It is unclear whether a new law that President Obama is expected to sign that is expected to make it easier for airports in the United States to opt out of using a federal screener workforce will result in a flood of applications to take their screening operations private, the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said yesterday.
A provision within the new Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act that has been approved by the House and Senate would require TSA to review applications from airport operators to opt-out of using federal screeners unless the agency determines that approval would “compromise security or detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of the screening of passengers or property at the airport.”
John Pistole, the TSA Administrator, told the House Homeland Security Transportation Security Subcommittee that given that only 30 applications to the private screening program have ever been submitted, it’s unclear whether a lot more would be forthcoming under the pending law. Some of those applications have been sent twice by the same airport operators whose first application was denied, he said.
There are 450 airports in the United States eligible to participate in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) as the private screening effort is called.
The SPP program and currently consists of 16 small to medium size airports with the exception of San Francisco International. Last week, Pistole approved one more applicant, a small seasonal airport in Montana that operates just four months of the year. He also denied two other applications.
Last January, Pistole said he would not expand the SPP program beyond the 16 participating airports because it contains no obvious benefits (Defense Daily, Feb. 1, 2011). That decision drew the ire of many Republicans in Congress, including Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), who chairs the House Transportation Committee that helped usher in the new FAA bill.
In his prepared remarks yesterday Pistole said he would only approve new applications “where a clear and substantial benefit could be realized.” In his open testimony, he said he would comply with the new law when approved.
TSA maintains that the cost to the U.S. taxpayer for an SPP airport is 3 to 9 percent higher than that with a federal screening force.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) said that he believes some airports have decided against an SPP application because they believe TSA is against the program. Pistole said he does not know if this is a reason for the relatively low interest in the program to date.