AASHTO Transportation Security Task Force
Minneapolis, MN
September 5, 2003
Meeting Summary
1. Opening Statement – Henry Hungerbeeler, Missouri Department of Transportation (DOT)
Henry Hungerbeeler opened the Task Force meeting, welcomed participants and thanked everyone for their continuing participation on the Task Force.
2. Overview of FHWA’s Proposed FY2004 Security Activities – Vincent Pearce, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Handout)
Vincent Pearce (FHWA) presented FHWA’s security efforts included in the agency’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 budget, which will be subject to Congressional action but represents a significant proposed expansion of activity. Mr. Pearce listed FHWA’s ongoing and FY2004 efforts in the areas of operations, freight, and infrastructure. In summary, FHWA has requested $5.7 million in operations projects (mostly related to emergency planning and evacuation procedures, including lessons-learned from hurricane planning), $2.15 million in freight projects (including a “best practices” deployment test), and $400,000 in infrastructure projects (including workshops and technical assistance). Mr. Pearce noted that FHWA’s FY2004 budget does not include any bioterrorism-related efforts and speculated that Congress may choose to address this issue. Tony Kane (AASHTO) asked whether an aggregate US Department of Transportation (USDOT)-wide summary of budget proposals could be provided, but Mr. Pearce was unaware of such a summary. Joe Hill (Illinois DOT) asked if money would be available to states, and Mr. Pearce indicated some funds for training on emergency operations, and incident command systems (ICS) would be available. Mr. Hill noted that states are even having difficulty securing funds to travel to such workshops. Terry Simmonds (Washington State DOT) noted that his state is doing its own training and that there could be an opportunity for FHWA to build on Washington’s efforts.
3. Improving Communication of Transportation Security Information between Federal and State/Local Agencies – Vincent Pearce, FHWA
Vincent Pearce requested a discussion about how to transfer FHWA’s sensitive security-related products to the appropriate state and local contacts, such as District Engineers in state DOTs. He indicated that usual approaches such as posting documents on the web or sharing it via division offices are not effective or appropriate.
Henry Hungerbeeler (MoDOT) suggested that any information from FHWA should be accompanied by documentation that clearly states the level of protection that is required. This comment was followed by a general discussion among Task Force members about “sunshine” laws that may circumvent requested levels of protection. Keith Gates (Transportation Security Administration (TSA)) indicated that they are working on some procedures for handling Sensitive Security Information (SSI). Mr. Kane also noted that TransTech is preparing some guidance on this issue for DOTs. A draft version of the guidance will be circulated to Task Force members for comment in the coming weeks.
4. FHWA Security Research Strategic Plan – John Gerner, FHWA
(PowerPoint presentation)
John Gerner (FHWA) presented a broad overview of FHWA’s current thinking on its organization-wide role in transportation security. Mr. Gerner articulated FHWA’s goal as being to “improve security and support national defense mobility through collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and their state, local government, private sector, and other federal agency partners.” The goal is supported by performance objectives that will be used to measure the agency’s progress. Mr. Gerner then provided an overview of current FHWA security activities, which include reducing vulnerability, emergency response and recovery, freight management, metropolitan and statewide planning, and support of military deployment.
Mr. Gerner closed his presentation by addressing the future role for FHWA in security. In his comments he indicated that FHWA/USDOT is looking to dovetail its efforts with TSA, but noted that TSA’s priorities are clearly different than those of USDOT. He explained that the overall level of effort for USDOT versus TSA is still not clear, neither is use of Highway Trust Funds for security purposes. Mr. Gerner concluded by describing 3 components to FHWA’s role in security: 1) research and development; 2) training; and 3) collaboration with TSA. He suggested that the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program is a model for how security could become part of FHWA’s responsibility. He noted that a “long-range strategic plan for research in all major work areas” is planned.
Mr. Kane asked about the extent of multi-modal collaboration by FHWA, and Mr. Gerner indicated that “stovepipes” do exist inside the agency and outside (e.g. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)). Mr. Pearce commented that “at the project-level” big strides are being made to improve the level of coordination, and cited the work of the Volpe Center as an example of collaborative efforts.
5. An AASHTO Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) Approach for Surface Transportation – Dave Ekern, Idaho DOT
(PowerPoint presentation)
Dave Ekern, chair of the NCHRP 20-59(10) panel, updated the Task Force on its progress in investigating the feasibility of setting up an ISAC and offered options for AASHTO participation in a highway ISAC. He explained that the purpose of 20-59(10) is to “make recommendations regarding AASHTO’s role and/or leadership in forming an Information Sharing and Analysis Center.” Mr. Ekern explained the concept of an ISAC, which is used to gather, analyze, sanitize, and disseminate private sector information. AASHTO has four options to consider for the development of an ISAC:
- Do nothing,
- Create a standalone ISAC,
- Join “ST-ISAC” as the Highway Sector Coordinator, or
- Establish a partnership ISAC with a related transportation entity.
Mr. Ekern outlined the costs and benefits of each approach, as determined by the 20-59(10) contractor. Included in this analysis was a breakdown of costs based on the structure of a standalone ISAC versus an outsourced standalone ISAC under varying levels of effort. Mr. Ekern noted that in-house operation of an ISAC by AASHTO would require major changes in the organization’s operations and facilities to accommodate 7-day a week/24-hour a day operations, a semi-secure environment, and skills in information analysis. Under any option, start-up costs are likely to be significant, ($800k to $2 million) while ongoing operating costs could be as much as $2.5 million or more per year. Mr. Kane noted as a point of reference that this figure approximates all the dues paid by state DOTs to AASHTO each year.
6. Highway Infrastructure Security at TSA – Keith Gates, TSA
(PowerPoint presentation)
Keith Gates represented DHS/TSA at the Task Force meeting and provided an update on the Transportation Security Administration’s security efforts. First he explained how TSA is housed within DHS. TSA is one of seven organizational entities within Border and Transportation Security (BTS), which also includes the US Customs, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Within TSA, Maritime and Land Security (MLS) is one of four operating divisions. Transportation Infrastructure Security (TIS) is one of seven components within MLS. Highways is one of five modal groups within TIS. Mr. Gates noted that within BTS, the Office of Domestic Preparedness is responsible for administration of grants.
Henry Hungerbeeler asked who the Task Force should talk to at DHS to convince them to think of DOTs as first responders; he highlighted the challenges that this problem causes with an anecdotal story about a bridge in Missouri. Mr. Gates indicated that TSA is presently more focused on law enforcement than emergency response, but that DOTs must designate their first responders. He also said that TSA plans to establish field offices in the future that will help ensure better interaction with state and local agencies. Mr. Hungerbeeler responded that this is being done, but no one is listening to DOTs. Mr. Ekern noted that DOTs are not used to exerting the political pressure that is needed to resolve this problem. Other Task Force members emphasized the importance of building a strong case to TSA/DHS for considering DOTs as a critical part of the nation’s security.
Continuing his presentation, Mr. Gates described the strategic goal of MLS’ Highway Infrastructure Security program as being to “minimize the vulnerability of critical physical infrastructure from terrorist events.” He presented a slide that quantified core aspects of the state of the nation’s highways (miles of roadway, number of bridges, etc.) and described four TSA-led Highway Infrastructure Security initiatives currently underway:
- Hazardous Material Driver Background Checks Program
- Highway Watch Program
- Bridge & Tunnel Criticality/Vulnerability Assessments
- Highway Infrastructure Criticality/Vulnerability Applicability
Mr. Gates indicated that the Hazardous Material Driver Background Checks program is the first non-aviation TSA rulemaking and is the result of a TSA interim rule established on May 5, 2003 that requires the removal of hazardous materials endorsements from licenses of commercial drivers who may pose a risk to transportation security. The original schedule for the background checks program requires implementation by November 2003, but no funding is available for states to support it. Members of the Task Force discussed the complexity of implementing such a program, highlighting the difficult of establishing the coordination needed between driver and vehicle licensing agencies (including 18 DOTs) and law enforcement agencies; and how to create a program that is not a burden on commercial drivers.
Mr. Gates indicated that the Highway Watch Program is a national security program that uses the skills and transportation experience of professional truck drivers to help protect America’s roadways. He also indicated that a broad grant solicitation has been issued. Mr. Kane noted that an AASHTO application will be discussed later in the meeting.
Mr. Gates indicated that TSA is conducting an assessment of bridge & tunnel criticality/vulnerability. He emphasized that TSA will use a “self assessment” approach that relies on materials provided by states to develop a comprehensive list of critical infrastructure. State DOTs will not be required to re-do their original assessments. AASHTO is involved in this effort and the updated vulnerability guidebook will reflect the TSA approach. Mr. Gates indicated that the Highway Infrastructure Criticality/Vulnerability Applicability program will use vulnerability assessments to determine the effectiveness of countermeasures at each alert level and guide the selection of additional measures. Mr. Gates also described initiatives that TSA will be continuing or starting in the future including discussions with industry about building security into vehicles, ensuring infrastructure designs take account for security concerns, and communication with international transportation agencies.
7. AASHTO’s Highway Watch Grant Application – Tony Kane, AASHTO
Mr. Kane described TSA’s recent solicitation request for grant applications to its Highway Watch program. He indicated that the grant covers four broad areas of work including 1) selection of program participants, 2) training, 3) communications, and 4) ISACs. He also noted that grants are open to private sector applicants and associations. Despite a tight deadline for applications, Mr. Kane indicated that AASHTO will submit a joint proposal with CACI for funds in all four areas. Tony Kane will be listed as the project manager for the grant submission, and some other Task Force members will also be included.
During discussion about the AASHTO application among the Task Force it was suggested that a team approach involving other players such as the American Trucking Association (ATA), or even establishing a group-wide ISAC would be appropriate. Mr. Kane indicated that insufficient time was available before the deadline to pull together a multi-association team, but agreed that such an approach would be desirable in the future.
8. Update on NCHRP 20-59 Research Projects – Stephan Parker, NCHRP
(PowerPoint presentation and handouts)
Stephan Parker delivered a presentation for the Task Force that described ongoing NCHRP security research efforts. He gave a general overview of completed NCHRP and TCRP programs, NCHRP projects in progress, and multi-modal projects in development.
8. Briefing on the Follow-Up to the 2001 Transportation Agency Survey – David Albright, New Mexico DOT
(Handout)
David Albright provided the Task Force with an update on plans to conduct a second round survey of state DOTs on their security activities, including a handout of the draft survey. Task Force members provided Mr. Albright with some suggested changes for the survey, and he requested that any additional changes be sent to him by the following week. Mr. Albright will coordinate with the Transportation Research Board (TRB) to administer the survey and results will be available for the annual TRB meeting in January 2004.
10. Review and Discussion of proposed AASHTO Special Committee Resolution and Transition Issues – TransTech and Tony Kane, AASHTO
(Powerpoint presentation and handouts)
Mr. Kane and Mr. Hungerbeeler walked the Task Force through draft versions of the powerpoint presentation and resolution text that Mr. Hungerbeeler will present to the AASHTO Board of Directors on creating the Special Committee on Transportation Security. The resolution language and PowerPoint presentation were accepted by the Task Force with minor changes. Some members asked about opportunities to stay involved with the work of the Task Force even if they are no longer full members when it becomes a Special Committee. Mr. Kane indicated that there are many ways that interested people could remain involved.
11. FHWA/AASHTO Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security Final Report – Steve Ernst, FHWA
(Powerpoint and Adobe presentation)
Steve Ernst (FHWA) gave a brief report on the final Blue Ribbon Panel Report, which is currently at the printers. Mr. Ernst indicated that the Final Report is available on AASHTO’s website and will be mailed out to the Research Advisory Council (RAC), the Standing Committee on Highways (SCOH) Bridge Subcommittee, the AASHTO Board of Directors, American Public transit Association (APTA), and NAC. Task Force members suggested that the report could also be sent to members of the National Associations Working Group, Congressional groups, Corps of Engineers, TSA, MTMC (DOD), law enforcement groups, and the National Guard.
12. Briefings on the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures’ Technical Committee on Transportation Security and the AASHTO/FHWA/TSA Working Group on Engineering Hardness – Steve Ernst, FHWA
Steve Ernst indicated that the T-1 committee has held its first meeting, and that the group is multimodal in nature.
13. Principles and Practices for State Transportation Agency Security in Strategic Indirect Warfare – David Albright, New Mexico DOT
(Handout)
Mr. Albright distributed a report on his research of Strategic Indirect Warfare and its security implications for state transportation agencies. Mr. Albright, working through the New Mexico Surety Task Force, conducted this research to “develop State Transportation Agency security principles and practices that are sustainable given the characteristics of Strategic Indirect Warfare.” The report explains the concept of Strategic Indirect Warfare from a historical perspective and describes how potential attackers can use the philosophy to disable transportation networks. Five principles are described that New Mexico Surety Task Force believes will improve the security of a State’s transportation system: Surety, Partnership, Differentiation, System, and Interdependence. Based on the acceptance of these principles, strategies are provided that state transportation agencies can implement to protect themselves and their transportation networks. Examples from New Mexico DOT are spelled out to assist other states in this effort.
Action Items Status Report and Assignments – Tony Kane (AASHTO)
Tony Kane led the Task Force in updating the Action Items Status Report -- attached.
Next Meeting: To be held on Monday January, 12th at the annual TRB meeting in Washington DC
1