Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/14/2002 03:18 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 324-HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR CHENAULT announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL NO. 324, "An Act making supplemental and other appropriations for homeland security; and providing for an effective date." Number 0961 NANCY SLAGLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), came forward to testify, and she was accompanied by Frank Richards, State Maintenance Engineer. She established that the committee is working off the spreadsheet dated 2/27/02 [of the document "Terrorism Disaster Policy Cabinet: Cost Estimates for Highest Priority Recommendations"]. Number 0999 MS. SLAGLE noted that the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities begins with Item 105 ["Marine Highway Stabilization and Marine Vessel Operations: Add a Low Earth Orbital communication system"]. She told the members that there is no communication between the nine marine highway vessels that go from Bellingham to Skagway and across the Gulf and shoreside on a continual basis. If anything happened on board a ship or even off the ship, if the ship needed to be notified, there is no communication to enable that to happen. This money would provide that needed link. She explained that the department wouldn't purchase a Low Earth Orbital communication system but would lease it from somebody who would provide the capital upfront costs. CHAIR CHENAULT asked if someone wanted to get a hold of the Malaspina, for example, there would be no way to contact it. MS. SLAGLE replied that the ferry would have to be close to port to be able to do that. Number 1135 FRANK RICHARDS, State Maintenance Engineer, Statewide Maintenance, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, explained that currently there is no tracking system. The vessels have single sideband radios on them, but there can be dead zones in the route, so there is not good communication. CHAIR CHENAULT asked if this system is for communication or is it a tracking system. MR. RICHARDS replied that the Low Earth Orbital system will allow for both. It has a GPS [Global Positioning System] component to it, so it can actually track the vessel en route and provide for the communication. Number 1188 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked, "So right now with our ferry system, there are spots out there where we can't communicate with them and in addition to that, we don't have any GPS tracking system that tells us where they're at a particular point in time?" MS. SLAGLE agreed and said there are even places on the road system where equipment operators cannot communicate with the department, even though they have radios and cell phones. There are dead spots along the way where there is no communication. She noted that the department's communication system doesn't meet the standards for dealing with security issues. MR. RICHARDS added that in Alaska there is only single coverage for GPS in certain areas, and it's certainly not statewide. The remainder of the Lower 48 now has double coverage and has triple coverage in some places for better accuracy of GPS tracking. It is the department's goal to get single coverage for GPS tracking in Alaska someday, he noted. Number 1279 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what would happen in an emergency aboard a ship. MR. RICHARDS answered that currently marine band radios are used to correspond with the U.S. Coast Guard, and cell phones are used in ports. Number 1316 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if there is communication with the Coast Guard at all times. MR. RICHARDS replied that there is, except where there are dead zones. Number 1335 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is already a tie into a low orbital satellite and if those satellites actually cover all parts of Alaska. He wondered if this would be a new satellite. MR. RICHARDS said as he understands the technology, this company has bought time in an existing satellite system that is in place and will then provide the coverage. He said he believes that the coverage does not extend the full breadth and width of the state of Alaska, but will certainly cover areas in Southeastern Alaska, Southcentral, and out to the Aleutian Islands. MR. RICHARDS explained that the issue with GPS is the location of the satellites and their orbital path to provide for coverage across the state. Number 1440 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked Mr. Richards to guesstimate how many miles of dead zone there is for the ships. MR. RICHARDS answered that he doesn't have a guesstimate for that. He is unfamiliar with the BC [British Columbia] coastline. He noted it could probably be figured out and provided later. Number 1482 CHAIR CHENAULT asked Ms. Slagle if they're talking about capital costs or operating costs. MS. SLAGLE answered that they are operating costs. It would be a lease contract with the provider who would pay the capital costs. The $275,000 is for the rest of this current fiscal year plus all of next year. CHAIR CHENAULT wondered what the estimate would be for the following year. MS. SLAGLE replied that she hoped it would stay fairly constant, but with rising prices, it's hard to say. CHAIR CHENAULT asked what the cost would be to buy the system. MS. SLAGLE replied that all she knows is that it was more cost effective to lease rather than purchase outright. Number 1575 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this was something found to be deficient by the Alaska Marine Highway System or did the communications company come to the state and offer something. MR. RICHARDS answered that in the department's analysis for the Disaster Policy Cabinet (DPC), it was asked to look at the vulnerability of the marine highway system, the ports and harbors, and cruise ship lines. At that time, the Alaska Marine Highway System brought to the DPC's attention that there wasn't that communication ability, and if the marine highway system vessel were taken over or whatever, there would be zones in which it couldn't communicate. He explained that then the department sought to find out what communications abilities it would have. This is on a parallel track with the intelligence transportation system, which is being put into place in the travel information program, in which the traveling public will have better information on not only the marine highway system, but on roadway conditions. At that time the department was also looking for communications abilities and differential GPS applications. Number 1687 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed shock that this system has been deficient all this time. He asked if the military vessels or cruise ships that traverse these same areas are out of communication. MR. RICHARDS answered that he couldn't address that except that maybe they have satellite phones. Number 1768 MS. SLAGLE referred to Items 106, 107, 108, and ["Central Region Highways and Aviation: Contract municipal law enforcement officers for rural airports to meet FAA's [Federal Aviation Agency] mandatory 15 minutes response time;" "Northern Region Highways and Aviation: Contract municipal law enforcement officers for rural airports to meet FAA's mandatory 15 minutes response time;" "Southeast Region Highways and Aviation: Contract municipal law enforcement officers for rural airports to meet FAA's mandatory 15 minutes response time"] and said those items were already discussed at the last meeting. MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 109 ["Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Blast Assessment and Explosives Deflection Devices: Conduct engineering blast assessment at Anc airport, strengthen perimeter windows (glass) and construct deflection devices in lieu of 300' parking setback"] and said that federal funds are being looked at for this particular item. In response to a question from Chair Chenault, she said it has been determined that there would not be a waiver for the international airports. Number 1860 CHAIR CHENAULT asked if the new railroad terminus at the Ted Stevens Airport is going to cause problems for the 300-foot parking setback. MR. RICHARDS answered that he'd asked that same question. From the FAA's perspective, it doesn't necessarily fall under the guidance of the 300-foot setback; however, the analysis undertaken would incorporate that building into the blast effect. Number 1932 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she hoped this assessment is happening at a time in which adjustments can still be made, rather than finishing construction on the project and then find out it does apply to this. She asked for assurance that this was happening. She wondered if, in the construction planning of the drive-up area in the newly constructed area [the old C concourse area], they're making sure that the "blast assessed" windows have been put into the new project, and that's been built into the cost. MR. RICHARDS responded that the intention is to include the new terminal facilities in the analysis for the blast effect. He mentioned that a blast analysis has not been conducted yet because there hasn't been the funds to do that. The architects, contractors, and the state personnel overseeing the project are fully aware of the potential impact that could come. Included in this package are modification dollars for the terminals for needs, not only for blast impact deflection devices but also terminal modifications for the new screening devices, that likely will go into the new terminal facility. He said, "So, we are aware of it, and it is a concern, and we would like to move forward with the analysis as soon as we can." Number 2087 MS. SLAGLE continued with Item 110 ["Bridge Disaster Replacement Plans and Equipment. Develop plans for replacement of priority bridges; purchase and stockpile moveable, temporary bridge spans in Fairbanks"]. She noted that $3.5 million in federal highway dollars is being looked for that. CHAIR CHENAULT surmised that there is already a plan that says which bridges are primary or secondary. MR. RICHARDS said yes, the threat assessment of the road system has looked at the bridges and prioritized them. Number 2156 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how much ice force the Bailey bridges can withstand. He wanted to know if they can take several inches of ice during breakup or if they are mainly open-water bridges. MR. RICHARDS replied that he isn't an expert on the Bailey bridges and their lateral force stability. His own experience is being on open-water operations, and they are strong and suitable for that. He noted if those bridges were to be put in an ice condition, that would be looked at in the assessment before going forward with it. He explained that the department went with the Bailey bridge because it is quick and deployable and can be used in multiple locations. Number 2237 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 111 ["Transportation Management and Security: Establish a Transportation Security Office within DOT&PF"]. He explained that now there is no central office to coordinate security issues for the department. There are a great deal of security items: all the infrastructure within the state is the responsibility of DOT&PF - the airports, the roads, the bridges, and the marine highway system are all vulnerable. She pointed out that somebody coordinating the requirements from FAA or federal highways or the Coast Guard is critical for that information to be disseminated and to make sure that the requirements are being implemented. MR. RICHARDS explained that the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which resides in the U.S. DOT [Department of Transportation], came out of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in November. It is an undersecretary position that will be responsible for all of the transportation security assets across the nation. Currently, the TSA is focusing on aviation, but soon it will be looking at the susceptibility and vulnerability of ports, harbors, highways, and bridges, and it will likely be promulgating new regulations that the department will respond to with security measures. It was the hope of the department to have a law enforcement security person who would direct the department's security-related issues. Number 2335 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that in the event of a catastrophe, he noted that generally, the on-scene coordinator is someone from the military, especially in Alaska. He asked if the military would have this kind of an operation that could be utilized until whatever repair was necessary. He wondered if this was duplicating something the military is already planning. MR. RICHARDS indicated that he can address how the current aviation regulations are and how the onus is placed on the airport operator, not an outside entity, not the Alaska State Troopers, but the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities to be the onsite airport security coordinator, the onsite safety and emergency respond coordinator. So, when an event happens, it is the DOT&PF onsite personnel that are the incident commanders. He suggested that Major General Oates could answer for other emergency needs. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN restated his question, whether Item 111 would be redundant to things the military would do in the event of a catastrophe. Number 2514 MAJOR GENERAL PHILLIP OATES, Adjutant General/Commissioner, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, testified via teleconference. He said that with this facility, there will be a day-to-day capability to enhance the security of transportation management through a security office. He explained that it is difficult for the military to be engaged, unless it has been called out to be involved in traffic of large numbers of people on a daily basis. It would take a heightened- alert status to do that. He said he thinks in all these areas there needs to be the most efficient way to manage security. MAJOR GENERAL OATES pointed out that the purpose of the Office of Homeland Security is to look at the most efficient ways to manage the security requirements across the state. He added: We had a telephone conference just this week with Governor Ridge to talk about the new alert system that the nation is putting together. That alert system has some five different categories of warning status, and then it's very important that we identify each level of protection that we need to provide as the threat goes up. In other words, who is responsible from both the public sector, the government sector, and the military sector as the threat conditions increase. I think what you see here is an approach to how do we improve the daily transportation security and all transportation arenas. We may not have the perfect solution here, but if we don't get any resources, I don't think we'll be able to provide the degree of protection that our citizens deserve. Did that answer your question or was there something specific that I missed? REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said if something were [based] in Southcentral and there was a problem in Fairbanks or Southeast, would this system take care of as broad an area of the state as there probably is within the military. Number 2651 MAJOR GENERAL OATES replied that this is not a response organization as much as it is a planning organization to make sure that the procedures are in place for all the security. The list shows the magnitude of the task facing the department when looking at all the areas to provide transportation security. The effort is to put things in place. Number 2701 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN ask Ms. Slagle what would be anticipated for the following year. MS. SLAGLE answered that about $400,000 a year on an ongoing basis is being looked at to maintain that office. The amount was reduced for this year, thinking some people could be hired in April, dependent on receipt of the money from this appropriation bill. Number 2740 CHAIR CHENAULT asked about security already in place before September 11 [2001]. MR. RICHARDS explained that what is already in place is primarily dictated by the FAA regulations for the airport security. There is not anything in place or any security role or function for the highways, the ports and harbors, or the marine highway system. MS. SLAGLE explained that the international airports with safety officers do work on security issues. There are 262 rural airports that have no security coordination from the commissioner's office. The highways and aviation sections are responsible for them, but the dissemination of the information to them, and the coordination of what they do, and meeting those FAA requirements is not there at the moment. Number 2815 CHAIR CHENAULT commented that the FAA required security at these facilities before September 11. He said he understood that more regulations have been placed upon the airports. He wondered whether the department was wanting to add to what already exists or was looking at building a whole new department just to address the FAA needs. MR. RICHARDS replied that the FAA requirements have been added to. With the new Transportation Security Administration taking over aviation security, a federal security director will be put in place at each of 454 airports across the nation. There now will be a federal employee responsible for overseeing the security of the 2 international and 18 rural airports. That will place a large onus on the department in terms of compliance but also in terms of communication with the federal government. He said, We're not looking to building a new department; we're looking to provide general oversight and more coordination within the existing department employees for the aviation security and then the new role likely for the other assets. Number 2914 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 112 ["Statewide Design and Engineering Services: Establish a transportation security training program"]. He explained it is federal dollars to be used for training of the staff to deal with the requirements of security issues, such as checking bridge structures to make sure there's no potential sabotage or explosive charges. It ties in with what was discussed at a previous meeting about the requirement of all of the staff to be on top of knowing what the federal requirements are, and this item provides them with the training. [Item 113 was withdrawn.] TAPE 02-15, SIDE B Number 2950 MS. SLAGLE brought attention to Item 114 ["Measurement Standards and Commercial Vehicle Enforcement: Expand Fox weigh station hours to 24/7"]. She noted that this gives the department an additional checkpoint for the Dalton Highway. CHAIR CHENAULT asked how far the Fox weigh station is from the bridge. He also wondered about combining the request in Item 114 with a request by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to build a station on the bridge to maintain the safety portion of the bridge 24/7. Number 2882 MR. RICHARDS explained that the only major road access coming in is the Elliott Highway, but it comes from Manly into the Dalton Highway. There is not a major road access beyond the Fox weigh station. The department's goal in staffing the weigh station is to provide a commercial vehicle presence to track primarily the commercial loads but also hazardous materials. After September 11, the inability of states to know where hazardous materials were going, who was driving them, and what their destinations finally were became a major issue across the nation. This would allow the department the option to monitor those trucks and goods up the highway. In the analysis for the Disaster Policy Cabinet, the department looked at staffing this in lieu of the bridge, but because of the bridge's importance to the transportation system, it was determined that it was necessary to have an onsite presence, which augmented the Alyeska pipeline people who were doing their observation on the bridge and pipeline. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI wondered why both are needed. MR. RICHARDS answered that the troopers are currently doing a cursory inspection and looking in the vehicles being observant of any activities on the bridge, but they certainly are not going into the load of a semi-trailer to know what's in there. Staffing of the Fox weigh station would augment that by knowing that truck A was carrying hazardous goods. If the troopers at the bridge knew it was a load of dangerous goods, they would then have more information to do their assessment in monitoring of that bridge. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she understands that it is helpful, but she still wondered if it is necessary. She is still not certain how manning the Fox weigh station does anything more than telling what the load is. MR. RICHARDS agreed that it provides the state useful information to better track the movement of goods and materials. Number 2709 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said, "It seems to me that we ought to be able to put public safety guys and DOT guys together at one point or another, whether it's the check point up by the bridge or the weigh station." MR. RICHARDS replied that one of the issues at the bridge is the ability to create a structure large enough to house multiple staff and all the utility needs necessary for a structure. There was an existing structure at Fox, and that was the goal to initially put staff there to provide that service. Through further analysis, it was determined to put onsite presence to augment the Alyeska pipeline people at the bridge. Number 2665 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there are two different purposes: that DPS is looking at it from one perspective, and DOT&PF is looking at it from another. MR. RICHARDS said: In terms of the transportation assets that we are concerned about on the Dalton Highway, we have a common goal, and that is the safety of that asset. By providing and having information as to the contents of a vehicle, I think that provides us with just that little bit more knowledge that would be key if an event were to occur. Or, if there was withdrawing of the Alaska State Troopers at some point, then we would have one asset that would then be in place and [continue] to provide useful information to not only the state as a whole, but also to the industry reliant on those goods. Number 2615 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she didn't mean to be argumentative, but it seems to her that if you want to know what's inside the truck, you could check it at the checkpoint, instead of having two different points where basically you're making sure that you know what's going on inside the vehicle. MR. RICHARDS said the only other thing that the Fox checkpoint does is provide for safety checks of the vehicle so that those other citizens on the road also would then be safer because the truck had gone through an inspection. If the operator at the Fox weigh station feels that the truck has something out of place, then there will be a safety inspection that wouldn't be done by the Alaska State Troopers, monitoring the bridge for essentially terrorist-related activities. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what the hours of operation are in Fox weigh station now. MR. RICHARDS replied that in the wintertime, he believes it is 12 hours a day. CHAIR CHENAULT asked if private individuals are checked or logged in or out at the Fox weigh station. MR. RICHARDS answered that it's only commercial vehicles. Number 2508 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if someone driving a private truck through the weigh station would be stopped and checked. MR. RICHARDS replied that private citizens driving trucks would not be checked. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if a terrorist is driving a commercial truck, would the truck be checked or would his word of what he is carrying be good enough. Number 2457 MR. RICHARDS answered that the department is soon to implement what is known as the 'C vision plan' - commercial vehicle identification system. It's essentially a seamless system that has been put in place in the Lower 48. Before this, when a commercial vehicle got a load of bananas in Florida and wanted to drive to Seattle, he would have to stop at every state line and go through an inspection or verification of documents. The C-vision plan is an electronic transfer. He now puts a transmitter up into his cab, and when he goes across the state line, there is a reader that will read his information, the driver, hours driven, the goods, safety inspection history on the vehicle, and then he's processed very quickly through a computer system and an active weigh station operator to get a 'go' or 'no go.' MR. RICHARDS noted that that system will soon be put into place in the state of Alaska and in Fox as well. So, a driver picks up a load of pipe at the Port of Anchorage and wants to drive to Prudhoe Bay, he will be able to go via the weigh stations. If he has a transponder, he won't be called in because the goods will be known, the weight of the vehicle will be known due to automatic weight information. The goods and safety records of the drivers with transponders will be known. Those that have terrorist-related activities in mind likely would not have that, unless they have collusion in the trucking industry. So, that person would be pulled in. Through checking of the placards on the truck and the origination of the truck, the weigh station operator would then be able to make an informed decision on whether or not to check that vehicle out further. Number 2330 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the brake check would be done if there was a sticker on the windshield. MR. RICHARDS answered that that brake check he talked about is another new technology that's being put into place. It is essentially a mobile device that allows for infrared checking of brakes. That could be placed in Anchorage or Fairbanks or Juneau, wherever the need arises. It's not going to be at every weigh station. Number 2307 CHAIR CHENAULT asked if a terrorist stops a truck with a transponder and changes loads, is there anything that will stop them from continuing on. MR. RICHARDS replied that in the scenario the Chair just described, certainly events like that can happen on the roadway to any truck or any private vehicle. He said he was trying to describe another tool that the department and Fox weigh station would have in checking the vehicles. Number 2165 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI turned attention to Item 115 ["Have DOT&PF maintenance personnel check key bridges on a daily basis and block access to roads under bridges"]. She asked if this was something done as a matter of course or is this a new requirement. MR. RICHARDS answered that currently when the operators and foremen are on the road, they have their eyes and ears open to whatever the transportation asset may be. In the case of the bridges, they've been asked to be cognizant of parked vehicles next to the abutments or beneath bridges. They are currently not getting out of the vehicles and checking underneath the bridges. It is hoped that this item will provide the training necessary to know what to look for. He said, yes it is part of the their daily duties; it's not an extra duty. The committee took an at-ease from 4:24 p.m. to 4:27 p.m. MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 117 ["Statewide Administrative Services: Improve personnel security (background checks) for commercial driver's license operators and selected DOT&PF positions"]. She explained that there is now a federal requirement that requires all employees that have access to secure areas in the airports had criminal background checks. Also, it is required that the background of individuals holding commercial driver's licenses be looked into. This item provides the money to do those background checks. Number 1991 CHAIR CHENAULT asked if this was due to more strenuous requirements by the FAA than what is currently done. He surmised that before 9/11 [September 11] some kind of background check was done on people working at airports. MR. RICHARDS said pre 9/11, an employment verification was done for five years; if there was a gap of more than 12 months, then a 10-year verification on criminal history was done, but not fingerprint-based. The new Transportation Security Administration guidelines are for fingerprint-based criminal history checks on the airport personnel, not only DOT&PF personnel, but anybody requiring security identification display badges in the secure area. This measure is for background checks for DOT&PF employees only, and it is a new requirement since 9/11. MR. RICHARDS explained that by December 6, 2002, all employees will have to have criminal history background checks. There are 28 crimes that will disqualify someone from receiving a badge. Number 1873 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 118 ["Fairbanks Airport Safety: Establish temporary gates and check points at Fairbanks airport"]. She indicated that this is specifically related to the 300-foot setback requirement, and there needed to be some additional checkpoints for access. This was a more economical way of dealing with that situation, and international airport funds are being used to do this. CHAIR CHENAULT commented that it didn't make much sense to worry about the 300-foot setbacks and require the department to put in bomb-deflection devices at the major airports, but yet allowing drivers to drive up to the front of the building. CHAIR CHENAULT noted that Item 119 was deleted. ["Increase inspections and random checks of Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) authorized vehicles at Anc and Fbx airports"] Number 1663 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 120 ["Anchorage Airport Safety: Increase presence and visibility of law enforcement officers at Anc airport"]. CHAIR CHENAULT asked the difference between an airport safety officer and a state trooper. MR. RICHARDS answered that an airport safety officer is a duly licensed officer who has passed the Alaska State Police Standards and works for the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, and the Alaska State Trooper works for the Department of Public Safety. MR. RICHARDS agreed with Representative Hayes that airport safety officers have dual training for police as well as airport rescue and firefighting. Number 1541 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the possible FAA reimbursement on Item 120. He wondered if that doesn't come about, would the money shift over to the general fund. MS. SLAGLE answered no, it will be international airport revenue funds if the FAA doesn't pick up the cost, and so it won't be a burden on the general fund. MS. SLAGLE answered another question from Representative Green saying, the international airport revenue funds are collected from the air carriers or concessionaires and are used to cover the expenditures. If they aren't added into the rate base, they won't be recovered. So, the rates wouldn't be increased to accommodate it. Number 1430 MS. SLAGLE referred to Items 121 and 122 ["Fairbanks Airport Operations: Increase presence and visibility of law enforcement officers at Anc and Fbx airports" and "Fairbanks Airport Safety: Increase presence and visibility of law enforcement officers at Fbx airport"] and said they are basically related. She explained that some appear in the operations component and some appear in the safety component. It is the same issue as with the Anchorage International airport in increasing the presence of the airport safety officers either through additional positions or through overtime. MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 123 [ Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Blast Assessment Explosives Deflection Devices: Modify existing and new terminal structural configuration and baggage conveyor systems to accommodate new FAA explosive detection devices"] which asks for $18 million. Part of the issue is trying to make sure that the baggage system included in the terminal is appropriate for security needs and to determine how the airport is going to put the CTX machines in. Number 1307 MR. RICHARDS explained that the CTX machine is an explosive detection device that the Transportation Security Administration will be providing to the Anchorage international airport. By December 6, 2002, every bag in the nation must go through an explosive detection screening. So, TSA will provide these devices which are pickup truck-sized devices, extremely heavy, and a lot of power requirements involved with them. The airports are faced with trying to figure out just where this device is going to sit. He indicated that airports across the nation are grappling with this, and they're certainly looking at umpteen billions of dollars in structural modifications necessary to comply with these machines. Also included in this item are modifications to the existing terminal, as well as the new terminal that will replace the C concourse in Anchorage. Number 1208 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked how passengers flying from Nome to Fairbanks would have their baggage checked. She wondered how this requirement is met without sending these passengers from Nome down to Anchorage to screen their bags and then sending them up to Fairbanks. Number 1100 MR. RICHARDS answered that the TSA is grappling with this same question. Larger airports are going to be the first to receive these new devices. Currently nationwide, there are 60 devices in airports. By the end of the year, there need to be about 2,500, and only about 80 machines are being produced a year. He explained that the passenger in Nome will have to go through some type of explosive-device screening that likely will be the hand wand, which checks for trace elements through a portable machine. In his view, that will likely pass as an explosive- detection screening for that passenger, so that passenger would not have to go through Anchorage on the way to Fairbanks. But, say the passenger was routed through Anchorage, the question was, Since he has not gone through the expensive CTX machine, should his baggage be pulled off and run through that machine, slowing down the system even more? That question has not been answered. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there is only one machine scheduled for the state in Anchorage. MR. RICHARDS answered that it is likely that Anchorage will have two. At this time, none will be going to any other community. It likely that Anchorage will start off with one and may go to two, depending on the configuration. Number 1007 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked why Fairbanks wouldn't get a machine since it is also an international airport and there are many tourists coming in from Europe in the summer. He wondered what determines who gets a machine. Number 0957 MR. RICHARDS said he can't second guess TSA and how it has made the determination. He said he believed the airports are categorized by the number of "enplanements" of passengers. He explained that category X is the largest - Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston, at 5 million plus. Category 1, which Anchorage falls into, is 2.5 million plus. Category 2, which is Fairbanks, is between 250,000 to 2.5 million. The rural airports are category 3. He said he thought the TSA is focusing on the largest airports initially. He suggested that maybe in the future there could be a CTX machine at Fairbanks. MS. SLAGLE commented that the TSA is going to have to rethink the requirements in the timeframes for when these machines can be implemented; she said she doesn't see how it can happen in the time frame. MR. RICHARDS indicated that the time frame was set by Congress. Number 0798 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 124 ["Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Security Access Control Systems: Install state-of-the-art access control systems, traffic control barriers, and purchase police vehicle at Anc airport"] and explained that this is federal funding with international airport revenue funds as match. This would provide some closed- circuit television, access control, and proximity cards for the airport and some security upgrades. MS. SLAGLE referred to Items 125, 126, and 127 ["Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Communication Equipment: Provide handheld communication equipment for expanded use of National Guard soldiers at airports when not needed at security screening points;" "Fairbanks International Communication Equipment: Provide handheld communication equipment for expanded use of National Guard soldiers at airports when not needed at security screening points;" and "Rural Airports Communication Equipment: Provide handheld communication equipment for expanded use of National Guard soldiers at airports when not needed at security screening points"], which are all for communication equipment for the two international airports and the rural airports. CHAIR CHENAULT asked Major General Oates if there has been any talk of backing the National Guard troops out of the airports. MAJOR GENERAL OATES said there is. The National Guard has been extended in its mission for the airports. They are looking at keeping the National Guard members until the end of May. He noted that there is also an option in which federal dollars will be available to local police agencies if they are capable of assuming the duties from the National Guard, and that would break some of the National Guard members out. He said, "We are on a glad path to transition out of the mission, but obviously the federal requirement has been so large we haven't been able to do that just yet." He said it was his hope that by the end of May they would be coming out of the airports. Number 0485 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 128 ["Security and Emergency Access Routes in Anchorage: Revise traffic patterns for enhanced security and emergency routing at the Port of Anchorage Access and access/egress from Elmendorf AFB and Ft. Richardson onto the Glenn Highway"] and noted that that item was reviewed at the previous meeting. MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 129 ["Alaska Marine Highway System Security: Conduct a detailed security study and risk analysis of Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) operations"]. She explained that currently underway is a detailed security study of the vulnerability of the risks of the marine highway system and recommendations as to any areas that need improved security. Number 0412 MS. SLAGLE referred to Items 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, and 135 ["Marine Highway Stabilization and Marine Vessel Operations: Purchase short-term War Risk Insurance for AMHS and analyze need for longer term insurance;" "Anchorage Airport Administration: Purchase short-term War Risk Insurance for Anc airports and analyze need for longer term insurance;" "Fairbanks Airport Administration: Purchase short-term War Risk Insurance for Fbx airports and analyze need for longer term insurance;" "Central Region Highways and Aviation: Purchase short-term War Risk Insurance for rural airports and analyze need for longer term insurance;" "Northern Region Highways and Aviation: Purchase short-term War Risk Insurance for rural airports and analyze need for longer term insurance;" "Southeast Region Highways and Aviation: Purchase short-term War Risk Insurance for rural airports and analyze need for longer term insurance"]. She said these items were also talked about at the last meeting. Number 0360 MS. SLAGLE explained that Item 136 was deleted. ["Respond immediately to unauthorized vehicles at curbside and restricted areas at Anc and Fbx airports"] Number 0334 MS. SLAGLE referred to Items 137, 138, and 139 ["Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Security Access Fingerprinting Equipment and Training: Review access control and employee training at Anc airport;" "Fairbanks International Airport Security Access Fingerprinting Equipment and Training: Review access control and employee training at Fbx airport;" "Rural Airport Security Access Fingerprinting Equipment and Training: Review access control and employee training at rural airports"] and said these have been talked about before. She indicated that these items are actually the equipment and training needed for providing the fingerprinting for the background checks at the airports, and the equipment needs to be at the airport to do that. She explained that these are portable pieces of equipment attached to a computer and can transmit the scanned fingerprints electronically to get a fairly rapid response - meaning days versus months. MR. RICHARDS noted that those machines have been purchased because there was a hiring freeze at all of the airports and left them without the ability to do fingerprints and get the criminal history background check. He mentioned that there is 100 percent federal eligibility for reimbursement for these. Number 0163 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 140 ["International Airport Terminal Security: Review and modify Anc and Fbx airport terminal configurations to meet security requirements"], which includes a public address system at the Anchorage airport, an Anchorage guard shack, and a holding area for detaining people at Fairbanks. Those are federal funds and international airport revenue funds as match, she explained. MS. SLAGLE said that Item 41 was deleted. ["Anchorage Airport Facilities: Security door maintenance at Anc airport"] TAPE 01-16, SIDE A Number 0001 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 142 ["Anchorage Airport Contract Security and Facilities: Contract for security patrols of airport perimeter, parking garages, terminal, and checkpoints. Also provide security door maintenance at Anc airport"]. She said there are additional secure doors that need increased maintenance, and it is more than what the department has now. She explained that this is international airport revenue funds and noted that this request had been increased. Number 0094 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she was under the impression that airport security did all of the security patrol. She wondered if this was different. MR. RICHARDS replied that prior to 9/11, her statement is accurate. Since 9/11 and the additional FAA/TSA requirements, there've been more patrols necessary, and the existing security has been augmented. Number 0184 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if the $800,000 for police at the airport mentioned earlier would not suffice rather than spending another million dollars. MR. RICHARDS replied it is in addition because of the requirements placed on the airport to provide security patrols. MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 143 ["Anchorage Airport Safety: K-9 Bomb dog program"]. This would provide three teams of a dog, a handler, the necessary equipment and the bunkers necessary for testing those dogs. She explained that this is something new, and it's become necessary at the larger airports to implement this program. Number 0409 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said Anchorage is getting the bomb detection machines and the bomb dogs and wondered what Fairbanks is getting in all this. MR. RICHARDS said regarding specifically to Anchorage and its request for the K-9 bomb dog teams, it was because that bomb dog teams will be seen as a supplement to the CTX machines. There are three procedures that the TSA will allow for explosive detection screening. One is the CTX machine, two is the hand wand, and three is biological, essentially, dog. Anchorage has asked for the bomb dog team as a supplement to the CTX machine, knowing full well that it will likely receive the bomb dog team prior to the CTX machine, so it will be able to comply far sooner. Fairbanks International Airport felt that it was able to suffice with the portable machine. Number 0563 MR. RICHARDS explained that the dog teams for the airports must pass through the FAA "dog farm." There is one facility in the nation that provides these teams, and there are only 60 teams produced a year. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked, "So Fairbanks didn't request this?" MR. RICHARDS answered that is correct. Number 0670 MS. SLAGLE referred to Items 145, 146, and 147 ["Central Region Hwys & Aviation: Federal requirement for airport operators and aircraft operators to conduct fingerprint-based criminal history record checks on individuals with unescorted access authority to the Security Identification Display Area of an airport, and badge those with access to the Airport Operations Area;" "Northern Region Hwys & Aviation: Federal requirement for airport operators and aircraft operators to conduct fingerprint- based criminal history record checks on individuals with unescorted access authority to the Security Identification Display Area of an airport, and badge those with access to the Airport Operations Area;" and "Southeast Region Hwys & Aviation: Federal requirement for airport operators and aircraft operators to conduct fingerprint-based criminal history record checks on individuals with unescorted access authority to the Security Identification Display Area of an airport, and badge those with access to the Airport Operations Area"]. She explained these are the general fund program receipts for the fingerprinting for non-DOT&PF employees who have access to secure areas and must be fingerprinted. She reported that this gives the department the ability to charge the employees for that. Number 0742 MS. SLAGLE referred to Item 148 ["Northern Region Hwys & Aviation: Due to the proximity of the Valdez Airport to the terminal of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline a security program was developed and implemented to improve security of the airport. Install new perimeter fence gates to prevent [inadvertent] entry and install traffic barriers to restrict parking. Develop and implement a security program, identical to other rural state airports."] MR. RICHARDS said after 9/11, the Port of Valdez and the Trans- Alaska Pipeline were identified as a major asset of national interest and concern. As such, through consultation with the Disaster Policy Cabinet and the military, the airport at Valdez was identified as sufficient proximity to the terminal that it should have a security program. Because of the size of aircraft that fly into Valdez, a security program is not required under the FAA regulations. So, a security program was established similar to those in rural airports. Number 0851 MS. SLAGLE referred to Items 149 and 150 ["Fairbanks Airport Safety: Federal requirement for airport operators and aircraft operators to conduct fingerprint-based criminal history record checks on individuals with unescorted access authority to the Security Identification Display Area of an airport;" and "Anchorage Airport Safety: Federal requirement for airport operators and aircraft operators to conduct fingerprint-based criminal history record checks on individuals with unescorted access authority to the Security Identification Display Area of an airport."] She explained that those items are also receipt and expenditure authority for doing the non-DOT&PF fingerprinting. MS. SLAGLE told the committee that the department probably would be requesting an amendment through the Office of Management & Budget, but it won't be from general funds. The department has heard recently from the INS [Immigration & Naturalization Service] that some reconfiguration needs to be done at the Anchorage international airport to accommodate a separation between inbound and outbound passengers for customs screening. That impact will have to be looked at, and the rough estimate to do that is a couple million dollars. Number 0924 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked for an explanation. MR. RICHARDS said the issue at Anchorage's north terminal is that when an international flight arrives, it dumps its passengers directly into that concourse. So there is commingling of those folks coming off of the plane with folks who have gone through security. The INS would like a separate passageway so that someone who gets off an international flight is ferried or follows a corridor that leads to an INS facility, and the person goes through an INS inspection and customs inspection before going into the common secure area. International flights have now started to bypass Anchorage because the INS and customs have had them dump those passengers and run them outside with all of their baggage through a screening mechanism to get back into the terminal, when all they were doing was coming in for a fuel stop, and they wanted to allow the passengers to stretch their legs. This has currently cost Anchorage about $150,000 a month in bypass aircraft. The INS did an inspection of the north terminal facility and identified that in order to accomplish the requirement, it would cost approximately $2 million. He said the department was hoping to receive the federal funds and construct this facility quickly to attract those flights back to Anchorage. [HB 324 was held over].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|