halt. We are not saying that we have to inspect 100 percent of cargo. Random searching of cargo is not the right answer either. There is some cargo that should have zero inspections and other that needs a higher percentage than it would get under random searches. We want 100 percent of high-risk cargo inspected," Hamilton said.

Both in her remarks and in the response to questions, Hamilton said that the agency has not defined "high risk" and that in fact its definition "is very much a work in progress."

TSA is in the process of comparing notes with Customs and Border Patrol to understand how that agency targets high-risk cargo. The TSA is working to establish guidelines that compliment, not contradict, the rules that the Customs agents apply.

To avoid duplication of efforts, Hamilton said, "we have the eyes firmly on the ball and it is in no one's best interest to duplicate efforts. We are working to make sure we don't ask you to submit the same data to two different agencies." However, she added, "it will take awhile achieve that objective."

The issue of high-risk cargo drew several questions, but little insight.

• One RACCA member that transports radioactive medicine assumes that his cargo could be considered high risk; however, Hamilton said no directives have been prepared for radioactive medicine. Instead, she said, the TSA would be seeking industry advice as it had with cargo carriers that specialize in ferrying time-sensitive, fragile computer components. The agency is working out operating procedures so the shipping containers can be inspected without damaging the sensitive cargo.
• Another member expressed hopes that as high-risk cargo is passed off from one carrier to another it would not need to be inspected again. Hamilton said re-inspections "probably are not [going to be required] but those details are still being worked out. What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me."

>>Contact: Pam Hamilton, TSA, (571) 227-2623.<<