Appendix A: Research Documentation for ACRP Report 41 (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

 Customer Adoption of Self-Tagging: Customers who used the check-in and bag drop process seemed to appreciate the system and stated that they would use it again. The vendor has a video that contains passenger reactions to using the system.  Next Steps for Self-Tagging: The case study did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Airport—Airline Partnering: The airline and the airport are closely partnered for this pilot process. The airport has provided all equipment and development of the system, while the airline has provided development of host interfaces and staff to support the pilot implementation.  Airport Facility Involvement: The airport is fully responsible for the equipment and is managing the overall pilot process. C. REGULATORY This category includes synopses, highlights, and transference analyses of interviews and documents relevant to regulatory issues relating to self-tagging, as gathered from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the U.S., the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Department for Transport (DfT) in the U.K., and Transport Canada (TC) in Canada. a) USA (TSA): i) Interviewee: TSA-Federal Security Director (FSD) and Program Analyst o Synopsis: Information shown here is a summary of statements made by TSA representatives regarding passenger self-tagging, as it may relate to future pilot tests conducted at U.S. Airports. When discussing this verification study as part of ACRP Project 10-07, the TSA was interested in seeing results according to the following objectives: o Highlights: General Statements  Identify best practices for implementing self-tagging in the United States, and how they vary between CAT X, CAT I, CAT II, CAT III, and CAT IV airports.  Consider the impact self-tagging has on the ability for TSA's behavioral detection officers (BDOs) to perform their duties in the airport lobby. - Queue line is layer of security and this would be modifying it - Getting threat before checkpoint is goal: • Looks like customer service, but actually engaging the environment looking for something out of sort. • Consider who will be doing the engagement. • (Airport Ambassadors wouldn't work). • TSA would be an option. - If we start filling up lobbies with people it is a security risk. - Airport environment is an eco-system: 36

• When you change the flow of the lobby, the flow at the checkpoint will change. • Think about how you deal with flow at checkpoint. • Average wait of 2 minutes, average peak of 6 minutes.  Customer Service benefit is obvious: - Making them come back through security is significant inconvenience that should be avoided.  Partners to consider: - Airports, airlines, TSA. - Must satisfy TSA - TSA will be hardest stakeholder—Consider how to get them on board by defining what is in it for security. - Helps other partners such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), if other things are found in the bags.  Benefit for small airport: - Limited Full Time Employee (FTE), this will help labor costs. - Not a big deal for security for small flights. - Charters could be bigger issues with large flights.  Mostly concerned about unconventional security risks.  TSA expects a 15 minute lag for the passenger traffic in the check-in lobby to reach the security checkpoint.  Most important things: - Make sure there are no gaping holes in security. - Being able to identify people and bags.  Plan a working group. Self-Service Baggage Process  At Cat 4 airports, single kiosk setup with mobile kiosks to pull out for peaks.  Kiosk at checkpoint for people without bags. Self-Tagging Process  What if someone prints too many tags and someone else uses one of them? Baggage Acceptance Process  By doing this, we can't eliminate the engagement: - TSA rather have airline representative performing the baggage acceptance process, due to training and thought toward security. - Contractor engaging bags to load would not achieve security desire of TSA.  PPBM (positive passenger bag match).  When firearms are not properly declared, it freezes things.  Consider how firearms will be addressed.  Recommended solution: - At drop point, incorporate hi-res video that can be recalled quickly.  Consider how to deal with overflow in a bag drop. Process Options/Facilitation:  Phones on kiosks for passenger to use for rebooking. 37

Exceptions  No specific comments made. Signage  No specific comments made. Other Reference Material  No specific comments made. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: The expressed general agreement with the guidelines contained in the initial release of the IATA Recommended Practice. However, the TSA also expressed concerns with the solutions and processes being implemented and used today for self-tagging outside the U.S. Developing a better understanding of more effective self-tagging implementation processes is a prerequisite for the TSA to initiate any changes to its current policy. b) United Kingdom (DfT): i.) Document: “Operational Procedures for Self Service Hold Baggage Tagging at Airports where Identification of Hold Baggage is Undertaken by Automated Means,” Department for Transport—Protocol, May 05, 2009. o Synopsis: The Department for Transport and members of industry have now completed a period of assessment for Self-Service Hold Baggage Tagging. An acceptable process has now been agreed to for use at any U.K. airport wishing to implement self-service hold baggage tagging. This document describes the detailed protocol for the self-tagging process, from self check-in through bag acceptance. In the event of operating an automated self-service hold baggage tagging system, aircraft operators are “asked” to adopt the protocol defined in this document. The protocol described in this document references National Aviation Security Program (NASP) Section 17, for specific procedures, such as with Hold baggage. o Highlights: General Statements  No general statements. Self Service Baggage Process  Procedure defines information to be contained in the baggage tag receipt.  Only one tag should be printed per bag. Self-tagging Process  A printed baggage tag must remain inactive until formally activated by the airline representative at the bag drop point.  Passenger must retain baggage tag receipt for production where necessary prior to and during the flight. Baggage Acceptance Process 38

 The passenger is required to take their checked baggage to a designated drop off point.  An airline representative must control the bag drop facility to ensure passenger bags are not interfered with from the point of acceptance.  All passengers with checked baggage must be present at the bag drop  The passenger is identified and the baggage tag, baggage receipt, and boarding pass will be checked.  Airline representative will check for oversize and overweight baggage that may hinder the operation of the hold baggage screening systems  The airline agent must ask the security questions relating to the checked baggage.  Where a tag is produced in error, the passenger should be referred to an airline representative. - The operator must ensure that the baggage tag is defaced / destroyed to prevent unauthorized use. - The operator must ensure that the tag details are removed from the relevant Departure Control System.  Operator action required for: - If the operator receives unsatisfactory answers, or has any other reason to believe that the passenger cannot properly account for any of his baggage and its contents. - If passenger cannot present boarding pass and/or baggage receipt. - If operator is not satisfied that the boarding pass and baggage tags have not been previously activated.  A passenger or unauthorized person must not have access to baggage that has been accepted and the baggage tag activated, unless under supervision by the airline representative.  Once all the above is confirmed, the baggage tag may only be made active and the baggage accepted and input in the BHS (baggage handling system).  If unauthorized access occurs, then the airline representative must destroy the kiosk-issued tag(s) and receipt, and delete them from the passenger’s record.  Unused tags will remain inactive, collected and destroyed, and deleted from the system. Process Options / Facilitation:  Boarding–Operators shall not cause or permit an aircraft to depart unless it has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that every person who has placed hold baggage in the custody of the operator for carriage in the hold of that aircraft is on board the aircraft.  Kiosks must be secure (e.g., locked) so that only authorized persons have access to the internals of the kiosk.  Computer systems and their infrastructure must be protected from unauthorized usage.  The self-tagging system must be auditable by inspectors. Exceptions 39

 Self baggage-tagging operations must cease immediately in the event the Auto Triple A malfunctions or is unavailable for use. Signage  No specific comments made. Other Reference Material  No specific comments made. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: Procedures as noted are generally applicable to U.S. concerns. Specific references to NASP and U.K. Aviation codes may not be directly applicable. c) Canada (TC): i. Interview: o Synopsis: Transport Canada (TC) established its passenger self-tagging operating policies from Pilot Trials held at the Montréal Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport, during the years of 2003 to 2009. During these trials, considerable work was done to develop processes and systems which would be approved by the regulatory authorities for both Canada and the United States, to enable self-tagging to be built into the airport design at maturity. The information presented here was obtained through presentations, meeting notes, and interviews from those participating in the trials. The fundamental concept was to reconcile the boarding pass of the passenger with the bag tags, to enable the identification and segregation of unused tags. This meant that the tag document itself could be considered for the first time as an uncontrolled document, which would enable the printing in public areas and application of the tags by the passenger rather than an airline employee. The initial trial layout used a physical control of the kiosks and bag drops in a separate area, with an enforced one-way passenger flow. Within the trial zone, the bag tag was uncontrolled and reconciled at the exit. This trial met several important objectives: • Government approval of self-tagging in a controlled area. • Development of applications for tag printing and reconciliation. • Experience with passenger application of bag tags. o Highlights: General Statements  Coordinated effort between airport, supporting airlines, and regulatory agencies resulted in the following General Operating Requirements for Self-Tagging for the transborder operations between Canada and the U.S. These were approved by the U.S. TSA and TC, and supported by IATA Technical Standards (RP1745). Self-Service Baggage Process  The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. Self-Tagging Process 40

 Distinguish between Active and Inactive bags.  Track the quantity and identity tags printed by each passenger. Baggage Acceptance Process  Track identity of tags applied by passenger and accepted in the BHS.  BHS must automatically identify tags properly applied to accepted bags as Active.  Automatically identify unused tags as Inactive.  Automatically reject bags with Inactive tags from the BHS.  Send a message to each airline host system to indicate which Active tags are associated to each passenger and which tags in the original record are Inactive.  Permit a manual change by an authorized agent. Process Options/Facilitation: Using these general operating requirements, the following describes the agent’s role during the trials, as approved by Transport Canada: Zone entrance agent:  Determines passenger eligibility on the following criteria by asking three questions, travel on a participating airline, possession of a valid ticket, possession of a card to access the kiosks.  Uses judgment to redirect obvious cases of rework or complexities to the regular check-in. For those passengers applying bag tags, asks the Transport Canada security questions.  Permits access to the zone for passengers only, not visitors.  Does not permit exit from the zone.  Responsible for overall zone supervision, provides direction as required to support agents regarding passenger flow and changes due to individual airline requirements.  Acts as prime point of contact for airline agents and others regarding the zone operation. Kiosk support agent:  Provides passenger support as required to use the kiosks.  Supervises activity within the zone, particularly regarding use of baggage tags. Provides assistance applying baggage tags, as required.  Directs passengers requiring Customs forms, name tags, etc, to the self-service station within the zone.  In case of exceptions or rework transactions, directs the passengers to the appropriate airline agent. Exceptions  No specific comments made. Signage  No specific comments made. Other Reference Material  IATA Technical Standards (RP1745). o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: 41

 Regulatory: All information obtained is considered to be transferrable, since TSA cooperation was achieved through trials. Actual trial .application as discussed above may not necessarily transfer over to U.S. sites. ii. Document: “Self-Serve Baggage Tagging for Air Travelers Starts July 1, 2009,” Transport Canada, June 25, 2009. o Synopsis: This document is a press release announcing that as of July 1, 2009, Transport Canada will permit self-serve baggage tagging at all Canadian airports. According to the press release, this decision was in responding to the needs of passengers and the aviation industry. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: - Helps passengers reduce the time they spend checking in, and - Saves passengers time and reduces lineups.  Assessment of Installations: - Frees up valuable space that would otherwise be required for additional check-in counters. - Passengers, airlines and airport operators have all responded positively to the convenience of the self-serve option at these airports.  Operational Assessment: - Allows airports and airlines to use their resources more efficiently." - Successful trials at Montréal, Toronto, and Vancouver international airports over the past 3 years have shown that self-serve baggage tagging, used in conjunction with new and existing security requirements, is as safe and secure as conventional tagging by airline attendants.  Assessment of Business Case: - Responding to the needs of passengers and the aviation industry. - Helps airlines control costs without compromising security.  Roadmap for Further Employments: - Expansion plans include Winnipeg, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Halifax international airports.  Design Recommendations: - The self-serve baggage tagging is designed to maintain high levels of security and oversight. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: All information obtained is considered to be transferrable, since TSA cooperation was achieved through trials. 42