Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.
135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 40035
§ 1653.3 Processing retirement benefits requirements relative to passengers, 4. Carriers Opting Out; Non-Interactive
court orders. crew members, and non-crew members Batch Transmission Process
* * * * * traveling onboard international C. Proposed Change for Transmission of
(b) * * * Retirement benefits court Manifests by Departing Vessels
commercial flights and voyages. Under
IV. Rationale for Change
orders should be submitted to the TSP current regulations, air carriers must A. Terrorist Threat
record keeper at the current address as transmit to the Bureau of Customs and B. IRTPA
provided at http://www.tsp.gov. * * * Border Protection (CBP), Department of V. Impact on Parties Affected by the
* * * * * Homeland Security (DHS), passenger Proposed Rule
7. Amend § 1653.13 by revising the manifest information for aircraft en VI. Regulatory Requirements
third sentence of paragraph (b) route to the United States no later than A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
15 minutes after the departure of the Planning and Review)
introductory text to read as follows:
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
aircraft. This proposed rule implements
§ 1653.13 Processing legal processes. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
* * * * * Prevention Act of 2004 requirement that E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
(b) * * * Legal processes should be such information be provided to the Reform)
submitted to the TSP record keeper at government before departure of the F. National Environmental Policy Act
the current address as provided at aircraft. This proposed rule provides air G. Paperwork Reduction Act
http://www.tsp.gov. * * * carriers a choice between transmitting H. Signing Authority
* * * * * complete manifests no later than 60- I. Privacy Statement
minutes prior to departure of the aircraft I. Public Participation
PART 1690—THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN or transmitting manifest information on
Interested persons are invited to
8. The authority citation for part 1690 passengers as each passenger checks in
participate in this rulemaking by
continues to be read as follows: for the flight, up to but no later than 15
submitting written data, views, or
minutes prior to departure. The rule
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8474. arguments on all aspects of the
also proposes to amend the definition of
proposed rule. CBP also invites
9. Amend § 1690.1 by removing the ‘‘departure’’ for aircraft to mean the
comments that relate to the economic,
definition of Thrift Savings Plan Service moment the aircraft is pushed back from
environmental, or federalism effects that
Office or TSPSO and by revising the the gate. For vessel departures from the
might result from this proposed rule.
definition of ThriftLine to read as United States, the rule proposes
Comments that will provide the most
follows: transmission of passenger and crew
assistance to CBP in developing these
manifests no later than 60 minutes prior
§ 1690.1 Definitions. procedures will reference a specific
to departure of the vessel.
* * * * * portion of the proposed rule, explain the
DATES: Written comments must be
ThriftLine means the automated voice reason for any recommended change,
received on or before August 14, 2006. and include data, information, or
response system by which TSP ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
participants may, among other things, authority that support such
identified by docket number USCBP– recommended change.
access their accounts by telephone. The 2005–0003, by one of the following
ThriftLine can be reached at (877) 968– Instructions: All submissions received
methods: must include the agency name and
3778. (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: docket number for this rulemaking
* * * * * http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the (USCBP–2005–0003). All comments
[FR Doc. E6–11064 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am] instructions for submitting comments. received will be posted without change
BILLING CODE 6760–01–P (2) Mail: Comments by mail are to be to http://www.regulations.gov, including
addressed to the Bureau of Customs and any personal information provided.
Border Protection, Office of Regulations Docket: For access to the docket to
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND and Rulings, Regulations Branch, 1300 read background documents or
SECURITY Pennsylvania Ave., NW. (Mint Annex), comments received, go to http://
Washington, DC 20229. www.regulations.gov. Submitted
Bureau of Customs and Border (3) Hand delivery/courier: 799 9th comments may also be inspected at the
Protection Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. Bureau of Customs and Border
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Protection, 799 9th Street, NW.,
19 CFR Parts 4 and 122 Charles Perez, Program Manager, Office Washington, DC 20220. To inspect
[USCBP–2005–0003]
of Field Operations, Bureau of Customs comments, please call (202) 572–8768 to
and Border Protection (202–344–2605). arrange for an appointment.
RIN 1651–AA62 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Supplementary Information section is II. Background and Purpose
Passenger Manifests for Commercial organized as follows: The Advance Passenger Information
Aircraft Arriving in and Departing From System (APIS) is a widely utilized
the United States; Passenger and Crew I. Public Participation
II. Background and Purpose electronic data interchange system
Manifests for Commercial Vessels approved by DHS for use by
III. Proposed Rule
Departing From the United States A. Change Regarding Definition of international commercial air and vessel
AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, ‘‘Departure’’ for Aircraft carriers to transmit electronically to CBP
Department of Homeland Security. B. Proposed Options for Transmission of certain data on passengers, crew
Manifest Data by Air Carriers members, and non-crew members, as
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 1. APIS 60 (Interactive Batch

Transmission) Option
required under CBP regulations. APIS
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend 2. APIS Quick Query (Interactive Real- was developed by the former U.S.
existing Bureau of Customs and Border Time Transmission) Option Customs Service (Customs) in 1988, in
Protection regulations concerning 3. System Certification; Delayed Effective cooperation with the former
electronic manifest transmission Date Immigration and Naturalization Service
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:53 Jul 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM 14JYP1
40036 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(INS) and the airline industry. Although 122.49b(b)(2)) and no later than 60 is to place itself in a better position to:
initially voluntary, APIS participation minutes prior to the departure of any (1) Fully vet passenger and crew
grew, making it nearly an industry covered flight from the United States (19 member information with sufficient
standard. Requirements governing the CFR 122.75b(b)(2)) (a covered flight time to effectively secure the aircraft or
electronic transmission of passenger, being one covered by these regulations). vessel, including time to coordinate
crew member, and non-crew member Current CBP regulations require with carrier personnel and domestic or
(cargo flights only) manifests for vessel carriers to electronically transmit foreign government authorities in order
commercial aircraft and/or vessels arrival passenger and crew member to take appropriate action warranted by
involved in international travel manifests at least 24 hours and up to 96 the threat; (2) identify high-risk
operations were established in hours prior to the vessel’s entry at a U.S. passengers and prevent them from
accordance with several statutory port or place of destination, depending boarding aircraft bound for or departing
mandates, including, but not limited to: on the length of the voyage (for voyages from the United States; and (3) identify
section 115 of the Aviation and of 24 but less than 96 hours, high-risk passengers and crew members
Transportation Security Act (ATSA; transmission must be prior to departure to prevent the departure of vessels from
Public Law 107–71, 115 Stat. 623; 49 of the vessel from any place outside the the United States with a high-risk
U.S.C. 44909), section 402 of the United States) (19 CFR 4.7b(b)(2)). Also, passenger or crew member onboard.
Enhanced Border Security and Visa a vessel carrier must electronically Achieving these goals would permit
Entry Reform Act of 2002 (abbreviated transmit passenger and crew member CBP to more effectively prevent an
here to Enhanced Border Security Act or departure manifests to CBP no later than identified high-risk traveler from
EBSA; Public Law 107–173, 116 Stat. 15 minutes prior to the vessel’s becoming a threat to passengers, crew,
557; 8 U.S.C. 1221), and certain departure from the United States (19 aircraft, vessels, or the public and
Transportation Security Administration CFR 4.64(b)(2)). would ensure that the electronic data
(TSA) laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. These CBP regulations, referred to as transmission and screening process
114; 49 CFR 1544, 1546, 1550). A more the ‘‘APIS regulations’’ (19 CFR 4.7b, required under CBP regulations
detailed description of the histories of 4.64, 122.49a–122.49c, 122.75a, and comports with the purposes of ATSA,
electronic manifest information 122.75b), established a framework for EBSA, and IRTPA.
requirements, and of these authorities, requiring that manifest information for
passengers, crew members, and non- III. Proposed Rule
is set forth in a final rule published by
CBP on April 7, 2005 at 70 FR 17820. crew members, as appropriate, be Under the manifest transmission time
The information transmitted by electronically transmitted for these requirements of the existing APIS
carriers using APIS consists, in part, of arrivals and departures, and for regulations, which mandate
information that appears on the requiring crew and non-crew member transmission of passenger manifests no
biographical data page of travel manifest information for flights later than 15 minutes after departure of
documents, such as passports issued by continuing within and overflying the an aircraft en route to the United States,
governments worldwide. Many APIS United States. These regulations serve to CBP has the ability to fully vet
data elements (such as name, date of provide the nation, the carrier commercial aircraft passenger
birth, gender, country of citizenship, industries, and the international information after the aircraft has
passport or other travel document traveling public, additional security departed. The identification of a high-
information) have been collected from the threat of terrorism and enhance risk passenger soon after the aircraft
routinely over the years by governments CBP’s ability to carry out its border becomes airborne may result in the
of countries into which a traveler seeks enforcement mission. diversion of the aircraft to a U.S. port
entry (by requiring the traveler to The Intelligence Reform and other than the original destination or the
present a government-issued travel Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 return of the aircraft to the port of
document). CBP uses this biographical (IRTPA); Public Law 108–458, was departure (referred to as a ‘‘turnback’’).
data to perform enforcement and enacted on December 17, 2004. Sections This action could prevent the hijacking
security queries against various multi- 4012 and 4071 of the IRTPA require of the aircraft and the potential use of
agency law enforcement and terrorist DHS to issue regulations and procedures the plane as a weapon of mass
databases in connection with, as to allow for pre-departure vetting of destruction against U.S. or other targets,
appropriate, international flights to, passengers onboard aircraft arriving in and would enable CBP to detain, or
from, continuing within, and overflying and departing from the United States arrange for the detention of, the high-
the United States and international and of passengers and crew onboard risk passenger. The same results could
voyages to and from the United States. vessels arriving in and departing from be obtained with respect to aircraft
Current CBP regulations require air the United States. This proposed rule is departing from the United States when
carriers to electronically transmit designed to implement these important identification of a high-risk passenger
passenger arrival manifests to CBP no IRTPA requirements and to further occurs after the aircraft is airborne. This
later than 15 minutes after the departure enhance national security and the post-departure identification could
of the aircraft from any place outside the security of the air and vessel travel occur since the APIS regulations require
United States (19 CFR 122.49a(b)(2)) industries in accordance with the ATSA the transmission of manifests only 15
and passenger departure manifests no and EBSA (both of which formed the minutes prior to departure.
later than 15 minutes prior to departure statutory basis for the APIS regulations). However, high-risk passengers
of the aircraft from the United States (19 This proposed rule would require allowed to board before they have been
CFR 122.75a(b)(2)). Manifests for crew transmission of, as appropriate, fully vetted may pose a security risk for
members on passenger and all-cargo passenger and/or crew member aircraft en route to or departing from the
information early enough in the process United States. A boarded high-risk
flights and non-crew members on all-

cargo flights must be electronically to prevent a high-risk passenger from passenger would have the opportunity
transmitted to CBP no later than 60 boarding an aircraft and to prevent the to plant or retrieve a disassembled
minutes prior to the departure of any departure of a vessel with such a improvised explosive device or other
covered flight to, continuing within, or passenger or crew member onboard. weapon. The detonation of an explosive
overflying the United States (19 CFR CBP’s purpose in proposing this change device could have devastating
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 40037
consequences, both in terms of human the aircraft is en route to its destination Under the other option, known as APIS
life and from an economic perspective (19 CFR 122.49a(a)). In practice, wheels- Quick Query (AQQ), air carriers would
(damage to aircraft and airport up can occur as much as 15 to 25 or transmit required passenger data to CBP
infrastructure and any ripple effects on more minutes after an aircraft leaves the individually as each passenger checks
the airport’s and the carrier’s business gate (which is referred to as ‘‘push- in for the flight, from the beginning of
and across the U.S. economy). Thus, back’’). This meaning of ‘‘departure,’’ the check-in process up to 15 minutes
requiring the collection and vetting of applied under either the existing prior to departure. CBP would perform
passenger information before the regulations or the proposed regulations, its security vetting as it receives the
boarding of passengers on flights en would result in CBP receiving manifest data.
route to or departing from the United data later in the process than is The electronic transmission system
States would allow CBP to identify high sufficient to perform full vetting and employed under these options would be
risk passengers before such passengers prevent high-risk boardings. CBP ‘‘interactive,’’ allowing the carrier to
could pose a threat to fellow passengers believes that departure for aircraft, as electronically receive return messages
or to the aircraft and airport. applied to manifests for passengers, from CBP that can be sent within
Therefore, CBP has concluded that the crew members, and non-crew members seconds or minutes, as opposed to the
prevention of a high-risk passenger from under the APIS regulations, should capability of the APIS manifest
boarding an aircraft is the appropriate mean the moment when an aircraft transmission process as implemented
level of security in the commercial air pushes-back from the gate. This change under the current regulation where any
travel environment. Manifest data would assist in providing CBP with communication by CBP with the carrier
received and vetted prior to passenger sufficient time to complete the full is performed by telephone. Thus, the
boarding will enable CBP to attain this vetting process. Therefore, this rule term ‘‘interactive’’ is used in this
level of security. Further, this vetting of proposes to revise the definition of document to refer to or describe the
passengers on international flights ‘‘departure’’ in 19 CFR 122.49a(a) electronic communication system
should eliminate the need for passenger accordingly (which will be applicable to employed under the APIS 60 option and
carriers to conduct watch list screening other APIS aircraft provisions as well: the AQQ option described further
of these passengers, upon publication 19 CFR 122.49b, 122.75a, 122.75b). below.
and implementation of a final rule. CBP believes that both APIS 60 and
Accordingly, with this proposed rule, B. Proposed Options for Transmission of
Manifest Data by Air Carriers AQQ provide sufficient time to achieve
CBP is proposing two transmission the appropriate level of security sought
options for air carriers to select from at To provide maximum flexibility for
the air travel industry and aircraft in the commercial air travel
their discretion: (i) the submission of
passengers while improving the ability environment, i.e., to prevent a high-risk
complete manifests no later than 60
of DHS to safeguard air travel, CBP is boarding. These options are offered
minutes prior to departure or (ii)
proposing two options for the electronic because the unique ‘‘just in time’’ nature
transmitting passenger data as
transmission of manifest information by of the commercial air travel
individual, real-time transactions, i.e.,
air carriers. The two transmission environment, characterized by busy
as each passenger checks in, up to but
options proposed in this rule differ to airports, tight arrival and departure
no later than 15 minutes prior to
some degree in timing, programming, schedules, the carriers’ need to
departure. Under both options, the
and procedures. Nevertheless, both are minimize time aircraft spend at the gate,
carrier will not permit the boarding of
equally effective in obtaining the and the immense focus on timeliness as
a passenger unless the passenger has
advance information needed to achieve a performance measure, justifies
been cleared by CBP.
With respect to the commercial vessel the appropriate level of security flexibility in this environment.
travel environment, CBP has determined necessary for aircraft (prevent a high- CBP anticipates that both options will
that the appropriate level of security for risk boarding) and thereby to ensure that be well-utilized, and the comment
departing vessels is to prevent vessel the purposes of the governing statutes period is expected to provide an
departures with a high-risk passenger or are met. An air carrier’s election of indication of which option the carriers
crew member onboard. Thus, the either option would depend on the are likely to select. However, CBP
proposed rule requires vessel carriers to individual carrier’s particular expects that the AQQ option would be
transmit complete manifests no later operations and its capability to selected by those carriers that have pre-
than 60 minutes prior to departure. An electronically transmit the manifest data existing reservations control systems,
alternative procedure based on to CBP. CBP also notes that the current whereas smaller or charter carriers may
individual passenger/crew transactions, APIS regulations providing for be more likely to use the APIS 60
as is provided in the air travel electronic transmission of manifest data option. A subset of air carriers would
environment to address a need for 60 minutes prior to departure for crew not be able to adopt either option; this
flexibility, is not offered given the and non-crew on flights to, from, is discussed further below.
generally less time-critical nature of the continuing within, and overflying the Throughout the period that these
commercial vessel travel environment. United States are unchanged (19 CFR proposed amendments were in
Finally, with this rule, CBP also is 122.49b and 122.75b). development, CBP consulted with
proposing to change the definition of Under one option, air carriers would various industry associations and
‘‘departure,’’ as discussed immediately transmit all required passenger data to considered their comments concerning
below. CBP in batch form (all passenger names the impact various manifest
and associated data at once) no later transmission alternatives would have on
A. Change Regarding Definition of than 60 minutes prior to departure of business processes, operating costs, and
‘‘Departure’’ for Aircraft the aircraft. This option, known as APIS legitimate passengers who might
Under the existing APIS regulations, 60, is similar to the current electronic experience travel delays and miss
the departure of an aircraft occurs at the transmission process to the extent that connecting flights. The dual-option
moment an aircraft is ‘‘wheels-up,’’ manifest data would be transmitted in approach for air carriers described
meaning that the landing gear is batch form and CBP would perform above is responsive to those comments
retracted into the aircraft after liftoff and security vetting against all data at once. and is designed to balance the security
and facilitation goals of government and departing aircraft, air carriers would handled by an analyst with access to
with the needs of the industry. be required to transmit passenger additional data resources. During this
CBP submits that these options, if manifests in batch form (all names and stage, CBP would be able to confirm or
adopted in a final rule, will result in associated data at once) to CBP no later correct matches and resolve possible
CBP and the air carriers achieving a far than 60 minutes prior to departure of matches and incomplete or inadequate
higher success rate in keeping high-risk the aircraft (as defined under this passenger records, enabling most
passengers from boarding aircraft than is proposed rule) at which time the vetting passengers who are eventually cleared
possible under the current regulations. process would begin. to make their flights. CBP would notify
With this change, instances of Under APIS 60, the vetting of aircraft a carrier by return message where the
diversions and turnbacks will be greatly passenger data would be performed in results of further vetting clear a
reduced, if not eliminated, due to the two stages. The first would be an initial passenger for boarding.
increased effectiveness of the process. automated vetting of passenger data When the initial automated vetting
Further, the impact on the industry will against appropriate law enforcement procedure results in CBP’s returning
be substantially less than would be the (including terrorist) databases. The not-cleared instructions to the air
case with other alternatives due to the second would be the further vetting of carrier, the carrier’s personnel would
greater flexibility provided by the dual- names identified as a match or possible have to ensure that the identified
option approach. match during the initial automated passenger is not permitted to board with
CBP notes that there is a subcategory vetting stage, as well as names other passengers and that the
of air carriers that would be unable to associated with incomplete or passenger’s baggage is not loaded onto,
adopt either the APIS 60 option or the inadequate transmitted data. or is removed from, the aircraft. In rare
AQQ option as described in this When the initial automated vetting instances, the carrier may have to
document. These carriers, typically process identifies a match between an remove the passenger from the aircraft
unscheduled air carrier operators that individual passenger’s data and data on (which may occur in the case of an
employ eAPIS (Internet method) for a terrorist watch list, a close possible oversight or other error in the boarding
manifest data transmission, such as match, or an incomplete or inadequate process or should a carrier begin the
seasonal charters, air taxis, and air passenger record, CBP would send by boarding process outside the 60-minute
ambulances, would not be able to adopt electronic return message a ‘‘not- vetting window). When further vetting
the interactive communication cleared’’ instruction to the carrier confirms a not-cleared passenger as
functionality that the APIS 60 and AQQ within minutes of CBP’s receipt of the high-risk, the next step in the process
options employ. Consequently, CBP manifest data (CBP return messages would include CBP communicating to
would manually (i.e., by e-mail or relative to not-cleared instructions the appropriate authorities the results of
telephone) communicate vetting results based on an inadequate record would the vetting and any action to be taken
to these carriers. These carriers, also instruct the carrier to retransmit to secure the confirmed high-risk
however, would be bound by the complete/corrected data). Since passenger. In some circumstances,
requirement proposed in this rule to boarding usually commences 30 to 45 during the further vetting process, either
transmit passenger manifest data no minutes prior to departure (as defined the carrier, CBP, or other appropriate
later than 60 minutes prior to departure. in this proposed rule), a not-cleared domestic or foreign government official
The proposed regulation treats these instruction relative to a match or would have to interview the passenger
carriers as a subset of air carriers that possible match, or an inadequate record, to complete the confirmation (or further
will transmit complete manifests, as would ensure, in most cases, that the vetting) process, a step that would take
opposed to carriers that will transmit associated passenger will not be allowed additional time.
manifest data per individual passenger to board the aircraft (subject to the The further vetting process, the
as passengers check in for the flight. occasional instance of unexpected communication step that follows, and
This document discusses primarily the results due to error, technical anomaly, the taking of appropriate action are the
two major options that will be available etc., or a carrier beginning the boarding steps that, together, would consume the
to the air carriers that will employ an process outside the 60-minute vetting most time under the APIS 60 procedure.
interactive communication system for window.) The manifest transmission With passenger data being transmitted
manifest data transmission, as set forth requirements under the current in a batch, CBP could have several
in this section (Section B of Part III) (but regulations—no later than 15 minutes names that require further vetting. Each
see subsection (4) of this section further after departure for flights en route to the query pursued in further vetting is
below). United States and no later than 15 unique and some queries will take more
minutes prior to departure for flights time than others. Further, the
1. APIS 60 (Interactive Batch
departing from the United States—do communication and appropriate action
Transmission) Option not achieve this critical result (even if steps of the process are subject to
APIS 60 would apply as one option to departure were defined as push-back). additional complexities, especially
transmit passenger manifests prior to An aircraft en route to the United States when foreign carriers or government
departure for aircraft arriving in and is already airborne before CBP even personnel are involved or an interview
departing from the United States, and as receives the manifest. For flights is required. Thus, the full process and
the sole requirement for transmitting departing from the United States, no related steps described above require
passenger and crew manifests for manifest information is received by CBP more time than the current regulation
vessels departing from the United States until—at the earliest—15 minutes, and provides to meet the appropriate level of
(see Section C of this part for these often 30 minutes or more, after boarding security sought.
vessels). The APIS 60 procedure is, with begins (CBP notes that under the current While the not-cleared instruction after
some exception relating to transmission the initial automated vetting stage
procedure, only a passenger who is a

time requirements and interactive match or possible match would be would prevent a high-risk or potential
communication between carriers and subject to further vetting). high-risk passenger from boarding the
CBP, similar to the APIS procedure The further vetting of passengers who aircraft when the carrier begins the
currently employed to implement the generate a not-cleared instruction boarding process, thereby achieving
current APIS regulations. For arriving during the initial vetting stage would be CBP’s security goal, completion of the
further vetting process is necessary to AQQ, a transmission would contain the perform an effective vetting of the
make a final determination regarding name and data for one passenger (or up passengers. Most passengers check in
the passenger subject to the not-cleared to 10 passengers traveling on one well before departure of international
instruction. This final resolution is itinerary). flights, so very late arrivals are likely to
especially critical with respect to Also, under AQQ, the messaging for be comparatively few. These facts
possible matches and incomplete or CBP vetting results could be returned enable CBP to propose a transmission
inadequate passenger records. A directly to the carrier’s reservation time frame that some carriers will find
required transmission time frame of 60- system, reducing the time needed for more compatible with their business
minutes prior to departure would human intervention. Thus, CBP would operations.
provide the time necessary to be able to respond within seconds of the For passengers checking in early,
accommodate this process and thereby carrier’s transmission of data. Carriers there generally would be ample time for
effectively achieve the appropriate level then would have to return a message to completion of the vetting process. For
of security. CBP notes that further CBP confirming receipt of any not- the few passengers checking in late, CBP
vetting, in most cases, would be cleared instructions and would not would be able to quickly vet the data in
completed in time for the passenger to issue a boarding pass to any passenger most instances. Thus, CBP expects that
make his intended flight; however, in unless cleared by CBP. As with the APIS no identified high-risk passenger will
some circumstances, further vetting 60 option, any passenger data generating receive a boarding pass and, for most
could take longer than normally a match, possible match, or inadequate flights, any passengers subject to further
expected, resulting in the passenger record would be forwarded to an analyst vetting and cleared for flight will make
having to be rebooked on a later flight for further vetting. CBP would the flight. Also, more connecting
(if ultimately cleared for flight by CBP). electronically notify the carrier as soon passengers would be able to check in, be
As a final step in the process, the air as possible if, upon additional analysis, vetted, and make their flights than is
carrier would have to transmit to CBP a a change to the not-cleared instruction anticipated under the APIS 60
list, referred to as a close-out message, is warranted (such as would be the case procedure. This is a major advantage
consisting of a unique passenger if a match or possible match was over the APIS 60 procedure for air
identifier for each passenger who determined during further vetting to be carriers with connecting flight
checked in for the flight but was not cleared for boarding). operations.
boarded for any reason. The close-out At its discretion, a carrier would be Accordingly, AQQ would achieve the
message must be transmitted as soon as able to use a dedicated telephone appropriate level of security sought in a
possible after departure and in no number provided by CBP to seek a way that some airlines may prefer to the
instance later than 30 minutes after resolution of a not-cleared instruction APIS 60 method. In addition, this
departure. by providing additional information procedure would prevent a high-risk
CBP is committed to having the APIS relative to the not-cleared passenger if passenger from gaining access to the
60 option for pre-departure interactive available, such as a physical security area, since access for domestic
electronic transmission fully available description. CBP would consider the and most international airports is
for industry use prior to publication of additional information as it proceeds restricted to those with boarding passes.
a final rule. with the further vetting of the passenger Also, a high-risk passenger’s baggage
already in progress. In some instances, would not be loaded onto the aircraft
2. APIS Quick Query (Interactive Real-
CBP would instruct the carrier to which avoids the necessity of having it
time Transmission) Option
retransmit data (as in the case of removed, as may sometimes be
Under the AQQ option, which is inadequate data). In any case, CBP necessary under the APIS 60 procedure.
applicable only to aircraft arrival and would return a message to the carrier to There is, however, one exception to
departure passenger manifests, air clear a passenger for boarding if the foregoing: connecting passengers
carriers would transmit passenger data warranted by the results of additional arriving by aircraft at the departure
to CBP in real time, i.e., as individual analysis. airport, for a flight en route to or
passengers check in, up to but no later Where CBP is unable to complete its departing from the United States, who
than 15 minutes prior to departure of additional analysis prior to departure, were issued boarding passes (for the
the aircraft; data received by CBP less the carrier would be bound by the not- flight to or from the United States) prior
than 15 minutes prior to departure cleared instruction and would not be to arrival at that departure airport and
would not meet the requirement. permitted to issue a boarding pass for whose data was not previously
Under the AQQ procedure, the carrier that passenger. This could result in a transmitted to CBP for vetting. These
would be able to transmit data relative passenger not making his flight and passengers will already be within the
to a passenger as soon as passengers having to be rebooked should the not- security area as they transit the airport
begin checking in for the flight, as early cleared instruction eventually be from the gate they arrived at to the gate
as 2 hours or more prior to departure (as corrected and the passenger be cleared of the connecting flight. For this unique
defined in this document). Since for flight. Alternatively, and at its sole group of passengers, CBP, in
passengers on international flights are discretion, the carrier could delay the implementing AQQ, would consider the
routinely advised to arrive as much as flight until CBP could clear the boarding passes they possess as
2 hours before departure for check-in, passenger for boarding. Finally, as with provisional and would require that
manifest data for most passengers would the APIS 60 option, the carrier would carriers obtain required data from these
be transmitted to CBP well before have to transmit to CBP, no later than passengers in a manner compatible with
departure of the flight. Moreover, fewer 30 minutes after departure, a close-out their procedures and transmit such data
names and associated data would be message consisting of a unique to CBP as required. The carrier would be
transmitted to CBP at one time than
passenger identifier for each passenger required to wait for CBP to clear any
would be the case with the batch who checked in for the flight but was such passengers before validating the
transmissions made under the APIS 60 not boarded for any reason. boarding passes or permitting the
procedure. Under APIS 60, over 200 Under the AQQ procedure, carrier passengers to board the aircraft.
passenger records may be included in real-time manifest data transmission CBP currently is developing user
one batch transmission, while under would provide sufficient time for CBP to requirements for the programming
necessary to implement the AQQ a system does not fit their operations, incomplete/inadequate passenger
transmission procedure. CBP will have technical capabilities, or budgets. records or crew data. Carriers would
to make adjustments to its automated Nonetheless, these carriers would be attempt to prevent the boarding of such
systems to offer this data transmission bound by a requirement to transmit persons if it had not already occurred
option to the carriers, as will carriers manifest data no later than 60 minutes due to the very early boarding allowed.
who elect to use this option. CBP will prior to departure, as proposed in this CBP notes that a not-cleared message
consider these factors, as well as others rule. The proposed rule contains a returned to the carrier by CBP for an
identified during the comment period, subparagraph that accommodates these inadequate record would instruct the
in structuring an implementation plan carriers as transmitters of batch manifest carrier to retransmit complete/corrected
and schedule that coincides with the data without interactive electronic data.
readiness of CBP’s IT infrastructure to communication capability. These During further vetting, passengers and
support the AQQ option. CBP is carriers would not have to seek system crew for whom not-cleared instructions
committed to having the AQQ option for certification. CBP will employ a manual were sent during the initial automated
pre-departure interactive electronic process using email or telephone vetting procedure would be either
transmission fully available for industry communication (by which CBP would confirmed as high-risks or resolved and
use prior to publication of a final rule. send not-cleared messages) to cleared. CBP would communicate with
accommodate these carriers. This the carrier where further vetting
3. System Certification and Delayed resulted in the clearing of a passenger.
manual procedure may slow the vetting
Effective Date In some instances, CBP would
process to some extent, but CBP believes
Prior to a carrier’s commencement of that the goal of preventing a high-risk communicate with the carrier and other
manifest transmission using either of boarding would be achieved, as carriers CBP personnel to take necessary action
the above-described APIS 60 or AQQ would not board passengers subject to a to verify (by conducting an interview if
options, the carrier would receive a not-cleared instruction unless cleared necessary) the high-risk status of
‘‘system certification’’ from CBP by CBP. passengers or crew and, as needed,
indicating that its electronic secure a confirmed high-risk passenger
transmission system is capable of C. Proposed Change for Transmission of or crew member. In this process, a
interactively communicating with CBP’s Manifests by Departing Vessels confirmed high-risk passenger or crew
APIS system as configured for these Typically, vessel carriers allow member likely would have to be located
options. Carriers already operating boarding several hours (typically 3 to 6 and removed from the vessel before
under the APIS procedure (under the hours) prior to departure. Thus, a departure, in which case his baggage
current APIS regulation which requires manifest transmission requirement would be removed as well. Whether a
batch manifest transmission but under designed to prevent the possibility of a further search of the vessel is warranted
different time requirements and a less high-risk vessel-boarding likely would would be determined by CBP on a case-
interactive process) who opt to employ require substantial adjustments to the by-case basis. (The carrier would be free
the APIS 60 option for their manifest carriers’ operations. This would to undertake a further search at its
transmissions would obtain certification frustrate CBP’s intent, and the purpose discretion.)
only for new functionalities (relating to of various requirements governing The current requirement for batch
system interactivity) and would not Federal rulemaking, to achieve the manifest transmission no later than 15
undergo a full system certification. agency’s goal (enhanced security) minutes prior to a vessel’s departure
To accommodate carriers who choose without imposing an unreasonable does not provide enough time to fully
the interactive system for manifest burden on affected parties. vet passengers or crew members or
transmission under either the APIS 60 CBP believes that, under this allow, where necessary, for the removal
option or the AQQ option, CBP, in this circumstance, the appropriate level of of a confirmed high-risk passenger or
rule, is proposing that the effective date security sought in this scenario is to crew member from a vessel prior to
of a final rule be delayed for 180 days prevent the departure of a vessel with a departure. In contrast, the proposed
from the date of its publication. This high-risk passenger or crew member APIS 60 procedure is expected to
should provide all such carriers onboard. The change proposed in this provide CBP the time it needs to fully
sufficient time to make any necessary rule is designed to achieve this level of vet not-cleared passengers and crew
program changes or system security for vessels departing from the members and to remove those
modifications and to obtain system United States and to thereby meet the confirmed as a high-risk from the vessel
certification and implementation. CBP purposes of the governing statutes. prior to departure. The APIS 60
strongly encourages carriers to begin Thus, for vessels departing from the procedure therefore would achieve the
efforts to obtain system interactivity and United States, the proposed amendment appropriate level of security sought by
certification by contacting CBP as soon provides for transmission of passenger CBP.
as possible. and crew manifests 60 minutes prior to In addition to preventing a high-risk
departure. CBP notes that the electronic departure, this procedure would
4. Carriers Opting Out; Non-Interactive system for transmission of required enhance CBP’s capability, in some
Batch Transmission Process vessel manifest data (arrival and circumstances (where carriers allow
As stated previously, some carriers, departure) is the U.S. Coast Guard’s already checked-in passengers to board
notably those currently using the eAPIS (Internet based) eNOA/D system. This is within 60 minutes of departure), to
Internet method of transmitting required not an interactive system, and, unlike prevent high-risk vessel boardings, as
manifest data (typically, small, air carriers operating under the APIS 60 compared to what is achievable under
unscheduled air carrier operators, such or AQQ options described above, vessel the current regulation. An alternative
as seasonal charters, air taxis, and air
carriers would not have to obtain system option (such as AQQ or something
ambulances), may not be able to adopt certification. similar) is not as necessary, given the
either the APIS 60 option or the AQQ After transmission of the manifest less time-critical nature of the
option. These carriers do not seek an data, the initial automated vetting commercial vessel travel environment.
interactive electronic communication would result in a not-cleared instruction For vessels departing from foreign
method to make transmissions, as such for matches, possible matches, and ports destined to arrive at a U.S. port,
CBP is retaining the requirement to recently, Al Qaeda and other terrorist and vet earlier than is permitted under
transmit passenger and crew manifest groups have shown a consistent interest existing regulations required passenger
data at least 24 hours and up to 96 hours in exploiting civil aviation both as a and crew APIS data in order to achieve
prior to a vessel’s entering the U.S. port potential target and as a means of attack. the maximum ability reasonably
of arrival. This requirement is consistent This interest has been highlighted in attainable for detecting high-risk
with the U.S. Coast Guard’s ‘‘Notice of advanced planning, such as the persons before they can perpetrate a
Arrival’’ (NOA) requirements. (Under 33 thwarted plot of former Al Qaeda leader terrorist act.
CFR 160.212, arriving vessel carriers Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to explode B. IRTPA
transmit manifest data to the U.S. Coast 12 commercial airliners over a 48-hour
Guard (USCG) to meet its NOA period in 1996, as well as other With the passage of IRTPA, Congress
requirement. The data is then forwarded attempted and successful attacks. Al expressly recognized the need to fully
to CBP, permitting additional Qaeda’s interest in attacking civil perform vetting of manifest information
compliance with CBP’s APIS aviation came to grim fruition in the prior to the departure of commercial
requirement with the one carrier attacks of September 11, 2001—the most aircraft and vessels traveling to and
transmission.) Moreover, the threat costly terrorist attack in U.S. history. from the United States. Section
posed by a high-risk passenger or crew Even after September 11, 2001, terrorists 4012(a)(2) of IRTPA directs DHS to issue
member once onboard a vessel is continue to demonstrate an interest in a proposed rule providing for the
different from that posed by a high-risk attacking civil aviation. In August 2003, collection of passenger information from
passenger onboard an aircraft. A specific credible intelligence led DHS to international flights to or from the
hijacked vessel’s movements over the suspend the Transit Without Visa United States and comparison of such
water and its range of available targets (TWOV) program due to concerns that it information with the consolidated
could be more readily contained than might be exploited to conduct a terrorist terrorist watch list maintained by the
those of an aircraft, thus reducing the attack. See 68 FR 46926 (Aug. 7, 2003); Federal Government before departure of
opportunity for a terrorist to use the 68 FR 46948 (Aug. 7, 2003). About four the aircraft. Section 4071(1) of IRTPA
vessel as a weapon against a U.S. port months later, during the 2003 holiday requires DHS to compare vessel
or another vessel. period, international flights destined for passenger and crew information with
the United States faced cancellations information from the consolidated
IV. Rationale for Change terrorist database before departure of a
and delays based on threat information.
A. Terrorist Threat The necessity of this rule is underscored vessel bound for or departing from the
further by repeated instances of higher United States. Section 4071(2) permits
In proposing this rule, as discussed DHS to waive (based on
above, CBP points to the primary threat levels over time, such as the
higher alerts announced during the impracticability) the requirement of
impetus for this entire rulemaking section 4071(1) for vessels bound for the
initiative (including the April 7, 2005 summer of 2004 for financial centers in
New York City and Washington DC, and United States from foreign ports. CBP
final rule and previous rulemaking has determined that requiring the data
efforts as explained in the final rule): to during the period prior to the 2004 U.S.
Presidential election. It is noted also comparison before departure of such
respond to the continuing terrorist vessels is impracticable because the
threat facing the United States, the that terrorists seek targets of opportunity
and, as such, the terrorist threat extends requirement would conflict, in some
international trade and transportation instances, with the current APIS
industries, and the international beyond civil aviation, as evidenced by
past terrorist acts against passenger manifest data transmission requirements
traveling public since the terrorist for vessel arrivals (which are to be
attacks of September 11, 2001. Under vessels. Therefore, efforts made to
increase security for commercial vessels retained in the regulations)(cited
the governing statutes and regulations, previously) and the current USCG NOA
DHS and the air and vessel carrier also would contribute to foreclosing an
opportunity for terrorist exploitation. requirements (cited previously).
industries must take steps to alleviate Accordingly, DHS has elected to
the risk to these vital industries and the It is important to note that the threat implement the waiver provided for in
public posed by the threat of terrorism, from terrorist activity is not just to this section for arriving vessels.
while also increasing national security. human life, but also to the economic The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC)
Ensuring security is an ongoing process, well-being of the commercial air and and use of the consolidated terrorist
and CBP is endeavoring to put in place vessel carrier industries—two industries watch list required by IRTPA provide
a regulatory scheme that includes of great importance to the U.S. and the means to vet passenger and crew
electronic information transmission and world economies. Since the Fall of manifest data for known and suspected
pre-departure transmission time 2004, there have been several instances terrorists, including for flights to and
requirements. Together, these when the identification of a high-risk from the United States and for cruise
requirements are intended to serve as a passenger by CBP or the Transportation vessels subject to this regulation.
layer of protection against high-risk Security Administration (TSA) after
travelers while facilitating lawful travel. departure of an aircraft en route to the V. Impact on Parties Affected by the
While progress has been made, CBP United States resulted in the diversion Proposed Rule
continues its efforts to achieve the level of the aircraft to a different U.S. port or Should the proposed rule become
of security mandated by Congress a turnback (the return of the aircraft to final and effective, large air carriers (i.e.,
(under ATSA, EBSA, and IRTPA). CBP the foreign port of departure). Those those with over 1,500 employees) will
notes that this rulemaking initiative also security measures, while necessary to bear the greatest percentage of the
would enhance CBP’s ability to carry safeguard the passengers on the aircraft regulatory burden of the proposed rule
as well as national security, are costly
out its more traditional, but equally due to the number of international
important, border enforcement mission. to the affected carriers. Accordingly, travelers these entities carry and their
With regard to commercial aviation, CBP proposes to collect and vet required method of transmitting APIS data.
the terrorist threat has been a constant APIS passenger data before passengers If carriers exercise the APIS 60 option,
presence on the international stage since board aircraft bound for or departing it is anticipated that any adverse impact
the hijackings of the 1970s. More from the United States, and to collect on passengers would fall
disproportionately on connecting CBP does not know which carriers at their originating airports earlier and
passengers (those arriving from a foreign will choose which regulatory option. the number of air travelers who miss
airport and continuing on to a foreign The Regulatory Assessment, connecting flights and require rerouting
destination and those making a summarized below in the ‘‘Executive as a result. For AQQ, costs will be
connecting foreign flight en route to the Order 12866’’ section, presents two driven by implementation expenses,
U.S.), rather than on originating endpoints of the likely range of costs. data transmission costs, and a small
passengers. For the ‘‘high cost estimate,’’ CBP number of air travelers who miss
Passengers conducting foreign travel, assumes that all carriers will employ the connecting flights.
either coming to or leaving the United APIS 60 regulatory option (the 60- CBP estimates a range of costs in this
States, are instructed to check in for minute transmission requirement). For analysis. For the high end of the range
international flights well in advance, the ‘‘low cost estimate,’’ CBP assumes (i.e., under the APIS 60 procedure), CBP
usually at least 2 hours prior to that large carriers will employ the AQQ anticipates that passengers will provide
departure. Thus, 60 minutes prior to regulatory option. APIS data upon check-in for their flights
The impacts on carriers, travelers, and and that all carriers will transmit that
departure, most originating passengers’
others potentially affected by this rule data, as an entire passenger and crew
APIS data will have been collected and
are examined in detail in the manifest, to CBP at least 60 minutes
verified by the carriers and could thus
‘‘Regulatory Assessment’’ which is prior to departure of the aircraft. CBP
be transmitted. Connecting passengers,
available in the docket for this estimates that this will result in 2
however, may not have a full 2 hours
rulemaking (http:// percent of passengers on large carriers
between flights. Partnering airlines will
www.eparegulations.gov; see also and 0.25 percent of passengers on small
likely share APIS information for an
http://www.cbp.gov). CBP is soliciting carriers missing connecting flights and
entire trip, but non-partner airlines may
comments on the assumptions and needing to be rerouted, with an average
not. We believe, therefore, that under
estimates made in the economic delay of 4 hours. Additionally, we
the APIS 60 option, a small number of
analysis. estimate that 15 percent of passengers
connecting passengers may not make
their flights, will be delayed, and will VI. Regulatory Requirements will need to arrive at the airport an
have to be rerouted. Alternatively, if average of 15 minutes earlier in order to
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory make their flights. For the low end of
large carriers use the AQQ option,
Planning and Review) the range (under the AQQ procedure),
delays to travelers will be minimized,
but carriers will need to develop and This rule is considered to be an we assume that all large air carriers will
implement their systems to support economically significant regulatory implement AQQ to transmit information
AQQ. action under Executive Order 12866 on individual passengers as each checks
because it may result in the expenditure in. CBP estimates that this will
Under the proposed rule, small significantly drive down even further
of over $100 million in any one year.
carriers may still use ‘‘eAPIS,’’ a web- the percentage of passengers requiring
Accordingly, this proposed rule has
based application designed to rerouting on large carriers to 0.5
been reviewed by the Office of
electronically transmit manifests percent. Travelers will not need to
Management and Budget (OMB). The
between small carriers and CBP. CBP modify their behavior to arrive at the
following summary presents the costs
does not believe that small carriers will airport earlier. The percentage on small
and benefits of the proposed rule plus
develop and implement AQQ because carriers remains 0.25 percent because
a range of alternatives considered. The
they will not find it cost effective given we assume that small carriers will not
complete ‘‘Regulatory Assessment’’ can
their operations and their current implement AQQ; rather, they will
be found in the docket for this
utilization of eAPIS. Thus, small continue to submit manifests at least 60
rulemaking (http://www.regulations.gov;
carriers will probably choose the APIS minutes prior to departure through
see also http://www.cbp.gov). Comments
60 option rather than the AQQ option. eAPIS, CBP’s web-based application for
regarding the analysis may be submitted
While large carriers have connecting by any of the methods described under small carriers. Thus, costs for small air
flights where affected passengers could the ADDRESSES section of this document. carriers are the same regardless of the
face short layover times, small air regulatory option considered.
carriers operate predominantly on Summary The endpoints of this range are
charter schedules and make point-to- Should the proposed rule become presented below. As shown, the present
point trips without connecting flights. final and effective, air carriers and air value (PV) costs of the proposed rule are
Accordingly, very few passengers passengers will be the parties primarily estimated to range from $612 million to
traveling on small carriers will be affected by the proposed rule. For APIS $1.9 billion over the next 10 years
delayed or rerouted as a result of this 60, costs will be driven by the number (2006–2015, 2005 dollars, 7 percent
proposed rulemaking. of air travelers that will need to arrive discount rate).
COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

[$Millions, 2006–2015, 2005 dollars]
High Estimate Low esimate

(60-minute option) (AQQ option)
Large Small Large Small

Total Total
carriers carriers carriers carriers
First-Year Costs ............................................................... $245 $5 $250 $184 $5 $189

Average Recurring Costs ................................................. 268 6 274 66 6 72
10-Year PV Costs (7%) ................................................... 1,865 39 1,904 573 39 612
10-Year PV Costs (3%) ................................................... 2,279 48 2,327 677 48 726
We estimate four categories of www.regulations.gov; see also http:// are $845 million (7 percent discount
benefits, or costs that could be avoided, www.cbp.gov). The following is a rate) and $1.0 billion (3 percent
under the APIS 60 procedure: (1) Costs summary of these alternatives: discount rate).
for conducting interviews with (1) Do not promulgate any further Benefits are slightly higher than the
identified high-risk individuals upon manifest transmission requirements (No No Action alternative because while the
arrival in the United States; (2) costs for Action)—the baseline case where boarding of a high-risk passenger would
deporting a percentage of these carriers would continue to submit APIS not be prevented, a high-risk individual
individuals; (3) costs of delaying a high- manifests for arriving aircraft passengers would be identified prior to the
risk aircraft at an airport; and (4) costs 15 minutes after departure and, for departure of a flight to or from the
of rerouting aircraft if high-risk departing aircraft passengers, 15 United States in most instances.
individuals are identified after takeoff. minutes prior to departure. There are no Benefits are lower than under the
Monetizing the benefits of avoiding an additional costs or benefits associated proposed rule because CBP would be
actual terrorist incident has proven with this alternative. High-risk unable to plan and coordinate a
difficult because the damages caused by passengers would continue to board response before boarding begins, and
terrorism are a function of where the aircraft both destined to and departing thus the high-risk passenger could still
attack takes place, the nature of the from the United States, and instances of board the aircraft. As explained
attack, the number of people affected, such aircraft departing with a high-risk previously in this document, these
the casualty rates, the psychological passenger onboard would continue. As results would be inconsistent with the
impacts of the attack, and, perhaps most explained previously in this document, protective security objectives of ATSA,
importantly, the ‘‘ripple effects’’ as these results are inconsistent with the EBSA, and IRTPA.
damages permeate throughout our protective security objectives of ATSA, (3) A 60-minute transmission
society and economy far beyond the EBSA, and IRTPA. Because this is the requirement only during periods of
initial target. One limited scenario is status quo, and therefore has no heightened threat conditions—this rule
presented below. additional costs or benefits, it is not would require carriers to submit
The average recurring benefits of the analyzed further. manifest data 60 minutes prior to
proposed rule are an estimated $15 (2) A pre-departure transmission departure only during periods of
million per year. This is in addition to requirement—this would require heightened threat conditions. For this
the non-quantified security benefits, carriers to submit manifests earlier than analysis, CBP assumes that the threat
which are the primary impetus for this is required under the status quo level could be elevated twice a year for
rule. Over the 10-year period of requirements for flights to and from the 3 weeks per instance. Because foreign
analysis, PV benefits are an estimated United States. Transmission of manifest travelers coming to the United States
$105 million at a 7 percent discount rate information would be made at least 30 may not be aware of the threat level
($128 million at a 3 percent discount minutes prior to departure. CBP prior to entering the country, CBP
rate). concludes that 1 percent of passengers further assumes that the impacts of the
Given the quantified costs and on large carriers would be delayed alert would extend beyond the return to
benefits of the proposed rule, we can while no passengers on small carriers the lower threat level. Thus, the effects
determine how much non-quantified would be affected. We assume small would last a total of 2 months a year.
security benefits would have to be for carriers would not need to reroute any This alternative would probably cause a
this rule to be cost-beneficial. The 10- passengers under a pre-departure great deal of disruption due to the
year costs range from $612 million to transmission requirement; accordingly, unanticipated need to provide
$1.9 billion, and the benefits are an this alternative is a no-cost option for information earlier at irregular intervals.
estimated $103 million (all at the 7 small carriers. We assume that 5 percent Additionally, the threat of terrorism is
percent discount rate). Thus, the non- of travelers would need to arrive at the continuous, and specific threat
quantified security benefits would have airport 15 minutes earlier than normal information on flights may not emerge.
to be $509 million to $1.8 billion over in order to make their flights. Thus, the risks would not likely be
the 10-year period in order for this For large carriers, transmission of diminished sufficiently to justify the
proposed rule to be cost-beneficial. In manifest data at this time would not costs. Finally, an alternating system of
one hypothetical security scenario provide enough of a window for CBP to manifest transmission timing would
involving only one aircraft and the respond to a hit on the watch lists, likely affect carrier performance, with
people aboard, estimated costs of an regardless of the boarding time. Benefits performance ratings suffering during the
incident could exceed $790 million. of this alternative would be largely infrequent, non-routine elevations in
This rule may not prevent such an negated when compared to the proposed threat level, the more critical period.
incident, but if it did, the value of rule because the ability to intercept a In this scenario, the percentage of
preventing such a limited incident high-risk individual before the boarding passengers delayed on large carriers is
would outweigh the costs at the low end process begins would be severely an estimated 10 percent and on small
of the range. See the Regulatory limited. Because in many instances the carriers is 2.5 percent. The average
Assessment at http:// high-risk passenger is likely to board length of delay is 6 hours. We estimate
www.regulations.gov or http:// under this alternative, the individual that 15 percent of passengers would
www.cbp.gov for details of these and his bags would have to be removed need to arrive at the airport 15 minutes
calculations. from the plane; in some circumstances, early in order to make their flights.
depending on the level of the threat, all First-year costs are $225 million,
Regulatory Alternatives remaining passengers and bags would average recurring costs are $246 million
CBP considered a number of have to be removed and re-screened per year, and 10-year present value costs
regulatory alternatives to the proposed
and, in particularly urgent are $1.7 billion (7 percent discount rate)

rule. Complete details regarding the circumstances, the aircraft would have and $2.1 billion (3 percent discount
costs and benefits of these alternatives to be ‘‘re-sterilized’’ prior to re-boarding. rate).
can be found in the ‘‘Regulatory First-year costs are $111 million, Benefits are potentially the same as
Assessment’’ available in the docket for average recurring costs are $122 million the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative most of the
this rulemaking (http:// per year, and 10-year present value costs time because a high-risk individual
could be identified prior to boarding the protective security objectives of will be delayed an average of 6 hours
only during those very limited periods ATSA, EBSA, and IRTPA. and will need to be rerouted. We
when the threat level is elevated and the (5) A 120-minute transmission assume that 30 percent of passengers
60-minute requirement is in effect. requirement—this rule would require would need to arrive at the airport 1
Benefits are potentially lower than carriers to submit manifests 120 minutes hour earlier than previously. First-year
under the proposed rule most of the prior to departure. The costs would be costs are $3.2 billion, average recurring
time because high-risk passengers higher than under the proposed rule costs are $3.5 billion per year, and 10-
would be able to board the aircraft, and because originating passengers, not just year present value costs are $24.2
aircraft would depart with a high-risk connecting passengers, would now be billion (7 percent discount rate) and
passenger onboard, under the status quo affected. High-risk passengers would be $29.5 billion (3 percent discount rate).
procedure in effect during most of the prevented from boarding aircraft. CBP
Benefits are higher than the No Action
year. Again, these results would be would be able to more easily coordinate
alternative because a high-risk
inconsistent with the protective security and plan a response to a hit on the
individual would be prevented from
objectives of ATSA, EBSA, and IRTPA. watch lists well before the boarding
(4) A 60-minute transmission boarding or departing on an aircraft
process began.
requirement or implementation of This alternative would be quite destined to or departing from the United
AQQ—this is the proposed rule, which disruptive because even though States. Benefits are slightly higher than
requires carriers to elect to transmit, via passengers and carriers would have the under the proposed rule because in
an interactive communication system, predictability of a pre-determined some instances, the high-risk
passenger data under one of the two transmission time, passenger check-in at passenger’s baggage would not reach the
proposed options: by submitting the original departure airport would be aircraft. Otherwise, the results achieved
manifests no later than 60 minutes prior greatly affected. Instead of passengers do not change appreciably given the
to departure or, alternatively, by checking in 2 hours prior to departure, extra time. Nonetheless, this procedure
implementing APIS Quick Query. As carriers would have to advise would be consistent with the protective
explained previously in this document, passengers to arrive even earlier to security purposes of ATSA, EBSA, and
the proposed rule provides sufficient assure timely manifest transmission. IRTPA.
time for fully vetting travelers, and We assume that 20 percent of The following table summarizes the
achieving the appropriate levels of passengers on large carriers and 5 costs and benefits of the regulatory
security desired, to be consistent with percent of passengers on small carriers alternatives:
COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
Proposed rule
60-minute require-
Pre-departure ment only at elevated
requirement 60-minute 120-minute
alert AQQ
requirement requirement
First-Year Costs ......... $111 million ............... $225 million ............... $250 million ............... $189 million ............... $3.2 billion.
Average Recurring $122 million ............... $246 million ............... $274 million ............... $72 million ................. $3.5 billion.
Costs.
10-Year PV Costs $845 million ............... $1.7 billion ................. $1.9 billion ................. $612 million ............... $24.2 billion.
(7%).
10-Year PV Costs $1.0 billion ................. $2.1 billion ................. $2.3 billion ................. $726 million ............... $29.5 billion.
(3%).
Average Cost per Pas- $0.36–$1.55 .............. $0.91–$3.11 .............. $1.37–$3.45 .............. $1.01–1.37 ................ $17.39–$43.81
senger.
Benefits Comparison Slightly higher (risk Comparable (risk may Higher (risk identified Higher (risk identified Higher (risk identified
to ‘‘No Action’’. identified prior to be identified prior prior to boarding). prior to boarding). prior to boarding) .
take-off). to boarding and
take-off if under
elevated alert).
Benefits Comparison Lower (high-risk pas- Lower (high-risk pas- Security benefits + Risk identified prior to Comparable (security
to Pre-Boarding senger may still senger may still $15 million in costs check-in (higher benefits + $15 mil-
APIS Rule. board aircraft); board aircraft). avoided annually. benefits than 60- lion in costs avoid-
CBP cannot coordi- minute option). ed annually).
nate or plan re-
sponse.
CBP requests comments on the above accounting statement showing the rule will be approximately million
analysis of the regulatory alternatives. classification of the expenditures annualized (7 percent discount rate) and
associated with this rule. The table approximately $166.0 million
Accounting Statement
provides our best estimate of the dollar annualized (3 percent discount rate).
As required by OMB Circular A–4 amount of these costs and benefits, Quantified benefits are $15.0 million
(available at http:// expressed in 2005 dollars, at three annualized. The non-quantified benefits
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/ percent and seven percent discount are enhanced security.
index.html, CBP has prepared an rates. We estimate that the cost of this
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURES, 2006 THROUGH 2015 (2005 DOLLARS)

[Three Percent Annual Discount Rate]
BENEFITS:
Annualized monetized benefits ............................................................................................................................... $15.0 million.
(Un-quantified) benefits ........................................................................................................................................... Enhanced security.
COSTS:
Annualized monetized costs .................................................................................................................................... $179.1 million.
Annualized quantified, but un-monetized costs.
Qualitative (un-quantified) costs.
Seven Percent Annual Discount Rate.
BENEFITS:
Annualized monetized benefits ............................................................................................................................... $15.0 million.
(Un-quantified) benefits ........................................................................................................................................... Enhanced security.
COSTS:
Annualized monetized costs .................................................................................................................................... $178.9 million.
Annualized quantified, but un-monetized costs.
Qualitative (un-quantified) costs.
In accordance with the provisions of by any of the methods described under CBP has determined that the rule would
E.O. 12866, this regulation was the ADDRESSES section of this document. result in the expenditure by the private
reviewed by the Office of Management sector of $100 million or more (adjusted
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
and Budget. annually for inflation) in any one year
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates and thus would constitute a significant
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), enacted as regulatory action. Consequently, the
We have examined the impacts of this Pub. L. 104–4 on March 22, 1995, provisions of this proposed rule
proposed rulemaking on small entities requires each Federal agency, to the constitute a private sector mandate
as required by the Regulatory Flexibility extent permitted by law, to prepare a under the UMRA. CBP’s analysis of the
Act. A small entity may be a small written assessment of the effects of any cost impact on affected businesses,
business (defined as any independently Federal mandate in a proposed or final summarized in the ‘‘Executive Order
owned and operated business not agency rule that may result in the 12866’’ section of this document and
dominant in its field that qualifies as a expenditure by State, local, and tribal available for review by accessing
small business per the Small Business governments, in the aggregate, or by the http://www.regulations.gov; see also
Act); a small not-for-profit organization; private sector, of $100 million or more http://www.cbp.gov, is incorporated
or a small governmental jurisdiction (adjusted annually for inflation) in any here by reference as the assessment
(locality with fewer than 50,000 people). one year. Section 204(a) of the UMRA, required under Title II of the UMRA.
CBP has identified 773 small U.S. air 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal CBP is requesting information from the
carriers that could be affected by the agency to develop an effective process public and the carriers regarding the
proposed rule. We do not expect these to permit timely input by elected costs this rule would impose on the
carriers to experience great economic officers (or their designees) of State, private sector.
impacts as a result of the proposed rule. local, and tribal governments on a
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Small carriers do not need to modify ‘‘significant intergovernmental
their reservation systems nor do they mandate.’’ A ‘‘significant This proposed rule, if adopted as a
have many connecting passengers who intergovernmental mandate’’ under the final rule, would not have substantial
may miss their flights and require UMRA is any provision in a Federal direct effects on the States, on the
rerouting. We estimate that 0.25 percent agency regulation that will impose an relationship between the National
of passengers on small carriers will be enforceable duty upon state, local, and Government and the States, or on the
affected by this rule annually. In the tribal governments, in the aggregate, of distribution of power and
April 2005 final rule (70 FR at 17846), $100 million (adjusted annually for responsibilities among the various
CBP estimated that small carriers each inflation) in any one year. Section 203 levels of government. Therefore, in
transport an average of 300 passengers of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which accordance with Executive Order 13132,
annually. Thus, less than 1 passenger supplements section 204(a), provides it is determined that this rule does not
per carrier per year will be affected by that, before establishing any regulatory have sufficient federalism implications
the proposed APIS 60 option. We requirements that might significantly or to warrant the preparation of a
calculate that the total cost of delay per uniquely affect small governments, the federalism summary impact statement.
passenger is $61.77, and only $4.57 of agency shall have developed a plan that,
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
this is incurred by the air carrier. The among other things, provides for notice
Reform)
aggregate costs of this rule’s APIS option to potentially affected small
would not exceed $3,500 annually for governments, if any, and for meaningful This proposed rule meets the
each of the 773 small US-based carriers. and timely opportunity to provide input applicable standards set forth in
We conclude, therefore, that this rule in the development of regulatory sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
will not have a significant impact on a proposals. Order 12988. That Executive Order
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule, if adopted as a requires agencies to conduct reviews,
The complete analysis of impacts to final rule, would not impose any cost on before proposing legislation or
small entities is available on the CBP small governments or significantly or promulgating regulations, to determine
Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov; uniquely affect small governments. the impact of those proposals on civil
see also http://www.cbp.gov. Comments However, as stated in the ‘‘Executive justice and potential issues for
regarding the analysis may be submitted Order 12866’’ section of this document, litigation. The Order requires that
agencies make reasonable efforts to 17820). As the changes proposed in this Section 122.75a also issued under 8 U.S.C.
ensure the regulation clearly identifies rule do not impact the data collected or 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431.
preemptive effects, effects on existing the use and storage of the data, and only * * * * *
federal laws and regulations, identifies affect the timing of data transmission, 4. Section 122.49a is amended by:
any retroactive effects of the proposal, the existing System of Records Notice a. Revising the definition of
and other matters. DHS has determined (SORN) (the Treasury Enforcement ‘‘departure’’ in paragraph (a), and
that this regulation meets the Communications System (TECS) b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and
requirements of Executive Order 12988 published at 66 FR 53029) and the PIA (b)(2) to read as follows:
because it does not involve retroactive continue to cover the collection, § 122.49a Electronic manifest requirement
effects, preemptive effects, or other maintenance, and use of APIS data. CBP for passengers onboard commercial aircraft
matters addressed in the Order. is preparing a separate SORN for APIS arriving in the United States.
which will be published before a final (a) * * *
F. National Environmental Policy Act
rule is implemented following this Departure. ‘‘Departure’’ means the
CBP has evaluated this proposed rule proposed rule. moment at which the aircraft is pushed
for purposes of the National back from the gate for the purpose of
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 List of Subjects
commencing its approach to the point of
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). CBP has 19 CFR Part 4 take off.
determined that an environmental
Aliens, Customs duties and * * * * *
statement is not required, since this
inspection, Immigration, Maritime (b) Electronic arrival manifest—(1)
action is non-invasive and there is no
carriers, Passenger vessels, Reporting General—(i) Basic requirement. Except
potential impact of any kind. Record of
and recordkeeping requirements, as provided in paragraph (c) of this
this determination has been placed in
Vessels. section, an appropriate official of each
the rulemaking docket.
commercial aircraft (carrier) arriving in
19 CFR Part 122 the United States from any place outside
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
In connection with the final rule Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Air the United States must transmit to
recently published by CBP in April transportation, Commercial aircraft, Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
2005, and discussed in this proposed Customs duties and inspection, Entry by means of an electronic data
rule, a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping interchange system approved by CBP,
analysis was set forth concerning the requirements, Security measures. an electronic passenger arrival manifest
information collection involved under Proposed Amendments to the covering all passengers checked in for
that rule (see OMB No. 1651–0088). Regulations the flight. A passenger manifest must be
This proposed rule, which proposes to transmitted separately from a crew
For the reasons stated in the member manifest required under
amend the regulation as amended by the preamble, parts 4 and 122 of the CBP
April 2005 final rule, has no effect on § 122.49b if transmission is in U.S.
Regulations (19 CFR parts 4 and 122) are EDIFACT format. The passenger
that analysis, as it does not impose an proposed to be amended as follows:
additional information collection manifest must be transmitted to CBP at
burden or affect the information the place and time specified in
PART 4—VESSELS IN FOREIGN AND paragraph (b)(2) of this section, in the
collected under the regulation in any DOMESTIC TRADES
relevant manner. This proposed rule manner set forth under either paragraph
affects only the timing and manner of 1. The general authority citation for (b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(B), or (b)(1)(iii) of
the submission of the information part 4 and the specific authority citation this section.
already required under the regulation. for § 4.64 continue to read as follows: (ii) Complete manifest option—(A)
An agency may not conduct or Interactive process. A carrier operating
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66,
sponsor, and a person is not required to under this paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) must
1431, 1433, 1434, 1624; 2071 note; 46 U.S.C.
respond to, a collection of information App. 3, 91. transmit a complete manifest setting
unless the collection of information forth the information specified in
* * * * * paragraph (b)(3) of this section for all
displays a valid control number. The Section 4.64 also issued under 8 U.S.C.
collection of information relative to the 1221; passengers checked in for the flight.
provisions of the regulation proposed to After receipt of the manifest
* * * * * information, CBP will electronically
be amended in this proposed rule, 2. Section 4.64 is amended in
under 19 CFR 4.64, 122.49a, and send to the carrier a ‘‘not-cleared’’
paragraph (b)(2)(i) by removing the
122.75a, is recorded with the Office of instruction for passengers identified
words ‘‘no later than 15 minutes’’ and
Management and Budget (OMB) under during security vetting as requiring
replacing them with the words ‘‘no later
OMB No. 1651–0088. additional security analysis. A carrier
than 60 minutes’’.
must not board any passenger subject to
H. Signing Authority a ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction, or any other
PART 122—AIR COMMERCE
This amendment to the regulations is REGULATIONS passenger, or their baggage, unless
being issued in accordance with 19 CFR cleared by CBP. Upon completion of the
0.2(a) pertaining to the authority of the 3. The general authority citation for additional security analysis, CBP will
Secretary of Homeland Security (or his part 122 and the specific authority electronically contact the carrier to clear
delegate) to prescribe regulations not citations for § 122.49a and 122.75a a passenger for boarding should
related to customs revenue functions. continue to read as follows: clearance be warranted by the results of
that analysis. Where CBP is unable to
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66,

I. Privacy Statement 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, complete the additional security
A Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note. analysis or respond to the carrier prior
was published in the Federal Register Section 122.49a also issued under 8 U.S.C. to departure of the aircraft, the carrier is
(70 FR 17857) in conjunction with the 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 49 U.S.C. 44909. bound by the ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction.
April 7, 2005, APIS final rule (70 FR * * * * * No later than 30 minutes after
departure, the carrier must transmit to electronically contact the carrier to clear port or place outside the United States
CBP a unique identifier for each a passenger for boarding should must transmit to Customs and Border
passenger that checked in but did not clearance be warranted by the results of Protection (CBP), by means of an
board the flight. Before operating under that analysis. Where CBP is unable to electronic data interchange system
this paragraph, a carrier must receive a complete the additional analysis or approved by CBP, an electronic
system certification from CBP indicating respond to the carrier before departure passenger departure manifest covering
that its electronic system is capable of of the aircraft, the carrier will be bound all passengers checked-in for the flight.
interactively communicating with CBP’s by the ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction. No A passenger manifest must be
system for effective transmission of later than 30 minutes after departure, transmitted separately from a crew
manifest data and receipt of appropriate the carrier must transmit to CBP a member manifest required under
messages. unique identifier for each passenger § 122.75b if transmission is in U.S.
(B) Manual (non-interactive) process. who checked in but did not board the EDIFACT format. The passenger
A carrier operating under this paragraph flight. Before operating under this manifest must be transmitted to CBP, at
(b)(1)(ii)(B) must transmit a complete paragraph, a carrier must receive a the place and time specified in
manifest setting forth the information system certification from CBP indicating paragraph (b)(2) of this section, in the
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this that its electronic system is capable of manner set forth under either paragraph
section for all passengers checked in for interactively communicating with CBP’s (b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(B), or (b)(1)(iii) of
the flight. After receipt of the manifest system for effective transmission of this section.
information, CBP will send to the carrier manifest data and receipt of appropriate (ii) Complete manifest option—(A)
by a non-interactive manual messages. Interactive process. A carrier operating
transmission method a ‘‘not-cleared’’ (2) Place and time for submission—(i) under this paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) must
instruction for passengers identified Complete manifests. The appropriate transmit a complete manifest setting
during security vetting as requiring official specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of forth the information specified in
additional security analysis. A carrier this section (carrier) must transmit the paragraph (b)(3) of this section for all
must not board any passenger subject to complete electronic passenger arrival passengers checked-in for the flight.
a ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction, or any other manifest as required under paragraph After receipt of the manifest
passenger, or their baggage, unless (b)(1)(ii) of this section to the CBP Data information, CBP will electronically
cleared by CBP. Upon completion of the Center, CBP Headquarters: send to the carrier a ‘‘not-cleared’’
additional security analysis, CBP will (A) For flights not originally destined instruction for passengers identified
contact the carrier to clear a passenger to the United States but diverted to a during security vetting as requiring
for boarding should clearance be U.S. port due to an emergency, no later additional security analysis. A carrier
warranted by the results of that analysis. than 30 minutes prior to arrival; in cases must not board any passenger subject to
Where CBP is unable to complete the of non-compliance, CBP will take into a ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction, or any other
additional security analysis or respond consideration whether the carrier was passenger, or their baggage, unless
to the carrier prior to departure of the equipped to make the transmission and cleared by CBP. Upon completion of the
aircraft, the carrier is bound by the ‘‘not- the circumstances of the emergency additional security analysis, CBP will
cleared’’ instruction. No later than 30 situation; electronically contact the carrier to clear
minutes after departure, the carrier must (B) For an aircraft operating as an air a passenger for boarding should
transmit to CBP a unique identifier for ambulance in service of a medical clearance be warranted by the results of
each passenger who checked in but did emergency, no later than 30 minutes that analysis. Where CBP is unable to
not board the flight. prior to arrival; and complete the additional security
(iii) Individual passenger information (C) For all flights not covered under analysis or respond to the carrier prior
option. A carrier operating under this paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this to departure of the aircraft, the carrier is
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) must transmit the section, no later than 60 minutes prior bound by the ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction.
manifest data specified in paragraph to departure of the aircraft. No later than 30 minutes after
(b)(3) of this section for each individual (ii) Individual passenger information. departure, the carrier must transmit to
passenger as passengers check in for the A carrier must transmit electronic CBP a unique identifier for each
flight. With each transmission of passenger arrival manifest information passenger who checked in but did not
manifest information by the carrier, CBP as required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of board the flight. Before operating under
will electronically send a ‘‘cleared’’ or this section as each passenger checks in this paragraph, a carrier must receive a
‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction, as for the flight, up to but no later than 15 system certification from CBP indicating
appropriate, depending on the results of minutes prior to departure of the that its electronic system is capable of
security vetting. A ‘‘not-cleared’’ aircraft. interactively communicating with CBP’s
instruction will be issued for passengers system for effective transmission of
* * * * *
identified during the initial security 5. Section 122.75a is amended by manifest data and receipt of appropriate
vetting as requiring additional security messages.
revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), to
analysis. The carrier must acknowledge (B) Manual (non-interactive) process.
read as follows:
receipt of a ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction by A carrier operating under this paragraph
electronic return message and must not § 122.75a Electronic manifest (b)(1)(ii)(B) must transmit a complete
issue a boarding pass to—or load the requirements for passengers onboard manifest setting forth the information
baggage of—any passenger subject to a commercial aircraft departing from the specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this
‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction or to any United States. section for all passengers checked in for
passenger not cleared by CBP. The * * * * * the flight. After receipt of the manifest
(b) Electronic departure manifest—(1)
carrier, at its discretion, may seek information, CBP will send to the carrier
resolution of a ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction General—(i) Basic requirement. Except by a non-interactive manual
by providing additional information as provided in paragraph (c) of this transmission method a ‘‘not-cleared’’
relative to the passenger if available. section, an appropriate official of each instruction for passengers identified
Upon completion of the additional commercial aircraft (carrier) departing during security vetting as requiring
security analysis, CBP will from the United States en route to any additional security analysis. A carrier
must not board any passenger subject to manifest as required under paragraph DATES: Written comments must be
a ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction, or any other (b)(1)(ii) of this section to the CBP Data received on or before August 14, 2006.
passenger, or their baggage, unless Center, CBP Headquarters, no later than FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
cleared by CBP. Upon completion of the 60 minutes prior to departure of the Marilyn Powers (215) 814–2308, or by e-
additional security analysis, CBP will aircraft from the United States, except mail at powers.marilyn@epa.gov.
contact the carrier to clear a passenger that for an air ambulance in service of ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
for boarding should clearance be a medical emergency, the manifest must identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
warranted by the results of that analysis. be transmitted to CBP no later than 30 R037–OAR–2005–0549 by one of the
Where CBP is unable to complete the minutes after departure. following methods:
additional security analysis or respond (ii) Individual passenger information. A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
to the carrier prior to departure of the The carrier must transmit electronic the on-line instructions for submitting
aircraft, the carrier is bound by the ‘‘not- passenger departure manifest comments.
cleared’’ instruction. No later than 30 information as required under B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov
minutes after departure, the carrier must paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section as C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2005–0549,
transmit to CBP a unique identifier for each passenger checks in for the flight, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
each passenger who checked in but did up to but no later than 15 minutes prior Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
not board the flight. to departure of the aircraft. Environmental Protection Agency,
(iii) Individual passenger information * * * * * Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
option. A carrier operating under this
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) must transmit the Deborah J. Spero,
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-
manifest data specified in paragraph Acting Commissioner, Customs and Border
listed EPA Region III address. Such
(b)(3) of this section for each individual Protection.
deliveries are only accepted during the
passenger as passengers check in for the Approved: July 11, 2006.
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
flight. With each transmission of Michael Chertoff, special arrangements should be made
manifest information by the carrier, CBP Secretary.
will electronically send a ‘‘cleared’’ or for deliveries of boxed information.
[FR Doc. 06–6237 Filed 7–11–06; 3:00 pm] Instructions: Direct your comments to
‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction, as
appropriate, depending on the results of
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2005–
security vetting. A ‘‘not-cleared’’ 0549. EPA’s policy is that all comments
instruction will be issued for passengers received will be included in the public
identified during the initial security ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION docket without change, and may be
vetting as requiring additional security AGENCY made available online at http://
analysis. The carrier must acknowledge www.regulations.gov, including any
receipt of a ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction by 40 CFR Part 52 personal information provided, unless
electronic return message and must not the comment includes information
[EPA–R03–OAR–2005–0549; FRL–8196–9] claimed to be Confidential Business
issue a boarding pass to—or load the
baggage of—any passenger subject to a Information (CBI) or other information
Approval and Promulgation of Air
‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction or to any whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Quality Implementation Plans;
passenger not cleared by CBP. The Do not submit information that you
Pennsylvania; Additional NOX
carrier, at its discretion, may seek consider to be CBI or otherwise
Emission Reductions To Support the
resolution of a ‘‘not-cleared’’ instruction protected through www.regulations.gov
Philadelphia-Trenton-Wilmington One-
by providing additional information or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, and
about the passenger, if available. Upon website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
Remaining NOX SIP Call Requirements
completion of the additional security system, which means EPA will not
analysis, CBP will electronically contact AGENCY: Environmental Protection know your identity or contact
the carrier to clear a passenger for Agency (EPA). information unless you provide it in the
boarding should clearance be warranted ACTION: Proposed rule. body of your comment. If you send an
by the results of that analysis. Where e-mail comment directly to EPA without
CBP is unable to complete the SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve going through www.regulations.gov,
additional analysis or respond to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) your e-mail address will be
carrier before departure of the aircraft, revisions submitted by the automatically captured and included as
the carrier will be bound by the ‘‘not- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These part of the comment that is placed in the
cleared’’ instruction. No later than 30 revisions pertain to additional nitrogen public docket and made available on the
minutes after departure, the carrier must oxides (NOX) reductions that are Internet. If you submit an electronic
transmit to CBP a unique identifier for required for the Commonwealth to comment, EPA recommends that you
each passenger who checked in but did support its approved attainment include your name and other contact
not board the flight. Before operating demonstration for the Philadelphia- information in the body of your
under this paragraph, a carrier must Trenton-Wilmington one-hour ozone comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
receive a system certification from CBP nonattainment area (the Philadelphia you submit. If EPA cannot read your
indicating that its electronic system is Area); NOX reductions from stationary comment due to technical difficulties
capable of interactively communicating internal combustion (IC) engines and cannot contact you for clarification,
with CBP’s system for effective required to meet the NOX SIP Call Phase EPA may not be able to consider your
transmission of manifest data and II (Phase II); and NOX reductions from comment. Electronic files should avoid
cement kilns to meet the NOX SIP Call. the use of special characters, any form
receipt of appropriate messages.

(2) Place and time for submission—(i) The revisions also include provisions of encryption, and be free of any defects
Complete manifests. The appropriate for emission credits for sources that or viruses.
official specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of generate zero-emission renewable Docket: All documents in the
this section (carrier) must transmit the energy. This action is being taken under electronic docket are listed in the
complete electronic passenger departure the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). www.regulations.gov index. Although

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 40035

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 1. APIS 60 (Interactive Batch

flights and non-crew members on all-

procedure, only a passenger who is a

COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

High Estimate Low esimate

Large Small Large Small

First-Year Costs ............................................................... $245 $5 $250 $184 $5 $189

and, in particularly urgent are $1.7 billion (7 percent discount rate)

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURES, 2006 THROUGH 2015 (2005 DOLLARS)

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66,

receipt of appropriate messages.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai