Advance Passenger Information System: Electronic Validation of Travel Documents, 7016-7033 [2023-02139]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7016-7033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02139]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

19 CFR Part 122

[Docket No. USCBP-2023-0002]
RIN 1651-AB43


Advance Passenger Information System: Electronic Validation of 
Travel Documents

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations require 
commercial air carriers to electronically transmit passenger 
information to CBP's Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) prior 
to an aircraft's departure to the United States from a foreign port or 
place or departure from the United States so that the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) can determine whether the carrier must conduct 
an additional security analysis or security screening of the 
passengers. CBP proposes to amend these regulations to incorporate 
additional commercial carrier requirements that would enable CBP to 
determine whether each passenger is traveling with valid, authentic 
travel documents prior to the passenger boarding the aircraft. The 
proposed regulations would also require commercial air carriers to 
transmit additional data elements through APIS for all commercial 
aircraft passengers arriving, or intending to arrive, in the United 
States in order to support border operations and national security and 
safety. Additionally, this proposal includes changes to conform 
existing regulations to current practice. Finally, the proposed 
regulations would allow commercial carriers to transmit an aircraft's 
registration number to CBP via APIS. This proposed rule is intended to 
increase the security and safety of the international traveling public, 
the international air carrier industry, and the United States.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, identified by docket number, by the 
following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number 
USCBP-2023-0002.
    Due to COVID-19-related restrictions, CBP has temporarily suspended 
its ability to receive public comments by mail.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be 
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Due to relevant 
COVID-19-related restrictions, CBP has temporarily suspended its on-
site public inspection of submitted comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Neumann, Office of Field 
Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, by phone at 202-412-
2788.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by 
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the 
notice of proposed rulemaking. The Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, 
or federalism effects that might result from this proposal.
    Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Department in 
developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the 
proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include data, information, or authority that support such recommended 
change.

II. Statutory Authority

    Multiple statutes require air carriers to electronically transmit 
passenger information to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) prior to 
arriving in or departing from the United States.\1\ For instance, 
section 115 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Pub. L. 
107-71, 115 Stat. 623, Nov. 19, 2001) requires air carriers operating a 
passenger flight in foreign air transportation to the United States to 
electronically transmit a passenger manifest to CBP. See 49 U.S.C. 
44909(c). Pursuant to this statute, the manifest must contain the 
following data for each passenger: full name; date of birth; 
citizenship; sex; passport number and

[[Page 7017]]

country of issuance (if a passport is required for travel); U.S. visa 
number or resident alien card, as applicable; and such other 
information as the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA), in consultation with the Commissioner of CBP, 
determines is reasonably necessary to ensure aviation safety. See 49 
U.S.C. 44909(c)(2). The passenger manifest must be transmitted in 
advance of the aircraft landing in the United States in such manner, 
time, and form as CBP requires. See 49 U.S.C. 44909(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Those statutes include, but are not limited to, section 115 
of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Pub. L. 107-71, 115 
Stat. 623, 49 U.S.C. 44909), section 402 of the Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-173, 116 
Stat. 557, 8 U.S.C. 1221), section 4012 of the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458; 49 U.S.C. 
44909(c)), and certain authorities administered by the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (49 U.S.C. 114, 49 CFR 
parts 1550, 1544, 1546).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 402 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform 
Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-173, 116 Stat. 557) requires a master or 
commanding officer, or the authorized agent, owner, or consignee of a 
commercial aircraft that is either departing the United States or 
arriving in the United States to transmit to CBP manifest information 
about each passenger on board. See 8 U.S.C. 1221(a)-(b). The manifest 
information must contain the following information: complete name; date 
of birth; citizenship; sex; \2\ passport number and country of 
issuance; country of residence; U.S. visa number, date and place of 
issuance, where applicable; alien registration number, where 
applicable; and U.S. address while in the United States. Id. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) may also require additional 
manifest information if the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, determines that 
the information is necessary for the identification of the persons 
transported, the enforcement of the immigration laws, or the protection 
of safety and national security. See 8 U.S.C. 1221(c); 8 U.S.C. 
1103(a)(1). Together, these and other applicable broad statutes cited 
as authority for CBP's Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) 
regulations allow CBP to require that commercial air carriers transmit 
to CBP manifest information relating to each individual traveling 
onboard an aircraft arriving in or departing from the United States and 
specify the type of information that must be submitted.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ APIS allows carriers to transmit male, female, or any gender 
code included on a Government-issued ID. See DHS Consolidated User 
Guide Part 4--UN/EDIFACT Implementation Guide, September 6, 2016, 
available at https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Sep/DHS_CUG_v4%202_09-06-2016_Pt%204_EDIFACT.pdf 
(last accessed October 29, 2021).
    \3\ Additional document validation procedures and advance data 
submitted through APIS supports CBP's mission to identify and 
interdict nefarious actors before departing to and from the United 
States. See 6 U.S.C. 211. For more information regarding the purpose 
of the proposed regulations see section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, section 4012 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638) 
requires DHS to perform security vetting of passengers on board 
aircraft bound for or departing from the United States prior to the 
departure of the aircraft. Specifically, section 4012 requires DHS to 
compare passenger information for any international flight to or from 
the United States against the consolidated and integrated terrorist 
watch list maintained by the Federal Government before departure of the 
flight. See 49 U.S.C. 44909(c)(6). IRTPA authorizes the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to issue regulations to implement these requirements. 
Regulations implementing section 4012 of IRTPA were published on August 
23, 2007 (72 FR 48320). Those regulations are described below.

III. Background and Current Requirements

    Current CBP regulations require commercial air carriers to transmit 
information electronically to CBP for individuals traveling or 
intending to travel to or from the United States on board an aircraft. 
The focus of this proposed rulemaking is commercial aircraft arriving 
in or departing from the United States. Unless otherwise specified, use 
of the term ``carrier'' throughout this proposed rulemaking refers to 
``commercial air carriers.'' \4\ Section 122.49a of title 19 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 122.49a) specifies the information 
that commercial carriers must transmit for each passenger checked in 
for a flight arriving in the United States from a foreign place.\5\ 
Title 19 CFR 122.75a specifies the information that commercial carriers 
must transmit for each passenger checked in for an aircraft departing 
the United States for a foreign place.\6\ Under the current APIS 
regulations, carriers submit passenger data to CBP between 72 hours and 
30 minutes before departure, and no later than securing the aircraft 
doors for individual submissions. The required information varies 
depending on whether the aircraft is departing or arriving, but it 
generally must include: the passenger's name; date of birth; sex; 
citizenship; status on board the aircraft (i.e., passenger); travel 
document type; passport number, country of issuance, and expiration 
date (if a passport is required); location of boarding and departure; 
and the date of arrival or departure for each individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Separate regulations that address electronic manifest 
requirements for crew and non-crew members arriving in or departing 
from the United States by commercial aircraft, see 19 CFR 122.49b, 
122.75b, and individuals onboard private aircraft arriving in and 
departing from the United States, see 19 CFR 122.22, are not 
affected by this proposed rulemaking.
    \5\ CBP regulations do not require commercial air carriers to 
transmit this information to CBP for active-duty U.S. military 
personnel being transported as passengers on Department of Defense 
commercial chartered aircraft. 19 CFR 122.49a(c), 122.75a(c).
    \6\ A more detailed description of the history of electronic 
manifest information requirements, and the relevant authorities, is 
set forth in the APIS final rule published on April 7, 2005 (70 FR 
17820) and the pre-departure final rule published on August 23, 2007 
(72 FR 48320).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carriers have two options for transmitting the required information 
to CBP. Under the first option, a carrier uses an interactive 
electronic transmission system that is capable of transmitting data to 
APIS and receiving electronic messages from CBP. See 19 CFR 
122.49a(b)(1)(ii)(B), 122.49a(b)(1)(ii)(C), 122.75a(b)(1)(ii)(B), and 
122.75a(b)(1)(ii)(C). Before using an interactive electronic 
transmission system, the carrier must subject its system to CBP 
testing, and CBP must certify that the carrier's system is capable of 
interactively communicating with the CBP system for effective 
transmission of manifest data and receipt of appropriate messages in 
accordance with the regulations. See 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(1)(ii)(E) and 
122.75a(b)(1)(ii)(E). Once CBP certifies the interactive electronic 
transmission system, the carrier may use it to transmit the required 
electronic data. The vast majority of commercial carriers use an 
interactive CBP-certified transmission system.
    Under the second option, the carrier may electronically transmit 
the required information through a non-interactive electronic 
transmission system approved by CBP. See 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(1)(ii)(A) 
and 122.75a(b)(1)(ii)(A). This includes the electronic Advance 
Passenger Information System (eAPIS), which is an online transmission 
system that meets all APIS data element requirements for all mandated 
APIS transmission types. eAPIS is a web-based transmission system that 
can be accessed through the internet.
    Regardless of the transmission method, carriers must transmit the 
required information through APIS to CBP prior to the securing of the 
aircraft, with certain transmission methods requiring transmission no 
later than 30 minutes prior to securing of the

[[Page 7018]]

aircraft.\7\ See 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(2) and 19 CFR 122.75a(b)(2). After 
receiving a transmission of APIS manifest information either through a 
CBP-certified transmission system or through eAPIS, CBP stores APIS 
information in a data system called TECS.\8\ CBP simultaneously 
transfers this information to the Automated Targeting System (ATS) \9\ 
to perform multiple enforcement and security queries against various 
databases, including multiagency law enforcement databases and the 
terrorist watch list.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ry personnel being transported as passengers on Department of 
Defense commercial chartered aircraft. 19 CFR 122.49a(c), 
122.75a(c).
    \8\ CBP retains APIS information in TECS for 13 months. TECS is 
the name of a computerized information system designed to identify 
individuals and businesses suspected of violations of federal law. 
TECS also serves as a communications system permitting the 
transmittal of messages between CBP and other national, state, and 
local law enforcement agencies. While the term ``TECS'' previously 
was an acronym for the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, 
it is no longer an abbreviation and is now simply the name of the 
system. For more information, see DHS's Privacy Impact Assessments 
on TECS at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/tecs-system-cbp-primary-and-secondary-processing-tecs-national-sar-initiative.
    \9\ ATS is a decision support tool that compares traveler, 
cargo, and conveyance information against law enforcement, 
intelligence, and other enforcement data.
    \10\ CBP retains APIS information in TECS for 13 months and ATS 
for 15 years. CBP uses such data for all routine purposes permitted 
by the ATS System of Records Notice (SORN) and the APIS SORN. CBP 
shares passenger data automatically with other law enforcement and 
national security partners pursuant to agreements with those 
partners for use throughout a period of time specified by the 
relevant agreement. CBP's current APIS regulations contemplate such 
sharing. See 19 CFR 122.49a(e), 122.75a(e). For further details, 
please see the APIS SORN, ATS SORN, privacy impact assessments 
regarding APIS and ATS, and section VI.F. CBP's privacy impact 
assessments are available at https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-documents-us-customs-and-border-protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After performing the security vetting, the CBP system transmits to 
the carrier an electronic message. This message is generally referred 
to as CBP's response message. If the carrier is using an interactive 
transmission system, the response message provides certain instructions 
to the carrier. Specifically, it states whether each passenger is 
authorized to board, requires additional security screening, or is 
prohibited by TSA from boarding based on the security status of the 
passenger. Depending on the instructions received in the response 
message, the carrier may be required to take additional steps, 
including coordinating secondary security screening with TSA, before 
loading the baggage of or boarding the passenger at issue. If the 
carrier is using eAPIS, the CBP system will send a message to the 
carrier through a non-interactive method, such as email, that states 
whether the flight is cleared, meaning that no passengers were 
identified as not being cleared for boarding. If the flight is not 
cleared, the carrier is required to contact TSA in order to resolve the 
security status of one or more passengers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CBP regulations, procedures, and actions may be subject to 
oversight by the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 
the Privacy Office, the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of 
Inspector General. See 6 U.S.C. 345; 6 U.S.C. 113; 6 U.S.C. 142; 42 
U.S.C. 2000ee-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Purpose of Rule and APIS Document Validation Program

    Although CBP currently uses APIS to compare the passenger 
information submitted by the carriers to various law enforcement 
databases and the terrorist watch list, to enhance national security 
and safety, CBP and the air carrier industry, under the governing 
statutes and regulations, continue to take steps to further strengthen 
the quality of the results and protect vital industries and the public. 
To further improve CBP's vetting processes with respect to APIS data 
and enhance communication with air carriers, CBP proposes to amend its 
regulations to require carriers to ensure that their systems are 
capable of accepting document validation instructions from CBP's system 
and to contact CBP, if necessary, to take appropriate action to resolve 
the travel document status of each passenger intending to board an 
aircraft arriving in or departing from the United States.
    To mitigate the risk regarding the potential use of fraudulent or 
invalid travel documents, in 2013 CBP implemented the voluntary 
Document Validation Program (DVP), which enables CBP to use APIS to vet 
the validity of each travel document and provide an electronic response 
message, either via response message or email, to the carriers as a 
result of that vetting. Under the DVP, APIS vets the information 
transmitted by carriers by comparing the information to CBP's 
databases, which include access to information regarding valid 
Department of State-issued U.S. passports and U.S. visas, DHS-issued 
Permanent Resident Cards, Electronic System for Travel Authorization 
(ESTA) approvals, and Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) 
enrollments.\12\ APIS then transmits a response message to the carriers 
participating in the voluntary program. Unlike the original (non-DVP) 
response message, which contains one element, the DVP response message 
contains two elements. The first element indicates the security status 
of each passenger, as required by current regulations. See 19 CFR 
122.49a(b) and 122.75a(b). The second element states whether each 
passenger's travel documents have been validated, meaning that the 
travel document was matched to a valid, existing travel document in 
CBP's databases. Multiple carriers participate in the voluntary program 
and have updated their transmission systems in order to receive the 
document validation message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Nonimmigrants intending to travel under the Visa Waiver 
Program (VWP) must have a valid ESTA approval prior to travel. See 8 
CFR part 217. Nonimmigrants who hold a passport issued by a country 
identified for inclusion in EVUS containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa 
of a designated category are required to enroll in EVUS. See 8 CFR 
part 215. EVUS enrollment is currently limited to nonimmigrants who 
hold unrestricted, maximum validity B-1 (visitor for business), B-2 
(visitor for pleasure), or combination B-1/B-2 visas, contained in a 
passport issued by the People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The voluntary DVP has enabled CBP to more efficiently identify 
passengers attempting to use fraudulent travel documents and 
electronically communicate that information to air carriers. As a 
result, carriers have prevented those passengers from boarding aircraft 
destined for or departing from the United States. For example, in 2016, 
a participating carrier received a response message from CBP stating 
that seven passengers on one flight had travel documents that could not 
be validated. The carrier therefore refused to board the passengers. 
Later investigations revealed that all seven passengers were attempting 
to travel with visa numbers that had been reported as lost or stolen. 
In 2017, a participating carrier refused to board a passenger whose 
visa could not be validated by CBP. Although the visa appeared 
authentic and showed the passenger's name, the passenger's date of 
birth did not match the date of birth listed for the visa in CBP's 
databases. As a result, the visa was not validated, and the carrier 
refused to board the individual. An investigation indicated that the 
passenger likely shared a name with his father and was attempting to 
travel using a visa issued to his father.
    These examples demonstrate that document validation instructions 
have the potential to increase security and safety for the commercial 
air industry and the United States and significantly improve rapid 
communication between CBP and air carriers. Without mandatory 
requirements, however, not all carriers will take the steps necessary 
to electronically receive CBP's document validation instructions and 
contact CBP prior to issuing boarding passes to passengers whose travel 
documents are not validated.

[[Page 7019]]

    In addition to enhancing document validation procedures, CBP 
proposes to require carriers to transmit additional contact data for 
all passengers on commercial flights arriving in the United States to 
support CBP border and national security missions and safety. The 
proposed additional requirements assist CBP in identifying and locating 
individuals suspected of posing a risk to national security and safety 
and aviation security before departing to and from the United States. 
For instance, in December 2009 an individual suspected of receiving 
explosives training arrived in the United States from Pakistan. That 
individual was later linked to the failed detonation of a vehicle-borne 
improvised explosive device at Times Square in New York City using data 
related to the individual's flight to the United States. DHS was 
ultimately able to interdict the individual just as he was about to 
board an international flight. Although DHS was able to prevent this 
individual from boarding an international flight at the last minute, 
additional contact information including a primary and alternative 
phone number and email address will better assist CBP in identifying 
and locating potential nefarious actors in the future. Additionally, 
prior to September 11, 2001, CBP refused entry to the so-called ``20th 
hijacker.'' CBP concluded, after its review of this incident, that the 
inclusion of a phone number, alternate phone number, and email address 
would have provided CBP with an opportunity to identify other 
individuals associated with the traveler.
    In addition to terrorism-related concerns, the inclusion of these 
additional data elements would also increase CBP's ability to 
investigate or respond to suspected crimes occurring on international 
flights. For example, in 2013, a passenger was suspected of kidnapping 
his daughter and taking her on a flight to Jamaica to avoid U.S. 
authorities. CBP was ultimately able to help locate the missing child. 
Had the passenger been required to provide a phone number, email 
information and U.S. address, CBP could have located the child more 
quickly.
    As a result of these and other incidents, CBP has concluded that 
the inclusion of a primary and alternative phone number, email address, 
and address while in the United States for all passengers (other than 
those in transit to a location outside the United States) will enable 
CBP to further mitigate risks to border, national and aviation 
security.

V. Proposed Requirements

    CBP is proposing four main changes to CBP's regulations in this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. First, CBP proposes to require carriers 
to participate in the DVP program in order to receive the document 
validation message from CBP and to contact CBP regarding any passengers 
whose travel documents cannot be validated. Second, CBP proposes to 
require carriers to transmit additional data elements for all 
passengers on commercial flights arriving in the United States. Third, 
CBP proposes to enable carriers to include an aircraft's registration 
number as an optional data element in the APIS transmission. Fourth, 
CBP proposes several changes to conform the regulations to current 
practice. Each proposal is discussed in detail below.

A. Document Validation Message, Requirement To Contact CBP, and 
Recommendation Not To Board

    Title 19 CFR 122.49a describes the electronic manifest requirement 
for passengers onboard commercial aircraft arriving in the United 
States. Title 19 CFR 122.75a describes the electronic manifest 
requirement for passengers onboard commercial aircraft departing from 
the United States. Both sections require the appropriate official of a 
commercial aircraft arriving in or departing from the United States to 
transmit through APIS to CBP an electronic passenger arrival or 
departure manifest. The arrival and departure manifest requirements are 
nearly the same and specify the transmission methods, the information 
that must be included in the manifest, and the applicable exceptions.
    CBP proposes to add a new paragraph (c) to both 19 CFR 122.49a and 
122.75a. The new paragraphs would be identical for both sections. The 
new paragraphs would be divided into two sub-paragraphs and would 
describe the document validation message and the recommendation not to 
board passengers whose travel documents cannot be validated. This 
proposed rule differs from current practice in three respects. First, 
this proposed rule would enable CBP to more efficiently validate the 
travel documents of each passenger. Second, this proposed rule would 
require the carrier to receive a second message from CBP stating 
whether the passenger's travel documents are validated. Third, the 
proposed rule would require the carrier to take appropriate action if 
CBP is unable to validate the travel documents of a passenger.
1. Document Validation Message
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) to 122.49a and 122.75a describe the 
required process for the document validation message. The general 
process is as follows. After a carrier transmits passenger manifest 
information to CBP through APIS, CBP responds to the carrier with a 
document validation message.
    The carrier would be required to ensure its transmission system is 
capable of receiving the document validation message. For carriers 
using an interactive transmission method, APIS would transmit the 
document validation message through the interactive system. The 
document validation message from CBP would state whether CBP's system 
matched each passenger's travel documents to a valid, existing travel 
document in CBP's databases.
    This proposal would add two new definitions in 19 CFR 122.49a(a) to 
define terms used in 122.49a and 122.75a. A ``travel document'' would 
be defined as any document or electronic record presented for travel to 
or from the United States, including DHS-approved travel documents, 
U.S.-issued visas, Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) 
approvals, and Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) enrollments. ``DHS-
approved travel document'' would be defined as a document approved by 
DHS for travel in or out of the United States, such as a passport or 
other Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) approved document.
2. Requirement To Contact CBP
    If the document validation message states that the CBP system could 
not validate a passenger's travel documents and the carrier is unable 
to resolve the issue on its own, the carrier would be required to 
contact CBP prior to issuing a boarding pass to that passenger or 
allowing the passenger to board the aircraft. However, the carrier 
would not be required to contact CBP for individuals who are ineligible 
to travel or will not travel on the flight.
    To facilitate the document validation process, and prior to 
contacting CBP, a carrier using an interactive transmission method may 
transmit additional biographical information as listed in paragraph 
(b)(3) of 19 CFR 122.49a and 122.75a.\13\ For example, for a passenger

[[Page 7020]]

with more than one travel document whose name appears differently on 
the travel documents, the carrier may transmit the names as they appear 
on each travel document. If, after submitting the additional 
biographical information, the CBP document validation message states 
that the passenger's travel documents were validated, the carrier is 
not required to contact CBP to resolve that passenger's travel document 
status prior to issuing a boarding pass to that passenger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Biographical information refers to the information set 
forth in the proposed 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(3)(i) through (v), (vii) 
through (xi), and (xiii) for arriving aircraft and 19 CFR 
122.75a(b)(3)(i) through (iv), and (vi) through (xi) for departing 
aircraft. That is: full name; date of birth; gender; citizenship; 
country of residence (for arriving passengers); DHS-approved travel 
document type, number, country of issuance, and expiration date (if 
a DHS-approved travel document is required); alien registration 
number (where applicable), and passenger name record locator (if 
available).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For carriers using a non-interactive transmission method, the CBP 
system would respond to the carrier with a document validation message 
indicating whether the flight was cleared. The carrier must ensure that 
it is capable of receiving the document validation message through a 
non-interactive method, such as email. A cleared flight for document 
validation purposes means that the CBP system matched each passenger's 
travel documents to a valid, existing travel document in CBP's 
databases. If the document validation message states that the CBP 
system was unable to clear the flight, the carrier must contact CBP 
prior to issuing any boarding passes for that flight or boarding any 
passengers. Upon the carrier contacting CBP, CBP would provide the 
carrier additional details as to which passenger's travel documents 
could not be validated.
3. Recommendation Not To Board
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) of 19 CFR 122.49a and 122.75a states that 
if CBP is unable to validate a passenger's travel documents even after 
the carrier has contacted CBP, CBP would issue a recommendation to the 
carrier not to board the passenger. However, it is within the 
discretion of the carrier whether to board the passenger upon receiving 
CBP's recommendation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CBP cannot require that a passenger be denied boarding. 
However, if an air carrier boards a passenger who is then denied 
entry to the United States, the air carrier may have to pay a 
penalty and bear the costs of transporting that passenger out of the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Additional APIS Data Elements

    The required data elements in the electronic passenger arrival 
manifest are specified in 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(3). CBP proposes to amend 
this provision to require the carrier to transmit four additional data 
elements for each passenger in the arrival manifest: phone number with 
country code, alternative phone number with country code, email 
address, and address while in the United States. The carrier would be 
required to transmit an address in the United States for all 
passengers, except for passengers who are in transit to a location 
outside the United States.
    Under current regulations, carriers are not required to transmit a 
U.S. address for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (LPRs), and 
those in transit to locations outside the United States. See 19 CFR 
122.49a(b)(3)(xii). When promulgating the current regulations, CBP 
explained that a U.S. address for U.S. citizens and LPRs could be 
obtained through other means. See 70 FR 17829-17830. The primary method 
for obtaining these addresses in 2005 was the Customs Declaration Form 
6059B, which is a paper form filled out by the traveler upon arrival in 
the United States. Since 2005, CBP has automated much of the processing 
of arriving passengers. As a result, the collection of an address from 
U.S. citizens and LPRs through the Customs Declaration is no longer 
effective for use with all of CBP's electronic systems. Accordingly, 
CBP has determined that the collection of a U.S. address from U.S. 
citizens and LPRs prior to arrival and through the electronic APIS 
process is necessary to ensure that CBP has the information in a timely 
manner and in a format that can be easily accessed. Once the proposed 
APIS regulatory changes are implemented, other regulatory changes may 
be proposed to reduce redundancies in the collection of personal 
information. However, the proposed APIS changes are foundational before 
other changes to information collection can be made.
    Under current regulations, carriers are not required to transmit 
through APIS a phone number with country code, alternative phone number 
with country code, or email address for any passenger. Requiring this 
additional contact information through APIS for all passengers arriving 
in the United States, including U.S. Citizens, LPRs, and visitors 
provides CBP with additional avenues to identify and locate individuals 
suspected of posing a risk to national security and safety and aviation 
security.
    In addition to promoting national security and safety, the 
collection of these additional data elements would also enable CBP to 
further support the efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS), to monitor and conduct contact tracing related to public health 
incidents. In 2017, the CDC promulgated regulations requiring any 
airline arriving in the United States to make certain data available to 
the CDC Director for passengers or crew who may be at risk of exposure 
to a communicable disease, to the extent that such data is already 
available and maintained by the airline. See 82 FR 6890 (Jan. 19, 2017) 
and 42 CFR 71.4. CBP also provides support to the CDC pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 268, which states that it ``shall be the duty of the customs 
officers . . . to aid in the enforcement of quarantine rules and 
regulations.'' Pursuant to these authorities, DHS and HHS have 
developed procedures and technical infrastructure that facilitate DHS 
sharing traveler information with HHS upon request, including 
safeguards for data privacy and security.
    In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC issued an interim 
final rule (IFR) on February 12, 2020 (85 FR 7874), requiring that 
``any airline with a flight arriving into the United States, including 
any intermediate stops between the flight's original and final 
destination, shall collect and, within 24 hours of an order by the 
Director [of the CDC], transmit to the Director'' certain data 
regarding passengers and crew arriving from foreign countries ``for the 
purposes of public health follow-up, such as health education, 
treatment, prophylaxis, or other appropriate public health 
interventions, including travel restrictions.'' Pursuant to the IFR, 
airlines must submit the following five data elements to CDC with 
respect to each passenger and crew member, to the extent that such 
information exists for the individual, and in a format acceptable to 
the Director when ordered by CDC to do so: full name, address while in 
the United States, email address, primary phone number, and secondary 
phone number. According to the CDC, these data elements are the most 
useful for responding to a critical health crisis. In light of COVID-
19, CBP issued a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) documenting CBP 
efforts to support the CDC public health response.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For more information, please access https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhscbppia-066-cbp-support-cdc-public-health-contact-tracing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If this proposed rule is implemented and the carrier submits the 
required information through APIS, CBP would also have the ability to 
share these data elements with the CDC upon its request, using existing 
communication channels between DHS and HHS, which would mitigate the 
need for airlines to separately transmit the same information to the 
CDC if the airline has

[[Page 7021]]

already transmitted the necessary information to CBP.
    Lastly, the proposed regulations were developed to comply with the 
United States' international obligations.\16\ The International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO), of which the United States is a 
contracting state, directs contracting states to use a single window to 
collect advance passenger information from air carriers and then 
provide necessary data to agencies that require the information, rather 
than require individual transmissions from carriers to each relevant 
agency within one contracting state. Convention on International Civil 
Aviation, 61 Stat. 1180, 15 U.N.T.S. 295, Annex 9, SARP 9.1 (Chicago, 
1944) (Chicago Convention). The Chicago Convention is the international 
agreement which established the ICAO and ICAO standards and recommended 
practices (SARPs). In accordance with the ICAO SARPs covering advance 
passenger information (API), CBP is using APIS to collect data from 
carriers that can be provided to other agencies that require the 
information. This ensures that carriers are required to provide only 
one electronic API message to the U.S. government, which can be used to 
satisfy the needs of multiple government agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Nothing in the proposed rule is intended to change existing 
bilateral agreements between the United States and other entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICAO permits contracting states to establish rules that deviate 
from the SARPs, so long as the contracting state notifies ICAO of the 
deviation by filing a difference. Chicago Convention, art. 38. The 
United States currently files a difference with ICAO concerning Annex 
9, SARP 9.10, which requires contracting states to require as advanced 
passenger information only data elements that are available in machine 
readable form on accepted travel documents. The United States already 
files a difference under SARP 9.10 because CBP requires carriers to 
collect street address and country of residence, which are not 
available in machine readable form on accepted travel documents. See 19 
CFR 122.49a(b)(3). The additional data elements that DHS is now 
proposing (primary phone number with country code, alternative phone 
number with country code, and email address) similarly are not 
available in machine readable form on accepted travel documents. 
Therefore, the United States would need to amend the difference that is 
already on file with ICAO to include the additional data requirements 
under the proposed regulations.

C. Changes Conforming Regulations With Current Practices

1. Close-Out Message
    Carriers must submit passenger manifest information to CBP upon the 
aircraft's departure or arrival. Pursuant to existing regulatory 
requirements, carriers may use an interactive transmission option to 
transmit a ``close-out message'' not later than 30 minutes after 
securing the aircraft. See 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) and 19 
CFR 122.75a(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (C). The close-out message includes a 
header (information about the carrier sending a secure link to CBP), 
flight information (flight number, departure time, estimated arrival 
time), and passenger manifest information. This option is described in 
19 CFR 122.49a(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) for arriving aircraft and section 
19 CFR 122.75a(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) for departing aircraft. The current 
regulations permit the carrier to select one of two ways to format the 
close-out messages. Under the first option, the carrier can transmit a 
message for any passengers who checked in but who were not onboard the 
flight. Under the second option, the carrier can transmit a message for 
all passengers who boarded the flight.
    CBP proposes to amend 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) and 19 
CFR 122.75a(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) to eliminate the option to transmit 
messages for any passengers who checked in but who were not onboard the 
flight. Carriers subject to these provisions would be required to 
transmit a close-out message that identifies all passengers onboard the 
flight.
    Allowing carriers to transmit a message identifying passengers who 
checked in but were not onboard the flight has impeded CBP's efforts to 
document who was actually on board a flight. Under the current 
regulations, a carrier could submit a close-out message that only 
identifies individuals who checked in but did not board the flight. 
This allows for instances where an individual reserves a flight, the 
carrier transmits APIS data that includes this individual to CBP, then 
the individual cancels before checking in. A carrier that transmits a 
close-out message identifying only individuals that checked in but did 
not board would not indicate that this passenger also did not board 
because the passenger never checked in. CBP would then consider that 
the individual described above was onboard the flight. Because of this 
discrepancy, carriers have ceased transmitting close-out messages that 
transmit a message only identifying those individuals who checked in 
but who were not onboard the flight. Instead, it is common practice for 
carriers to transmit a message identifying only those individuals who 
boarded the flight. CBP proposes to amend the regulations to reflect 
the current practice.
2. U.S. Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and 
Transport (U.S. EDIFACT) Format
    19 CFR 122.49a(b)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 122.75a(b)(1)(i) state that a 
passenger manifest must be transmitted separately from a crew member 
manifest if the transmission is in U.S. EDIFACT format. CBP proposes to 
eliminate the references to U.S. EDIFACT.
    In March 2003, the World Customs Organization adopted the U.N. 
EDIFACT format as the global standard for advance passenger information 
messaging. As a result, when CBP published the final rule requiring the 
transmission of passenger manifest information through APIS, CBP 
announced that U.N. EDIFACT would be the mandatory format 180 days 
after the publication of the final rule. See 70 FR 17831 (Apr. 7, 
2005). Because U.N. EDIFACT is now the mandatory format for APIS 
transmissions, the references to U.S. EDIFACT in 19 CFR 122.49a and 
122.75a are no longer necessary and would be removed.
3. 2005 Exception
    19 CFR 122.49a(b)(3) lists the data elements that must be 
transmitted in the arrival manifest. 19 CFR 122.75a(b)(3) lists the 
data elements that must be transmitted in the departure manifest. Both 
sections state that certain information is not required until after 
October 4, 2005. As this exception no longer applies, the language is 
no longer necessary and would be removed.
4. DHS-Approved Travel Document
    In accordance with section 7209 of the IRTPA, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security is authorized to require passengers entering the 
United States from the Western Hemisphere to present a passport or 
other documents that the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined 
to be sufficient to denote identity and citizenship. See Public Law 
108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (Dec. 17, 2004). In order to reflect the 
inclusion of travel documents, in addition to passports, which are 
approved for travel to or from the United States in certain situations, 
CBP proposes to amend 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(3) and 122.75a(b)(3) to replace 
the references to ``passport'' with ``DHS-approved travel document.'' 
As stated above, ``DHS-approved travel document'' would be defined as a 
travel

[[Page 7022]]

document approved by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for 
travel in or out of the United States, such as a passport, or other 
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) approved document.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For more information on WHTI, see 73 FR 18383 (Apr. 3, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(3) and 122.75a(b)(3) list the data 
elements that must be included in the passenger manifest and require a 
carrier to submit each passenger's travel document type (e.g., 
passport), passport number, passport country of issuance, and passport 
expiration date (if a passport is required). Under the proposed 
amendments, carriers would instead be required to transmit the DHS-
approved travel document type, DHS-approved travel document number, 
DHS-approved travel document country of issuance, and DHS-approved 
travel document expiration date.

D. Optional Additional Data Element: Aircraft Registration Number

    As discussed above, carriers that use an interactive transmission 
option must transmit the close-out message not later than 30 minutes 
after securing the aircraft. See 19 CFR 122.49a(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) 
and 19 CFR 122.75a(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (C). CBP proposes to permit 
carriers that use an interactive electronic transmission system to 
include the aircraft's registration number in the close-out message.
    The change is proposed as part of CBP's efforts to automate the 
General Declaration (CBP Form 7507). The General Declaration is a paper 
form submitted by owners or operators of commercial aircraft to CBP at 
the time of an aircraft's departure from or arrival to the United 
States. The General Declaration includes information on the arrival and 
departure of aircraft entering or departing the United States, the 
flight itinerary, and passenger and crew information. One of the 
required data elements of the CBP Form 7507 is the aircraft's 
registration number. This data element is not collected through any 
other means and is critical to CBP operations. If CBP automates CBP 
Form 7507 through a subsequent rulemaking, it is likely that 
transmission through APIS would be one option for a carrier to continue 
transmitting the aircraft registration number to CBP. Unless and until 
the existing regulatory requirements change regarding submission of 
Form 7507, carriers that transmit the aircraft's registration number in 
APIS will still need to submit the General Declaration.

VI. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated as a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed 
this regulation.
Purpose of Rule
    Entry into the United States by U.S. citizens and foreign travelers 
via air travel requires certain travel documents containing 
biographical information, such as a passenger's name and date of birth. 
As a security measure, CBP compares the information on passengers' 
documents to various databases and the terrorist watch list and 
recommends that air carriers deny boarding to those who are likely to 
be deemed inadmissible upon arrival in the United States. However, 
current processes for advising carriers regarding passengers who may be 
presenting fraudulent travel documents would be improved through CBP 
providing electronic messages to carriers indicating if the false 
information on their documents does not match the information in CBP 
databases. This proposed rule would allow CBP to add a document 
validation message to the electronic messages currently exchanged 
between air carriers and CBP prior to departure to the United States 
from a foreign port or place or departure from the United States. The 
addition of the proposed electronic validation of travel documents and 
response messaging to carriers to the pre-boarding vetting process 
would allow CBP and carriers to more efficiently identify and prevent 
those passengers with fraudulent or improper documents from traveling 
to the United States. The proposed rule would also reduce the number of 
errors in CBP records that must be corrected by CBP officers during 
inspections.
    The proposed rule also would require carriers to transmit 
additional passenger information to CBP, including phone number with 
country code, alternative phone number with country code, email 
address, and address while in the United States. The carrier would be 
required to transmit an address in the United States for all 
passengers, except for passengers who are in transit to a location 
outside of the United States. Submission of such information would 
enable CBP to identify and interdict more quickly individuals posing a 
risk to border, national, and aviation safety and security. Collecting 
these additional data elements would also enable CBP to further assist 
CDC to monitor and trace the contacts of those involved in serious 
public health incidents, when CDC requests such assistance from CBP.
    Finally, the proposed rule would give carriers the option to 
include the aircraft registration number in their electronic messages 
to CBP and would make technical changes to conform with current 
practice.
Background
    United States citizens traveling outside the United States require 
a passport or other WHTI-approved travel document to re-enter the 
United States. Foreign travelers coming to the United States by air 
must possess either a visa or approval under the Electronic System for 
Travel Authorization (ESTA), in addition to other appropriate travel 
documentation, such as a foreign passport, to be presented to CBP for 
inspection when required.\18\ Though a visa or ESTA approval is not 
required to purchase a ticket, it is required to check in for a flight. 
When a traveler arrives at an airport for a flight, the carrier is 
required to check the ticket and travel documents to confirm the 
document appears to be valid for travel to the United States, and the 
passenger is the person to whom the travel document was issued. Current 
regulations also require air carriers to submit information 
electronically for each individual traveling or intending to travel to 
or from the United States, including passengers, crew, and non-crew. 
The required information is different for flights departing from and 
arriving in the United States, but generally includes biographical 
information, such as a passenger's name, date of birth, sex, status on 
the

[[Page 7023]]

aircraft, passport type and number, country of issuance, expiration 
date, and departure or arrival details. CBP checks these details 
against various databases and the terrorist watch list and sends a 
response in the form of numbers and letters to the carrier, indicating 
whether the passengers are cleared to board or if CBP recommends they 
not be boarded.\19\ Under this proposed regulation, as part of the 
Document Validation Program (DVP) and in addition to current checks, 
CBP would also include in the response message to carriers a character 
that indicates whether a passenger's travel documents are validated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Approved ESTA applications (ESTAs) are required of 
travelers who are traveling by air or sea to the U.S. under the Visa 
Waiver Program. Most citizens and nationals from visa waiver 
countries do not require a visa to travel to the United States for a 
period not exceeding 90 days; instead, they may apply for an ESTA 
approval, which is valid for two years or until their passport 
expires. ESTA holders are not required to provide a physical copy of 
a document. Rather, DHS can communicate their status to air 
carriers. See https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/ for more information on the 
ESTA program.
    \19\ As discussed in footnote 14 above, CBP cannot require that 
a passenger be denied boarding. However, if an air carrier boards a 
passenger who is then denied entry to the United States, the air 
carrier may have to pay a penalty and bear the costs of transporting 
that passenger out of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carriers submit required electronic manifest information to CBP 
through APIS. Most large, commercial operators use a CBP-certified 
interactive system capable of transmitting and receiving messages to or 
from APIS electronically. Beginning 72 hours before the departure time, 
carriers may submit individual records or batches of passenger 
information through APIS acquired during ticket reservation for 
validation. Carriers must submit all non-interactive and interactive 
batch transmission information at least 30 minutes prior to securing 
the aircraft doors, and all interactive individual passenger 
information transmission messages up to the time of securing the 
aircraft doors. Passenger information is automatically vetted against 
CBP databases and the terrorist watch list. CBP transmits vetting 
results back to the carrier in batches or through individual 
interactive messages, with one vetting response for each name uniquely 
identified in the transmission. During check-in, carriers may submit 
passenger information through APIS Quick Query in up to 10-person 
batches, with responses coming within 4 seconds. The Quick Query mode 
is often used to send updates for passengers whose information has 
already been submitted or for last minute ticket reservations. APIS 
Quick Query allows passengers to print their boarding passes at home or 
at an airport kiosk without consulting a gate agent.
    Smaller carriers and charter carriers usually use a non-
interactive, web-based portal called eAPIS to send uploaded manifest 
information through APIS for validation. Smaller carriers usually use 
eAPIS to avoid the costs of setting up and maintaining an interactive 
system. Many of these carriers fly infrequently and with small 
passenger counts. Those using eAPIS must submit information to CBP via 
the internet at least 30 minutes prior to securing the aircraft doors 
and will receive messages back electronically, usually through email. 
The response message contains vetting results and states whether the 
carrier should continue with printing boarding passes or boarding 
passengers. Because charters and small carriers generally have smaller 
passenger lists and fly less frequently, they do not require the same 
processing speeds enabled by an interactive system.
    With APIS, carriers receive a response message from CBP noting 
whether individuals are cleared to board, require additional security 
screening, or are recommended to be denied boarding based on checks 
against law enforcement databases. With eAPIS, carriers receive a 
single response message for the entire manifest, in the form of an 
email, stating whether the entire flight is cleared or not. In the 
event a flight is not cleared, additional processes will be developed 
such as the carrier logging back in to their eAPIS account for greater 
details on which passengers are not cleared and how they may resolve 
the issue.\20\ The proposed rule requires carriers to receive 
additional data in the response message(s) they receive from CBP 
indicating whether each passenger's travel documents have been 
validated. Travel documents would be defined as any document or 
electronic record presented for travel to the United States, including 
DHS-approved travel documents, U.S.-issued visas, Electronic System for 
Travel Authorization (ESTA) approvals, and Electronic Visa Update 
System (EVUS) enrollments.\21\ Passengers cleared by CBP whose 
documents are validated may be issued a boarding pass automatically, 
online or at an airport kiosk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ No smaller carriers using the eAPIS system are currently 
enrolled in the voluntary DVP. This system and protocols will be 
developed as those carriers implement the program.
    \21\ Chinese nationals holding a 10-year B1, B2, or B1/B2 visa 
must enroll in EVUS. See https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/electronic-visa-update-system-evus/frequently-asked-questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the addition of document validation to pre-flight APIS 
transmissions via the voluntary DVP, discussed in more detail below, 
carriers follow the same information collection and submission 
procedures as established in existing regulations and discussed above. 
When the travel document information gets to CBP, it undergoes an 
additional database check to validate the travel documents. The results 
of that additional check are returned to the carriers in the form of a 
character in the APIS response message they already receive. Carriers 
participating in DVP receive the same message as those not yet 
participating, but with the addition of the DVP-specific character 
indicating whether documents were validated against the CBP database. 
Any carrier not enrolled in the DVP would, under existing regulation, 
not receive the document validation part of the response message 
through APIS. In that case, the validity of documents is not confirmed 
via a CBP database check and would not affect whether the passenger or 
flight is cleared. Under the terms of the proposed rule, all commercial 
carriers transporting passengers must participate in document 
validation program, and CBP will work with carriers to implement 
changes to receive DVP response messages from CBP.
    The response message from CBP includes characters indicating a 
passenger's status. Passenger information sent by commercial carriers 
is checked against various databases and the terrorist watch list, and 
the results are submitted to the carrier in the form of alphanumeric 
codes. For TSA information, numerical characters indicate statuses like 
cleared or selectee for further review, among others. Under current 
regulations, CBP includes a letter indicating the passenger's travel 
status. With the DVP, CBP can indicate particular document validation 
errors, such as valid ESTA on file, ESTA denial, no U.S. travel 
documents on file, or that CBP recommends the carrier not board the 
passenger. Some of these codes have been in use since interactive APIS 
was deployed, though CBP introduced new letters to accommodate the DVP.
    Under current regulations and practices, errors can occur when a 
passenger submits their information to the carrier. This often happens 
when documents are damaged, smudged, or scanned incorrectly. Minor 
errors like a misspelled name or incorrectly recorded passport number 
may be fixed by the passenger. More egregious errors or errors a 
passenger cannot correct themselves would require the assistance of a 
carrier employee to complete the check-in process, or the need to 
contact CBP for assistance if unable to resolve the issue. In some 
instances, though, errors like a misspelled name remain in the APIS 
record during travel and would be corrected upon arrival. Under the DVP 
and the proposed rule, these simple errors may cause legitimate travel 
documents to not be validated.

[[Page 7024]]

Such errors would, without DVP, either require intervention by a 
carrier employee or be missed and only noted and corrected upon 
arrival. In some instances, failure to validate indicates intentional 
deception or fraud.
    Often, a passenger traveling with a carrier participating in DVP 
whose documents are not validated when initially submitted as part of 
the check-in process can quickly identify an error like an incorrect 
birthdate while they are still online or at an airport kiosk attempting 
to check-in for a flight. They are then able to correct that 
information manually, by re-scanning the document or manually entering 
the data, and resubmitting. The documents will then be validated and 
the passenger may print their boarding pass without assistance from a 
carrier employee. However, if, after the information is submitted and 
the passenger has attempted any necessary corrections, a passenger's 
documents are still not validated, they may seek assistance from 
carrier staff to complete check-in. In the event the carrier employee 
is unable to validate the document by re-submitting the information or 
performing a manual check, they would need to work with CBP and the 
passenger to resolve the issue.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ If a gate agent is unable to resolve a passenger issue, for 
example by manually checking for a visa, the gate agent may call CBP 
for assistance. CBP provides support to carriers via the Immigration 
Advisory Program and the Regional Carrier Liaison Group. See https://www.cbp.gov/document/fact-sheets/immigration-advisory-program-iap 
and https://www.cbp.gov/travel/travel-industry-personnel/carrier-liaison-prog for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before calling CBP, an agent for a DVP-enrolled carrier may re-
submit the information in order to correct any entry errors or account 
for changes that have occurred since the document was issued. 
Passengers with multiple travel documents may be more likely to require 
assistance. This can occur, for example, if a dual citizen uses one 
passport to reserve his or her ticket and the other to check-in to the 
flight. Some passengers from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries who 
under other circumstances would not require a visa, must travel with a 
visa if, for instance, they are staying in the United States for longer 
than 90 days or attending an American university and may require 
additional help resubmitting information to validate those documents. 
Though document validation automatically checks for a visa for a VWP 
passenger without an ESTA approval, carrier agents may need to check 
for a visa manually. Additionally, those passengers with multiple 
travel documents may re-submit their information, adding their second 
document, for validation. If a passenger's documents are still not 
validated, the carrier must contact CBP for resolution.
    Carriers both enrolled and not enrolled in DVP and using the 
interactive system receive validation messages almost in real time or 
in batches of multiple passengers, which indicate whether CBP cleared 
each passenger. DVP-enrolled carriers also receive a message indicating 
whether CBP has validated their travel documents. All carriers using 
the non-interactive system receive a single response message for the 
entire manifest, in the form of an email, indicating whether the entire 
flight is cleared or not. If the flight is not cleared, the carrier may 
log in to their eAPIS account for greater detail to determine which 
passenger or passengers are at issue. Those enrolled in DVP will also 
receive validation information in their response messages. To resolve 
any issues they cannot resolve themselves, carriers must contact CBP 
regardless of DVP enrollment status.
    Error in the APIS record regarding traveler documentation not 
identified and resolved by carriers before departure are generally 
identified and corrected by CBP Officers (CBPOs) during inspection once 
the passenger has arrived at a United States port of entry. CBPOs 
compare document information against APIS data and modify the APIS 
record to reflect the correct information when errors are identified. 
Adding document validation to the pre-departure APIS system checks 
would reduce the number of errors CBPOs would encounter and need to 
correct during inspections as passengers have a better opportunity to 
identify and resolve these errors themselves.
    CBP began the voluntary DVP to test document validation in 2013. 
Because carriers were already required to submit information to APIS 
beginning in 2005,\23\ the infrastructure to send and receive messages 
was already in place. Most large, commercial carriers have already 
incurred the cost of setting up an interactive system for communicating 
with APIS to comply with other regulations. Smaller carriers and 
charter carriers submit their information to CBP through eAPIS. This 
web portal allows information to be transmitted over the internet once 
the user has established an account. CBP does not believe that any 
carriers would choose to switch from eAPIS to APIS as a result of this 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ``Advance 
Passenger Information System Fact Sheet,'' November 12, 2013, 
https://www.cbp.gov/document/fact-sheets/advance-passenger-information-system-fact-sheet. Accessed August 26, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the following sections, CBP provides a full accounting of the 
costs and benefits of the proposed rule, including during the 
regulatory period from 2022-2026, and the voluntary DVP period from 
2013-2021.
Costs of the Rule
Technology Costs
    To comply with this proposed rule, carriers would be required to 
ensure their systems can both transmit and receive messages. Because 
carriers already must use a CBP-certified system to connect to APIS, 
and any system already certified by CBP is able to receive messages, 
they face minimal or no costs to be able to receive the document 
validation message required by the proposed rule or to submit 
additional passenger information.\24\ Because carriers participating in 
the voluntary DVP already have the systems in place to send passenger 
information and receive CBP response codes, they require no new 
technology. Carriers would not face additional technology maintenance 
costs to comply with this proposed rule. CBP does not anticipate that 
this proposed rule would cause any more carriers to switch to and bear 
the costs of adopting an interactive system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ CBP bases this assumption on discussions between Office of 
Field Operations personnel and participating carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBP has already configured its system to check travel document 
information automatically against CBP databases, as well as to send and 
receive the appropriate messages. Development of the document 
validation system occurred in 2012 and 2013 and is discussed in detail 
in the Voluntary Period section below. The database of travel documents 
used in document validation was already built for use in other CBP 
programs. In the years since 2013, the DVP has cost CBP approximately 
$500,000 per year for ongoing technological maintenance.\25\ CBP has 
already established a channel of communication with other agencies, 
including the CDC, and would not need to make any updates in order to 
collect and share, when appropriate, additional passenger biographical 
information. Therefore, technology costs for the proposed rule would 
include $500,000 per year in maintenance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations on Jan. 6, 2022.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7025]]

Time Costs To Resolve Errors
    Under the current regulations, air carriers submit passenger data 
to CBP between 72 hours and 30 minutes before departure, and no later 
than securing the aircraft doors for interactive individual 
submissions. CBP systems automatically perform checks between the data 
and information stored in CBP databases. CBP sends response messages to 
the carriers indicating whether CBP has cleared each passenger for 
boarding or requires additional screening, or recommends the air 
carrier deny boarding, although under existing regulations there is no 
document validation message included. Once the flight arrives, 
passengers must go through CBP inspection where a CBPO checks their 
travel documents against APIS manifest information. Errors in the 
manifest data, such as misspellings or incorrect date information, are 
corrected at this time.
    By adding document validation to the checks CBP already runs on 
passenger information, many of the errors corrected by a CBPO during 
inspection upon arrival could be corrected by the passenger during the 
check-in process. For example, should the date of birth read 
incorrectly when a passenger scans their document pre-flight with their 
phone or at an airport kiosk, the document may not be validated and the 
passenger will receive an error message.\26\ The passenger may review 
their data, correct the mistake, and resubmit their information. The 
document would then be validated and the passenger could automatically 
print the boarding pass. Without the DVP, the error might require the 
passenger to seek assistance from carrier employees or may not be 
caught before the boarding pass is printed, but would then be noticed 
by the CBPO, who would correct the APIS record during inspection after 
the flight arrives in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The passenger does not see the response message from CBP. 
Instead, the passenger sees whatever error message the individual 
carrier uses in its system. That message is based upon the response 
from CBP. Such an error might direct the passenger to review the 
passenger's data and try submitting again or, in the case of a more 
egregious issue such as a recommendation not to board the passenger, 
might direct the passenger to seek assistance from a carrier 
employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some errors require the passenger to seek assistance and the 
carrier agent to call CBP to resolve an issue, though such calls are 
rare. Under DVP, passengers would correct the majority of errors either 
online or at an airport kiosk during check-in. These corrections would 
lead to an increase in the time spent by these passengers during check-
in. CBP estimates that passengers needing to correct personal 
information average about 10 seconds in making the correction. Because 
they no longer spend about 20 seconds waiting for a CBPO to make the 
correction (discussed further in the Benefits of the Rule section 
below), this represents a partial burden transfer. Although passengers 
would spend an additional 10 seconds pre-flight to correct the error, 
they then save 20 seconds during processing. By allowing passengers to 
make their own corrections online or at a kiosk, the overall check-in 
process would be more efficient. Enabling passengers to correct errors 
themselves, whether it be a spelling mistake or the submission of the 
wrong document, allows them to continue using an automated check-in 
process rather than seeking assistance with manual validation. This 
would reduce time spent waiting in line for help, as well as the number 
of instances where carrier employees must manually validate documents 
or seek CBP assistance if they cannot resolve the error in some way. 
For example, a passenger traveling from a VWP country who does not have 
an ESTA but does have a valid visa would, without DVP, require 
assistance from carrier personnel because the system would not find an 
ESTA upon initial submission of passenger information. With DVP, the 
system automatically checks for a visa if an ESTA is not found, so the 
passenger could continue using the automated check-in process and would 
not require assistance. Air carriers participating in the DVP 
voluntarily have reported increased efficiency pre-flight.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Source: discussion with the Office of Field Operations on 
July 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For smaller carriers using the non-interactive, eAPIS system, the 
travel document error resolution process is similar to the interactive 
version. Carriers send in passenger data and receive a response 
message. Generally, the entire manifest is cleared, but should there be 
an issue, the carrier is notified via an email. The carrier may review 
the data to determine which passenger is at issue, then log back into 
their eAPIS account to re-submit corrected data. Should the problem not 
be resolvable by re-submitting corrected data, the carrier may call CBP 
for assistance in the same way as users of the interactive system. The 
vast majority of flights and passengers are processed through the 
interactive APIS system. Approximately 0.4 percent of passenger data is 
submitted via the non-interactive, eAPIS system.
    Some errors and corrections would require carriers to call into a 
CBP support center for assistance. For example, if a passenger has a 
visa that appears valid, but the CBP response indicated it was not, the 
carrier agent may call to verify if the visa has been revoked. In 
another scenario, if a passenger's visa has been washed to remove the 
ink and the data altered, the DVP system would fail to validate the 
document and the carrier might call CBP to manually verify the 
information they see on the document.\28\ These calls generally take no 
more than five minutes. CBP does not anticipate the number of calls for 
assistance to increase from pre-DVP levels, nor does CBP believe that 
either carriers or the support centers would need to increase staffing 
to accommodate additional calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In this instance, if the document had been improperly 
altered, the document would not be validated and the passenger would 
not receive a boarding pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carriers not participating in DVP currently sometimes call CBP to 
verfiy travel documents. Using the automated process can confirm that a 
document is valid, which can prevent additional calls. CBP does not 
collect information on the frequency of these calls or what issues each 
call addresses and so cannot estimate how many calls would be prevented 
if passengers or carrier agents catch and correct a greater number of 
data errors as a result of mandating the DVP.
    In total, CBP has already incurred technology costs described above 
in preparation for the proposed rule. Some passengers would experience 
an increased time burden during check-in in order to identify and 
correct errors in information submitted through APIS. CBP does not 
anticipate increased costs for air carriers as a result of the proposed 
rule.
Changes Conforming Regulations With Current Practices
    CBP is making several changes to conform the regulations to current 
practice in this proposed rule, as described in the SUMMARY section 
above. These changes are unlikely to result in increased costs to 
carriers, passengers or CBP. The changes, including updates to the 
requirements for close-out messages, removal of superfluous language 
from the regulations, and the replacement of ``passport'' with ``DHS-
approved travel document'' would simplify the regulations without 
imposing an additional burden on carriers, passengers, or CBP. Because 
carriers already send close-out messages, the change to the 
requirements would not result in additional programming costs,

[[Page 7026]]

technology investments, or an increased time burden for carrier 
personnel. It is common practice for carriers to transmit a message 
identifying only those individuals who boarded the flight. The other 
revisions reflect current practice or minor, clarifying changes.
Benefits of the Rule
To Passengers, Carriers, and CBP
    As error correction is moved from CBP inspection to the pre-
departure period, passengers and CBPOs would experience greater 
efficiency after flights have arrived in the United States. Because 
CBPOs would not need to re-run as much information or modify as many 
records, they would complete inspection of passengers more quickly, 
leading to shortened wait times for everyone. Because CBP has 
instituted a number of programs to reduce inspection wait times 
throughout the time that the voluntary DVP has been in place, it is 
impossible to estimate precisely the degree to which the DVP may have 
impacted overall wait times in the voluntary phase of the program. 
However, CBP believes it has contributed to faster overall processing.
    Approximately 135,747,880 commercial passengers arrived in the 
United States by air in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.\29\ Over the 5-year 
period from FY 2015 to FY 2019, arrivals in the United States grew at a 
compound annual growth rate of 3.8 percent.\30\ Over the 5-year period 
of analysis from FY 2022 to FY 2026, CBP projects that 820,115,824 
commercial air passengers will arrive in the United States, assuming a 
continued growth rate of 3.84 percent per year. Under the terms of 
proposed rule, all arriving commercial air passengers would be subject 
to the DVP, rather than the 67 percent of commercial air passengers 
covered as of 2021 in the voluntary program. See Table 1 for historical 
passenger arrival data and Table 2 future projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant decrease in 
passenger arrivals in both 2020 and 2021, so those years are 
excluded from calculations as highly anomalous. CBP also cannot 
predict when or if passenger arrivals might return to pre-2020 
trends, so we have used data from 2015-2019 as a basis for passenger 
number projections.
    \30\ CBP is aware that the COVID-19 pandemic will likely reduce 
the volume of arriving travelers in the short run. Consequently, 
using historical growth rates and figures from FY 2015 to FY 2019 to 
estimate arriving passenger volumes for FY 2021 through FY 2025 will 
not reflect any impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not clear 
what level of reductions the pandemic will have on arriving 
passenger volumes or how CBP would estimate such an impact with any 
precision given available data. Therefore, the arriving passenger 
projections that CBP uses in this analysis may be overestimations 
for the period of analysis, resulting in potential overestimations 
of this proposed rule's costs and benefits.

Table 1--Historic Commercial Air Passenger Arrivals From FY 2015-FY 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Arriving
                       Fiscal year                          passengers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015....................................................     112,505,410
2016....................................................     119,253,895
2017....................................................     124,262,060
2018....................................................     130,833,520
2019....................................................     135,747,880
                                                         ---------------
  Total.................................................     622,602,765
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates may not sum to total due to rounding.


  Table 2--Projected Commercial Air Passenger Arrivals From FY 2022-FY
                                  2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Arriving
                       Fiscal year                          passengers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022....................................................     151,938,854
2023....................................................     157,754,144
2024....................................................     163,792,007
2025....................................................     170,060,963
2026....................................................     176,569,857
                                                         ---------------
  Total.................................................     820,115,824
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates may not sum to total due to rounding.

    Common errors corrected by CBPOs during inspections that would be 
corrected pre-flight with the DVP in place include a passenger's 
misspelled last name, incorrect date of birth, and incorrect document 
number. Based on a sampling of more than three million commercial 
passengers arriving in FY 2019, CBP estimates that 7.5 percent of 
passengers require a simple correction to their APIS record upon 
arrival at CBP inspection.\31\ Of those 7.5 percent of passengers that 
require a simple correction, CBP estimates based on its experience with 
the voluntary program that initially 50 percent would be corrected pre-
flight under the proposed rule, meaning that neither the passenger nor 
the CBPO would need to expend time in making corrections during CBP 
inspection. This would save each party about 20 seconds (0.0056 hours) 
per inspection. Note that the passenger would have spent about 10 
seconds making the correction before the flight during the check-in 
process and, on average, would see a net time savings of about 10 
seconds. The remaining 50 percent would continue to be resolved upon 
arrival when the CBPO processes the traveler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Source: email correspondence with the Office of Field 
Operations on August 11, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the 5-year period of analysis, approximately 820,115,824 
commercial passengers are projected to arrive in the United States by 
air. Under the baseline, approximately 67 percent of those passengers 
would arrive via carriers participating in the voluntary DVP as of 
2021. Under the terms of the proposed rule, the remaining 33 percent of 
passengers would arrive on carriers newly required to join the DVP. We 
estimate that those passengers would experience 20,269,456 errors over 
5 years. Under the proposed rule, about 50 percent, or 10,134,728 of 
those errors would be corrected pre-flight, saving CBPOs and air 
passengers $6,181,058. This benefit estimate is based on a wage rate of 
$86.23 for CBPOs and $47.10 for air passengers, resulting in a combined 
wage rate of $133.33.\32\ See Table 3 for a summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Because both passengers and CBPOs would save time under the 
proposed rule, this wage rate encompasses both the wage rate of a 
CBPO ($86.23) and the wage rate for an all-purpose air traveler 
($47.10). CBP bases this wage on the FY 2021 salary and benefits of 
the national average of CBP Officer Positions, which is equal to a 
GS-11, Step 9. Source: Email correspondence with CBP's Office of 
Finance on September 7, 2021. Source for the passenger wage rate: 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Policy. 
The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for 
Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision 2 (2016 Update), ``Table 4 
(Revision 2--2016 Update): Recommended Hourly Values of Travel Time 
Savings for Intercity, All-Purpose Travel by Air and High-Speed 
Rail.'' September 27, 2016. Available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20Travel%20Time%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed 
June 12, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual time savings may also accumulate to create greater 
overall time savings for entire groups of arriving air passengers. If 
half of all passengers with a data error save 20 seconds each during 
CBP inspection, the passengers waiting behind them for inspection would 
also benefit from the effects of that 20 seconds saved per passenger. 
CBP cannot reliably estimate the net impact of this time savings, 
because those passengers with errors to be corrected would be, in any 
given group, randomly dispersed among all the passengers. However, CBP 
does believe the proposed rule would result in additional time savings 
to passengers overall as individual time savings allow groups to move 
more quickly through CBP inspection.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ This analysis is performed from a global perspective and 
includes individuals who travel to the United States. Not all 
individuals benefiting from the proposed rule are U.S. citizens or 
permanent residents.

[[Page 7027]]



                      Table 3--Summary of Benefits for Commercial Air Passengers and CBPOs
                                        [Undiscounted 2021 U.S. dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Arriving
         Fiscal year             passengers    Errors avoided  Time per error    Time per error      Benefits
                               newly affected                    (hrs, CBP)     (hrs, Passenger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022.........................      50,139,822       1,877,612          0.0056             0.0028      $1,145,134
2023.........................      52,058,867       1,949,475          0.0056             0.0028       1,188,963
2024.........................      54,051,362       2,024,089          0.0056             0.0028       1,234,469
2025.........................      56,120,118       2,101,559          0.0056             0.0028       1,281,717
2026.........................      58,268,053       2,181,994          0.0056             0.0028       1,330,774
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................     270,638,222      10,134,728  ..............  .................       6,181,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates may not sum to total due to rounding.

    In addition to time savings from correcting errors earlier in the 
process, as a result of the proposed rule, fewer passengers would 
ultimately be denied entry upon arrival in the United States because 
their fraudulent or expired documents are discovered in CBP inspection, 
instead of before boarding. In FY 2022, carriers will incur penalties 
of $6,215.00 \34\ for each boarded passenger who was subsequently 
denied entry, though penalties are modified or reduced for those 
carriers who have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with CBP 
regarding their penalty mitigation practices. Carriers are eligible for 
mitigation based on their violation records and status with CBP. 
Mitigated amounts are generally 25 percent or 50 percent of the base 
penalty. In addition to the penalty, carriers are responsible for the 
costs of returning the passenger to their home country.\35\ With the 
DVP, some passengers with fraudulent or improper documents may be 
identified before boarding, in which case the carrier may deny 
boarding, saving the air carrier both the cost of the penalty and the 
cost of securing and transporting the passenger out of the United 
States, which amounts to about $10,000 for a single passenger.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Penalties are indexed to inflation. See Department of 
Homeland Security, Final Rule, ``Civil and Monetary Adjustments for 
Inflation,'' 87 FR 1317 (January 11, 2022).
    \35\ See 8 U.S.C. 1231(c)-(e).
    \36\ Source: discussions with the Office of Field Operations on 
July 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of penalties that would be issued to air carriers for 
improperly transporting some passengers is difficult or close to 
impossible to predict. The average number of penalties issued annually 
between 2015 and 2019 was 415.\37\ CBP cannot project the number of 
penalties that might be incurred over the coming years, but CBP's 
subject matter experts estimate that roughly 20 percent of penalties 
could be avoided due to the DVP.\38\ Based on this rough estimate, 
carriers would avoid $515,845 in penalty costs (2022 U.S. Dollars) per 
year as well as the costs to transport those individuals back to their 
home countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ As with passenger arrivals, the number of penalties per 
year was significantly affected by the flight cancellations and 
travel restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Therefore, CBP has used penalty counts from 2015-2019. Data provided 
by CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings.
    \38\ Source: discussions with the Office of Field Operations on 
July 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits and Costs Not Estimated in This Analysis
    CBP is unable to estimate some costs and benefits to carriers. For 
example, while air carriers already have a CBP-certified system to send 
and receive pre-flight messages, some air carriers may need to make 
programming improvements to handle the messages required by the 
proposed rule, though no participating carriers report burdensome 
programming costs. Therefore, these programming costs are expected to 
be minor and are generally built into overall technology maintenance 
budgets, making them impossible to separate. The potential benefits are 
equally difficult to estimate given variations in travel patterns, the 
impossibility of predicting when and how passengers may attempt to use 
fraudulent documents, and the fact that CBP has instituted several 
time-saving programs (such as Global Entry), which make separating out 
the time-savings from the DVP impossible.
    Mandating the DVP would promote greater efficiency during the CBP 
inspection process at ports of entry as fewer passengers would require 
corrections to their information, which would lead to fewer missed 
flight connections and a better experience for all parties. Carriers 
enrolled in the voluntary DVP have also reported greater efficiency 
pre-flight. Additionally, by further enabling carriers to prevent 
individuals with fraudulent documents from boarding planes to the 
United States, the proposed rule would increase U.S. national security 
and safety, in addition to saving the carriers the cost of returning 
passengers.
The Voluntary Period
    CBP began the voluntary DVP in 2013. Initially, a single carrier 
joined the program, representing about 1 percent of flights arriving in 
the U.S. that year. Over the next 8 years, 39 carriers joined the 
voluntary DVP.\39\ The 40 total carriers participating in 2021 include 
the largest U.S. and foreign carriers and cover approximately 67 
percent of flights. See Table 4 for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Source: Office of Field Operations records, received on 
December 15, 2021.

                  Table 4--History of the Voluntary DVP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Cumulative
                                                  Carriers    proportion
                     Year                          added      of flights
                                                                 (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013..........................................            1            1
2014..........................................            3           12
2015..........................................            2           24
2016 \40\.....................................           13           47
2017..........................................            6           59
2018..........................................            9           63
2019..........................................            3           65
2020..........................................            2           66
2021..........................................            1           67
                                               -------------------------
  Total.......................................           40           67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carriers participating in the voluntary DVP, the passengers on the 
flights offered by participants, and CBP all experienced costs and 
benefits during the voluntary period from 2013 to 2021. Though there 
are no fees to enroll in the voluntary DVP and no carrier was required 
to do so during the voluntary period, carriers may have experienced 
minor programming costs to ensure they

[[Page 7028]]

were able to receive the additional codes included in CBP response 
messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In 2016 and 2018, participating carriers merged, such that 
the number of participants was reduced by one, although passengers 
of those carriers were still covered by DVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Passengers faced no additional net costs as a result of the 
voluntary DVP. Some passengers would likely have faced additional time 
costs to resolve errors in the pre-flight check-in process, but those 
costs would have been outweighed by faster processing after the flight. 
See Time Costs to Resolve Errors, above, for more detail.
    CBP incurred programing and IT development costs in 2012 and 2013, 
and maintenance costs throughout the voluntary period. The DVP's main 
IT development took place from 2012 to 2013 in preparation for the 
voluntary DVP. However, the development of the technical infrastructure 
for the program was a part of a larger series of IT improvements and 
integration during those years which connected CBP systems with TSA 
Secure Flight systems, upgraded existing database technology, and 
improved data integration, response time, and coordination between the 
systems. The entire program cost $12,893,000 over the two-year period, 
including initial development costs of $7,493,000 and maintenance costs 
of $2,700,000 per year for the two years.\41\ However, CBP works to 
efficiently add technological changes that can support multiple 
efforts, saving costs for both government and industry, so it is 
challenging to appropriately allocate these costs among programs. Many 
of the IT upgrades would have been undertaken without the inclusion of 
the DVP and the current technological backbone behind the DVP also 
serves other programs, specifically, TSA's Secure Flight, as well as 
the CBP ESTA and EVUS programs. Additionally, because these IT costs 
cannot be recovered by not pursuing the proposed rule, CBP considers 
them a sunk cost. See Table 5 for a summary of IT development costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Source of IT cost information and timing: CBP's Office of 
Information and Technology on December 16, 2021.

                       Table 5--IT Development Costs for the DVP and Other IT Improvements
                                               [2021 U.S. dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Development     Maintenance
                              Year                                     cost            cost         Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012............................................................      $5,887,000      $2,700,000      $8,587,000
2013............................................................       1,606,000       2,700,000       4,306,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       7,493,000       5,400,000      12,893,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All three parties did benefit from participation in the DVP as 
well, saving time during pre-flight check-in and post-flight 
processing. These costs and benefits all accrued during the voluntary 
period and cannot be recovered should the proposed rule not move 
forward. Therefore, these costs and benefits are excluded from the 
overall costs of the proposed rule during the regulatory period. See 
Table 6 for a quantification of the benefits during the voluntary 
period. Costs and benefits are based on a time savings of 20 seconds 
and a wage rate of $86.23 for CBPOs and a time savings of 10 seconds 
(net) and a wage rate of $47.10 for commercial air passengers, as well 
as an error correction rate of 50 percent for 7.5 percent of passengers 
requiring them, all discussed in more detail above.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ CBP bases this wage on the FY 2021 salary and benefits of 
the national average of CBP Officer Positions, which is equal to a 
GS-11, Step 9. Source: Email correspondence with CBP's Office of 
Finance on September 7, 2021. Source for the passenger wage rate: 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Policy. 
The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for 
Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision 2 (2016 Update), ``Table 4 
(Revision 2--2016 Update): Recommended Hourly Values of Travel Time 
Savings for Intercity, All-Purpose Travel by Air and High-Speed 
Rail.'' September 27, 2016. Available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov./files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20Travel%20Time%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed 
June 12, 2020.

                                  Table 6--Benefits During the Voluntary Period
                                               [2021 U.S. dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Arriving                      Errors (7.5% x
          Fiscal year            commercial air    Passengers in        DVP        Avoided (50%   Benefit (CBP +
                                   passengers         the DVP       passengers)     of  errors)     passengers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013..........................       102,221,415       1,022,214          76,559          38,279         $23,346
2014..........................       107,048,937      12,845,872         962,092         481,046         293,385
2015..........................       112,505,410      27,001,298       2,022,263       1,011,131         616,678
2016..........................       119,253,895      56,049,331       4,197,816       2,098,908       1,280,101
2017..........................       124,262,060      73,314,615       5,490,900       2,745,450       1,674,419
2018..........................       130,833,520      82,425,118       6,173,231       3,086,616       1,882,493
2019..........................       135,747,880      88,236,122       6,608,447       3,304,223       2,015,209
2020..........................       140,943,478      93,022,696       6,966,937       3,483,469       2,124,529
2021..........................       146,337,933      98,046,415       7,343,189       3,671,594       2,239,265
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................       972,816,595     433,917,266      32,498,244      16,249,122      12,149,424
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the years of the voluntary period following IT development in 
2012, CBP estimates that the DVP cost approximately $500,000 per year 
in ongoing technical operation and maintenance costs.\43\ See Table 7 
for a summary of the net benefits of the voluntary period.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Source: CBP's Office of Field Operations on January 6, 
2022.
    \44\ CBP does not include the development costs identified in 
Table 5, above, because CBP is unable to isolate the costs CBP 
incurred solely for DVP from all of the IT upgrades made at the same 
time.

[[Page 7029]]



                                Table 7--Net Benefits During the Voluntary Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                    Benefit          Cost         Net benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013............................................................         $23,346        $500,000       -$476,654
2014............................................................         293,385         500,000        -206,615
2015............................................................         616,678         500,000         116,678
2016............................................................       1,280,101         500,000         780,101
2017............................................................       1,674,419         500,000       1,174,419
2018............................................................       1,882,493         500,000       1,382,493
2019............................................................       2,015,209         500,000       1,515,209
2020............................................................       2,124,529         500,000       1,624,529
2021............................................................       2,239,265         500,000       1,739,265
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      12,149,424       4,500,000       7,649,424
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Impact of the Rule
    The proposed rule would result in $6,181,058 in undiscounted gross 
benefits (i.e., cost savings) to air carriers, CBP, and passengers from 
FY 2022-2026. See Table 8 for a summary of these benefits. CBP 
estimates the undiscounted net benefits of the proposed rule to total 
$3,681,058 over a 5-year period, as CBPOs and air passengers save time 
and air carriers face fewer penalties and associated costs. The 
proposed rule therefore results in a net benefit ranging from 
$2,992,942 to $3,359,080 discounted at either seven or three percent. 
The annualized net benefit comes to approximately $730,000 using either 
rate.

                                          Table 8--Net Benefits Summary
                                        [Undiscounted 2021 U.S. dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total benefit  Total costs of
                           Fiscal year                                of rule          rule        Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022............................................................      $1,145,134        $500,000        $645,134
2023............................................................       1,188,963         500,000         688,963
2024............................................................       1,234,469         500,000         734,469
2025............................................................       1,281,717         500,000         781,717
2026............................................................       1,330,774         500,000         830,774
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       6,181,058       2,500,000       3,681,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates may not sum to total due to rounding.


                               Table 9--Net Present Value and Annualized Benefits
                                               [2021 U.S. dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    3% Discount rate                                         7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Present value benefit          Annualized benefit         Present value benefit        Annualized benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               $3,359,080                     $733,470                  $2,992,941                    $729,950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



       Table 10--OMB Circular A-4 Accounting Statement: Classification of Rule's Impacts, FY 2022-FY 2026
                                               [2021 U.S. dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% Discount rate                      7% Discount rate
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Present value        Annualized       Present value        Annualized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost:
    Monetized.......................         $2,289,854           $500,000         $2,050,099           $500,000
    Non-Monetized, but Quantified...  .................  .................  .................  .................
    Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified  .................  .................  .................  .................
Total Benefit:
    Monetized.......................          5,648,934          1,233,470          5,043,040          1,229,950
    Non-Monetized, but Quantified...  .................  .................  .................  .................
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified    Greater efficiency and passenger satisfaction in pre-boarding; improved
                                        national security; participant enthusiasm; fewer penalties for carriers
                                         following entry denial of a passenger; faster post-flight processing.
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Benefit:
    Monetized.......................          3,359,080            733,470          2,992,941            729,950
    Non-Monetized, but Quantified...  .................  .................  .................  .................
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7030]]

 
    Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified   Benefits: Greater efficiency and passenger satisfaction in pre-boarding;
                                        improved national security; participant enthusiasm; fewer penalties for
                                          carriers following entry denial of a passenger; faster post-flight
                                                                      processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates may not sum to total due to rounding.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, 
requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a 
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed 
rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to 
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule.
    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
small businesses or entities. All of the estimated costs are to the 
federal government instead of carriers. Although some small businesses, 
particularly smaller charter carriers, would be required to comply with 
the requirements of the proposed rule, the necessary systems are 
already in place because of other programs. CBP does not anticipate 
that these entities would need to upgrade their technology to comply 
with the proposed rule. Smaller carriers that currently transmit data 
through non-interactive submissions are currently also required to 
compare the travel document presented by the passenger with the 
information it is transmitting to CBP, in order to ensure that the 
information is correct, the document appears to be valid for travel to 
the United States, and the passenger is the person to whom the travel 
document was issued. The DVP will support small entities in meeting 
this requirement by providing a response message on whether the data 
submitted matches to a valid document or not. Charter carriers would 
also likely benefit from increased efficiency for their customers 
moving through CBP inspection. CBP thus certifies that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collections of information in this document will be submitted 
for OMB review in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1651-0088. An 
agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless the collection of information displays 
a valid control number assigned by OMB. The collections of information 
for this rulemaking are included in an existing collection for the 
automated information collection system, APIS, under the OMB control 
number 1651-0088.
    This proposed rule would, among other things, require commercial 
air carriers to transmit additional data elements to CBP before 
departure of flights bound for the United States. These elements 
include a passenger's phone number with country code, alternative phone 
number with country code, email address, and address while in the 
United States. Because the passenger generally provides most of these 
data elements when booking a ticket for air travel and the carrier then 
forwards this information to CBP, the estimated time burden for this 
information collection has not increased. While private aircraft 
pilots, bus, and rail carriers are covered by this information 
collection, they are unaffected by the proposed rule.
    Comments should be submitted to CBP per the instructions outlined 
in the introductory text of this proposed rulemaking, as CBP is not 
currently accepting comments via mail due to COVID-19. The comments 
should address: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary 
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy 
of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of 
information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden 
including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of 
other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden 
to respondents or record keepers form the collection of information 
(total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs).
Passenger and Crew Manifest
    Commercial Air Carriers:
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,130.
    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 1,850,878.
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 307,246.
    Commercial Air Carrier Passengers (3rd party):
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 184,050,663.
    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 184,050,663.
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 seconds.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 496,937.
    Private Aircraft Pilots:
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 460,000.
    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 460,000.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 115,000.
    Commercial Passenger Rail Carrier:
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.
    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 9,540.
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,590.
    Bus Passenger Carrier:
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9.
    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 309,294.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 77,324.

D. Privacy

    CBP seeks input from the public regarding whether the data should 
be retained, used, and shared under the terms of the current APIS data, 
and if not, what use, retention, and sharing

[[Page 7031]]

limitations are appropriate. CBP will also consult with the DHS Privacy 
Office, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and Office of 
General Counsel regarding these questions. CBP will ensure that all 
Privacy Act requirements and DHS Privacy policies and guidance are 
adhered to in the implementation of this proposed rule.\45\ CBP will 
issue or update any necessary Privacy Impact Assessment and/or Privacy 
Act System of Records notice to outline processes fully and ensure 
compliance with Privacy Act protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Comments regarding minimization of impacts on privacy, 
civil rights, and civil liberties should be submitted per the 
instructions outlined in the introductory text of this proposed 
rulemaking. Due to COVID-19-related restrictions, CBP has 
temporarily suspended its ability to receive public comments by 
mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 
agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, 
local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed 
rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary 
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

VII. Signing Authority

    The signing authority for these amendments falls under 19 CFR 
0.2(a). Accordingly, this document is signed by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security (or his delegate).

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 122

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Security measures.

Proposed Regulatory Amendments

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection proposes to amend 19 CFR part 122 as follows:

19 CFR PART 122--AIR COMMERCE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1415, 1431, 1433, 
1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note.

    Section 122.22 is also issued under 46 U.S.C. 60105.
    Section 122.49a also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1221, 19 U.S.C. 
1431, 49 U.S.C. 44909.
    Section 122.49b also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 
49 U.S.C. 114, 44909.
    Section 122.49c also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 
49 U.S.C. 114, 44909.
    Section 122.49d also issued under 49 U.S.C. 44909(c)(3).
    Section 122.75a also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431.
    Section 122.75b also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 
49 U.S.C. 114.

0
2. Amend Sec.  122.49a by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), adding in alphabetical order the definitions for 
``DHS-approved travel document'' and ``Travel document'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i);
0
c. Revising the last two sentences in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B);
0
d. Revising the last two sentences in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C);
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text, and paragraphs 
(b)(3)(vii) through (x), (xii), and (xviii) through (xxii);
0
f. Adding paragraphs (b)(3)(xx) through (xxii);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e), as paragraphs (d) through 
(f); respectively; and
0
h. Adding a new paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  122.49a  Electronic manifest requirement for passengers onboard 
commercial aircraft arriving in the United States.

    (a) * * *
    DHS-approved travel document. ``DHS-approved travel document'' 
means a document approved by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
for travel in or out of the United States, such as a passport, or other 
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) approved document.
* * * * *
    Travel document. ``Travel document'' means any document or 
electronic record presented for travel to or from the United States, 
including DHS-approved travel documents, U.S.-issued visas, Electronic 
System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) approvals, and Electronic Visa 
Update System (EVUS) enrollments.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Basic requirement. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this 
section, an appropriate official of each commercial aircraft (carrier) 
arriving in the United States from any place outside the United States 
must transmit to the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) 
(referred to in this section as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) system), the electronic data interchange system approved by CBP 
for such transmissions, an electronic passenger arrival manifest 
covering all passengers checked in for the flight. A passenger manifest 
must be transmitted separately from a crew member manifest required 
under Sec.  122.49b. The passenger manifest must be transmitted to the 
CBP system at the place and time specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, in the manner set forth under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section.
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * * No later than 30 minutes after the securing of the 
aircraft, the carrier must transmit to the CBP system a message 
reporting all passengers onboard the flight. The message must identify 
the passengers by a unique identifier selected or devised by the 
carrier or by specific passenger data (e.g., name) and may include the 
aircraft's registration number.
    (C) * * * No later than 30 minutes after the securing of the 
aircraft, the carrier must transmit to the CBP system a message 
reporting all passengers onboard the flight. The message must identify 
the passengers by a unique identifier selected or devised by the 
carrier or by specific passenger data (e.g., name) and may include the 
aircraft's registration number.
* * * * *
    (3) Information required. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of 
this section, the electronic passenger arrival manifest required under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section must contain the following information 
for all passengers:
* * * * *
    (vii) DHS-approved travel document type (e.g., P = passport; A = 
alien registration card), if a DHS-approved travel document is 
required;
    (viii) DHS-approved travel document number, if a DHS-approved 
travel document is required;
    (ix) DHS-approved travel document country of issuance, if a DHS-
approved travel document is required;
    (x) DHS-approved travel document expiration date, if a DHS- 
approved travel document is required;
* * * * *
    (xii) Address while in the United States (number and street, city, 
state, and zip code), except that this information is not required for 
persons who are in transit to a location outside the United States;
* * * * *
    (xviii) Flight number;
    (xix) Date of aircraft arrival;
    (xx) Phone number with country code;
    (xxi) Alternative phone number with country code; and
    (xxii) Email address.

[[Page 7032]]

    (c) Document Validation Message and Requirements--(1) Document 
Validation Message. After the submission of the required information in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the carrier will receive a document 
validation message from CBP. The message and carrier requirements vary 
depending on whether the carrier is using an interactive transmission 
method or a non-interactive transmission method.
    (i) Carriers using an interactive transmission method. (A) For 
carriers using an interactive transmission method, the CBP system will 
respond to the carrier with a document validation message stating 
whether the CBP system validated each passenger's travel documents.
    (B) The carrier must ensure its interactive transmission system is 
capable of receiving the document validation message.
    (C) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(D) of this section, 
if the document validation message states that the CBP system was 
unable to validate a passenger's travel documents, the carrier must 
contact CBP to resolve that passenger's travel document status prior to 
issuing a boarding pass to or boarding that passenger.
    (D) To facilitate the document validation process, prior to 
contacting CBP as required by paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C), the carrier may 
transmit additional biographical information as listed in paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Carriers using a non-interactive transmission method. (A) For 
carriers using a non-interactive transmission method, the CBP system 
will respond to the carrier with a document validation message stating 
whether the CBP system cleared the flight.
    (B) The carrier must ensure it is capable of receiving the document 
validation message through a non-interactive method, such as email.
    (C) If the document validation message states that the CBP system 
was unable to clear the flight, the carrier must contact CBP prior to 
issuing any boarding passes or boarding any passengers for that flight.
    (2) Recommendation Not to Board. If CBP is unable to validate a 
passenger's travel documents, CBP will recommend that the carrier not 
board the passenger.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  122.75a by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i);
0
b. Revising the last two sentences in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B);
0
c. Revising the last two sentences in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text, and paragraphs 
(b)(3)(vi) through (ix);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e), as paragraphs (d) through 
(f) respectively; and
0
f. Adding a new paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  122.75a   Electronic manifest requirement for passengers onboard 
commercial aircraft departing from the United States.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Basic requirement. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this 
section, an appropriate official of each commercial aircraft (carrier) 
departing from the United States en route to any port or place outside 
the United States must transmit to the Advance Passenger Information 
System (APIS) (referred to in this section as the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) system), the electronic data interchange system 
approved by CBP for such transmissions, an electronic passenger 
departure manifest covering all passengers checked in for the flight. A 
passenger manifest must be transmitted separately from a crew member 
manifest required under Sec.  122.75b. The passenger manifest must be 
transmitted to the CBP system at the place and time specified in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, in the manner set forth under 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * * No later than 30 minutes after the securing of the 
aircraft, the carrier must transmit to the CBP system a message 
reporting all passengers onboard the flight. The message must identify 
the passengers by a unique identifier selected or devised by the 
carrier or by specific passenger data (e.g., name) and may include the 
aircraft's registration number.
    (C) * * * No later than 30 minutes after the securing of the 
aircraft, the carrier must transmit to the CBP system a message 
reporting all passengers onboard the flight. The message must identify 
the passengers by a unique identifier selected or devised by the 
carrier or by specific passenger data (e.g., name). The message may 
include the aircraft's registration number.
* * * * *
    (3) Information required. The electronic passenger departure 
manifest required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must contain 
the following information for all passengers:
* * * * *
    (vi) DHS-approved travel document type (e.g., P = passport; A = 
alien registration card), if a DHS-approved travel document is 
required;
    (vii) DHS-approved travel document number, if a DHS-approved travel 
document is required;
    (viii) DHS-approved travel document country of issuance, if a DHS-
approved travel document is required;
    (ix) DHS-approved travel document expiration date, if a DHS-
approved travel document is required;
* * * * *
    (c) Document Validation Message and Requirements--(1) Document 
Validation Message. After the submission of the required information in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the carrier will receive a document 
validation message from CBP. The message and carrier requirements vary 
depending on whether the carrier is using an interactive transmission 
method or a non-interactive transmission method.
    (i) Carriers using an interactive transmission method. (A) For 
carriers using an interactive transmission method, the CBP system will 
respond to the carrier with a document validation message stating 
whether the CBP system validated each passenger's travel documents.
    (B) The carrier must ensure its interactive transmission system is 
capable of receiving the document validation message.
    (C) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(D) of this section, 
if the document validation message states that the CBP system was 
unable to validate a passenger's travel documents, the carrier must 
contact CBP to resolve that passenger's travel document status prior to 
issuing a boarding pass to or boarding that passenger.
    (D) To facilitate the document validation process, prior to 
contacting CBP as required by paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C), the carrier may 
transmit additional biographical information as listed in paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Carriers using a non-interactive transmission method. (A) For 
carriers using a non-interactive transmission method, the CBP system 
will respond to the carrier with a document validation message stating 
whether the CBP system cleared the flight.
    (B) The carrier must ensure it is capable of receiving the document 
validation message through a non-interactive method, such as email.
    (C) If the document validation message states that the CBP system 
was unable to clear the flight, the carrier must contact CBP prior to 
issuing any boarding passes or boarding any passengers for that flight.

[[Page 7033]]

    (2) Recommendation Not to Board. If CBP is unable to validate a 
passenger's travel documents, CBP will recommend that the carrier not 
board the passenger.
* * * * *

Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2023-02139 Filed 2-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P