'One Size Fits All' Is Not The New Rule

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) now realizes that a Boeing [BA] 747 Freighter and a Cessna Grand Caravan are not created equally. The agency's proposed new air cargo handling rules realistically assess the impact each aircraft could have if turned into a weapon by a terrorist.

Instead of lumping all aircraft within the same class - it essentially creates three classes - the TSA adopted 40-some recommendations from the Aviation Security Advisory Committee to build a layered defense against the potential hijacking of an all-cargo airplane or stowing a bomb on a plane.

The much-discussed, long-awaited proposed rule "clearly and emphatically recognizes that the smaller aircraft poses much less of a security risk than a FedEx A300. We are grateful to the TSA for recognizing the sharp disparity in the security threats that are possible with each aircraft," said Jeb Burnside, a consultant for the Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA).

In early discussions, the TSA had been reviewing rules that appeared to be based on a "one size fits all" theory.

Industry groups are generally supportive of the proposed rules spelled out in a 37-page document, which was released earlier this month. However, the airlines and their trade associations are going over the proposal with a fine-tooth comb before issuing a complete endorsement. The TSA is accepting comments on the proposed rules until Jan. 10.

The TSA proposal "harmonizes" the various separations of aircraft and carriers to more closely match those of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), said Deborah McElroy, president of the Regional Airline Association (RAA).

The RAA has worked with Congress to make certain the standards mesh. The end result is that the enhanced security rules adopted in February 2002 that govern those planes weighing 12,500-pounds or more - known in the industry as the Twelve-Five rule - will only apply to those flying aircraft that weigh more than 12,500 pounds. The initial application of the Twelve-Five rule also applied to those planes weighing exactly 12,500 pounds, but under this proposal they would not have to comply with the mandatory regulations. Operators flying aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds also do not face the mandatory regulations.

Under the proposal, the Twelve-Five rule - with some enhancements - will apply to all aircraft weighing up to 100,309 pounds or 45,500 kilograms - a plane the size of a DC-9. The program for planes weighing more than 45,500 kilograms is dubbed the all-cargo program. Planes with up to 60 passengers also must follow the all-cargo program rules.

The proposal codifies some existing practices and then imposes additional responsibilities. All operators under the Twelve-Five must now screen all employees or third-party individuals who may ride on the plane. For the first time, TSA wants all airport cargo handlers and any third-party vendors to be screened and checked each time they enter secure spaces surrounding the aircraft.

For those airports with established security plans, the Security Identification Area (SIDA) must now include all cargo handling facilities. However, at those airports that do not have security plans and only handle occasional all-cargo aircraft, the burden falls on the aircraft operator. The TSA proposes that the aircraft operator prevent unauthorized access to the operational area while cargo is being loaded onto the plane. "The TSA believes the aircraft operator is well positioned to provide sufficient security for their aircraft operations," according to the proposal.

However, Burnside said the proposal is not clear as to what the operator's exact responsibilities are. "As a [Cessna] Caravan pops into Winchester, Va., at 2 a.m. to pick up film, does the aircraft operator have to make certain the truck driver has gone through the TSA screening program? It is not clear from a quick read how the situation will be addressed." The issue gets more complicated at smaller airports that are effectively closed in the wee hours of the morning with only the pilots and delivery drivers present, he said.

The TSA acknowledged that there are more than 63,000 individuals who work for freight forwarding companies that range in complexity from the likes of FedEx and UPS to "mom and pops." Initially, the TSA would not submit all 63,000 to fingerprinting and time-consuming background checks but instead it would use "threat assessment" tools, which would check an individual's name against a variety of terrorist databases.

In an economic impact analysis, the TSA estimates that over 10 years the aircraft operators will pay $600,000 to perform background check on their employees. The financial burden skyrockets for those operators of larger planes, to $837 million for all aspects of the program.

In an early comment on the proposal, John Salagaj, a consultant with Air Cargo Management Group, calls upon the TSA to make spot inspections to the warehouses and freight handling facilities of the shippers to make certain they are complying with the rules. Akin to health inspections of restaurants, the TSA "inspections must be infrequent and unannounced for maximum effectiveness. The random inspections should be carried out by TSA inspectors for maximum effectiveness."

>>Contacts: Jeb Burnside, RACCA, (703) 989-5457; Deborah McElroy, RAA, (202) 367-1170; John Salagaj, Air Cargo Management Group, (206) 587-6537. The full proposal and comments are at www.dms.dot.gov as Case 19515.<<