This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-502 
entitled 'Transportation Security Research: Coordination Needed in 
Selecting and Implementing Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessments' 
which was released on May 01, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

Report to the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

May 2003:

Transportation Security Research:

Coordination Needed in Selecting and Implementing Infrastructure 
Vulnerability Assessments:

GAO-03-502:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-502, a report to the House Committee on 
Appropriations 

Why GAO Did This Study:

The events of September 11, 2001, increased attention on efforts to 
assess the vulnerabilities of the nationís transportation 
infrastructure and develop needed improvements in security.  The 
Department of Transportationís  (DOT) Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA) had already begun research in this area in June 
2001. The goals of RSPAís Transportation Infrastructure Assurance 
program are to identify, and develop ways to mitigate the impact of, 
threats to the nationís transportation infrastructure.  DOTís Office of 
Intelligence and Security is responsible for defining the requirements 
for transportation infrastructure protection, ensuring that 
vulnerability assessments of transportation infrastructure are 
conducted, and taking action to mitigate those vulnerabilities.  

The House Committee on Appropriations asked GAO to determine (1) the 
status and anticipated results of the Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance (TIA) program, and (2) the extent to which RSPA and the 
Office of Intelligence and Security have coordinated their activities 
in selecting the vulnerabilities to be assessed and implementing the 
vulnerability assessments for the program.  DOT and RSPA officials 
reviewed a draft of the report, agreed with its contents, and provided 
technical clarifications that we incorporated.    

What GAO Found:

The Transportation Infrastructure Assessment program is scheduled to 
end in December 2003 after the completion of four transportation 
vulnerability assessments.  Congress appropriated $1 million in each of 
the fiscal years from 2001 through 2003 to RSPA for the program.  RSPA 
plans to disseminate reports, conduct workshops, and post information 
on the Internet to inform decision-makers in the transportation 
community about the results.  

Program Vulnerability Assessments:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure] 

Prior to March 2003, RSPA did not fully coordinate their activities 
with the Office of Intelligence and Security in selecting the 
vulnerabilities to be assessed, or in implementing the assessments for 
the program. We discussed this problem with officials from both offices 
who agreed that closer coordination would be beneficial, particularly 
to discuss options for addressing the challenges facing program 
researchers in conducting the programís vulnerability assessments.  In 
March 2003, officials from both offices began regular meetings to 
facilitate this coordination.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-502.

To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 
siggerudk@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

TIA Program Is Scheduled to End in December 2003 with Completion of 
Four Vulnerability Assessments:

RSPA Has Not Fully Coordinated Their Activities with OIS in Selecting 
the Vulnerabilities to Be Assessed and in Implementing the Assessments 
for the TIA Program:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Volpe National Transportation System Center 
Studies Related to Transportation Infrastructure Assurance:

Appendix II: Stakeholders Involved and Criteria Used in 
Selecting the Vulnerabilities Assessed Under the 
TIA Program:

Appendix III: Entities Reported by RSPA Who Were Involved 
during the Implementation of the TIA Program:

Table:

Table 1: TIA Program Planned Products and Progress to Date:

Figures:

Figure 1: Beginning and Completion Dates of Vulnerability Assessments:

Figure 2: An Air Traffic Controller Uses a Digital Radar Display and 
Workstation Computers Interconnected through Telecommunications 
Systems for Air Traffic Management:

Figure 3: Emergency Response Teams Transported to the Site of the World 
Trade Center in New York City Work to Clear Debris After the Terrorist 
Attack on September 11, 2001:

Figure 4: A Global Positioning Satellite:

Figure 5: Air, Marine and Surface Modes of Transportation of Hazardous 
Materials Being Assessed by RSPA:

Figure 6: TIA Program Funding by Vulnerability Assessment 
(Fiscal Years 2001 - 2003):

Abbreviations:

DOT: Department of Transportation
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
OIS: Office of Intelligence and Security
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
PDD: Presidential Decision Directive 
RSPA: Research and Special Programs Administration
TIA: Transportation Infrastructure Assurance 
TSA: Transportation Security Administration:

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain 
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 
copyrighted materials separately from GAO's product.

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

May 1, 2003:

The Honorable C. W. Bill Young
Chairman
The Honorable David R. Obey
Ranking Minority Member 
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:

The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, 
increased attention on federal efforts to assess the vulnerabilities of 
the nation's transportation infrastructure and develop needed 
improvements in security. The Department of Transportation (DOT) 
formally began one such effort in June 2001--the Transportation 
Infrastructure Assurance program--within its Research and Special 
Programs Administration (RSPA). The Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance program focuses on identifying and mitigating against 
threats, such as from acts of terrorism and sabotage, which could 
adversely affect the operation of the nation's transportation 
infrastructure and cause harm to humans. The program is crosscutting, 
defining "transportation infrastructure" to include highways, transit 
systems, railroads, airports, waterways, pipelines and ports, as well 
as the vehicles, aircraft, and vessels that operate on these networks. 
The program is also directly related to the mission of DOT's key 
transportation security stakeholder. DOT's Office of Intelligence and 
Security is responsible on behalf of the Secretary for defining the 
requirements for transportation infrastructure protection, ensuring 
that vulnerability assessments of transportation infrastructure are 
conducted, and taking action to mitigate those vulnerabilities.

In House Report 107-722, accompanying DOT and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003, the House Appropriations 
Committee asked us to examine the Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance program. In subsequent discussions with Committee staff we 
agreed to address the following questions: (1) What is the status and 
what are the anticipated results of the Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance program? and (2) To what extent has RSPA coordinated their 
activities with DOT's Office of Intelligence and Security in selecting 
the vulnerabilities to be assessed and implementing the assessments for 
the program?

To answer these questions, we examined Transportation Infrastructure 
Assurance program documents, including budget data and project plans. 
We also interviewed officials from RSPA's Office of Innovation, 
Research and Education--which manages the program, and the Volpe 
National Transportation Systems Center--which is conducting the program 
research--regarding the status, management, and operation of the 
program, as well as plans for disseminating and evaluating program 
results. In addition, we interviewed officials from the Office of 
Intelligence and Security about the extent of their participation in 
the program.

Although the Transportation Security Administration was formally part 
of DOT during the course of our review, it was not established until 
after the Transportation Infrastructure Assurance program began. 
Moreover, the Transportation Security Administration's initial efforts 
focused on safeguarding the nation's aviation industry; as a result, 
the Office of Intelligence and Security continued to lead DOT's efforts 
in fulfilling national critical infrastructure protection 
responsibilities. Consequently, our review focused on the Office of 
Intelligence and Security's involvement in the program. We did, 
however, talk with officials from the Transportation Security 
Administration regarding their role in identifying and undertaking 
future research activities necessary to enhance transportation 
security.

We conducted our review from September 2002 through February 2003 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

The Transportation Infrastructure Assurance program is scheduled to end 
in December 2003 after completing four vulnerability assessments aimed 
at identifying and finding ways to mitigate threats against the 
nation's transportation infrastructure. RSPA's research center, the 
Volpe National Transportation System Center, in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, is conducting the assessments to (1) examine the 
interdependency of the nation's transportation system with other 
critical infrastructures, such as energy and telecommunications; (2) 
identify the transportation and logistical requirements for emergency 
response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction; (3) examine 
the feasibility of alternative backup systems for the global 
positioning system, upon which aviation, maritime, and surface 
transportation industries rely; and (4) assess the options to 
transition from hazardous materials transportation security guidelines 
to security requirements. According to RSPA officials, RSPA plans to 
work with the Office of Intelligence and Security to disseminate 
program results to decision-makers in the transportation community 
through published reports, workshops, and the Internet. Congress 
appropriated $1 million in each of the fiscal years from 2001 through 
2003 to RSPA for the Transportation Infrastructure Assurance program.

Prior to March 2003, RSPA did not fully coordinate their activities 
with the Office of Intelligence and Security in selecting the 
vulnerabilities to assess, or in implementing the assessments for the 
Transportation Infrastructure Assurance program. RSPA coordinated with 
the Office of Intelligence and Security in selecting two vulnerability 
assessments in fiscal year 2001. However, RSPA selected two additional 
transportation vulnerabilities for assessment in fiscal year 2002 
without coordinating with the Office of Intelligence and Security. 
According to officials from RSPA and the Office of Intelligence and 
Security, this lack of coordination resulted in part from disagreements 
and misunderstandings about each other's respective role in the 
program. RSPA's coordination with the Office of Intelligence and 
Security during the research program's implementation has been limited 
to only one of the four vulnerability assessments under review. Greater 
coordination might have enabled officials from the Office of 
Intelligence and Security to obtain industry-sensitive information for 
RSPA's assessments and possibly increased the program's value, 
according to the Office of Intelligence and Security's Associate 
Director. During the course of our review, officials from both offices 
agreed with us that closer coordination would be beneficial to the 
program and agreed to meet regularly. We verified that in March 2003 
officials from RSPA and the Office of Intelligence and Security began 
to meet regularly to facilitate this coordination. As a result, this 
report is making no recommendations. We provided a copy of the draft 
report to DOT and RSPA officials who agreed with the contents of the 
report and provided technical clarifications that we incorporated into 
the report.

Background:

On May 22, 1998, President Clinton issued a pair of directives to guide 
federal efforts to address critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. 
Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD 62) highlighted the growing 
threat of unconventional attacks against the United States. It 
described a new and more systematic approach to fighting terrorism 
through interagency efforts to prepare for response to incidents 
involving weapons of mass destruction. Presidential Decision Directive 
63 (PDD 63) further directed federal agencies to conduct risk 
assessments and planning efforts to reduce exposure to attack. 
Specifically, the assessments were to consider attacks that could 
significantly diminish the abilities of (1) the federal government to 
perform essential national security missions and ensure the general 
public health and safety; (2) state and local governments to maintain 
order and to deliver minimum essential public services; and (3) the 
private sector to ensure the orderly functioning of the economy and the 
delivery of essential telecommunications, energy, financial, and 
transportation services. PDD 63 called for the government to complete 
these assessment efforts no later than May 2003. According to the 
Office of Intelligence and Security's (OIS) Associate Director for 
National Security (hereafter referred to as the Associate Director), 
the Transportation Infrastructure Assurance (TIA) program is, in part, 
DOT's effort to meet these Presidential Decision Directive 
requirements.

RSPA concentrates on multimodal issues (research that applies to more 
than one mode of transportation) that affect the entire U.S. 
transportation system rather than on a specific sector of the system. 
RSPA's Office of Innovation, Research and Education is responsible for 
managing the TIA program. The Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is the research arm of 
RSPA and is conducting the program's vulnerability assessments. OIS is 
the key transportation security stakeholder within DOT responsible for 
analyzing, developing, and coordinating departmental and national 
policies addressing national defense, border security, and 
transportation infrastructure assurance and protection issues. Other 
OIS responsibilities include: coordinating with the public and private 
sectors, international organizations, academia, and interest groups 
regarding issues of infrastructure protection; acting as the Secretary 
of Transportation's liaison with the intelligence, law enforcement, and 
national defense communities and assisting departmental organizations 
in establishing and maintaining direct ties with those communities; and 
serving as the Secretary of Transportation's primary advisor on 
significant intelligence issues affecting the traveling public, the 
transportation industry, and national security. According to OIS's 
Associate Director, OIS has historically been involved in the 
department's transportation security research efforts. He added that 
OIS's lead role in fulfilling the department's critical infrastructure 
responsibilities, including the implementation of Presidential 
Decision Directives addressing critical infrastructure 
vulnerabilities, is likely to change as the roles and responsibilities 
of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the newly 
created Department of Homeland Security are defined.

Congress established TSA in November 2001[Footnote 1] to be responsible 
for ensuring transportation security, including identifying and 
undertaking research and development activities necessary to enhance 
transportation security. For fiscal year 2003, TSA received $110 
million to fund transportation security research activities for all 
modes of transportation. Further, on November 25, 2002, the President 
signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002,[Footnote 2] which established 
the Department of Homeland Security with the responsibility of, among 
other tasks, coordinating efforts in securing America's critical 
infrastructure. On March 1, 2003, TSA became part of the newly created 
Department of Homeland Security.

TIA Program Is Scheduled to End in December 2003 with Completion of 
Four Vulnerability Assessments:

The TIA program is scheduled to end in December 2003, resulting in the 
completion of four vulnerability assessments aimed at identifying and 
finding ways to mitigate threats against the nation's transportation 
infrastructure. RSPA officials said that two of these assessments (the 
interdependency of the transportation system with other critical 
infrastructures and transportation and logistical requirements for 
emergency response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction) 
were selected, in part, to meet DOT's PDD 62 and 63 requirements, and 
are scheduled for completion in mid-2003 to meet the deadlines outlined 
in the presidential directives. The other two assessments (the 
feasibility of alternative backup systems for the global positioning 
system, and an assessment of the options to transition from hazardous 
materials transportation security guidelines to security requirements) 
were selected based upon a perceived need for assessments in these 
areas as defined by officials from RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials 
Safety and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and are 
scheduled for completion in December 2003. RSPA's Volpe Center is 
conducting the TIA program's four assessments and has conducted 
research related to transportation infrastructure since 1996. (See app. 
I for a summary of the Volpe Center's Workshops and Studies related to 
transportation infrastructure assurance from fiscal years 1996 to 
2000.):

Figure 1 shows the TIA program's beginning and completion dates by 
specific vulnerability assessment. RSPA officials told us that it has 
no plans to include any additional or future assessments under the TIA 
program.

Figure 1: Beginning and Completion Dates of Vulnerability Assessments:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The TIA program is assessing four vulnerabilities:

* Interdependency of the transportation system with other critical 
infrastructures: According to TIA program documentation, the 
development of alternative fuels, changes in telecommunication 
technologies, and the evolving financial role of the federal government 
in the security of privately operated transportation systems are 
affecting the relationship between the nation's transportation 
infrastructure and some of the nation's other critical infrastructures. 
The purpose of this assessment is to describe the current and evolving 
dependence between the nation's transportation infrastructure and some 
of the nation's other critical infrastructures including energy, 
electronic-commerce, banking and finance, and telecommunications. For 
example, the nation's air traffic control system relies on 
telecommunications to manage the safety and efficiency of air 
transportation, as shown in figure 2. Researchers plan to determine the 
costs, in terms of economic disruption and loss of lives, associated 
with terrorists exploiting transportation infrastructure 
vulnerabilities.

Figure 2: An Air Traffic Controller Uses a Digital Radar Display and 
Workstation Computers Interconnected through Telecommunications 
Systems for Air Traffic Management:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* Transportation and logistical requirements for emergency response 
teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: The purpose of this 
assessment is to evaluate the transportation and logistics assets 
required in responding to terrorist activities. The assessment will 
include an analysis of transportation operations and procedures, 
personnel, supplies, and transportation assets such as vehicles, 
containers, and pallets. Specifically, researchers plan to analyze the 
institutional and economic implications of terrorist activities 
involving weapons of mass destruction in order to develop emergency 
transportation action plans and compile emergency transportation 
procedure best practices. Emergency teams were transported to respond 
to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 
2001, as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Emergency Response Teams Transported to the Site of the World 
Trade Center in New York City Work to Clear Debris After the Terrorist 
Attack on September 11, 2001:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* Feasibility of alternative backup systems for the global positioning 
system: The purpose of this assessment is to provide a continuation of 
the August 2001 report by the Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center, Vulnerability of the Transportation Infrastructure Relying On 
The Global Positioning System. The report concluded that the global 
positioning system is vulnerable to both intentional and nonintentional 
disruption, and identified a need for a backup for the global 
positioning system. To follow-up on the August 2001 report, researchers 
plan to analyze and describe the performance, cost, and practicality of 
backup systems and procedures. Figure 4 shows a picture of a global 
positioning satellite.

Figure 4: A Global Positioning Satellite:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* Options to transition hazardous materials transportation security 
guidelines to security requirements: The purpose of this assessment is 
to evaluate the tradeoffs in the transportation of hazardous materials 
that exist between security, economic, proprietary, and delivery 
factors. RSPA plans to provide an analysis and description of these 
tradeoffs in different threat scenarios for different modes of 
transportation. Figure 5 provides an overview of the types of 
transportation being assessed.

Figure 5: Air, Marine, and Surface Modes of Transportation of Hazardous 
Materials Being Assessed by RSPA:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]


RSPA plans to work with OIS to disseminate the results of the program 
to private transportation system operators and to stakeholders in DOT 
and other federal agencies through 11 formal reports, presentations, 
workshops, and the Internet. Table 1 provides an overview of the 
program's planned products and progress to date.

Table 1: TIA Program Planned Products and Progress to Date:

Vulnerability assessments: Interdependency of the transportation 
system with other critical infrastructures; Planned products and 
progress to date: Energy: * TIA program researchers have drafted a 
report, "Security Risks Associated with Transportation-Energy 
Interdependencies," which will be reviewed by OIS. This draft report is 
intended to illustrate the complexities in defining interdependency 
vulnerabilities. As of February 2003, this report had not yet been 
issued.; * A second report studying the relationship between electrical 
distribution infrastructure and transportation is scheduled for 
completion in May 2003.

Planned products and progress to date: E-Commerce: * TIA program 
managers are contracting with the Transportation Research Board to 
develop a report describing information technology in the freight 
industry, reviewing current freight security practices, and identifying 
potential vulnerabilities in the freight industry. The report is 
scheduled for completion in May 2003.; * TIA program researchers have 
completed a background paper, "E-Commerce Vulnerabilities: Impacts on 
the Transportation System," (March 2002), which presents information on 
identifying and protecting critical information technology 
infrastructure, ranking vulnerabilities, and estimating potential 
impacts (costs) if the vulnerabilities are exploited. TIA researchers 
have also conducted a briefing on the impact of electronic systems in 
shaping the future transportation system. An accompanying slide 
presentation, "Transportation in 2050," has been drafted and is under 
review.

Planned products and progress to date: Banking & Finance: * TIA 
program researchers are working on a report, "Economic Effects of the 
September 11 Terrorist Attacks: A Survey of Current Studies and an 
Overview of the Implications for Transportation," examining the impact 
of the events of September 11 on the banking and finance systems and 
their associated effects on the nation's transportation system. While 
originally scheduled for release in September 2002, RSPA officials told 
us that this report is not yet complete and may be discontinued due to 
its limited value in light of numerous studies conducted on this 
issue.; * A report reviewing the results of other research involving 
the interdependency of the nation's transportation infrastructure with 
the nation's banking and finance system is scheduled for completion in 
spring 2003.

Planned products and progress to date: Telecommunication: * TIA 
program researchers are finalizing a report on the interdependency 
between the nation's aviation industry and telecommunications 
industry.; * Additional research is intended to address the 
interdependence of the nation's telecommunications industry with other 
nonaviation sectors of the nation's transportation system. According to 
Volpe Center researchers, this final report is likely to consist of 
several volumes, each with a specific modal focus. This report is 
scheduled for completion in May 2003.

Vulnerability assessments: Transportation and logistical requirements 
for emergency response teams in dealing with weapons of mass 
destruction; Planned products and progress to date: * TIA program 
researchers presented a set of data tables describing the various 
emergency response teams transportation requirements, including 
personnel and equipment. According to program researchers, these tables 
were delivered to RSPA's Office of Emergency Transportation in July 
2002.; * TIA program researchers have conducted a bio-terrorism 
conference to aid in identifying gaps in the emergency response system. 
The conference was held in Washington D.C., on November 19-20, 2002.

Vulnerability assessments: Feasibility of alternative backup systems 
for the global positioning system; Planned products and progress to 
date: * TIA program researchers are working on a report designed to 
identify and provide cost benefit assessments of alternatives to use in 
backing up the global positioning system should it be disrupted by 
sabotage or terrorist attack. The report intends to assist DOT in 
determining the most appropriate alternative radio-navigation system to 
use in the nation's transportation system. This report is scheduled for 
completion in December 2003.

Vulnerability assessments: Options to transition hazardous materials 
transportation security guidelines to security requirements; Planned 
products and progress to date: * TIA program researchers reviewed 
recent literature, workshops, and conferences on security options and 
implications related to the transportation of hazardous materials. The 
final report was released in December 2002.; * According to program 
managers, potential areas of work for the second phase of this project 
include an assessment of the implementation of security plans, and the 
development of better data on hazardous material shipments with high 
security concerns. This work is scheduled for completion in December 
2003.

Source: RSPA and Volpe Center data.

[End of table]

Congress appropriated $1 million each year to RSPA for the TIA program 
in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Figure 6 provides an overview of 
the TIA program funding for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 for each of 
the four vulnerability assessments.

Figure 6: TIA Program Funding by Vulnerability Assessment (Fiscal Years 
2001 - 2003):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

RSPA Has Not Fully Coordinated Their Activities with OIS in Selecting 
the Vulnerabilities to Be Assessed and in Implementing the Assessments 
for the TIA Program:

RSPA has not fully coordinated their activities with OIS--DOT's key 
transportation security stakeholder--in selecting the vulnerabilities 
to be assessed or in implementing the assessments for the TIA program. 
RSPA coordinated with OIS in selecting two vulnerability assessments in 
fiscal year 2001. Specifically, in fiscal year 2001, RSPA worked with 
OIS to select one vulnerability for assessment and notified OIS of its 
selection of a second vulnerability for assessment. RSPA, however, did 
not coordinate with OIS officials in the selection of two additional 
vulnerability assessments in fiscal year 2002. RSPA's coordination with 
OIS during the program's implementation has been limited to only one of 
the four vulnerability assessments under review.

RSPA's Coordination with OIS in the Selection of the Vulnerabilities to 
Be Assessed in the TIA Program:

RSPA coordinated with OIS and used various criteria, such as PDD 62 and 
63, in selecting only two of the four vulnerabilities to be assessed in 
the TIA program. For example, RSPA consulted with OIS to select one of 
the two vulnerabilities for assessment in fiscal year 2001 and notified 
OIS of its selection of a second vulnerability. Specifically, in a 
memorandum dated March 6, 2001, OIS identified and proposed a list of 
critical infrastructure protection research requirements for 
assessment and requested that RSPA address them as a high 
priority.[Footnote 3] In this initial proposal, the Director of OIS 
said that significant OIS involvement would be required to effectively 
implement the program given its responsibilities for defining 
transportation security vulnerabilities, ensuring that vulnerability 
assessments are conducted, and implementing actions to mitigate those 
vulnerabilities. On April 9, 2001, RSPA issued a memorandum to OIS 
outlining its research agenda for fiscal year 2001 and stating that 
OIS's involvement in assuring the program's quality, credibility, and 
review was critical. This memorandum confirmed RSPA's plans to assess 
the interdependency of the transportation system with other critical 
infrastructures, as suggested by OIS's proposed list, and notified OIS 
of RSPA's intention to conduct a second assessment--the transportation 
and logistical requirements for emergency response teams in dealing 
with weapons of mass destruction--that was not included on OIS's list.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, RPSA 
issued a solicitation on behalf of all DOT modes for additional 
transportation security technology research and concepts to be included 
in the TIA program or related transportation security programs. OIS 
officials participated with RSPA in reviewing the proposals received in 
response to the solicitation. However, according to the Associate 
Administrator of RSPA's Office of Innovation, Research, and Education 
(hereafter referred to as the Associate Administrator), DOT did not 
receive the funds to pursue any of these proposals.

During fiscal year 2002, RSPA did not coordinate with OIS to determine 
what additional assessments to select for inclusion in the program. 
Instead, RSPA selected two transportation vulnerabilities for 
assessment under the program after holding discussions with Volpe 
Center researchers and officials from RSPA's Office of Hazardous 
Materials Safety. While the Associate Director of OIS said he was 
unaware that additional vulnerabilities had been selected for 
assessment in fiscal year 2002 prior to our discussions with him 
regarding the status of the program, he noted that both of these 
assessments--on the feasibility of alternative backup systems for the 
global positioning system, and an assessment on options to transition 
hazardous materials transportation security guidelines to security 
requirements--were valid and of high priority. According to OIS and 
RSPA officials, this lack of coordination resulted, in part, from 
disagreements and misunderstandings about the other's respective role 
in the program. As indicated by a series of e-mail communications 
between OIS and RSPA officials during the period between October 2001 
and January 2002, questions about the respective roles of OIS and RSPA 
in the program's management, specific research areas, and the logistics 
of this research were raised on numerous occasions with no apparent 
resolution. Neither RSPA nor OIS were able to provide us with 
documentation to show that these issues were resolved. (See app. II for 
specific stakeholders involved and criteria used to select the 
vulnerabilities chosen for assessment under the TIA program in fiscal 
years 2001 and 2002.):

RSPA's Coordination with OIS in the Implementation of the Assessments 
in the TIA Program:

RSPA's coordination with OIS, DOT's security stakeholder, during the 
implementation of the TIA program has been limited to one of the four 
vulnerability assessments. While OIS has participated in meetings 
regarding the assessment of the options to transition hazardous 
materials transportation security guidelines to security requirements, 
RSPA did not similarly involve OIS in the program's three other 
vulnerability assessments. OIS and RSPA officials said that this lack 
of coordination during the implementation of the program resulted, in 
part, from continued disagreements and misunderstandings about the 
other's respective role in the program. Further, OIS's Associate 
Director said that because of OIS's lack of involvement in the TIA 
program, he was not aware of the program's progress to date and 
therefore expressed uncertainty about whether the program's research is 
meeting the requirements of PDD 62 and 63.

OIS's Associate Director also said that OIS's working relationships 
with private industry stakeholders might have helped RSPA obtain 
industry-sensitive information for the program's assessments. RSPA 
officials acknowledged that a primary challenge of the TIA program 
involves obtaining information on industry-specific, competition-
sensitive issues. For example, RSPA officials said that private sector 
owners and operators, such as those from the oil industry, are cautious 
about releasing proprietary information because of the possibility that 
this information could be used by (1) business rivals to gain a 
competitive advantage, (2) terrorists to harm and destroy critical 
infrastructure, and (3) the federal government to pursue further 
regulations of the industry. As a result, TIA program researchers told 
us that they are limited in their ability to identify specific threats 
and weaknesses relating to some of the specific vulnerabilities under 
assessment. According to RSPA's Associate Administrator, because of 
these limitations, the TIA program is, in some instances, examining 
vulnerability issues on a conceptual level rather than through specific 
case studies of industry infrastructure. For example, instead of 
assessing the vulnerabilities of specific privately owned 
infrastructures, such as oil refineries, RSPA is addressing some 
critical details of crude oil transport using ports in Louisiana and 
Texas to illustrate the complexities in defining the interdependency 
vulnerabilities between the nation's transportation and energy 
infrastructures. (See app. III for a summary of OIS involvement in the 
implementation of the TIA program, as well as a listing of all of the 
significant stakeholders reported by RSPA who were consulted during the 
implementation of the TIA program.):

We discussed our findings about the lack of coordination with RSPA's 
Associate Administrator and OIS's Associate Director and suggested they 
take steps to increase their coordination efforts. They agreed that 
increased coordination would be beneficial. Specifically, they agreed 
to hold bi-monthly updates on the progress of each of the vulnerability 
assessments, discuss program task methodologies and approaches, and 
identify options for addressing the challenges facing program 
researchers in conducting the program's vulnerability assessments. The 
first update was held in March 2003. Furthermore, RSPA's Associate 
Administrator agreed to provide TSA's Director for Threat Assessment 
and Risk Management[Footnote 4] with information on the TIA program's 
findings, challenges, and lessons learned. In our discussions with 
TSA's Director for Threat and Risk Assessment, she said that such 
information regarding the TIA program would be helpful in guiding TSA's 
future efforts in planning and conducting transportation security 
research. Because of actions taken by RSPA and OIS to improve 
coordination we are making no recommendations at this time.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a copy of the draft report to DOT and RSPA officials who 
agreed with the contents of the report and provided technical 
clarifications that we incorporated into the report. They did not 
provide written comments on the report.

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation, 
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We 
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.

If you have questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-
2834 or Chris Keisling on (404) 679-1917. Other key contributors 
included Colin Fallon, Bert Japikse, Steve Morris, and Jason Schwartz.

Katherine Siggerud
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:

Signed by Katherine Siggerud:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Volpe National Transportation System Center Studies Related 
to Transportation Infrastructure Assurance:

Funding source: Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure 
Protection; Fiscal year: 1996; Funding amount: $380,000; [Empty]; 
Products: Reports: * Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
Vulnerabilities (1997); * National Air Space Vulnerabilities (1997); * 
Traffic (Surface) Central Systems Vulnerabilities (1997); White 
Papers: * Electromagnetic Threats to Rail/Transit Operations (1997).

Funding source: Department of Defense 1996 Supplemental Appropriation 
for a Surface Transportation Vulnerability Assessment; Fiscal year: 
1997; Funding amount: $2,400,000; [Empty]; Products: White Papers: * 
Criminal Use of Transportation Infrastructure (1997); * Railroad 
Bridges and Tunnels Vulnerability (1998); * Railroad Signaling and 
Control Vulnerability (1998); Reports: * Intermodal Cargo Security 
Best Practices (1999); * Transportation Infrastructure Assurance 
Research and Development Plan (1999 and 2000).

Funding source: RSPA Research and Technology and Strategic Planning 
(Total Terminal Security/TIA Task); Fiscal year: 1996; Funding amount: 
$15,000; [Empty]; Products: Workshops: * Emerging Issues in 
Transportation Information Infrastructure Security (1996); * Global 
Positioning Study Interference and Mitigation (1998); * Chemical/
Biological Incidents (1998); * Marine Safety and Port Security (2000); 
; Reports: * Intermodal Cargo Security Best Practices (1999); * 
Transportation Infrastructure Assurance Research and Development Plan 
(1999 and 2000).

Fiscal year: 1997; Funding amount: $15,000; [Empty].

Fiscal year: 1998; Funding amount: $50,000; [Empty].

Fiscal year: 1999; Funding amount: $35,000; [Empty].

Fiscal year: 2000; Funding amount: $85,000; [Empty].

Fiscal year: 2001; Funding amount: $50,000; [Empty].

Funding source: DOT Office of Intelligence and Security; Fiscal year: 
2000; Funding amount: $700,000; [Empty]; Products: Reports: * DOT 
Communications (Security) Reports (2001); * Updated Supervisory Control 
and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Study (2002); * Global Positioning System 
Vulnerability Study (2001).

Source: GAO presentation of RSPA and Volpe Center data.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix II: Stakeholders Involved and Criteria Used in Selecting the 
Vulnerabilities Assessed Under the TIA Program:

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: DOT's Office of Intelligence 
and Security; Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency of the 
transportation system with other critical infrastructures: Yes; Selected 
in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical requirements for emergency 
response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: Yes; [Empty]; 
Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative backup systems for the 
global positioning system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Options to 
transition hazardous materials transportation security guidelines to 
security requirements: [Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: RSPA's Office of Emergency 
Transportation; Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency of the 
transportation system with other critical infrastructures: [Empty]; 
Selected in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical requirements for 
emergency response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: 
Yes; [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative backup 
systems for the global positioning system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 
2002: Options to transition hazardous materials transportation security 
guidelines to security requirements: [Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: RSPA's Office of Hazardous 
Materials Safety; Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency of the 
transportation system with other critical infrastructures: [Empty]; 
Selected in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical requirements for 
emergency response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: 
[Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative 
backup systems for the global positioning system: [Empty]; Selected in 
FY 2002: Options to transition hazardous materials transportation 
security guidelines to security requirements: Yes.

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center; Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency of the 
transportation system with other critical infrastructures: [Empty]; 
Selected in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical requirements for 
emergency response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: 
[Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative 
backup systems for the global positioning system: Yes; Selected in FY 
2002: Options to transition hazardous materials transportation security 
guidelines to security requirements: Yes.

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Criteria used: Selected in 
FY 2001: Interdependency of the transportation system with other 
critical infrastructures: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2001: Transportation 
and logistical requirements for emergency response teams in dealing 
with weapons of mass destruction: [Empty]; Selected in FY 
2002: Feasibility of alternative backup systems for the global 
positioning system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Options to transition 
hazardous materials transportation security guidelines to security 
requirements: [Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Presidential Decision 
Directive 62; Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency of the 
transportation system with other critical infrastructures: [Empty]; 
Selected in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical requirements for 
emergency response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: 
Yes; [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative backup 
systems for the global positioning system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 
2002: Options to transition hazardous materials transportation security 
guidelines to security requirements: [Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Presidential Decision 
Directive 63; Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency of the 
transportation system with other critical infrastructures: Yes; Selected 
in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical requirements for emergency 
response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: [Empty]; 
[Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative backup systems 
for the global positioning system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: 
Options to transition hazardous materials transportation security 
guidelines to security requirements: [Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Critical Foundations, 
Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (Oct. 
1997); Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency of the transportation 
system with other critical infrastructures: Yes; Selected in FY 2001: 
Transportation and logistical requirements for emergency response teams 
in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: [Empty]; Selected 
in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative backup systems for the global 
positioning system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Options to transition 
hazardous materials transportation security guidelines to security 
requirements: [Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Critical Infrastructure 
Research Plan, DOT; Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency of the 
transportation system with other critical infrastructures: Yes; Selected 
in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical requirements for emergency 
response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: [Empty]; 
[Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative backup systems 
for the global positioning system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: 
Options to transition hazardous materials transportation security 
guidelines to security requirements: [Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Interim Report on Computer 
Security, DOT Office of the Inspector General, (July 2000); Selected in 
FY 2001: Interdependency of the transportation system with other 
critical infrastructures: Yes; Selected in FY 2001: Transportation and 
logistical requirements for emergency response teams in dealing with 
weapons of mass destruction: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: 
Feasibility of alternative backup systems for the global positioning 
system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Options to transition hazardous 
materials transportation security guidelines to security requirements: 
[Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Surface Transportation 
Vulnerability Assessment, DOT (1999); Selected in FY 2001: 
Interdependency of the transportation system with other critical 
infrastructures: Yes; Selected in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical 
requirements for emergency response teams in dealing with weapons of 
mass destruction: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of 
alternative backup systems for the global positioning system: [Empty]; 
Selected in FY 2002: Options to transition hazardous materials 
transportation security guidelines to security requirements: [Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Combating Terrorism: Federal 
Response Teams Provide Varied Capabilities: Opportunities Remain to 
Improve Coordination, GAO Report (GAO/NSIAD-01-13); Selected in FY 
2001: Interdependency of the transportation system with other critical 
infrastructures: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2001: Transportation and 
logistical requirements for emergency response teams in dealing with 
weapons of mass destruction: Yes; [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: 
Feasibility of alternative backup systems for the global positioning 
system: [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Options to transition hazardous 
materials transportation security guidelines to security requirements: 
[Empty].

Stakeholders involved and criteria used: Ability to leverage ongoing 
research and development projects; Selected in FY 2001: Interdependency 
of the transportation system with other critical infrastructures: Yes; 
Selected in FY 2001: Transportation and logistical requirements for 
emergency response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction: 
Yes; [Empty]; Selected in FY 2002: Feasibility of alternative backup 
systems for the global positioning system: Yes; Selected in FY 2002: 
Options to transition hazardous materials transportation security 
guidelines to security requirements: Yes.

Source: GAO presentation of RSPA information on TIA program 
stakeholders involved and selection criteria.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Entities Reported by RSPA Who Were Involved during the 
Implementation of the TIA Program:

Assessment: Interdependency of the transportation system with other 
critical infrastructures; Entity involved: Office of Intelligence and 
Security:

Entity involved: Federal Aviation Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: Yes.

Entity involved: Louisiana Offshore Oil Port; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Research Council Transportation Research 
Board; Type of involvement: To obtain information: [Empty]; Type of 
involvement: For discussion of task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: 
For discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Transportation Security Administration; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: Yes.

Assessment: Transportation and logistical requirements for emergency 
response teams in dealing with weapons of mass destruction; Entity 
involved: Office of Intelligence and Security; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: American Association of Railroads; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials; Type of involvement: To obtain information: 
Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type 
of involvement: For discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: American Public Transportation Association; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: American Red Cross; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: Army Corps of Engineers; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Association of State and Territorial Health Officials; 
Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: 
For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Battelle Memorial Institute; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
Yes.

Entity involved: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Department of Agriculture; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Department of Agriculture/Food and Nutrition Service; 
Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: 
For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Department of Agriculture/Animal Plant Health 
Inspection Service; Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; 
Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: Yes; Type of 
involvement: For discussion of interim results: Yes.

Entity involved: Department of Defense; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: Department of Energy; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: Department of Health and Human Services; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Defense Intelligence Agency; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
Yes.

Entity involved: Department of Justice; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: Yes.

Entity involved: Department of State; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: DOT Maritime Academy; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: DOT Office of the General Counsel; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: DOT Regional Emergency Transportation Representative; 
Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: 
For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Environmental Protection Agency; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Federal Aviation Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Federal Emergency Management Agency; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Federal Highway Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Federal Railroad Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Federal Transit Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: General Services Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Georgetown University Medical Center; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
interim results: Yes.

Entity involved: International Association of Emergency Managers; Type 
of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: International Association of Fire Chiefs; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: International City/County Management Association; 
Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: 
For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Maritime Administration; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Association of Counties; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Association of State Emergency Medical 
Service Directors; Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; 
Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of 
involvement: For discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Defense Transportation Association; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Emergency Managers Association; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Type 
of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Public Transit Association; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Research Council Transportation Research 
Board; Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of 
involvement: For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of 
involvement: For discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Office of US Surgeon General; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: RSPA's Office of Emergency Transportation; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
interim results: Yes.

Entity involved: Transportation Security Administration; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: University of California, School of Veterinary 
Medicine; Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of 
involvement: For discussion of task approach: Yes; 
Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: Yes.

Entity involved: University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center; Type 
of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Urban Search and Rescue Teams; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: US Coast Guard & National Command Center; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: US Forest Service; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: Veterans Administration; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
interim results: Yes.

Entity involved: Washington DC Department of Health; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: White House Office of Homeland Security; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: White House Special Assistant to the Vice President; 
Type of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: 
For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Assessment: Feasibility of alternative backup systems for the global 
positioning system; Entity involved: Office of Intelligence and 
Security; Type of involvement: To obtain information: [Empty]; Type of 
involvement: For discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of 
involvement: For discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Booz-Allen Hamilton; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: DOT Office of the Secretary; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: Yes.

Entity involved: Federal Aviation Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: Yes.

Entity involved: Federal Railroad Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: Yes.

Entity involved: Northrop-Grumman; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: United States Coast Guard; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: Yes.

Assessment: Options to transition hazardous materials transportation 
security guidelines to security requirements; Entity involved: Office 
of Intelligence and Security; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: American Association of Railroads; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: American Chemistry Council; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: American Institute of Chemical Engineers; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Bureau of the Census; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Entity involved: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: DOT Office of the Secretary; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Federal Railroad Administration; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: General Accounting Office; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Inland Rivers, Ports and Waterways Association; Type 
of involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: National Transportation Safety Board; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of 
interim results: Yes.

Entity involved: RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety; Type of involvement: 
To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Transportation Security Administration; Type of 
involvement: To obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of task approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For 
discussion of interim results: [Empty].

Entity involved: US Army Corps of Engineers; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: United States Coast Guard; Type of involvement: To 
obtain information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task 
approach: [Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim 
results: [Empty].

Entity involved: Vanderbilt University; Type of involvement: To obtain 
information: Yes; Type of involvement: For discussion of task approach: 
[Empty]; Type of involvement: For discussion of interim results: 
[Empty].

Source: RSPA.

Note: According to RSPA officials, this list includes significant 
stakeholders who had input in the TIA program as of March 12, 2003.

[End of table]

FOOTNOTES

[1] Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Public Law 107-71, 115 
Stat. 597, Nov. 19, 2001.

[2] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 
Nov. 25, 2002.

[3] In fiscal year 2000, OIS received funding for transportation 
infrastructure protection activities. In fiscal year 2001, funding in 
this area of research shifted from OIS to RSPA. 

[4] TSA's Threat Assessment and Risk Management Program was established 
in October 2002 to provide oversight and assistance regarding threat 
and vulnerability assessments conducted by TSA. The program also serves 
to coordinate with other federal agencies to ensure that complete 
assessments of the vulnerabilities facing the nation's transportation 
system are conducted. 

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: