27380 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Parts 12, 113, 122, 141, 178, 

and 192 

[Docket No. USCBP–2018–0019; CBP Dec. 

18–05] 

RIN 1651–AB04 

Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: To address ongoing aviation 

security threats, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) is amending its 

regulations pertaining to the submission 

of advance air cargo data to implement 

a mandatory Air Cargo Advance 

Screening (ACAS) program for any 

inbound aircraft required to make entry 

under the CBP regulations that will have 

commercial cargo aboard. The ACAS 

program requires the inbound carrier or 

other eligible party to electronically 

transmit specified advance cargo data 

(ACAS data) to CBP for air cargo 

transported onboard U.S.-bound aircraft 

as early as practicable, but no later than 

prior to loading of the cargo onto the 

aircraft. The ACAS program enhances 

the security of the aircraft and 

passengers on U.S.-bound flights by 

enabling CBP to perform targeted risk 

assessments on the air cargo prior to the 

aircraft’s departure for the United 

States. These risk assessments will 

identify and prevent high-risk air cargo 

from being loaded on the aircraft that 

could pose a risk to the aircraft during 

flight. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This interim final rule 

is effective June 12, 2018. 

Comment date: Comments must be 

received by August 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit any 

comments, identified by docket number 

[USCBP–2018–0019], by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Border Security Regulations 

Branch, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE, 

10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229– 

1177. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Submitted 

comments may also be inspected during 

regular business days between the hours 

of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office 

of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, 

Washington, DC. Arrangements to 

inspect submitted comments should be 

made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph 

Clark at (202) 325–0118. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Clark, Cargo and Conveyance 

Security, Office of Field Operations, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, by 

telephone at 202–344–3052 and email at 

craig.clark@cbp.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation 

II. Executive Summary 

III. Background and Purpose 

A. Current Regulatory Requirements 

1. CBP Regulatory Requirements 

2. TSA Requirements 

B. Air Cargo Security Risks 

C. ACAS Pilot 

IV. Mandatory ACAS Program 

A. New 19 CFR 122.48b, Air Cargo 

Advance Screening (ACAS) 

B. Eligible ACAS Filers 

C. Time Frame for Filing ACAS Data 

D. ACAS Data 

1. ACAS Data Definitions 

2. Mandatory ACAS Data 

3. Conditional ACAS Data: Master Air 

Waybill Number 

4. Optional ACAS Data 

E. Filing and Updating the ACAS Data 

F. ACAS Referrals 

G. Do-Not-Load (DNL) Instructions 

H. Responsibilities of ACAS Filers 

1. Responsibility To Provide Accurate and 

Timely Data 

2. Responsibility To Resolve ACAS 

Referrals 

3. Responsibility To Address Do-Not-Load 

(DNL) Instructions 

I. Amendments to Bond Conditions 

J. Amendments to 19 CFR 122.48a 

1. Flight Departure Message (FDM) 

2. Other Amendments to 19 CFR 122.48a 

K. Flexible Enforcement 

V. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews 

A. Adminstrative Procedure Act 

B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Privacy 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

VI. Signing Authority 

List of Subjects 

Regulatory Amendments 

I. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of this interim 

final rule. The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) and CBP also invite 

comments that relate to the economic, 

environmental, or federalism effects that 

might result from this interim final rule. 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance to CBP will reference a 

specific portion of the interim final rule, 

explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include data, 

information, or authority that support 

such recommended change. 

II. Executive Summary 

Terrorist attacks on international 

aviation, particularly while the aircraft 

is in flight, are a very real threat. In the 

past few years, terrorists have made 

several significant attempts to attack 

commercial aircraft. These attempts 

include the Christmas Day 2009 attempt 

to bring down a U.S.-bound passenger 

plane via the use of plastic explosives 

hidden in a terrorist’s underwear, the 

explosion aboard Russian Metrojet 

Flight 9268 above Egypt’s Sinai 

Peninsula in October 2015, and the 

attempted onboard suicide attack on a 

commercial aircraft in February 2016 

after takeoff in Mogadishu, Somalia. 

These incidents underscore the 

persistent threat to commercial aviation 

and emphasize the importance of 

aviation security. 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) was established, in part, 

to prevent such attacks, and to ensure 

aviation safety and security. It is 

essential that DHS constantly adapt its 

policies and regulations and use shared 

intelligence to address these terrorist 

threats since terrorists continue to seek 

out and develop innovative ways to 

thwart security measures. Global 

terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda 

and the Islamic State of Iraq and the 

Levant (ISIL), as well as their offshoots 

and associates, remain committed to 

targeting international commercial 

airline operations in order to maximize 

the effects of their terror campaigns. 

They aim to exploit any security 

vulnerability. 

In October 2010, a new aviation 

security vulnerability was exposed. 

Terrorists placed concealed explosive 

devices in cargo onboard two aircraft 

destined to the United States. The 

explosive devices were expected to 

explode mid-air over the continental 

United States, which could have caused 

catastrophic damage to the aircraft, the 

passengers, crew, and persons and 

property on the ground. In materials 

published by a terrorist organization 

shortly after the October 2010 incident, 

it was noted that due to the increased 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27381 

1The screening methods are contained within the 

carrier’s respective security program. The specific 

security measures are Sensitive Security 

Information, the public disclosure of which is 

prohibited by law to the extent that such disclosure 

would be detrimental to transportation security. See 

49 U.S.C. 114(r), 49 CFR part 1520. 

2 19 CFR 122.41 requires that all aircraft coming 

into the United States from a foreign area must 

make entry, subject to specified exceptions. 3See 19 CFR 122.48a(b) which provides that CBP 

must electronically receive the required advance air 

cargo data no later than the time of departure of the 

aircraft for the United States from any foreign port 

or place in North America, including locations in 

Mexico, Central America, South America (from 

north of the Equator only), the Caribbean, and 

Bermuda; or no later than four hours prior to the 

arrival of the aircraft in the United States for aircraft 

departing for the United States from any other 

foreign area. 

4The ACAS pilot utilizes TSA authority to 

require enhanced screening for air cargo identified 

as high-risk pursuant to TSA-approved screening 

methods. 

passenger screening implemented after 

the Christmas Day 2009 attempt, the 

terrorist organization decided to employ 

explosive devices sent via air cargo. 

While the 2010 potential terrorist attack 

was thwarted by multiple foreign 

governments working together to share 

intelligence and intercept the shipments 

before they detonated, the explosive 

devices were flown aboard several 

flights before they were discovered. 

Recently, Australian authorities 

thwarted a plot to place an Improvised 

Explosive Device (IED) on an Etihad 

Airways flight, using components that 

had been shipped to Australia by an 

Islamic State in Syria (ISIS) commander 

via air cargo. Additionally, DHS has 

received specific, classified intelligence 

that certain terrorist organizations seek 

to exploit vulnerabilities in 

international air cargo security to cause 

damage to infrastructure, injury, or loss 

of life in the United States or onboard 

aircraft. DHS must ensure that terrorists 

cannot exploit vulnerabilities in air 

cargo supply chain security to introduce 

dangerous cargo that could cause 

catastrophic effect to the aircraft. 

In order to deter and disrupt terrorist 

threats to U.S.-bound aircraft via air 

cargo, DHS must ensure that high-risk 

cargo is identified prior to the aircraft’s 

departure for the United States. Within 

DHS, two components, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) and the 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), have responsibilities for securing 

inbound air cargo bound for the United 

States. CBP and TSA employ a layered 

security approach to secure inbound air 

cargo, including using various risk 

assessment methods to identify highrisk cargo and to mitigate any risks 

posed. 

For the reasons discussed below, DHS 

believes that the current regulatory 

requirements should be enhanced to 

address the ongoing threats to in-flight 

aviation security, particularly 

concerning air cargo. DHS is making 

regulatory changes to ensure that DHS 

has the necessary tools to address these 

threats and ensure the safety of U.S.- 

bound flights. 

TSA regulations require carriers to 

apply security measures, including 

screening, to all cargo inbound to the 

United States from the last point of 

departure. See 49 CFR parts 1544 and 

1546. Through TSA’s regulatory 

framework, TSA issues security 

programs for carriers to adopt at last 

points of departure for cargo inbound to 

the United States. These security 

programs require aircraft operators and 

foreign air carriers to determine the 

appropriate level of screening (baseline 

versus enhanced) to apply to each cargo 

shipment in accordance with risk-based 

criteria contained within their TSA 

security program. TSA regulations 

require the carrier to perform enhanced 

air cargo screening on cargo deemed 

high-risk prior to the cargo departing for 

the United States.1 TSA has authority to 

impose penalties for violations of these 

regulations pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 144(d) 

and 49 CFR part 1503. 

CBP performs an additional risk 

assessment to identify inbound cargo 

that may pose a security risk using 

advance air cargo data and intelligence 

related to specific air cargo. Under 

current CBP regulations, an inbound air 

carrier or other eligible party must 

transmit specified advance air cargo 

data to CBP for any inbound aircraft 

required to make entry under 19 CFR 

122.41 that will have commercial cargo 

aboard.2 See 19 CFR 122.48a. In most 

cases, advance data pertaining to air 

cargo must be transmitted to CBP four 

hours prior to arrival of the aircraft in 

the United States. For specified short 

flights, the advance data must be 

transmitted to CBP no later than the 

time of departure of the aircraft.3 Upon 

receipt of the advance air cargo data, 

CBP analyzes the data using its 

Automated Targeting System (ATS) and 

other relevant intelligence at each U.S. 

port of entry to identify potential 

threats. Upon the arrival of the cargo at 

the U.S. port of entry, CBP inspects all 

air cargo identified as high-risk to 

ensure that dangerous cargo does not 

enter the United States. 

Under the current CBP regulatory 

time frames for transmitting air cargo 

data, CBP may not be able to identify 

high-risk cargo such as unauthorized 

weapons, explosives, chemical and/or 

biological weapons, WMDs, or other 

destructive substances or items in the 

cargo until it is already en route to the 

United States. This is because the 19 

CFR 122.48a time frames do not provide 

CBP adequate time to perform targeted 

risk assessments on the air cargo before 

the aircraft departs for the United States. 

Terrorists have already exploited this 

security vulnerability by placing 

explosive devices aboard aircraft 

destined to the United States. 

Explosives and/or weapons contained in 

air cargo could potentially be detonated 

during flight. Such a terrorist attack 

could result in destruction of the 

aircraft, serious injuries or death to 

passengers and crew, and potential 

ground-level victims or targets. 

To address this situation, CBP and 

TSA determined that, in order to best 

identify high-risk air cargo, it is 

essential to perform a risk assessment 

earlier in the air cargo supply chain, 

prior to the aircraft’s departure. This 

risk assessment must be based on realtime data and intelligence available to 

determine if the cargo posed a risk to 

the aircraft in flight. CBP and TSA 

concluded that such a risk assessment 

should be performed at a centralized 

location and with input from both CBP 

and TSA, rather than at individual U.S. 

ports of entry. As a result, CBP and TSA 

formed a joint CBP–TSA targeting 

operation in a centralized location to 

allow collaboration between the DHS 

components. The joint CBP–TSA 

targeting operation utilizes CBP’s ATS 

and other available intelligence as a risk 

targeting tool to leverage data and 

information already collected in order to 

secure international inbound air cargo. 

This allows CBP and TSA to address 

specific threat information in real time. 

In addition, CBP, in collaboration 

with TSA and the air cargo industry, 

began operating a voluntary Air Cargo 

Advance Screening (ACAS) pilot in 

December 2010 to collect certain 

advance air cargo data earlier in the 

supply chain. Pilot participants 

voluntarily provide CBP with a subset of 

the 19 CFR 122.48a data, (referred to 

hereafter as the ‘‘ACAS pilot data’’) as 

early as practicable prior to loading the 

cargo onto the aircraft. This allows 

sufficient time for targeting before the 

departure of the aircraft. Based on the 

ACAS pilot data, when CBP determines 

that cargo is high-risk, that cargo will 

require screening pursuant to TSAapproved screening methods for highrisk cargo.4

The ACAS pilot has been successful 

in enabling CBP to identify a substantial 

amount of high-risk cargo. Significantly, 

CBP has identified a substantial number 

of air cargo shipments that have 

potential ties to terrorism and, therefore, 

may represent a threat. When this highVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Jun 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12JNR2.SGM 12JNR2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27382 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

5See Section IV.B. for more information about the 

parties that may voluntarily provide the ACAS data 

and the eligibility requirements for these parties. 

risk cargo is identified, enhanced cargo 

screening is performed pursuant to 

TSA-approved or accepted security 

programs. 

During the ACAS pilot, air cargo that 

may have only received baseline 

screening per the carriers’ TSAapproved or accepted security programs 

could be identified as high-risk through 

ACAS, triggering enhanced screening 

under the air carrier’s security programrequirements. Through joint agency 

management and information sharing, 

the ACAS pilot uses tactical and realtime data to enhance the security of the 

air cargo supply chain. However, 

because the pilot is voluntary, it does 

not completely address the existing 

security vulnerability. 

To address the continuing security 

threats, DHS is amending the CBP 

regulations to add a new section, 19 

CFR 122.48b, to implement a mandatory 

ACAS program. CBP’s objective for the 

ACAS program is to obtain the most 

accurate data at the earliest time 

possible with as little impact to the flow 

of commerce as possible. The new 

ACAS requirements apply to any 

inbound aircraft required to make entry 

under 19 CFR 122.41 that will have 

commercial cargo aboard. These are the 

same aircraft that are subject to the 

current 19 CFR 122.48a requirements. 

Under the amendments, an inbound air 

carrier and/or other eligible ACAS filer 5

must transmit specified air cargo data 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘ACAS data’’) to 

CBP earlier in the supply chain so that 

CBP, can perform the necessary risk 

assessments prior to the aircraft’s 

departure for the United States. The 

ACAS data must be transmitted as early 

as practicable, but no later than prior to 

loading of the cargo onto the aircraft. 

Under the new time frame, CBP will 

have sufficient time before the aircraft 

departs to analyze the data, identify if 

the cargo has a nexus to terrorism, and, 

with TSA, take the necessary action to 

thwart a potential terrorist attack or 

other threat. Just like the ACAS pilot, 

the ACAS program will allow CBP to 

issue referrals and/or Do-Not-Load 

(DNL) instructions. Specifically, under 

the ACAS program, CBP will issue 

ACAS referrals when clarifying 

information and/or enhanced screening 

of high-risk cargo is needed to mitigate 

any risk. Referrals for screening will be 

issued pursuant to CBP authorities and 

resolved using TSA-approved or 

accepted security programs. The ACAS 

program will enable CBP to issue DNL 

instructions when a combination of 

ACAS data and intelligence points to a 

threat or terrorist plot in progress. As 

with the pilot, this rule and 

corresponding TSA-approved or 

accepted security program requirements 

will enhance the ability to prevent air 

cargo that may contain a potential 

bomb, improvised explosive device, or 

other material that may pose an 

immediate, lethal threat to the aircraft 

and/or its vicinity from being loaded 

aboard the aircraft and will allow law 

enforcement authorities to coordinate 

with necessary parties. Under the new 

regulations, CBP will be able to take 

appropriate enforcement action against 

ACAS filers who do not comply with 

the ACAS requirements. Upon issuance 

of changes to security program 

requirements under 49 CFR parts 1544 

and 1546, TSA will enforce 

implementation of enhanced screening 

methods in response to an ACAS 

referral. 

The new 19 CFR 122.48b specifies the 

general ACAS requirements, the eligible 

filers, the ACAS data, the time frame for 

providing the data to CBP, and the 

responsibilities of the filers, and 

explains the process regarding ACAS 

referrals and DNL instructions. The 

ACAS data is a subset of the data 

currently collected under 19 CFR 

122.48a and is generally the same data 

that is currently collected in the ACAS 

pilot. However, the new regulation adds 

a new conditional data element, the 

master air waybill number, which is not 

required in the ACAS pilot. This data 

element will provide the location of the 

high-risk cargo and will allow CBP to 

associate the cargo with an ACAS 

submission. 

CBP is also amending 19 CFR 122.48a 

to reference the ACAS requirements and 

to incorporate a few additional changes. 

Specifically, CBP is amending 19 CFR 

122.48a to revise the definition of one 

of the data elements (consignee name 

and address) to provide a more accurate 

and complete definition, and to add a 

new data element requirement, the 

flight departure message (FDM), to 

enable CBP to determine the timeliness 

of ACAS submissions. CBP is also 

amending the applicable bond 

provisions in 19 CFR part 113 to 

incorporate the ACAS requirements. 

In order to provide the trade sufficient 

time to adjust to the new requirements 

and in consideration of the business 

process changes that may be necessary 

to achieve full compliance, CBP will 

show restraint in enforcing the data 

submission requirements of this rule for 

twelve months after the effective date. 

While full enforcement will be phased 

in over this twelve month period, 

willful and egregious violators will be 

subject to enforcement actions at all 

times. In accordance with TSA 

regulations, inbound air carriers will be 

required to comply with their respective 

TSA-approved or accepted security 

program, including the changes being 

implemented for purposes of the ACAS 

program. 

The chart below includes a summary 

of the current 19 CFR 122.48a advance 

air cargo data requirements, the 

requirements under the ACAS pilot, and 

the regulatory changes that are being 

promulgated by this rulemaking. 

SUMMARY OF ACAS CHANGES TO CBP REQUIREMENTS

Current requirements 

(19 CFR 122.48a) ACAS pilot 

ACAS IFR 

(new 19 CFR 122.48b requirements in 

addition to the current requirements in 

19 CFR 122.48a) 

Timing of Data Submission.Time of departure or 4 hours prior to arrival 

depending on port of departure.

At the earliest point practicable prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft.

No changes to the timing of 19 CFR 122.48a 

requirements.

As early as practicable, but no later than prior 

to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft. 

No changes to the timing of 19 CFR 122.48a 

requirements. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27383 

6 19 CFR 122.48a specifies, based on the type of 

shipment, what data the inbound air carrier must 

transmit to CBP and what data other eligible filers 

may transmit to CBP. For non-consolidated 

shipments, the inbound air carrier must transmit to 

CBP the 17 data elements (11 mandatory, 6 

conditional) applicable for the air waybill record. 

For consolidated shipments, the inbound air carrier 

must transmit to CBP the 17 data elements (11 

mandatory, 6 conditional) that are applicable to the 

master air waybill, and the inbound air carrier must 

transmit a subset of the data (7 mandatory, 1 

conditional) for all associated house air waybills, 

unless another eligible filer transmits this data to 

CBP. For split shipments, the inbound air carrier 

must submit an additional subset of this data (9 

mandatory, 3 conditional) for each house air 

waybill. 

7The six ACAS data elements have been referred 

to by the trade as ‘‘7+1’’ data by considering 

‘‘shipper name and address’’ and ‘‘consignee name 

and address’’ to be four data elements instead of 

two. As this data is included in 19 CFR 122.48a as 

two data elements, CBP will continue to refer to 

‘‘six ACAS data elements’’ and not ‘‘7+1.’’ 

8Other filers eligible under 19 CFR 122.48a 

include Automated Broker Interface (ABI) filers 

(importers and brokers), Container Freight Stations/ 

deconsolidators, Express Consignment Carrier 

Facilities, and air carriers that arranged to have the 

inbound air carrier transport the cargo to the United 

States. 

9The inbound air carrier and other eligible 19 

CFR 122.48a filers will already have a CBP bond to 

file the 19 CFR 122.48a data and that bond will be 

expanded under the ACAS program through no 

action on their part. This is because CBP is 

amending the various CBP bonds to incorporate the 

ACAS requirements as a condition of the bonds. 

10Note that TSA screening occurs prior to the 

aircraft’s departure for the United States. Under 19 

CFR 122.48a, CBP usually identifies high-risk cargo 

on the basis of the submitted data when the aircraft 

is in flight and CBP performs inspections of air 

cargo identified as high-risk upon its arrival at a 

U.S. port of entry. 

SUMMARY OF ACAS CHANGES TO CBP REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Current requirements 

(19 CFR 122.48a) ACAS pilot 

ACAS IFR 

(new 19 CFR 122.48b requirements in 

addition to the current requirements in 

19 CFR 122.48a) 

Data ......................... 17 data elements 6 ..........................................

Mandatory: 

• Air waybill number(s)—master and 

house, as applicable. 

• Shipper name and address. 

• Consignee name and address. 

• Cargo description. 

• Total quantity based on the smallest 

external packing unit. 

• Total weight of cargo. 

• Trip/flight number. 

• Carrier/ICAO code. 

• Airport of arrival. 

• Airport of origin. 

• Scheduled date of arrival. 

6 data elements (subset of 19 CFR 122.48a 

data elements) transmitted at the lowest air 

waybill level 7.

Mandatory: 

• Air waybill number. 

• Shipper name and address. 

• Consignee name and address. 

• Cargo description. 

• Total quantity based on the smallest 

external packing unit. 

• Total weight of cargo. 

6 mandatory data elements (subset of 19 

CFR 122.48a data elements and same as 

ACAS pilot) at the lowest air waybill level, 

plus one conditional and one optional data 

element. 

Mandatory: 

• Air waybill number. 

• Shipper name and address. 

• Consignee name and address. 

• Cargo description. 

• Total quantity based on the smallest 

external packing unit. 

• Total weight of cargo. 

Conditional: 

• Consolidation identifier. 

• Split shipment indicator. 

• Permit to proceed information. 

• Identifier of other party which is to submit additional air waybill information. 

• In-bond information. 

• Local transfer facility. 

Conditional: 

• Master air waybill number. 

Optional: 

• Second notify party. 

Addition of the Flight Departure Message 

(FDM) to the current 19 CFR 122.48a data 

elements. 

Eligible Filers ........... Inbound air carriers, other filers eligible under 

19 CFR 122.48a 8.

Inbound air carriers, other filers eligible under 

19 CFR 122.48a, and freight forwarders.

Inbound air carriers, other filers eligible under 

19 CFR 122.48a, and freight forwarders. 

Bond requirements .. All 19 CFR 122.48a filers are required to 

have an appropriate bond.

Parties are not required to have a bond to 

participate in pilot.

All ACAS filers are required to have an appropriate bond. Eligible filers include inbound air carriers, other eligible 19 CFR 

122.48a filers,9 and freight forwarders. 

SUMMARY OF ACAS IMPACT ON TSA REQUIREMENTS

Current requirements 

(49 CFR parts 1544 

and 1546) 

ACAS pilot ACAS IFR 

(new 19 CFR 122.48b) 

TSA Screening ...... Per TSA regulations, inbound 

air carriers are required to 

comply with the baseline 

and enhanced air cargo 

screening protocols contained within their respective 

TSA security programs 10.

Per TSA regulations, inbound air carriers are 

required to comply with the baseline and 

enhanced screening methods contained 

within their respective TSA security programs; under the ACAS pilot, enhanced 

screening methods as outlined in the carrier’s security program apply to all ACAS referrals for screening.

Per TSA regulations, inbound air carriers are required to 

comply with the screening methods contained within their 

respective TSA-approved or accepted security programs. 

These security programs already include requirements to 

implement enhanced screening procedures for certain 

cargo, including cargo designated as elevated risk cargo 

because it meets any of the criteria set forth in the security 

programs. TSA will implement corresponding changes in 

these programs requiring implementation of enhanced 

screening methods for ACAS referrals. 

III. Background and Purpose 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 

established DHS to prevent terrorist 

attacks within the United States and to 

reduce the vulnerability of the United 

States to terrorism. See Public Law 107– 

296, 116 Stat. 2142. Terrorist threats to 

the aviation transportation system 

continue to represent a meaningful risk 

given the expressed intentions of 

terrorists, their persistent attempts to 

thwart security and target aviation, and 

the perceived fiscal and human 

consequences of a successful attack. In 

response to these aviation threats, DHS 

has created a comprehensive, 

coordinated policy for securing air cargo 

entering, transiting within, and 

departing the United States. 

Within DHS, two components, CBP 

and TSA, have responsibilities for 

securing inbound air cargo bound for 

the United States. Under the current 

regulatory framework, TSA has 

responsibility for ensuring the security 

of the nation’s transportation of cargo by 

air into the United States while CBP has 

responsibility for securing the nation’s 

borders by preventing high-risk cargo 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27384 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

11Under 19 CFR 122.41, subject to specified 

exceptions, all aircraft coming into the United 

States from a foreign area must make entry. 

12TSA regulations are found in 49 CFR chapter 

XII (parts 1500 through 1699). Parts 1544 and 1546 

are specific to U.S. aircraft operators (i.e., domestic 

or U.S. flagged air carriers) and foreign air carriers. 

Sections 1544.205(f) and 1546.205(f) provide that 

U.S. aircraft operators and foreign air carriers, 

respectively, must ensure that cargo loaded onboard 

an aircraft outside the U.S., destined to the U.S., is 

screened in accordance with the requirements in 

their security program. Sections 1544.101 and 

1546.101 require that certain U.S. aircraft operators, 

and certain foreign air carriers landing or taking off 

in the U.S., must adopt and implement a security 

program in the form and with the content approved 

or accepted by TSA pursuant to the provisions in 

§§ 1544.103 and 1546.103. In addition, when TSA 

determines pursuant to § 1544.305 that additional 

security measures are necessary, it will issue 

Security Directives to U.S. aircraft operators. TSA 

may also issue Emergency Amendments to the 

security programs of U.S. aircraft operators and 

foreign air carriers as provided in §§ 1544.105(d) 

and 1546.105(d). 

13 ‘‘Sensitive Security Information’’ or ‘‘SSI’’ is 

information obtained or developed in the conduct 

of security activities, the disclosure of which would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, 

reveal trade secrets or privileged or confidential 

information, or be detrimental to the security of 

from entering the United States. CBP 

and TSA’s current regulatory 

requirements are described below. 

A. Current Regulatory Requirements 

1. CBP Regulatory Requirements 

Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–210, 116 Stat. 981 

(August 6, 2002), as amended (Trade 

Act) (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), authorizes 

CBP to promulgate regulations 

providing for the mandatory 

transmission of cargo information by 

way of a CBP-approved electronic data 

interchange (EDI) system before the 

cargo is brought into or departs the 

United States by any mode of 

commercial transportation. The required 

cargo information is that which is 

reasonably necessary to enable high-risk 

cargo to be identified for purposes of 

ensuring cargo safety and security 

pursuant to the laws enforced and 

administered by CBP. 

On December 5, 2003, CBP published 

a final rule in the Federal Register (68 

FR 68140) to effectuate the provisions of 

the Trade Act. Among other 

amendments, a new § 122.48a (19 CFR 

122.48a) was added to title 19 of the 

CFR to implement advance reporting 

requirements for cargo brought into the 

United States by air. As provided in 19 

CFR 122.48a, for any inbound air carrier 

required to make entry under 19 CFR 

122.41 that will have commercial cargo 

aboard,11 CBP must electronically 

receive certain data regarding that cargo 

through a CBP-approved EDI system no 

later than the time of departure of the 

aircraft for the United States (from 

specified locations) or four hours prior 

to arrival in the United States for all 

other locations. 

Under 19 CFR 122.48a, the following 

advance air cargo data is required to be 

transmitted to CBP no later than the 

specified time frames: 

(1) Air waybill number(s) (master and 

house, as applicable) 

(2) Trip/flight number 

(3) Carrier/ICAO (International Civil 

Aviation Organization) code 

(4) Airport of arrival 

(5) Airport of origin 

(6) Scheduled date of arrival 

(7) Total quantity based on the smallest 

external packing unit 

(8) Total weight 

(9) Precise cargo description 

(10) Shipper name and address 

(11) Consignee name and address 

(12) Consolidation identifier 

(conditional) 

(13) Split shipment indicator 

(conditional) 

(14) Permit to proceed information 

(conditional) 

(15) Identifier of other party which is to 

submit additional air waybill 

information (conditional) 

(16) In-bond information (conditional) 

(17) Local transfer facility (conditional) 

Paragraph (d) of 19 CFR 122.48a 

specifies, based on the type of shipment, 

what data the inbound carrier must 

transmit to CBP and what data other 

eligible filers may elect to transmit to 

CBP. There are different requirements 

for consolidated and non-consolidated 

shipments. A consolidated shipment 

consists of a number of separate 

shipments that have been received and 

consolidated into one shipment by a 

party such as a freight forwarder for 

delivery as a single shipment to the 

inbound carrier. Each of the shipments 

in the consolidated shipment has its 

own air waybill, referred to as the house 

air waybill (HAWB). The HAWB 

provides the information specific to the 

individual shipment that CBP needs for 

targeting purposes. The HAWB does not 

include the flight and routing 

information for the consolidated 

shipment. Generally speaking, a master 

air waybill (MAWB) is an air waybill 

that is generated by the inbound carrier 

for a consolidated shipment. For 

consolidated shipments, the inbound 

carrier must transmit to CBP the above 

cargo data that is applicable to the 

MAWB, and the inbound carrier must 

transmit a subset of the above data for 

all associated HAWBs, unless another 

eligible filer transmits this data to CBP. 

For non-consolidated shipments, the 

inbound carrier must transmit to CBP 

the above cargo data for the air waybill 

record. For split shipments, i.e., 

shipments that have been divided into 

two or more smaller shipments, either 

sent together or separately, the inbound 

carrier must transmit an additional 

subset of this data for each HAWB. 

The method and time frames for 

presenting the data are specified in 19 

CFR 122.48a(a) and (b). These 

provisions specify that CBP must 

electronically receive the above data 

through a CBP-approved EDI system no 

later than the time of the departure of 

the aircraft for the United States from 

any foreign port or place in North 

America, including locations in Mexico, 

Central America, South America (from 

north of the Equator only), the 

Caribbean, and Bermuda; or no later 

than four hours prior to the arrival of 

the aircraft in the United States for 

aircraft departing for the United States 

from any other foreign area. 

CBP uses a risk assessment strategy to 

target cargo that may pose a security 

risk. Upon receipt of the advance air 

cargo data in the specified time frames, 

CBP analyzes the data at the U.S. port 

of entry where the cargo is scheduled to 

arrive utilizing ATS to identify potential 

threats. Upon the arrival of the cargo at 

the U.S. port of entry, CBP inspects all 

air cargo identified as high-risk to 

ensure that dangerous cargo does not 

enter the United States. 

2. TSA Requirements 

With respect to air cargo security, 

TSA is charged, among other things, 

with ensuring and regulating the 

security of inbound air cargo, including 

the screening of 100% of international 

air cargo inbound to the United States 

on passenger aircraft. This screening 

mandate, established by the 

Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act (9/11 Act) of 

August 2007, requires that TSA ensure 

all cargo transported onboard passenger 

aircraft operating to, from, or within the 

United States is physically screened at 

a level commensurate with the 

screening of passenger checked baggage. 

To achieve this, TSA is authorized to 

issue security requirements for U.S. and 

foreign air carriers at non-U.S. locations 

for flights inbound to the United 

States.12

TSA’s regulatory framework consists 

of security programs that TSA issues 

and the air carriers adopt to carry out 

certain security measures, including 

screening requirements for cargo 

inbound to the United States from nonU.S. locations. Details related to the 

security programs are considered 

Sensitive Security Information (SSI),13


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27385 

transportation. The protection of SSI is governed by 

49 CFR part 1520. 

14Amendment procedures are in §§ 1544.105(b), 

(c), and (d) and 1546.105(b), (c), and (d). 

and are made available to carriers as 

necessary. Within this framework, TSA 

has the flexibility to modify its air cargo 

screening requirements as needed based 

on changing security environments, 

intelligence, and emergency situations 

through Emergency Amendments/ 

Security Directives (EAs/SDs). Carriers 

may also request amendments to their 

respective security programs in 

response to changing market and 

industry conditions.14 Additionally, 

carriers may request TSA approval to 

follow recognized National Cargo 

Security Program (NCSP) Recognition 

procedures in lieu of their TSA security 

programs. 

NCSP Recognition is a key component 

of TSA’s effort to achieve 100% 

screening of inbound cargo. NCSP 

Recognition is TSA’s process that 

recognizes a partner country’s air cargo 

supply chain security system as being 

commensurate with TSA’s domestic and 

international air cargo security 

requirements. NCSP Recognition 

reduces the burden on industry 

resulting from applying essentially 

duplicative measures under two 

different security programs (i.e., TSA’s 

and the host country’s programs), 

among other benefits. When approved 

by TSA, air carriers are able to follow 

the air cargo security measures of an 

NCSP recognized country in lieu of 

specific measures required by their 

security program. 

TSA regulations and security 

programs require carriers to perform 

screening procedures and security 

measures on all cargo inbound to the 

United States. TSA requires aircraft 

operators and foreign air carriers to 

determine the appropriate level of 

screening (baseline versus enhanced) to 

apply to the cargo, in accordance with 

the cargo acceptance methods and risk 

determination criteria contained within 

their TSA security programs. The 

difference between baseline and 

enhanced screening is the level to 

which the cargo must be screened and 

the procedures by which the specific 

screening technology must be applied as 

outlined in the carrier’s security 

program. 

Baseline air cargo screening 

requirements (standard screening) 

depend on multiple factors, outlined in 

the carrier’s security program. Baseline 

screening procedures for passenger air 

carriers require that 100% of cargo 

loaded onboard the aircraft must be 

screened by TSA-approved methods. 

These TSA-approved methods are set 

forth in the carrier’s security program. 

Baseline screening procedures for allcargo operations of inbound air cargo 

are different from the baseline screening 

procedures applied to air cargo in 

passenger operations because of the 

differing level of risk associated with 

all-cargo flights. The baseline screening 

measures applied to cargo on an allcargo aircraft are dependent on the 

types of cargo, among other factors. 

Enhanced security screening measures 

are for higher risk cargo. Cargo that the 

carrier determines is higher risk 

pursuant to the risk determination 

criteria in their security program must 

be screened via TSA-approved 

enhanced screening methods as set forth 

in the carrier’s security program. 

TSA periodically inspects carriers’ 

cargo facilities to ensure compliance 

with the required measures of the 

carriers’ security programs. If TSA 

determines that violations of the 

requirements have occurred, 

appropriate measures will be taken and 

penalties may be levied. 

B. Air Cargo Security Risks 

A terrorist attack on an international 

commercial flight via its air cargo 

continues to be a very real threat. DHS 

has received specific, classified 

intelligence that certain terrorist 

organizations seek to exploit 

vulnerabilities in international air cargo 

security to cause damage to 

infrastructure, injury, or loss of life in 

the United States or onboard aircraft. 

Enhancements to the current CBP 

regulations and TSA security programs 

will help address the in-flight risk and 

evolving threat posed by air cargo. 

While TSA requires carriers to perform 

air cargo screening in accordance with 

their security program prior to the cargo 

departing for the United States, ACAS 

enables an analysis of data and 

intelligence pertaining to a particular 

cargo shipment. As a result, additional 

high-risk cargo may be identified. Under 

current CBP regulations, a 19 CFR 

122.48a filer is not required to transmit 

data to CBP until the aircraft departs for 

the United States or four hours prior to 

arrival in the United States. While this 

requirement provides CBP with the 

necessary data to target high-risk cargo 

prior to the aircraft’s arrival in the 

United States, it does not allow 

sufficient time for targeting prior to the 

cargo being loaded onto a U.S.-bound 

aircraft. Therefore, additional time to 

target air cargo shipments would 

increase the ability of CBP and TSA to 

identify high-risk cargo that otherwise 

might not be identified until it was 

already en route to the United States. 

As explained in detail in the 

Executive Summary, terrorists have 

already exploited this security 

vulnerability by placing explosive 

devices aboard aircraft destined to the 

United States. After the October 2010 

incident in which explosive devices 

concealed in two shipments of HewlettPackard printers addressed for delivery 

to Jewish organizations in Chicago, 

Illinois were discovered in cargo 

onboard aircraft destined to the United 

States, CBP and TSA determined that 

these evolving terrorist threats require a 

more systematic and targeted approach 

to identify high-risk cargo. With the 

existing security vulnerability, 

unauthorized weapons; explosive 

devices; WMDs; chemical, biological or 

radiological weapons; and/or other 

destructive items could be placed in air 

cargo on an aircraft destined to the 

United States, and potentially, be 

detonated in flight. The resulting 

terrorist attack could cause destruction 

of the aircraft, loss of life or serious 

injuries to passengers and crew, 

additional casualties on the ground, and 

disruptions to the airline industry. 

Since terrorists continue to seek out 

and develop innovative ways to thwart 

security measures, it is essential that 

CBP and TSA adapt their policies and 

use shared intelligence to address these 

evolving terrorist threats. To address the 

terrorist threat in 2010, CBP and TSA 

determined that it was essential to 

combine efforts to establish a 

coordinated policy to address aviation 

security. After consulting industry 

representatives and international 

partners, they decided that a risk-based 

assessment strategy utilizing real-time 

data and intelligence to target high-risk 

cargo earlier in the supply chain was 

essential. Such a strategy would deter 

terrorists from placing high-risk, 

dangerous cargo on an aircraft, enable 

CBP and TSA to detect explosives, 

WMDs, chemical and/or biological 

weapons before they are loaded aboard 

aircraft, and reduce the threat of a 

terrorist attack from occurring in-flight. 

Specifically, CBP and TSA 

determined that certain advance air 

cargo data needs to be transmitted to 

CBP at the earliest point practicable in 

the supply chain, before the cargo is 

loaded onto the aircraft. This earlier 

time frame would provide sufficient 

time to target and identify high-risk 

cargo so that the relevant parties can 

take action as directed to mitigate the 

risk prior to the aircraft’s departure. It 

was concluded that TSA’s screening 

authority could be utilized to mitigate 

these risks. Therefore, in 2010, CBP and 

TSA established a joint CBP–TSA 

targeting operation and launched an 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27386 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

15On October 24, 2012, CBP published a general 

notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 65006) 

announcing the formalization and expansion of the 

ACAS pilot. Since then, CBP has published several 

additional Federal Register notices. The email 

address for the submission of applications and 

comments was corrected in 77 FR 65395 (Oct. 26, 

2012); the application period was reopened for 15 

days in 77 FR 76064 (Dec. 26, 2012); and the date 

of the close of the reopened application period was 

corrected in 78 FR 315 (Jan. 3, 2013). On April 23, 

2013, CBP published a notice in the Federal 

Register (78 FR 23946) extending the ACAS pilot 

period through October 26, 2013, and reopening the 

application period through May 23, 2013. On 

October 23, 2013, CBP published a notice in the 

Federal Register (78 FR 63237) extending the ACAS 

pilot program through July 26, 2014, and reopening 

the application period to accept applications from 

new ACAS pilot participants through December 23, 

2013. On July 28, 2014, CBP published a notice in 

the Federal Register (79 FR 43766) extending the 

ACAS pilot program through July 26, 2015, and 

reopening the application period to accept 

applications from new ACAS pilot participants 

through September 26, 2014. On July 27, 2015, CBP 

published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 

44360) extending the ACAS pilot program through 

July 26, 2016, and reopening the application period 

to accept applications from new ACAS pilot 

participants through October 26, 2015. On July 22, 

2016, CBP published a notice in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 47812) extending the ACAS pilot 

program through July 26, 2017. On July 24, 2017, 

CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (82 

FR 34319) extending the ACAS pilot program 

through July 26, 2018. 

16The six ACAS data elements have been referred 

to by the trade as ‘‘7+1’’ data by considering 

‘‘shipper name and address’’ and ‘‘consignee name 

and address’’ to be four data elements instead of 

two. As this data is included in 19 CFR 122.48a as 

two data elements, CBP will continue to refer to 

‘‘six ACAS data elements’’ and not ‘‘7+1.’’ 

17TSA’s involvement in ACAS is authorized 

under 49 U.S.C. 114(f) and (m), and 44901(g), as 

amended by the Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act, Public Law 110–53, 121 

Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007), and under authority of the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, as delegated to the 

Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for TSA, 

under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 

amended (6 U.S.C. 112(b)). 

18Under the ACAS pilot, industry participants 

regulated by TSA have been and will continue to 

be required to follow TSA’s screening protocols as 

outlined in their respective security programs and 

applicable SDs/EAs. This includes baseline 

screening requirements for air cargo, as well as 

enhanced security screening measures for higher 

risk cargo. ACAS results may require that the 

carriers conduct enhanced screening procedures on 

certain cargo that otherwise would have received 

only baseline screening. 

ACAS pilot to collect the necessary data 

from pilot participants earlier in the 

process. The ACAS pilot is discussed in 

detail in Section III.C. 

The joint CBP–TSA targeting 

operation utilizes CBP’s ATS and other 

available intelligence as a dynamic risk 

targeting tool to leverage the data and 

information already collected in order to 

secure inbound air cargo. This allows 

CBP and TSA to address specific threat 

information in real time and identify 

any cargo that has a nexus to terrorism. 

This cooperative targeting, in 

combination with the existing CBP and 

TSA air cargo risk assessment measures, 

increases the security of the global 

supply chain. The CBP–TSA joint 

targeting operation continues to operate 

today and together with the ACAS pilot, 

and now this rule, serves as an 

important additional layer of security to 

address the new and emerging threats to 

air cargo. 

C. ACAS Pilot 

To collect advance air cargo data 

earlier in the supply chain, CBP, in 

collaboration with TSA and the air 

cargo industry, established the ACAS 

pilot in December 2010.15 The pilot was 

created to explore the feasibility of 

collecting data on inbound air cargo 

prior to loading, to determine the time 

frame under which participants could 

provide reasonably reliable and accurate 

data, and to test the technological 

aspects of transmitting the ACAS data 

and the operational logistics of resolving 

ACAS referrals. 

Many different entities are 

participating in the pilot including 

express consignment air courier 

companies, passenger carriers, all-cargo 

carriers, and freight forwarders. Pilot 

participants volunteer to electronically 

provide CBP with a specified subset of 

19 CFR 122.48a data (ACAS pilot data) 

as early as possible prior to loading of 

the cargo onto an aircraft destined to the 

United States. 

To determine what data would be 

effective to target, identify, and mitigate 

high-risk cargo prior to loading, CBP 

evaluated the advance air cargo data 

that is currently transmitted under 19 

CFR 122.48a. While the 19 CFR 122.48a 

data and the ACAS pilot data are used 

in conjunction to ensure the safety and 

security of air cargo throughout the 

supply chain, they are collected at 

different time frames for different risk 

assessments. The 19 CFR 122.48a data is 

used to evaluate risk prior to arrival at 

a U.S. port of entry to prevent high-risk 

cargo from entering the United States. 

ACAS pilot data is essential to ensure 

that high-risk cargo that poses a risk to 

the aircraft during flight is not loaded. 

Accordingly, CBP evaluated each 19 

CFR 122.48a data element to determine 

whether the data would be effective in 

assessing the cargo’s risk prior to 

loading of the cargo onto the aircraft, 

and whether the data was consistently 

available and predictable early in the 

lifecycle of the cargo in the global 

supply chain. CBP also consulted with 

the industry about what data would be 

available and predictable at an earlier 

time frame. CBP concluded that some of 

the 19 CFR 122.48a data, including the 

mandatory flight and routing 

information, was too unpredictable to 

effectively target high-risk cargo under 

the earlier time frame. 

CBP determined that six of the 

mandatory 19 CFR 122.48a data 

elements, when viewed together, met its 

criteria and would be included in the 

ACAS pilot. This subset of 19 CFR 

122.48a is the ACAS pilot data. The 

ACAS pilot data elements are: Air 

waybill number, total quantity based on 

the smallest external packing unit, total 

weight of cargo, cargo description, 

shipper name and address, and 

consignee name and address.16 These 

data elements must be provided to CBP 

at the lowest air waybill level (i.e., 

house air waybill level for consolidated 

shipments or regular air waybill level 

for non-consolidated shipments). 

CBP determined that the data 

described above would enable the 

agency to more effectively conduct 

database searches aimed at identifying 

possible discrepancies and high-risk 

cargo. When taken together, the six data 

elements would provide CBP with 

pertinent information about the cargo 

and enable CBP to better evaluate the 

cargo’s threat level prior to loading. 

While the ACAS pilot data only 

consists of six elements, CBP 

encourages participants to provide any 

additional available data. Any 

additional available data that is 

provided enhances the accuracy of the 

targeting. 

Upon receipt of the ACAS pilot data, 

the joint CBP–TSA targeting operation 

utilizes CBP’s ATS and other 

intelligence to analyze the ACAS data to 

better identify cargo that has a nexus to 

terrorism and poses a high security risk. 

CBP issues an ACAS referral for any air 

cargo identified as high-risk and 

specifies what action the ACAS filer 

needs to take to address the referral and 

mitigate the risk. There are two types of 

referrals that may be issued after a risk 

assessment of the ACAS pilot data: 

Referrals for information and referrals 

for screening. The mitigation of these 

referrals depends on the directions 

provided by CBP and/or TSA. A referral 

for information is usually mitigated 

when the ACAS filer provides clarifying 

information related to the required 

ACAS pilot data. Referrals for screening 

are issued pursuant to CBP authorities 

and resolved using TSA-approved or 

accepted security programs.17 A referral 

for screening is mitigated by 

confirmation that enhanced screening 

has been performed pursuant to the 

appropriate TSA-approved screening 

methods contained in the carrier’s 

security program.18 The inbound air 

carrier is prohibited from loading cargo 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27387 

19Acronym for Framework of Standards to Secure 

and Facilitate Global Trade (‘‘SAFE Framework of 

Standards’’). 

20The shipper name and address (referred to as 

the consignor per the WCO guidelines), consignee 

name and address, cargo description, piece count, 

weight and the air waybill number. 

onto the aircraft destined for the United 

States until all ACAS referrals are 

resolved on that cargo. 

Based on the risk assessment, if CBP 

and TSA determine that the cargo may 

contain a potential bomb, improvised 

explosive device, or other material that 

may pose an immediate, lethal threat to 

the aircraft and/or its vicinity, CBP 

issues a DNL instruction. Cargo 

receiving a DNL instruction must not be 

transported. Such cargo requires 

adherence to the appropriate protocols 

and directions provided by the 

applicable law enforcement authority. 

The ACAS pilot has proven to be 

extremely beneficial. Most importantly, 

it has enabled CBP to identify numerous 

instances of high-risk cargo prior to the 

cargo being loaded onto an aircraft 

destined to the United States. Although 

to date CBP has not had to issue a DNL 

instruction, CBP has identified a 

significant number of air cargo 

shipments that have potential ties to 

terrorism and, therefore, may represent 

a threat to aviation security. In each 

instance, enhanced cargo screening 

pursuant to the TSA-approved screening 

methods was required to ensure that the 

cargo presented no risk to the safety and 

security of the aircraft. 

Another benefit of the ACAS pilot is 

that an ACAS referral may require 

enhanced screening on cargo that 

otherwise would have received only 

baseline screening pursuant to TSAapproved screening methods in the 

carrier’s security program. The ACAS 

pilot program is an additional layer of 

security in DHS’s air cargo security 

approach. An additional benefit of the 

pilot is that it has allowed the industry 

to test the collection of the ACAS pilot 

data in the earlier time frame and the 

technological capacity to collect and 

transmit the data electronically. 

Despite the benefits, the pilot has 

certain limitations which stem from the 

fact that it is a voluntary program. 

Because the pilot is voluntary, not all 

inbound air carriers participate; thus, 

there is a data collection gap. Also, 

because the pilot is voluntary, not all 

ACAS pilot data is transmitted in a 

timely manner and not all ACAS 

referrals are resolved prior to departure. 

This means that high-risk cargo may be 

transported aboard U.S.-bound aircraft, 

placing the aircraft, passengers and crew 

at risk. Finally, because the pilot is 

voluntary, CBP cannot take enforcement 

action against participants who fail to 

transmit ACAS data in a timely manner, 

do not address an ACAS referral, or 

otherwise fail to comply with the 

requirements. While ACAS pilot 

participants usually transmit ACAS data 

in a timely manner, and take the 

necessary action to comply with ACAS 

referrals and other requirements, 

voluntary compliance is not always 

sufficient to ensure aviation security. 

Due to these limitations, air cargo 

continues to pose a security threat that 

can be exploited by terrorists. Therefore, 

CBP is establishing a mandatory ACAS 

program. 

IV. Mandatory ACAS Program 

To fulfill the Trade Act mandate to 

ensure air cargo safety and security, CBP 

is establishing a mandatory ACAS 

program that will require the 

submission of certain advance air cargo 

data earlier than is required under 19 

CFR 122.48a. This will enable CBP to 

identify, target and mitigate high-risk 

cargo before the cargo is transported 

aboard an aircraft destined to the United 

States. CBP’s objective for the ACAS 

program is to obtain the most accurate 

data at the earliest time possible with as 

little impact to the flow of commerce as 

possible. CBP believes that the ACAS 

program, in conjunction with the 

current CBP 19 CFR 122.48a regulations 

and TSA’s updated security programs, 

will significantly enhance air cargo 

safety and security as mandated by the 

Trade Act. 

In order to implement ACAS as a 

mandatory program, CBP must adhere to 

the parameters applicable to the 

development of regulations under 

section 343(a) of the Trade Act. While 

aviation security and securing the air 

cargo supply chain are paramount, these 

Trade Act parameters require CBP to 

give due consideration to the concerns 

of the industry and the flow of 

commerce. These parameters include, 

among others, provisions requiring 

consultation with the industry and 

consideration of the differences in 

commercial practices and operational 

practices among the different parties. In 

addition, the parameters require that the 

information collected pursuant to the 

regulations be used for ensuring cargo 

safety and security, preventing 

smuggling, and commercial risk 

assessment targeting, and require CBP to 

balance the impact on the flow of 

commerce with the impact on cargo 

safety and security. The parameters also 

require that the obligations imposed 

must generally be upon the party most 

likely to have direct knowledge of the 

required information and if not, then 

mandate that the obligations imposed 

take into account ordinary commercial 

practices for receiving data and what the 

party transmitting the information 

reasonably believes to be true. In 

developing the ACAS regulations, CBP 

considered all of the parameters. The 

adherence to these parameters is noted 

throughout the document. 

Throughout the development of the 

ACAS pilot and this interim final rule, 

CBP consulted extensively with the air 

cargo industry about their business 

practices and how to best formulate the 

ACAS program to take these business 

practices into consideration in 

developing a regulatory program that 

addressed the security concerns. As a 

result of these industry consultations, 

CBP has been able to develop ACAS 

regulations that, in accordance with the 

parameters of the Trade Act, balance the 

impact on the flow of commerce with 

the impact on cargo safety and security 

and take into consideration existing 

standard business practices and 

interactions among stakeholders. This 

allows CBP to target data earlier while 

minimizing negative impacts on 

operations, the air cargo business 

model, and the movement of legitimate 

goods. 

In developing these regulations, CBP 

also considered international efforts to 

develop advance air cargo information 

security programs. The ACAS program 

is part of a global effort to develop 

advance cargo information programs 

with agreed-upon international 

standards that collect and analyze the 

information prior to loading. CBP has 

participated in the World Customs 

Organization (WCO) Technical Experts 

Group Meeting on Air Cargo Security, 

the WCO/ICAO Joint Working Group on 

Advance Cargo Information and the 

WCO SAFE 19 Working Groups meetings 

to inform foreign governments and trade 

associations on the progress of the 

ACAS pilot and to shape discussions on 

establishing global customs guidelines 

on air advance cargo information as well 

on identifying areas for collaboration 

between Customs and Aviation Security 

(AVSEC) authorities on air cargo 

security. In June 2015, the mandatory 

ACAS data established in this rule was 

incorporated into the WCO SAFE 

Framework of Standards.20 CBP believes 

that the ACAS program is consistent 

with these international programs. 

In developing the program, CBP also 

considered the results of the ACAS 

pilot. While the ACAS pilot has been 

operating successfully, CBP has noted a 

few areas for improvement. The ACAS 

program addresses these shortcomings. 

They include minor changes to the 

definition of consignee name and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27388 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

21As provided in 19 CFR 122.41, subject to 

specified exceptions, all aircraft coming into the 

United States from a foreign area must make entry. 

22 Instructions are currently set forth at https://

www.cbp.gov/trade/automated/interconnectionsecurity-agreement/instructions. 

23 If an aircraft en route to the United States stops 

at one or more foreign airports and cargo is loaded, 

an ACAS filing would be required for the cargo 

loaded on each leg of the flight prior to loading of 

that cargo. 

address, adding the MAWB number as 

a conditional data element, requiring 

the submission of the FDM, and adding 

enforcement provisions. These issues 

are discussed in more detail in Sections 

IV.D., I., and J. below. 

To implement the ACAS program, 

CBP is adding a new section, 19 CFR 

122.48b, titled Air Cargo Advance 

Screening (ACAS), and making certain 

revisions to 19 CFR 122.48a. 

Additionally, CBP is revising the 

relevant bond provisions in 19 CFR part 

113 to incorporate the ACAS 

requirements. 

A. New 19 CFR 122.48b, Air Cargo 

Advance Screening (ACAS) 

The new ACAS regulation provides 

that, pursuant to section 343(a) of the 

Trade Act, for any inbound aircraft 

required to make entry under 19 CFR 

122.41 that will have commercial cargo 

aboard, CBP must electronically receive 

from the inbound air carrier and/or 

another eligible ACAS filer the ACAS 

data no later than the specified ACAS 

time frame.21 The required ACAS data 

must be transmitted to CBP through a 

CBP-approved EDI as early as 

practicable, but no later than prior to 

loading of the cargo on the aircraft. The 

ACAS data will be used to determine 

whether the cargo is high-risk and may 

result in the issuance of an ACAS 

referral or a DNL instruction. Any ACAS 

referral must be resolved prior to 

departure of the aircraft. Any cargo that 

is issued a DNL instruction must not be 

loaded onto aircraft and requires 

immediate adherence to the protocols 

and directions from law enforcement 

authorities. Below, we describe the new 

program including the eligible ACAS 

filers, the ACAS data, the ACAS 

referrals, DNL instructions, the bonds 

required to file ACAS data, and 

available enforcement actions. 

B. Eligible ACAS Filers 

The new 19 CFR 122.48b(c) specifies 

which parties are eligible to file ACAS 

data. Eligible parties include the 

inbound air carrier and other parties as 

specified below. The inbound air carrier 

is required to file the ACAS data if no 

other eligible party elects to file. CBP is 

allowing parties other than the inbound 

air carrier to file because, in some cases, 

these other parties will have access to 

accurate ACAS data sooner. For 

effective targeting to occur prior to 

loading, it is essential that the most 

accurate ACAS data be filed at the 

earliest point possible in the supply 

chain. This approach is consistent with 

the Trade Act parameters that require 

CBP to obtain data from the party most 

likely to have direct knowledge of the 

data and to balance the impact on the 

flow of commerce with the impact on 

cargo safety and security. 

In addition to the inbound air carrier, 

the other parties that may elect to file 

the ACAS data are all the parties eligible 

to elect to file advance air cargo data 

under 19 CFR 122.48a(c), as well as 

foreign indirect air carriers, a term 

which encompasses freight forwarders. 

Parties eligible to elect to file advance 

air cargo data under 19 CFR 122.48a(c) 

include an Automated Broker Interface 

(ABI) filer (importer or its Customs 

broker) as identified by its ABI filer 

code; a Container Freight Station/ 

deconsolidator as identified by its 

FIRMS (Facilities Information and 

Resources Management System) code; 

an Express Consignment Carrier Facility 

as identified by its FIRMS code; or, an 

air carrier as identified by its carrier 

IATA (International Air Transport 

Association) code, that arranged to have 

the inbound air carrier transport the 

cargo to the United States. 

Freight forwarders (also referred to as 

foreign indirect air carriers) are 

generally ineligible to directly file the 

advance air cargo data required under 

19 CFR 122.48a. CBP decided to allow 

freight forwarders to participate in the 

ACAS pilot because HAWB data is 

generally available to the freight 

forwarder earlier than it is available to 

the inbound air carrier. CBP has 

concluded that the inclusion of freight 

forwarders in the ACAS pilot has 

resulted in CBP’s receipt of the data 

earlier in some cases. Therefore, CBP is 

including freight forwarders as eligible 

filers under 19 CFR 122.48b. 

For purposes of ACAS, foreign 

indirect air carrier (FIAC) is defined as 

any person, not a citizen of the United 

States, that undertakes indirectly to 

engage in the air transportation of 

property. This is consistent with the 

definitions in the regulations of the 

Department of Transportation (14 CFR 

297.3(d)) and the TSA (see 49 CFR 

1540.5, defining ‘‘indirect air carrier’’). 

This definition includes a foreign air 

freight forwarder, that is, a FIAC that is 

responsible for the transportation of 

property from the point of receipt to 

point of destination, and utilizes for the 

whole or any part of such transportation 

the services of a direct air carrier or its 

agent, or of another foreign indirect 

cargo air carrier. Certain FIACs, such as 

deconsolidators or ABI filers, may 

already be eligible to file ACAS data if 

they separately qualify as an eligible 

filer under 19 CFR 122.48a(c). FIACs 

who are not eligible 19 CFR 122.48a 

filers are still eligible to transmit ACAS 

only filings. 

Under the new 19 CFR 122.48b(c)(3), 

all inbound air carriers and other 

eligible entities electing to be ACAS 

filers must meet the following 

prerequisites to file the ACAS data: 

• Establish the communication 

protocol required by CBP for properly 

transmitting an ACAS filing through a 

CBP-approved EDI system.22 As set forth 

in the new 19 CFR 122.48b(a), the ACAS 

data must be transmitted through such 

a system. 

• Provide 24 hours/7 days a week 

contact information consisting of a 

telephone number and email address. 

CBP will use the 24 hours/7 days a week 

contact information to notify, 

communicate, and carry out response 

protocols for a DNL instruction, even if 

an electronic status message is sent. 

• Report all of the originator codes 

that will be used to file ACAS data. 

(Originator codes are unique to each 

filer to allow CBP to know who initiated 

the filing and to identify the return 

address to provide status messages.) If, 

at any time, an ACAS filer wishes to 

utilize additional originator codes to file 

ACAS data, the originator codes must be 

reported to CBP prior to their use to 

ensure that CBP can link the ACAS data 

to the complete set of advance data 

transmitted pursuant to 19 CFR 122.48a. 

This will allow CBP to easily identify all 

the ACAS and 19 CFR 122.48a filers for 

one shipment. 

• Possess the appropriate bond 

containing all the necessary provisions 

of 19 CFR 113.62, 113.63, or 113.64. 

CBP is amending the regulations 

covering certain bond conditions, as 

described in Section IV.I., to incorporate 

the ACAS requirements. 

C. Time Frame for Filing ACAS Data 

The new 19 CFR 122.48b(b) sets forth 

the time frame for submission of the 

ACAS data. As noted previously, the 

ACAS filing requirements are applicable 

to any inbound aircraft required to make 

entry under 19 CFR 122.41 that will 

have commercial cargo aboard. (These 

same aircraft are subject to the 

requirements in 19 CFR 122.48a). For 

such aircraft, the ACAS data must be 

transmitted as early as practicable, but 

no later than prior to loading of the 

cargo onto the aircraft.23 Based on the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27389 

24 19 CFR 122.48a specifies, based on the type of 

shipment, what data the inbound air carrier must 

transmit to CBP and what data other eligible filers 

may transmit to CBP. For non-consolidated 

shipments, the inbound air carrier must transmit to 

CBP the 17 data elements (11 mandatory, 6 

conditional) applicable for the air waybill record. 

For consolidated shipments, the inbound air carrier 

must transmit to CBP the 17 data elements (11 

mandatory, 6 conditional) that are applicable to the 

MAWB, and the inbound air carrier must transmit 

a subset of the data (7 mandatory, 1 conditional) for 

all associated HAWBs, unless another eligible filer 

transmits this data to CBP. For split shipments, the 

inbound air carrier must submit an additional 

subset of this data (9 mandatory, 3 conditional) for 

each HAWB. 

operation of the ACAS pilot, CBP 

believes that the ACAS time frame 

provides CBP sufficient time to perform 

a risk assessment prior to loading of the 

cargo aboard the aircraft without unduly 

impacting the flow of commerce. 

Although CBP has determined that it 

is not commercially feasible to require 

the submission of the ACAS data a 

specified number of hours prior to 

loading of the cargo onto the aircraft, 

CBP encourages filers to transmit the 

required data as early as practicable. 

The earlier the ACAS data is filed, the 

sooner CBP can perform its targeting 

and the more time the filer or other 

responsible party will have to address 

any ACAS referral or DNL instruction. 

If the ACAS data is transmitted at the 

last minute and CBP issues an ACAS 

referral or DNL instruction, the 

scheduled departure of the flight could 

be delayed. 

D. ACAS Data 

The ACAS data for the ACAS program 

is a subset of the 19 CFR 122.48a data.24

It differs slightly from the ACAS pilot 

data. After an evaluation of the ACAS 

pilot, CBP determined that some 

improvements and additions to the data 

were needed. The ACAS data for the 

program is listed in the new 19 CFR 

122.48b(d). As discussed below, some of 

the data is mandatory, one data element 

is conditional and other data elements 

are optional. ACAS data will only be 

used to the extent consistent with the 

Trade Act. 

1. ACAS Data Definitions 

The definitions of the ACAS data 

elements are set forth in 19 CFR 

122.48a. The relevant definitions for 

non-consolidated shipments are set 

forth in 19 CFR 122.48a(d)(1) and the 

relevant definitions for consolidated 

shipments are set forth in both 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(1) and (d)(2). 

2. Mandatory ACAS Data 

The new 19 CFR 122.48b(d)(1) sets 

forth the mandatory ACAS data required 

in all circumstances. The mandatory 

ACAS data elements are the same six 

data elements as the ACAS pilot data. 

They are: shipper name and address, 

consignee name and address, cargo 

description, total quantity based on the 

smallest external packing unit, total 

weight of cargo, and air waybill number. 

As explained above in Section III.C., 

each of these six data elements provides 

CBP with crucial information needed to 

target and identify high-risk cargo before 

it is loaded onto an aircraft destined to 

the United States. CBP has determined 

that when taken together, these six data 

elements, if provided within the ACAS 

time frame, will enable CBP to perform 

an effective risk assessment. Based on 

the ACAS pilot, CBP believes that ACAS 

filers will be able to provide this data 

in a consistent, timely, and reasonably 

accurate manner. 

The ACAS data is required to be 

transmitted at the lowest air waybill 

level (i.e., at the HAWB level if 

applicable) by all ACAS filers. As 

explained in detail in Section IV.J.2., 

CBP is making minor changes to the 

definition of consignee name and 

address in 19 CFR 122.48a(d) for clarity. 

The mandatory ACAS data elements for 

the ACAS program with the revised 

definition are: 

(1) Shipper name and address. The 

name and address of the foreign vendor, 

supplier, manufacturer, or other similar 

party is acceptable. The address of the 

foreign vendor, etc., must be a foreign 

address. The identity of a carrier, freight 

forwarder, or consolidator is not 

acceptable. (This definition is in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(1)(x) for non-consolidated 

shipments and in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(2)(vi) for consolidated 

shipments.) 

(2) Consignee name and address. This 

is the name and address of the party to 

whom the cargo will be delivered 

regardless of the location of the party; 

this party need not be located at the 

arrival or destination port. (This 

definition is in revised 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(1)(xi) for non-consolidated 

shipments and in revised 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(2)(vii) for consolidated 

shipments.) 

(3) Cargo description. A precise cargo 

description or the 6-digit Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule (HTS) number must be 

provided. Generic descriptions, 

specifically those such as ‘‘FAK’’ 

(‘‘freight of all kinds’’), ‘‘general cargo,’’ 

and ‘‘STC’’ (‘‘said to contain’’) are not 

acceptable. (This definition is in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(1)(ix) for non-consolidated 

shipments and in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(2)(iii) for consolidated 

shipments.) 

(4) Total quantity based on the 

smallest external packing unit. For 

example, 2 pallets containing 50 pieces 

each would be considered 100, not 2. 

(This definition is in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(1)(vii) for non-consolidated 

shipments and in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(2)(iv) for consolidated 

shipments.) 

(5) Total weight of cargo. This may be 

expressed in either pounds or 

kilograms. (This definition is in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(1)(viii) for non-consolidated 

shipments and in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(2)(v) for consolidated 

shipments.) 

(6) Air waybill number. The air 

waybill number must be the same in the 

ACAS filing and the 19 CFR 122.48a 

filing. For non-consolidated shipments, 

the air waybill number is the 

International Air Transport Association 

(IATA) standard 11-digit number, as 

provided in 19 CFR 122.48a(d)(1)(i). For 

consolidated shipments, the air waybill 

number that is a mandatory data 

element for ACAS purposes is the 

HAWB number. As provided in 19 CFR 

122.48a(d)(2)(i), the HAWB number may 

be up to 12 alphanumeric characters 

(each alphanumeric character that is 

indicated on the HAWB must be 

included in the electronic transmission; 

alpha characters may not be eliminated). 

3. Conditional ACAS Data: Master Air 

Waybill Number 

In addition to the mandatory ACAS 

data, CBP is adding the MAWB number 

as a conditional ACAS data element. As 

provided by 19 CFR 122.48a(d) and 

(d)(1)(i), the MAWB number is the IATA 

standard 11-digit number. Although the 

MAWB number is one of the required 19 

CFR 122.48a data elements for 

consolidated shipments, it is not an 

ACAS pilot data element. Based on 

CBP’s experience with the pilot, CBP is 

including the MAWB number as an 

ACAS data element in certain 

situations. The new 19 CFR 

122.48b(d)(2) lists those situations. The 

inclusion of the MAWB number in the 

ACAS data will address several issues 

that have arisen during the pilot. 

CBP has found that oftentimes the 

transmitted ACAS pilot data by itself is 

insufficient to fully analyze whether the 

required ACAS data has been 

transmitted for a particular flight. This 

is because the ACAS pilot data only 

requires the data at the HAWB level. As 

a result, it provides data about the cargo 

and the relevant parties for a specific 

shipment but does not provide any data 

about the flight and routing of that 

shipment. Without that information, it 

is difficult to link the ACAS data with 

a particular flight and to estimate the 

time and airport of departure to the 

United States. This makes it difficult to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27390 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

25As mandated by the Trade Act, CBP consulted 

with the industry regarding the feasibility of 

including the MAWB number as ACAS data. Some 

industry representatives indicated that providing 

the MAWB number early in the supply chain was 

not operationally feasible and would inhibit the 

transmission of the ACAS data as early as possible 

in the supply chain. Some express carriers stated 

that their guaranteed on-time delivery service 

required flexibility in their transportation routes 

and that current business practices do not involve 

assigning a MAWB number until the very last 

minute prior to departure. As a result, CBP decided 

to only require the MAWB number in certain 

situations where it was needed and/or could be 

reasonably provided. 

26This is in accordance with the Trade Act 

parameters. Section 343(a)(3)(B) provides that in 

general, the requirement to provide particular 

information shall be imposed on the party most 

likely to have direct knowledge of that information. 

It further provides that where requiring information 

from the party with direct knowledge of that 

information is not practicable, the regulations shall 

take into account how, under ordinary commercial 

practices, information is acquired by the party on 

which the requirement is imposed, and whether 

and how such party is able to verify the 

information. It provides that where information is 

not reasonably verifiable by the party on which a 

requirement is imposed, the regulations shall 

permit that party to transmit information on the 

basis of what it reasonably believes to be true. 

27The 19 CFR 122.48a data must be transmitted 

to CBP no later than the time of departure of the 

aircraft for the United States (from specified nearby 

foreign locations) or four hours prior to arrival in 

the United States for all other foreign locations. See 

Section III.A.1. for additional information on the 19 

CFR 122.48a time frames. 

28 If the inbound air carrier is neither the ACAS 

filer nor the Second Notify Party, the inbound air 

carrier can still obtain the ACAS status of a 

shipment if: (1) The ACAS filer submits the MAWB 

number, whether in the original ACAS filing or 

later. (This will allow the inbound air carrier to 

locate the cargo for risk mitigation. The 

MAWB data provides the necessary 

information about the flight and routing 

of the shipment. 

CBP also found that without the 

ability to link the HAWB number to a 

MAWB, the inbound air carrier might 

not be able to verify whether an ACAS 

assessment was performed for the cargo 

before it is accepted and loaded. 

CBP is requiring the MAWB number 

in the following situations: 

(1) When the ACAS filer is a different 

party from the party that will file the 19 

CFR 122.48a data. The MAWB number 

is required in this situation because CBP 

needs a way to link the associated 

HAWBs transmitted as part of the ACAS 

data with the relevant MAWB provided 

by the 19 CFR 122.48a filer. To allow for 

earlier submission, an initial ACAS 

filing may be transmitted without the 

MAWB number, as long as the MAWB 

number is transmitted by the ACAS filer 

or the inbound air carrier according to 

the applicable ACAS time frame. 

(2) When the ACAS filer transmits all 

the 19 CFR 122.48a data in the 

applicable ACAS time frame through a 

single filing. Since the MAWB number 

is required 19 CFR 122.48a data for 

consolidated shipments, the ACAS filer 

will be providing the MAWB number by 

default in this single filing. 

(3) When the inbound air carrier 

would like to receive a status check 

from CBP on the ACAS assessment of 

specific cargo. If the MAWB number is 

transmitted, either by the ACAS filer or 

the inbound air carrier, CBP will be able 

to provide this information to the 

inbound air carrier upon request. If the 

MAWB number is not transmitted, CBP 

has no means of linking the ACAS data 

to a particular flight, as explained 

above, and cannot accurately respond to 

the query. 

CBP believes that requiring the 

MAWB number in these three situations 

and encouraging it in other situations, 

best balances the need to collect this 

important data without negatively 

impacting trade operations.25

When the MAWB number is required, 

it must be provided for each leg of the 

flight for any inbound aircraft required 

to make entry under 19 CFR 122.41 that 

will have commercial cargo aboard. 

4. Optional ACAS Data 

The new 19 CFR 122.48b(d)(3) lists 

optional data that may be provided by 

ACAS filers. ACAS filers may choose to 

designate a ‘‘Second Notify Party,’’ 

which is any secondary stakeholder or 

interested party in the importation of 

goods to the United States, to receive 

shipment status messages from CBP. 

This party does not have to be the 

inbound air carrier or eligible ACAS 

filer. Allowing ACAS filers the option of 

electing a ‘‘Second Notify Party’’ 

enables other relevant stakeholders to 

receive shipment status messages from 

CBP. This functionality will increase the 

ability to respond expeditiously to DNL 

instructions by warning additional 

stakeholders of such a situation through 

direct contact and automated data. 

ACAS filers are also encouraged to 

file additional information regarding 

any of the ACAS data (e.g., telephone 

number, email address, and/or internet 

protocol address for shipper and/or 

consignee) or any data listed in 19 CFR 

122.48a that is not ACAS data. This 

additional data will assist CBP in its risk 

assessment and may allow for a faster 

ACAS disposition. 

CBP and/or TSA may also require 

additional information such as flight 

numbers and routing information to 

address ACAS referrals for screening. 

This information will be requested in a 

referral message, when necessary. 

E. Filing and Updating the ACAS Data 

CBP’s objective for the ACAS program 

is to obtain the most accurate data at the 

earliest time possible with as little 

impact to the flow of commerce as 

possible. To achieve this objective, CBP 

is allowing multiple parties to file the 

ACAS data, allowing flexibility in how 

the ACAS data is filed, and requiring 

that the ACAS data be disclosed to the 

filer by the parties in the supply chain 

with the best knowledge of the data. 

The eligible ACAS filers and the 

prerequisites to be an ACAS filer are 

described above in Section IV.B. If no 

other eligible filer elects to file, the 

inbound air carrier must file the ACAS 

data. Even if another eligible party does 

elect to file the ACAS data, the inbound 

air carrier may also choose to file. 

CBP allows flexibility in how the 

ACAS data is filed. As explained above 

in Section IV.D.3, an ACAS filer, who is 

also a 19 CFR 122.48a eligible filer, may 

choose to file the 19 CFR 122.48a filing 

in accordance with the ACAS time 

frame. This would be a single filing and 

would satisfy both the 19 CFR 122.48a 

and the ACAS filing requirements. 

Regardless of which party chooses to 

file or how they choose to file, the 

ACAS data must be transmitted to CBP 

within the ACAS time frame. 

To ensure that an ACAS filer has the 

most accurate ACAS data at the time of 

submission, CBP requires certain 

parties, with knowledge of the cargo, to 

provide the ACAS filer with the ACAS 

data.26 Specifically, the new 19 CFR 

122.48b(c)(4) provides that when an 

eligible ACAS filer, who arranges for 

and/or delivers the cargo, does not elect 

to file the ACAS data, that party must 

fully disclose and present the inbound 

air carrier with the ACAS data. The 

inbound air carrier must then present 

this data electronically to CBP. The new 

19 CFR 122.48b(c)(5) provides that any 

other entity that is not an eligible ACAS 

filer, but is in possession of ACAS data 

must fully disclose and present the 

ACAS data to either the inbound air 

carrier or other eligible ACAS filer, as 

applicable. The inbound air carrier or 

other eligible ACAS filer must then 

transmit such data to CBP. 

While CBP emphasizes the need for 

the ACAS data as early as possible in 

the supply chain, the ACAS filer is also 

responsible for updating the ACAS data, 

if any of the data changes or more 

accurate data becomes available. 

Updates are required up until the time 

the 19 CFR 122.48a filing is required.27

When the ACAS filing is transmitted 

to CBP, the ACAS filer receives a status 

message confirming the submission. If 

the ACAS filer designates a Second 

Notify Party, that party will also receive 

the status notification (and any 

subsequent status notifications).28 After 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27391 

query CBP for any HAWBs under that MAWB 

number); or (2) The inbound air carrier submits a 

message to CBP containing the MAWB number and 

ACAS data from the HAWB that are exact matches 

to the ACAS data submitted by the original ACAS 

filer, allowing the inbound air carrier to receive the 

ACAS status of the HAWB; or (3) The inbound air 

carrier opts to resubmit the ACAS data previously 

filed by the other ACAS filer. 

the risk assessment of each cargo 

shipment is performed, the ACAS filer 

will receive either an ‘‘ACAS 

assessment complete’’ clearance 

message, an ACAS referral, or a DNL 

instruction. 

F. ACAS Referrals 

After CBP conducts a risk assessment 

of the ACAS filing, an ACAS referral 

may be issued for cargo deemed highrisk or determined to have insufficient 

data. An ACAS referral is a designation 

attached to cargo to indicate that CBP 

and TSA need more accurate or more 

complete information, and/or that the 

information provided indicates a risk 

that requires mitigation pursuant to 

TSA-approved enhanced screening 

methods. CBP will send a shipment 

status message to the ACAS filer about 

the referral. The new 19 CFR 

122.48b(e)(1) describes two types of 

potential ACAS referrals: referrals for 

information and referrals for screening. 

Referrals for information will be 

issued if a risk assessment of the cargo 

cannot be conducted due to nondescriptive, inaccurate, or insufficient 

data. This can be due to typographical 

errors, vague cargo descriptions, and/or 

unverifiable data. Referrals for screening 

will be issued if the potential risk of the 

cargo is deemed high enough to warrant 

enhanced security screening. The 

screening must be performed in 

accordance with the appropriate TSAapproved screening methods contained 

in the carrier’s security program. For 

more information about TSA’s screening 

requirements, see Section III.A.2. 

G. Do-Not-Load (DNL) Instructions 

A DNL instruction will be issued if it 

is determined, based on the risk 

assessment and other intelligence, that 

the cargo may contain a potential bomb, 

improvised explosive device, or other 

material that may pose an immediate, 

lethal threat to the aircraft, persons 

aboard, and/or the vicinity. Because a 

DNL instruction will be issued when it 

appears that a terrorist plot is in 

progress, all ACAS filers must provide 

a telephone number and email address 

that is monitored 24 hours/7 days a 

week. All ACAS filers must respond and 

fully cooperate when the entity is 

reached by phone and/or email when a 

DNL instruction is issued. 

H. Responsibilities of ACAS Filers 

Filing the ACAS data comes with 

certain responsibilities. Failure to fulfill 

these responsibilities could result in 

CBP issuing liquidated damages and/or 

assessing penalties. The inbound air 

carrier and/or the other eligible ACAS 

filer have the responsibility to provide 

accurate data to CBP in the ACAS filing 

and to update that data if necessary, to 

transmit the data within the ACAS time 

frame to CBP, to resolve ACAS referrals 

prior to departure of the aircraft and to 

respond to a DNL instruction in an 

expedited manner. 

1. Responsibility To Provide Accurate 

and Timely Data 

CBP needs accurate and timely data to 

perform effective targeting. To ensure 

this, the inbound air carrier and/or other 

eligible ACAS filer is liable for the 

timeliness and accuracy of the data that 

they transmit. Accurate data is the best 

data available at the time of filing. The 

same considerations will apply here as 

for the current Trade Act requirements. 

As stated in the new 19 CFR 

122.48b(c)(6), CBP will take into 

consideration how, in accordance with 

ordinary commercial practices, the 

ACAS filer acquired such data, and 

whether and how the filer is able to 

verify this data. Where the ACAS filer 

is not reasonably able to verify such 

information, CBP will permit the filer to 

electronically present the data on the 

basis of what that filer reasonably 

believes to be true. This is in accordance 

with the Trade Act parameters that 

require CBP to take these factors into 

account when promulgating regulations. 

2. Responsibility To Resolve ACAS 

Referrals 

The new 19 CFR 122.48b(e)(2) 

specifies the requirements for resolving 

ACAS referrals. This section describes 

the responsibilities of the inbound air 

carrier and/or other eligible ACAS filer 

to take the necessary action to respond 

to and address any outstanding ACAS 

referrals no later than prior to departure 

of the aircraft. 

Each of the two types of ACAS 

referrals results in different 

responsibilities for the ACAS filer and/ 

or inbound air carrier. The responsible 

party must address any ACAS referrals 

within the specified time frame. The 

new 19 CFR 122.48b(e)(3) specifies that 

the inbound air carrier is prohibited 

from transporting cargo on an aircraft 

destined to the United States until any 

and all referrals issued for that cargo 

have been resolved and CBP has 

provided an ‘‘ACAS assessment 

complete’’ clearance message. 

a. Referral for Information 

For referrals for information, the party 

who filed the ACAS data must resolve 

the referral by providing CBP with the 

requested clarifying data. This 

responsibility is imposed on the party 

who filed the ACAS data because they 

are in the best position to correct any 

data inconsistencies or errors. The last 

party to file the ACAS data must 

address the referral. For instance, when 

the inbound air carrier retransmits an 

original ACAS filer’s data and a referral 

for information is issued after this 

retransmission, the inbound air carrier 

is responsible for taking the necessary 

action to address the referral. 

b. Referral for Screening 

All in-bound cargo must be screened 

in accordance with the TSA-approved 

or accepted enhanced screening 

methods contained in the carrier’s 

security program. If operating under an 

approved amendment to the security 

program, the measures specified in that 

amendment will apply whether that be 

a NCSP amendment or other 

amendment. TSA will amend security 

program requirements to be consistent 

with ACAS. Upon receipt of a referral 

for screening, the ACAS filer and/or 

inbound air carrier is required to 

respond with information on how the 

cargo was screened in accordance with 

TSA-approved or accepted enhanced 

screening methods. 

The ACAS filer can perform the 

necessary screening provided it is a 

party recognized by TSA to perform 

screening. If the filer chooses not to 

perform the screening or is not a party 

recognized by TSA to perform 

screening, the ACAS filer must notify 

the inbound air carrier of the referral for 

screening. Once the inbound air carrier 

is notified of the unresolved referral for 

screening, the inbound air carrier must 

perform the enhanced screening 

required, and/or provide the necessary 

information to TSA and/or CBP to 

resolve the referral for screening. The 

ultimate responsibility to resolve any 

outstanding referral for screening is 

placed on the inbound air carrier 

because that is the party with physical 

possession of the cargo prior to 

departure of the aircraft. 

3. Responsibility To Address DNL 

Instructions 

The new 19 CFR 122.48b(f) specifies 

the requirements for a DNL instruction. 

A DNL instruction cannot be mitigated 

or resolved because of its urgency and 

the grave circumstances under which it 

is issued. A DNL instruction will be 

issued if it is determined that the cargo 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27392 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

may contain a potential bomb, 

improvised explosive device, or other 

material that may pose an immediate, 

lethal threat to the aircraft and/or its 

vicinity. Accordingly, if a DNL is 

issued, the cargo must not be loaded 

onto the aircraft. The ACAS filer would 

be contacted by CBP and TSA using the 

24/7 contact information provided, even 

if an electronic status message is sent, 

to notify, communicate, and carry out 

the necessary response protocols. The 

party in physical possession of the cargo 

at the time the DNL instruction is issued 

must adhere to the appropriate CBP and 

TSA protocols and the directions 

provided by the applicable law 

enforcement authority. 

I. Amendments To Bond Conditions 

As described above, all ACAS filers 

have certain responsibilities under the 

ACAS program including the timely 

submission of ACAS data, and 

addressing ACAS referrals and DNL 

instructions prior to departure, among 

others. Under the ACAS program, 

failure to adhere to the ACAS 

requirements may result in CBP 

assessing liquidated damages and/or 

penalties. To ensure a proper 

enforcement mechanism exists, CBP is 

amending the relevant bond provisions 

to incorporate the ACAS requirements 

and to require all ACAS filers to have 

a bond. Although 19 CFR 122.48a filers 

are already required to have a bond, 

freight forwarders, currently 

unregulated entities, will also be 

required to obtain a bond if they elect 

to file the ACAS data. 

Accordingly, CBP is adding a new 

condition to the relevant bond 

provisions in 19 CFR 113.62 (basic 

importation and entry bond) and in 19 

CFR 113.63 (basic custodial bond) to 

cover the ACAS requirements. 

Specifically, CBP is amending 19 CFR 

113.62 and 113.63 to add a new 

paragraph that includes a bond 

condition whereby the principal agrees 

to comply with all ACAS requirements 

set forth in 19 CFR 122.48a and 122.48b 

including, but not limited to, providing 

ACAS data to CBP in the manner and 

in the time period prescribed by 

regulation and taking the necessary 

action to address ACAS referrals and 

DNL instructions as prescribed by 

regulation. 

The amendments further provide that 

if the principal fails to comply with the 

requirements, the principal and surety 

(jointly and severally) agree to pay 

liquidated damages of $5,000 for each 

violation. CBP may also assess penalties 

for violation of the new ACAS 

regulations where CBP deems that such 

penalties are appropriate, e.g., pursuant 

to 19 U.S.C. 1436. 

The amendments also add a new 

condition to those provisions in 19 CFR 

113.64 required to be included in an 

international carrier bond. Specifically, 

CBP is amending 19 CFR 113.64 to add 

a new paragraph to include conditions 

whereby the principal, be it the inbound 

air carrier or other party providing 

ACAS data, agrees to comply with the 

ACAS requirements set forth in 19 CFR 

122.48a and 122.48b including, but not 

limited to, providing ACAS data to CBP 

in the manner and in the time period 

prescribed by regulation and taking the 

necessary action to address ACAS 

referrals and DNL instructions as 

prescribed by regulation. 

This new paragraph further provides 

that if the principal fails to comply with 

the requirements, the principal and 

surety (jointly and severally) agree to 

pay liquidated damages of $5,000 for 

each violation, to a maximum of 

$100,000 per conveyance arrival. CBP 

may also assess penalties for violation of 

the new ACAS regulations where 

appropriate, e.g., pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1436. The regulations also amend 19 

CFR 113.64 to provide that, if a party 

who elects to file ACAS data incurs a 

penalty (or duty, tax or other charge), 

the principal and surety (jointly and 

severally) agree to pay the sum upon 

demand by CBP. CBP notes that the 

regulations in 19 CFR 113.64 already 

provide that the principal and surety 

agree to pay the sum upon demand by 

CBP when other parties, including an 

aircraft, owner of an aircraft, or person 

in charge of an aircraft, incur a penalty 

(or duty, tax or other charge). 

Due to the addition of the new ACAS 

paragraphs in 19 CFR 113.62, 113.63, 

and 113.64, some of the other 

paragraphs in those sections are 

redesignated. Specifically, 19 CFR 

113.62(l) and (m) are redesignated as 19 

CFR 113.62(m) and (n); 19 CFR 

113.63(h) and (i) are redesignated as 19 

CFR 113.63(i) and (j), and 19 CFR 

113.64(i) through (l) are redesignated as 

19 CFR 113.64(j) through (m). 

Conforming changes are also made to 19 

CFR 12.3, 141.113 and 192. 

J. Amendments to 19 CFR 122.48a 

As discussed throughout this 

document, several revisions to 19 CFR 

122.48a are required to properly 

implement the ACAS program. This is 

because the ACAS regulation cites to 

provisions in 19 CFR 122.48a including 

the definitions of the ACAS data and the 

parties that are eligible to file the ACAS 

data. Additionally, as described below 

in Section IV.J.1., a new 19 CFR 122.48a 

data element, the FDM, is necessary to 

enforce the ACAS program. 

1. Flight Departure Message (FDM) 

The FDM is an electronic message 

sent by the inbound air carrier to CBP 

when a flight leaves a foreign airport 

and is en route to the United States. 

Although neither the 19 CFR 122.48a 

regulations nor the ACAS pilot 

currently requires the submission of the 

FDM, some inbound air carriers 

voluntarily provide it. 

CBP is requiring the FDM as a 

mandatory 19 CFR 122.48a data 

element. The inbound air carrier is 

required to transmit the FDM to CBP for 

each leg of a flight en route to the 

United States within the specified time 

frames for transmitting 19 CFR 122.48a 

data. CBP welcomes comments on the 

timing of the FDM submission. 

The FDM is necessary for the proper 

enforcement of the ACAS program. It 

will provide CBP with the liftoff date 

and time from each foreign airport for a 

flight en route to the United States. This 

will allow CBP to easily assess whether 

an ACAS filing has been transmitted 

within the ACAS time frame and 

whether ACAS referrals and/or DNL 

instructions were addressed prior to the 

aircraft’s departure. As a result, this will 

provide CBP with the information 

needed to determine whether an ACAS 

filer has complied with the ACAS 

requirements and responsibilities and 

whether to impose liquidated damages 

and/or assess penalties. 

Specifically, CBP is adding a new 

paragraph 19 CFR 122.48a(d)(1)(xviii) 

that lists the FDM as a mandatory 19 

CFR 122.48a data element. It further 

provides that the FDM includes the 

liftoff date and liftoff time using the 

Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)/Universal 

Time, Coordinated (UTC) at the time of 

departure from each foreign airport. It 

further provides that if an aircraft en 

route to the United States stops and 

cargo is loaded onboard at one or more 

foreign airports, the FDM must be 

provided for each departure. 

2. Other Amendments to 19 CFR 

122.48a 

CBP is making several other revisions 

to 19 CFR 122.48a. These include 

revisions to 19 CFR 122.48a(a), (c), and 

(d). Specifically, in 19 CFR 122.48a(a), 

detailing general requirements, CBP is 

adding a sentence stating that the subset 

of data elements known as ACAS data 

is also subject to the requirements and 

time frame described in 19 CFR 122.48b. 

Also, in 19 CFR 122.48a(a), CBP is 

making a minor change to the language 

regarding the scope of the advance data 

requirement. The current text states that 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27393 

for any inbound aircraft required to 

enter under § 122.41 that will have 

commercial cargo aboard, CBP must 

receive advance air cargo data. CBP is 

changing ‘‘required to enter under 

§ 122.41’’ to ‘‘required to make entry 

under § 122.41’’ for clarity. 

In 19 CFR 122.48a(c), in order to more 

accurately reflect the obligations of the 

parties, CBP is making a minor change 

in the text. The current text states that 

where the inbound carrier receives 

advance cargo information from certain 

nonparticipating parties, the inbound 

carrier, on behalf of the party, must 

present this information electronically 

to CBP. CBP is of the view that the 

clause ‘‘on behalf of the party’’ 

improperly implies that the carrier is 

acting as the agent for the 

nonparticipating party and is therefore 

removing this clause. 

Additionally, in 19 CFR 122.48a(d), 

CBP is also adding the notation of an 

‘‘A’’ next to any listed data element that 

is also an ACAS data element. This 

notated data is required during both the 

ACAS filing and the 19 CFR 122.48a 

filing. 

As discussed in Section IV.D., based 

on the operation of the ACAS pilot, CBP 

is amending the definition of consignee 

in order to have more information for 

risk assessment purposes. The current 

definition asks for the name and address 

of the party to whom the cargo will be 

delivered, and makes an exception for 

‘‘FROB’’ (Foreign Cargo Remaining On 

Board). In the case of consolidated 

shipments, the current definition asks 

specifically for the address of the party 

to whom the cargo will be delivered in 

the United States. Due to the FROB 

exception and the United States address 

limitation, CBP may not know the 

ultimate destination of some cargo 

transiting the United States. The 

amendment removes the FROB 

exception and United States address 

limitation, and requires the name and 

address of the consignee regardless of 

the location of the party. This will allow 

for better targeting because it provides 

more complete information about where 

the cargo is going. 

K. Flexible Enforcement 

In order to provide the trade sufficient 

time to adjust to the new requirements 

and in consideration of the business 

process changes that may be necessary 

to achieve full compliance, CBP will 

show restraint in enforcing the data 

submission requirements of the rule, 

taking into account difficulties that 

inbound air carriers and other eligible 

ACAS filers, particularly those that did 

not participate in the ACAS pilot, may 

face in complying with the rule, so long 

as inbound air carriers and other eligible 

ACAS filers are making significant 

progress toward compliance and are 

making a good faith effort to comply 

with the rule to the extent of their 

current ability. This CBP policy will last 

for twelve months after the effective 

date. While full enforcement will be 

phased in over this twelve month 

period, willful and egregious violators 

will be subject to enforcement actions at 

all times. CBP welcomes comments on 

this enforcement policy. 

V. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews 

A. Administrative Procedure Act 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires agencies to 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) 

and provide interested persons the 

opportunity to submit comments (5 

U.S.C. 553(c)). However, the APA 

provides an exception to these 

requirements ‘‘when the agency for good 

cause finds (and incorporates the 

finding and a brief statement of reasons 

therefor in the rules issued) that notice 

and public comment thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B). The implementation of this 

rule as an interim final rule, with 

provisions for post-promulgation public 

comments, is based on this good cause 

exception. As explained below, delaying 

the implementation of this ACAS rule 

pending the completion of notice and 

comment procedures would be contrary 

to the public interest. 

DHS has determined that the potential 

exploitation by terrorists of existing 

inbound air cargo security arrangements 

exposes the United States to a 

significant new and emerging terrorist 

threat that would be effectively 

mitigated by the new ACAS rule. The 

intelligence community continues to 

acknowledge credible threats in the air 

environment, including the continued 

desire by terrorists to exploit the global 

air cargo supply chain. Moreover, DHS 

has received specific, classified 

intelligence that certain terrorist 

organizations seek to exploit 

vulnerabilities in international air cargo 

security to cause damage to 

infrastructure, injury, or loss of life in 

the United States or onboard aircraft. 

This ACAS rule mitigates these 

identified risks by providing CBP with 

the necessary data and additional time 

to perform necessary targeted risk 

assessments of air cargo before the 

aircraft departs for the United States. 

The rule strengthens DHS’ ability to 

identify attempts by global terrorist 

organizations to exploit vulnerabilities 

in the air cargo as a means of 

conducting an attack. Delaying this rule 

to undertake notice and comment 

rulemaking would leave the United 

States unnecessarily vulnerable to a 

specific terrorist threat during the 

interval between the publication of the 

proposed and final rules and would be 

contrary to the public interest. 

Therefore, prompt implementation of 

this new ACAS rule is critical to reduce 

the terrorism risk to the United States 

and thereby protect the public safety. 

DHS has engaged in extensive 

consultation with stakeholders and has 

worked closely with the air cargo 

industry to address operational and 

logistical issues in the context of a 

voluntary pilot program in advance of 

this rulemaking, and has determined 

that this rule effectively addresses 

existing risks and emerging threats. 

For the reasons stated above, DHS has 

determined that this rule is not subject 

to a 30-day delayed effective date 

requirement pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

Delaying this for 30 days after 

publication would leave the United 

States unnecessarily vulnerable to a 

specific terrorist threat and would be 

contrary to the public interest. 

Therefore, this rule is effective upon 

publication. 

Accordingly, DHS finds that it would 

be contrary to the public interest to 

delay the implementation of this rule to 

provide for prior public notice and 

comment and delayed effective date 

procedures. As such, DHS finds that 

under the good cause exception, this 

rule is exempt from the notice and 

comment and delayed effective date 

requirements of the APA. DHS is 

providing the public with the 

opportunity to comment without 

delaying implementation of this rule. 

DHS will respond to the comments 

received when it issues a final rule. 

B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) 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. Executive 

Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27394 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

agencies to reduce regulation and 

control regulatory costs and provides 

that ‘‘for every one new regulation 

issued, at least two prior regulations be 

identified for elimination, and that the 

cost of planned regulations be prudently 

managed and controlled through a 

budgeting process.’’ 

As this rule has an impact of over 

$100 million in the first year, this rule 

is a significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this 

rule. Although this rule is a significant 

regulatory action, it is a regulation 

where a cost benefit analysis 

demonstrates that the primary, direct 

benefit is national security and the rule 

qualifies for a ‘‘good cause’’ exception 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The rule is 

thus exempt from the requirements of 

Executive Order 13771. See OMB’s 

Memorandum titled ‘‘Guidance 

Implementing Executive Order 13771, 

Titled ‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 

2017). A regulatory impact analysis, 

entitled Regulatory Assessment and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo 

Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule, has 

been included in the docket of this 

rulemaking (docket number [USCBP– 

2018–0019]). The following presents a 

summary of the aforementioned 

regulatory impact analysis. 

1. Need and Purpose of the Rule 

CBP has identified a notable threat to 

global security in the air environment— 

the potential for terrorists to use the 

international air cargo system to place 

high-risk cargo, such as unauthorized 

weapons, explosives, or chemical and/ 

or biological weapons, on a United 

States-bound aircraft with the intent of 

bringing down the aircraft. In recent 

years, there have been several terrorist 

actions that highlighted this threat. In 

one notable incident in October 2010, 

concealed explosive devices that were 

intended to detonate during flight over 

the continental United States were 

discovered in cargo on board two 

aircraft destined to the United States. 

The exposure of international air cargo 

to such a threat requires a security 

strategy to detect, identify, and deter 

this threat at the earliest point in the 

international supply chain, before the 

cargo departs on an aircraft destined to 

the United States. 

The ACAS rule represents an 

important component of the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS’s) evolving layered strategy for 

securing the cargo supply chain from 

terrorist-related activities. The rule is 

designed to extend security measures 

out beyond the physical borders of the 

United States so that domestic ports and 

borders are not the first line of defense, 

with the objective of having better and 

more detailed information about all 

cargo prior to loading. The principal 

security benefit of the new rule will be 

a targeted risk assessment using realtime data and intelligence to make a 

more precise identification of high-risk 

shipments at an earlier time in the 

supply chain, prior the aircraft’s 

departure. This information will allow 

for better targeting of cargo with 

potential ties to terrorist activity, 

reducing the risk of in-flight terrorist 

attacks intended to cause extensive 

casualties and inflict catastrophic 

damage to aircraft and other private 

property, and allowing sufficient time to 

take the necessary action to thwart a 

potential terrorist attack. 

2. Synopsis 

In December 2010, CBP and TSA 

launched the Air Cargo Advance 

Screening (ACAS) pilot program. 

Participants in this pilot program 

transmit a subset of the 19 CFR 122.48a 

data as early as possible prior to loading 

of the cargo onto an aircraft destined to 

the United States. CBP and pilot 

participants believe this pilot program 

has proven successful by not only 

mitigating risks to the United States, but 

also minimizing costs to the private 

sector. As such, CBP is transitioning the 

ACAS pilot program into a permanent, 

mandatory program with only minimal 

changes from the pilot program. 

To give the reader a full 

understanding of the impacts of ACAS 

so they can consider the effect of the 

ACAS program as a whole, our analysis 

separately considers the impacts of 

ACAS during the pilot period (2011– 

2017), the regulatory period (2018– 

2027), and the combined period. For 

each time period, the baseline scenario 

is defined as the ‘‘world without 

ACAS.’’ During the pilot period (2011– 

2017), the baseline includes non-ACASrelated costs incurred by industry and 

CBP in the absence of the pilot program. 

During the first ten years the interim 

final rule is likely to be in effect (2018– 

2027), the baseline similarly includes 

costs incurred by industry and CBP in 

the absence of any ACAS 

implementation (pilot program or 

interim final rule). For an accounting of 

the costs of the entire ACAS time 

period, including the pilot period and 

the regulatory period, see Table 3. 

During the pilot period, CBP estimates 

that CBP and 38 pilot participants 

incurred costs totaling between $112.8 

million and $122.7 million (in 2016 

dollars) over the 6 years depending on 

the discount rate used (3 and 7 percent, 

respectively). CBP estimates that the 

rule will affect an estimated 215 entities 

and have an approximate total present 

value cost ranging from $245.7 million 

and $297.9 million (in 2016 dollars) 

over the 10-year period of analysis, 

depending on the discount rate used 

(seven and three percent, respectively). 

As shown below in Table 1, the 

estimated annualized costs of ACAS 

range from $25.2 million to $26.1 

million (in 2016 dollars) depending on 

the discount rate used. The cost 

estimates include both the one-time, 

upfront costs and recurring costs of the 

activities undertaken by the affected 

entities to comply with the rule, both in 

the pilot and the post-pilot periods. 

Due to data limitations, CBP is unable 

to monetize the benefits of the rule. 

Instead, CBP has conducted a ‘‘breakeven’’ analysis, which shows how often 

a terrorist event must be avoided due to 

the rule for the benefits to equal or 

exceed the costs of the ACAS program. 

Table 1, below, shows the results of the 

break-even analysis under lower and 

higher consequence estimates of 

terrorist events. For the low cost 

consequence estimate, CBP estimates 

that ACAS must result in the avoidance 

of a terrorist attack event about every 7.7 

to 8.0 months for the benefits of ACAS 

to equal the costs. For the higher cost 

consequence estimate, CBP estimates 

that the rule must result in the 

avoidance of a terrorist attack event 

about every 90.4 to 94 years for the 

benefits of ACAS to equal the costs. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27395 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Discount rate 

Present 

value costs 

2011–2027 

(2016 dollars) 

(million) 

Annualized 

costs 2011– 

2027 

(2016 dollars) 

(million) 

Economic consequences of 

terrorist attack 2

Benefits of the regulation equal its costs if: 1

Number of 

events that 

must be avoided 

in 17 years 3

Critical event avoidance 

rate 4

Three Percent .................. $410.8 $26.1 Lower Estimate ................... 26.6 One event every 7.7 

months. 

Higher Estimate .................. 0.2 One event every 90.4 

years. 

Seven Percent .................. 368.4 25.2 Lower Estimate ................... 25.6 One event every 8.0 

months. 

Higher Estimate .................. 0.2 One event every 94.0 

years. 

Notes: 

1 Reflects the range of averted cost estimates associated with attack scenarios in TSA’s TSSRA model involving the detonation of an explosive 

device on board a commercial passenger or one or multiple cargo aircraft destined to the United States that result in the destruction of the aircraft. 2 Results assume regulation reduces risk of a single type of attack only. The rule will likely reduce the risk of multiple numbers and types of attacks simultaneously. 3 Indicates the number of terrorist attack events that would have to be avoided in a single year for the avoided consequences of a successful 

terrorist attack to equal the costs of the rule. 4 Indicates the frequency at which the event would need to be averted for the avoided consequences of a successful terrorist attack to equal 

the costs of the rule. 

Table Source: Adapted from Exhibit ES–6 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory 

Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

Although the annualized costs of this 

rule are estimated to be less than $100 

million dollars, the estimated first year 

costs are estimated to be approximately 

$104.1 million dollars. As such, the rule 

is considered an economically 

significant rulemaking, and, in 

accordance with OMB Circular A–4 and 

Executive Order 12866, CBP has 

provided accounting statements in 

Tables 2 and 3 reporting the estimated 

costs and benefits of the rule. Table 2 

includes the costs and benefits for the 

post-pilot period (2018–2027) and Table 

3 includes the costs and benefits across 

the entire ACAS period (2011–2027). 

TABLE 2—A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: COST OF THE RULE, 2018–2027 

[$2016] 

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

U.S. Costs 

Annualized monetized costs .............................. $36.0 million ..................................................... $37.4 million. 

Annualized quantified, but non-monetized costs None ................................................................. None. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) costs ...................... Costs associated with issuing a ‘‘do not load,’’ 

which would jointly result from ACAS information and information obtained from intelligence agencies and the governments of 

other countries.

Costs associated with issuing a ‘‘do not load,’’ 

which would jointly result from ACAS information and information obtained from intelligence agencies and the governments of 

other countries. 

U.S. Benefits 

Annualized monetized benefits .......................... None ................................................................. None. 

Annualized quantified, but non-monetized benefits.None ................................................................. None. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) benefits .................. Increased security through the targeting and 

mitigation of threats posed by air cargo 

prior to loading onboard aircraft destined to 

the United States.

Increased security through the targeting and 

mitigation of threats posed by air cargo 

prior to loading onboard aircraft destined to 

the United States. 

TABLE 3—A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: COST OF THE ACAS PROGRAM (PILOT AND REGULATORY PERIOD), 2011–2027 

[$2016] 

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

U.S. Costs 

Annualized monetized costs .............................. $26.1 million ..................................................... $25.2 million. 

Annualized quantified, but non-monetized costs None ................................................................. None. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27396 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

29 In addition to the ACAS data elements 

described above, the regulations also require 

inbound carriers to transmit a flight departure 

message (FDM) to CBP upon departure or four 

hours prior to arrival in the United States (i.e., on 

the same timeframe as the 19 CFR 122.48a data). 

The FDM is used for ACAS enforcement (i.e., to 

determine whether the ACAS filing was submitted 

on time), rather than targeting, and thus is not 

considered an ACAS data element. This 

information is already routinely provided by 

carriers on this timeframe and thus is not 

considered further in this analysis (Personal 

communication with Program Manager, Cargo and 

Conveyance Security Directorate, CBP, May 16, 

2016.) 

TABLE 3—A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: COST OF THE ACAS PROGRAM (PILOT AND REGULATORY PERIOD), 2011– 

2027—Continued 

[$2016] 

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Qualitative (non-quantified) costs ...................... Costs associated with issuing a ‘‘do not load,’’ 

which would jointly result from ACAS information and information obtained from intelligence agencies and the governments of 

other countries.

Costs associated with issuing a ‘‘do not load,’’ 

which would jointly result from ACAS information and information obtained from intelligence agencies and the governments of 

other countries. 

U.S. Benefits 

Annualized monetized benefits .......................... None ................................................................. None. 

Annualized quantified, but non-monetized benefits.None ................................................................. None. 

Qualitative (non-quantified) benefits .................. Increased security through the targeting and 

mitigation of threats posed by air cargo 

prior to loading onboard aircraft destined to 

the United States.

Increased security through the targeting and 

mitigation of threats posed by air cargo 

prior to loading onboard aircraft destined to 

the United States. 

3. Background 

In December 2010, CBP and TSA 

launched the Air Cargo Advance 

Screening (ACAS) pilot program. 

Participants in this pilot program 

transmit a subset of air manifest data 

elements (19 CFR 122.48a), as early as 

possible prior to loading of the cargo 

onto an aircraft destined to the United 

States. CBP believes this pilot program 

has proven successful by not only 

mitigating risks to the United States, but 

also minimizing costs to the private 

sector. CBP is, therefore, formalizing the 

pilot and making the ACAS program 

mandatory for any inbound aircraft 

required to make entry under 19 CFR 

122.41 that will have commercial cargo 

aboard. CBP has, however, identified 

minor changes to the ACAS program 

that will increase the efficiency of 

targeting and mitigation of risks to air 

cargo destined to the United States. 

Specifically, CBP is making the 

following modifications from the pilot: 

(1) Minor modifications to the definition 

of the consignee name and address data 

element required under the pilot (see 

Table 4 for a description of each data 

element under the rule); (2) requiring 

the master air waybill (MAWB) number 

in certain circumstances (see Table 4 for 

a more detailed explanation); (3) 

requiring inbound air carriers to provide 

the flight departure message (FDM) 

under the 19 CFR 122.48a time 

frames; 29 and (4) requiring the filer to 

obtain a bond. CBP is amending the 

bond conditions to include an 

agreement to comply with ACAS 

requirements. 

TABLE 4—ACAS DATA ELEMENTS

Data element Description 

(1) Shipper name and address.The name and address of the foreign vendor, supplier, manufacturer, or other similar party is acceptable. The address of the foreign vendor, etc., must be a foreign address. The identity of a carrier, freight forwarder or 

consolidator is not acceptable. 

(2) Consignee name and 

address.

The name and address of the party to whom the cargo will be delivered regardless of the location of the party; this 

party need not be located at the arrival or destination port. 

(3) Cargo description ...... A precise cargo description or the 6-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number. Generic descriptions, specifically those such as ‘‘FAK’’ (‘‘freight of all kinds’’), ‘‘general cargo,’’ and ‘‘STC’’ (‘‘said to contain’’) are not acceptable. 

(4) Total quantity based 

on the smallest external packing unit.

For example, 2 pallets containing 50 pieces each would be considered as 100, not 2. 

(5) Total weight of cargo Weight of cargo expressed in either pounds or kilograms. 

(6) Air waybill number ..... For non-consolidated shipments, the air waybill number is the International Air Transport Association (IATA) standard 

11-digit number, as provided in 19 CFR 122.48a(d)(1)(i). For consolidated shipments, the air waybill number is the 

HAWB number. As provided in 19 CFR 122.48a(d)(2)(i), the HAWB number may be up to 12 alphanumeric characters (each alphanumeric character that is indicated on the HAWB must be included in the electronic transmission; alpha characters may not be eliminated). The air waybill number must be the same in the ACAS and 19 

CFR 122.48a filings. 

(7) Master air waybill 

number.

As provided in 19 CFR 122.48a(d)(1)(i), the MAWB number is the IATA standard 11-digit number. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27397 

30A small number of freight forwarders have 

participated in the ACAS pilot and may continue 

to make ACAS filings voluntarily when the rule is 

promulgated. Interviews with the trade, however, 

suggest that most freight forwarders who are not 

already participating are unlikely to begin 

participating in the future. For a more detailed 

Continued 

TABLE 4—ACAS DATA ELEMENTS—Continued 

Data element Description 

The MAWB number is required under the following circumstances: 

• The ACAS filer is also transmitting all the data elements required for the 19 CFR 122.48a filing under the 

ACAS time frame (i.e., in a single filing).1

• The inbound carrier wants the ability to receive status checks from CBP on the ACAS assessment of a specific shipment (e.g., for which the ACAS data were transmitted by another party such as a freight forwarder).2

• The ACAS filer is a different party from the party that will file the 19 CFR 122.48a data for the cargo.3

(8) Second notify party 

(optional).

This optional data element allows other relevant stakeholders to receive shipment status messages from CBP. The 

filing of this data element is likely to be rare.4

Notes: 

1Based on interviews with the trade, simultaneous submission of the ACAS data and the 19 CFR 122.48a filing is unlikely (see discussion in 

Chapter 3 of the full regulatory impact analysis). 2 In the latter two cases, the MAWB number does not need to be transmitted with the initial ACAS transmission and can be supplied later as 

long as it is under the ACAS time frame. For example, a freight forwarder can later transmit a carrier-issued MAWB number linking the MAWB 

and HAWB numbers, which then allows the carrier to receive status checks from CBP by referencing the MAWB number only. In addition to a 

freight forwarder updating an initial ACAS filing, an inbound carrier can be notified of the ACAS assessment of a shipment by transmitting the entire ACAS filing with MAWB and HAWB information. We note that based on our discussions with ACAS pilot participants, inbound carriers are 

unlikely to rely solely on an ACAS filing by a freight forwarder; rather, they will make their own ACAS transmission even if the data have previously been transmitted by a freight forwarder (see discussion in Chapter 3 of the full regulatory impact analysis). 3The MAWB number is generally not required for express consignment shipments since most, if not all, express carriers or operators transmit 

both ACAS and 19 CFR 122.48a filings for shipments transported on their own aircraft or tendered to other carriers (see discussion in Chapter 3 

of the full regulatory impact analysis). 4Based on discussions with ACAS pilot participants. 

Table Source: Adapted from Exhibit 1–1 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

4. Baseline 

To give the reader a full 

understanding of the impacts of ACAS 

so they can consider the effect of the 

ACAS program as a whole, our analysis 

separately considers the impacts of 

ACAS during the pilot period (2011– 

2017), the regulatory period (2018– 

2027), and the combined period. For 

each time period, the baseline scenario 

is defined as the ‘‘world without 

ACAS.’’ During the pilot period (2011– 

2017), the baseline includes non-ACASrelated costs incurred by industry and 

CBP in the absence of the pilot program. 

During the first ten years the interim 

final rule is likely to be in effect (2018– 

2027), the baseline similarly includes 

costs incurred by industry and CBP in 

the absence of any ACAS 

implementation (pilot program or 

interim final rule). For an accounting of 

the costs of the entire ACAS time 

period, including the pilot period and 

the regulatory period, see Table 3. 

To estimate the number of businesses 

affected by the pilot program we use 

historic data pilot participation. Table 5 

shows 2015 ACAS participation by 

entity type. As shown, in 2015, 32 pilot 

participants combined to file over 80 

million ACAS filings. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ENTITIES OR FILERS AND SHIPMENTS AFFECTED BY THE PILOT, BY ENTITY TYPE

[Calendar year 2015] 

Entity type Number 

of entities 1

Total number 

of ACAS 

filings 

Average 

number of ACAS 

filings per 

entity 

Passenger Carriers .......................................................................................................... 11 2,518,699 228,973 

Cargo Carriers ................................................................................................................. 4 643,693 160,923 

Express Carriers .............................................................................................................. 5 76,395,500 15,279,100 

Freight Forwarders .......................................................................................................... 12 1,438,884 119,907 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 32 80,996,776 2,531,149 

Notes: 

1The number of entities includes both operational and data quality analysis pilot participants. It excludes one pilot participant that became inactive in 2016, and two participants whose entity types and operational status were unknown. CBP’s 2013–2015 ACAS pilot program data listed 

a total of 35 entities; however, as of October 2016 CBP reports 32 operational and data quality participants. 

Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Table Source: Exhibit 3–4 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory Assessment and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

To estimate the number of filers who 

would be affected by ACAS in the postpilot period, we use the data on 19 CFR 

122.48a filings for any inbound aircraft 

required to make entry under 19 CFR 

122.41 that will have commercial cargo 

aboard. As the ACAS filing is a subset 

of the 19 CFR 122.48a data, these data 

serve as a good representation of the 

number of entities that would be 

affected by the rule. As shown in Table 

6 below, using 2015 19 CFR 122.48a 

data, CBP has identified 293 19 CFR 

122.48a data filers that have filed 

approximately 93.6 million air 

waybills.30


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27398 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

discussion, please see Chapter 3 of the full 

regulatory impact analysis included in the docket 

of this rulemaking (docket number [USCBP–2018– 

0019]). 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ENTITIES OR FILERS AND SHIPMENTS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE RULE, BY ENTITY

TYPE

[Calendar year 2015] 

Entity type Number of 

entities 1

Number of 

air waybills, in 

millions 2

Number of 

shipments, in 

millions 3

Passenger Carriers .......................................................................................................... 129 7.87 4.23 

Cargo Carriers ................................................................................................................. 56 2.26 1.74 

Express Carriers .............................................................................................................. 22 79.2 79.0 

Freight Forwarders 4 ........................................................................................................ 83 4.30 4.29 

Unknown 5 ........................................................................................................................ 3 0.00 0.00 

Total 6 ........................................................................................................................ 293 93.6 89.2 

Notes: 

1 Number of entities represents the number of unique filers identified in the ACE data after aggregating filer names and associated originator 

codes. 2The number of air waybills may include master, house, and split air waybills filed under ACE, and is indicative of an entity’s total volume of 

manifest transactions, rather than shipments. 3 Number of shipments based on the number of HAWBs filed under ACE. 

4Freight Forwarders included in this table are permitted to file the 19 CFR 122.48a data due to their additional classification by CBP as 

deconsolidators and broker/deconsolidators (71 entities with 4.03 million shipments). They also include those classified as brokers (12 entities 

with 0.27 million shipments). 5The 2013 ACE data includes three filers for which the name and entity type could not be identified. These three filers had a combined number of only 73 air waybills and 17 HAWBs in 2013. 6 Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Source: IEc analysis of ACE data provided by CBP’s OFO on May 5, June 4, June 23, and July 3, 2014. 

Table Source: Exhibit 2–2 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory Assessment and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

Please see chapter 2 of the full 

regulatory impact analysis included in 

the docket of this rulemaking for 

additional information on the baseline 

analysis. 

5. Costs 

During interviews with pilot program 

participants, key activities necessary for 

pilot participation were identified. As 

discussed in the full regulatory impact 

analysis, we developed a methodology 

for estimating associated pilot program 

costs, which are sunk costs for the 

purpose of deciding whether to 

continue the ACAS program in the 

future and are thus reported separately 

from costs in the 10-year period of 

analysis for the post-pilot period. These 

costs are useful when evaluating the 

effectiveness of the ACAS program as a 

whole, including the pilot and the postpilot periods. Our methodology looked 

at the following activities: (1) 

Developing information and 

communication systems required to 

transmit the ACAS data elements as 

early as practicable; (2) training staff 

and providing outreach to trade partners 

on the ACAS requirements; (3) 

developing and implementing business 

protocols and operations to respond to 

and resolve ACAS referrals and address 

DNL instructions issued by CBP and 

establishing and providing 24 × 7 point 

of contact capabilities; and (4) 

responding to and resolving ACAS 

referrals issued by CBP (i.e., identify, 

locate, and/or screen cargo) and 

providing requested data to CBP. Below, 

Table 7 presents the estimated costs of 

the ACAS pilot participants. 

TABLE 7—TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE ACAS PILOT PROGRAM FOR INDUSTRY BY ACAS-RELATED ACTIVITY

($2016, MILLIONS), 2013 TO 2017 

Year 

Upfront, one-time costs Recurring costs 

Total IT 

systems 

Training/ 

outreach 

Protocols/ 

operations 

IT 

systems 

Referral 

response 

2013 ................................................................................. $3.4 $2.0 $7.6 $3.8 $0.7 $17.5 

2014 ................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.7 4.5 

2015 ................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 4.0 

2016 ................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 4.0 

2017 ................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 4.0 

Total (undiscounted) ................................................. 3.4 2.0 7.6 18.9 2.0 34.0 

Total Present Value (3% Discount Rate) ................. 3.7 2.2 8.3 19.5 2.1 35.9 

Total Present Value (7% Discount Rate) ................. 4.2 2.5 9.3 20.3 2.3 38.6 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Table Source: Exhibit ES–3 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory Assessment and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27399 

31 If TSA’s existing protocols identified a need for 

enhanced screening prior to the issuance of an 

ACAS referral, enhanced screening may have 

already been performed to satisfy the TSA 

requirements prior to the referral. In that case, the 

entity responsible for responding to the ACAS 

referral would resolve the referral for screening by 

confirming that enhanced screening had been 

performed. 

32 ‘‘Sensitive Security Information’’ or ‘‘SSI’’ is 

information obtained or developed in the conduct 

of security activities, the disclosure of which would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, 

reveal trade secrets or privileged or confidential 

information, or be detrimental to the security of 

transportation. The protection of SSI is governed by 

49 CFR part 1520. 

Given that the requirements of the 

rule are similar to those of the pilot 

program, the methodology developed to 

assess pilot program costs is used to 

estimate the incremental costs of the 

rule for both pilot program participants 

and non-participants over a 10-year 

post-pilot period of analysis (2018– 

2027). The most significant costs are the 

one-time, upfront and recurring costs 

associated with developing and 

implementing the necessary protocols 

and operations to respond to and take 

the necessary action to address ACAS 

referrals. Total costs to industry are 

greatest for the passenger carriers, 

followed by cargo carriers, express 

carriers, and freight forwarders. The 

costs are greatest for passenger carriers, 

as a group, because they account for 

more than half of all regulated entities, 

and they tend not to be already fully 

operational under the ACAS pilot. In 

future years, express carriers and large 

freight forwarders are likely to 

experience higher costs on a per entity 

basis due to a higher transaction volume 

(i.e., greater number of ACAS filings). 

As shown in Table 8, CBP estimates 

that over a 10-year post-pilot period of 

analysis, the rule will approximately 

cost between a total present value of 

$245.7 million and $297.9 million (in 

2016 dollars) assuming discount rates of 

seven and three percent, respectively. 

Annualized, it is estimated that this rule 

will cost between $36.0 million and 

$37.4 million (in 2016 dollars) 

depending on the discount rate used. 

The cost estimates include both the onetime, upfront costs and recurring costs 

of the activities undertaken by the 

affected entities to comply with the rule. 

TABLE 8—TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE ACAS RULE BY ENTITY TYPE ($2016, MILLIONS), 2018–2027 

Entity type Number 

of entities 

Three percent discount rate Seven percent discount rate 

Total present 

value costs 

Annualized 

costs 

Total present 

value costs 

Annualized 

costs 

Passenger Carrier ................................................................ 129 $91.4 $11.0 $78.3 $11.9 

Cargo Carrier ....................................................................... 56 38.4 4.6 32.9 5.0 

Express Carrier .................................................................... 22 34.0 4.1 28.2 4.3 

Freight Forwarder ................................................................ 8 13.8 1.7 11.0 1.7 

Government ......................................................................... N/A 120.3 14.5 95.3 14.5 

Total .............................................................................. 215 297.9 36.0 245.7 37.4 

Table Source: Exhibit 3–27 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory Assessment and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

Please see chapter 3 of the full 

regulatory impact analysis included in 

the docket of this rulemaking for 

additional information on the cost 

analysis. 

6. Benefits 

The purpose and intended benefit of 

this rule is that it would help prevent 

unauthorized weapons, explosives, 

chemical and/or biological weapons, 

weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) 

and other dangerous items from being 

loaded onto aircraft destined to the 

United States. As mentioned above, 

several incidents over the last several 

years have demonstrated the continued 

focus of terrorist actors to exploit 

vulnerabilities within the global supply 

chain. In order to continue to meet this 

threat, CBP and TSA must combine 

capabilities and scopes of authority to 

implement a comprehensive and tactical 

risk assessment capability. CBP needs 

certain information earlier in the 

process so that it can work with TSA to 

identify high-risk cargo before it is 

loaded onto an aircraft. The ACAS 

program is intended to satisfy this need. 

The results of the ACAS pilot program 

demonstrate that CBP is receiving 

actionable information in time to 

prevent dangerous cargo from being 

loaded onto an aircraft. Since the 

inception of the ACAS pilot program, 

CBP has identified a significant number 

of air cargo shipments that have 

potential ties to terrorism and, therefore, 

may represent a threat to the safety and 

security of the aircraft. In each instance, 

CBP issued ACAS referrals and the 

inbound air carrier or other eligible 

ACAS filer performed or confirmed the 

prior performance of enhanced cargo 

screening pursuant to TSA-approved 

methods.31

Ideally, the quantification and 

monetization of the benefits of this 

regulation would involve estimating the 

current baseline level of risk of a 

successful terrorist attack, absent this 

regulation, and the incremental 

reduction in risk resulting from 

implementation of the regulation. We 

would then multiply the change by an 

estimate of the value individuals place 

on such a risk reduction to produce a 

monetary estimate of benefits. However, 

existing data limitations prevent us from 

quantifying the incremental risk 

reduction attributable to this rule. As a 

result, we performed a ‘‘break-even’’ 

analysis to inform decision-makers of 

the frequency at which an attack would 

need to be averted for the avoided 

consequences of a successful terrorist 

attack to equal the costs of the rule (also 

referred to as the critical event 

avoidance rate). 

In the break-even analysis, we 

identified possible terrorist attack 

scenarios that may be prevented by the 

regulation. These scenarios and 

corresponding consequence data are 

identified using TSA’s Transportation 

Sector Security Risk Assessment 

(TSSRA) 4.0 model. TSSRA 4.0 is a 

Sensitive Security Information (SSI) 32

report that was produced in response to 

DHS Appropriations legislation (Pub. L. 

110–396/Division D and Pub. L. 111– 

83), which requires DHS through TSA to 

conduct a comprehensive risk 

assessment. CBP reviewed TSSRA 

scenarios that involve the detonation of 

an explosive device onboard 

commercial aircraft destined to United 

States. The consequences include 

deaths, nonfatal injuries, property loss, 

and rescue and clean-up costs. The 

break-even analysis compares the 

annualized costs of the regulation to the 

avoided direct costs of each event to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27400 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

estimate the number of events that 

would have to be avoided in a single 

year for the avoided consequences of a 

successful terrorist attack to equal the 

costs of the rule. The break-even results 

are also described in terms of risk 

reduction required, for example, a 0.25 

reduction in the probability of an event 

occurring in a single year implies that 

one additional event must be avoided in 

a four-year period. 

To allow the reader to evaluate the 

benefits of ACAS against both the postpilot costs of the rule and the ACAS 

program as a whole, we include two 

break even analyses. Table 9, below, 

indicates what would need to occur for 

the post-pilot costs of the rule to equal 

the avoided consequences of a 

successful terrorist attack, assuming the 

rule only reduces the risk of a single 

type of attack. For the lower 

consequence estimate, CBP estimates 

the regulation must result in the 

avoidance of a terrorist attack event 

about every 5.4 to 5.6 months for the 

avoided consequences of a successful 

terrorist attack to equal the costs of the 

rule. For the higher consequence 

estimate, CBP estimates that the 

regulation must result in the avoidance 

of a terrorist attack event in a time 

period of about every 63.1 years to 65.7 

years for the avoided consequences of a 

successful terrorist attack to equal the 

costs of the rule. These estimates reflect 

property loss, nonfatal injuries, and 

fatalities assumed in the TSSRA model. 

The value of avoided fatalities 

substantially increases the consequence 

estimates relative to the value of the 

other consequences such as nonfatal 

injury and property loss. Table 10 

shows the same information for the 

entire ACAS period (2011–2027). 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Discount rate 

Annualized costs 

2018–2027 

(2016 million 

dollars) 

Economic 

consequences of 

terrorist attack 2

Benefits of the regulation equal its costs if: 1

Number of 

events that must 

be avoided 

in ten years 3

Critical event avoidance rate 4

Three Percent ............................. $36.0 Lower Estimate ............................. 21.5 One event every 5.6 months. 

Higher Estimate ............................ 0.2 One event every 65.7 years. 

Seven Percent ............................ 37.4 Lower Estimate ............................. 22.4 One event every 5.4 months. 

Higher Estimate ............................ 0.2 One event every 63.1 years. 

Notes: 

1 Reflects the range of averted cost estimates associated with attack scenarios in TSA’s TSSRA model involving the detonation of an explosive 

device on board a commercial passenger or one or multiple cargo aircraft destined to the United States where the aircraft is destroyed. 2 Results assume regulation reduces risk of a single type of attack only. The rule will likely reduce the risk of multiple numbers and types of attacks simultaneously. 3 Indicates the number of terrorist attack events that would have to be avoided in a single year for the avoided consequences of a successful 

terrorist attack to equal the costs of the rule. 4 Indicates the frequency at which the event would need to be averted for the avoided consequences of a successful terrorist attack to equal 

the costs of the rule. 

Results rounded to two significant digits. 

Table Source: Adapted from Exhibit 4–1 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Discount rate 

Annualized costs 

2011–2027 

(2016 dollars) 

Economic 

consequences of 

terrorist attack 2

Benefits of the regulation equal its costs if: 1

Number of 

events that must 

be avoided 

in 17 years 3

Critical event avoidance rate 4

Three Percent ............................. $26.1 Lower Estimate ............................. 26.6 One event every 7.7 months. 

Higher Estimate ............................ 0.2 One event every 90.4 years. 

Seven Percent ............................ 25.1 Lower Estimate ............................. 25.6 One event every 8.0 months. 

Higher Estimate ............................ 0.2 One event every 94.0 years. 

Notes: 

1 Reflects the range of averted cost estimates associated with attack scenarios in TSA’s TSSRA model involving the detonation of an explosive 

device on board a commercial passenger or one or multiple cargo aircraft destined to the United States where the aircraft is destroyed. 2 Results assume regulation reduces risk of a single type of attack only. The rule will likely reduce the risk of multiple numbers and types of attacks simultaneously. 3 Indicates the number of terrorist attack events that would have to be avoided in a single year for the avoided consequences of a successful 

terrorist attack to equal the costs of the rule. 4 Indicates the frequency at which the event would need to be averted for the avoided consequences of a successful terrorist attack to equal 

the costs of the rule. 

Results rounded to two significant digits. 

Table Source: Adapted from Exhibit 4–2 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

Please see chapter 4 of the full 

regulatory impact analysis included in 

the docket of this rulemaking for 

additional information on the breakeven analysis. 

7. Alternatives 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, the following three alternatives 

have been considered: 

(1) Alternative 1 (the chosen 

alternative): Six mandatory ACAS data 

elements and, as applicable, one 

conditional data element (the MAWB 

number) required no later than prior to 

loading of the cargo onto any inbound 

aircraft required to make entry under 19 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27401 

CFR 122.41 that will have commercial 

cargo aboard; 

(2) Alternative 2: Six mandatory 

ACAS data elements and, as applicable, 

one conditional data element (the 

MAWB number), required no later than 

two hours prior to the estimated time of 

departure of any inbound aircraft 

required to make entry under 19 CFR 

122.41 that will have commercial cargo 

aboard; and 

(3) Alternative 3: Same as Alternative 

1, however, the one conditional ACAS 

data element, the MAWB number, is not 

required for any shipment. 

These three alternatives represent 

adjusting the required timing for ACAS 

transmittal and excluding a particular 

ACAS data element, namely the MAWB 

number. In comparison to Alternative 1 

(the preferred alternative), Alternative 2 

advances (makes earlier) the required 

time frame for ACAS transmission, 

which would provide CBP more time to 

conduct its risk assessment and mitigate 

any identified risk prior to aircraft 

departure. In comparison to Alternative 

1, Alternative 3 excludes the MAWB 

number data element for any shipment. 

In general, CBP needs to receive the 

MAWB number so that it can provide 

the location of the high-risk cargo and 

will allow CBP to associate the cargo 

with an ACAS submission. Some 

inbound carriers also prefer that the 

forwarder-issued HAWB and carrierissued MAWB numbers be linked so 

that they can verify that an ACAS 

assessment for a particular shipment 

they accepted from an ACAS-filing 

freight forwarder has been completed. 

However, some freight forwarders 

expressed issues with providing the 

MAWB number in time for the ACAS 

filings because they may not be 

finalized until just prior to aircraft 

departure. By evaluating these three 

alternatives, CBP is seeking the most 

favorable balance between security 

outcomes and impacts to air 

transportation. Based on this analysis of 

alternatives, CBP has determined that 

Alternative 1 provides the most 

favorable balance between security 

outcomes and impacts to air 

transportation. 

Please see chapter 5 of the full 

regulatory impact analysis included in 

the docket of this rulemaking for 

additional information on the 

alternatives analysis. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires federal 

agencies to examine the impact a rule 

would have on small entities. A small 

entity may be a small business (defined 

as any independently owned and 

operated business not dominant in its 

field that qualifies as a small business 

per the Small Business Act); a small notfor-profit organization; or a small 

governmental jurisdiction (locality with 

fewer than 50,000 people). Because this 

rule is being issued as an interim final 

rule under the good cause exception (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B)), as set forth above, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). 

Nonetheless, in the docket of this 

rulemaking (docket number [USCBP– 

2018–0019]), CBP has included a 

regulatory impact analysis entitled 

Regulatory Assessment and Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the 

Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance 

Screening (ACAS) Rule. This document 

contains a threshold analysis that 

estimates the impacts of the rule on 

small entities. 

The threshold analysis identified that 

out of 215 total affected entities, 86 are 

U.S. entities and 61 U.S. entities of the 

86 U.S. entities affected by this rule may 

be small businesses. These small 

entities are in 4 distinct industries and 

generally represent 50 percent or more 

of their respective industries. As such, 

CBP believes that a substantial number 

of small entities may be affected by this 

rule. The threshold analysis also 

identified that the percentage of firstyear costs relative to the average annual 

revenue of the small entities potentially 

affected by this rule range from a low of 

0.4 percent to a high of 1.3 percent. CBP 

believes that impacts identified in the 

threshold analysis may be considered a 

significant economic impact. 

CBP has prepared the following initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis. Please see 

chapter 5 of the full regulatory impact 

analysis included in the docket of this 

rulemaking for additional information 

on the threshold analysis. 

1. A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered. 

In October 2010, concealed explosive 

devices were discovered in cargo 

onboard two aircraft destined to the 

United States. This incident provides 

evidence of the potential for terrorists to 

use the international air cargo system to 

place high-risk cargo such as 

unauthorized weapons, explosives, 

chemical and/or biological weapons, 

WMDs, or other destructive substances 

or items in the cargo of a United Statesbound aircraft with the intent of 

bringing down the aircraft. The 

exposure from international air cargo 

requires a security strategy to detect, 

identify, and deter this threat at the 

earliest point in the international supply 

chain, before the cargo departs for the 

United States. 

2. A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

rule. 

Current CBP regulations require air 

carriers to electronically transmit air 

manifest data in advance of their cargo’s 

arrival in the United States (codified in 

19 CFR 122.48a). These 19 CFR 122.48a 

data are required to be provided to CBP 

no later than the time of aircraft 

departure for the United States (from 

foreign ports in all of North America, 

including Mexico, Central America, the 

Caribbean, and Bermuda as well as 

South America north of the equator), or 

no later than four hours prior to aircraft 

arrival in the United States (from foreign 

ports located everywhere else). CBP 

determined, however, that it is 

necessary to receive a subset of the 

122.48a data prior to loading of the 

cargo aboard the aircraft in order to 

more effectively complete its risk 

targeting and identification, and 

mitigate any identified risk, prior to 

aircraft departure. 

The rule, which was developed by 

CBP in coordination with the trade, 

including consultation with the 

Commercial Customs Operations 

Advisory Committee (COAC), represents 

an important component of DHS’s 

evolving layered strategy for securing 

the cargo supply chain from terroristrelated activities. The rule is designed to 

identify high-risk air cargo, such as 

unauthorized weapons, explosives, 

chemical and/or biological weapons, 

WMDs, or other destructive substances 

or items prior to the aircraft’s departure 

for the United States through a targeted 

intelligence-based risk assessment. The 

principal security benefit of the new 

rule will be more precise identification 

and mitigation of at-risk shipments prior 

to the departure of the U.S.-bound 

aircraft. This information will allow for 

better targeting and will increase the 

safety of the aircraft during flight. 

3. A description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the rule will 

apply. 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

the rule applies to 129 passenger 

carriers, 56 cargo carriers, 22 air express 

couriers, and 8 freight forwarders. Of 

these, 86 entities are U.S.-owned 

companies. Among the U.S.-owned 

companies, 61 meet SBA’s definition of 

a small entity (See Table 11). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27402 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

33 In addition to the ACAS data elements 

described above, the regulations also require 

inbound carriers to transmit a flight departure 

message (FDM) to CBP upon departure or four 

hours prior to arrival in the United States (i.e., on 

the same timeframe as the 19 CFR 122.48a data). 

This information is already routinely provided by 

carriers on this timeframe and thus is not 

considered further in this analysis (Personal 

communication with Program Manager, Cargo and 

Conveyance Security Directorate, CBP, May 16, 

2016.) 

TABLE 11—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED U.S. ENTITIES THAT ARE SMALL

Affected industry 

(NAICS code) 

Total number 

of affected 

entities 1

Total number 

of affected 

U.S. entities 

SBA small 

business size 

standard 2

Number of 

U.S. entities 

that meet 

SBA’S definition of a small 

entity 3

Proportion 

of U.S. 

entities that 

are small 

(%) 

Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation (481111).129 30 1,500 employees .............................. 18 60 

Scheduled Freight Air Transportation 

(481112).

56 31 1,500 employees .............................. 27 87 

Freight Transportation Arrangement 

(488510).

8 7 $15 million in average annual receipts.3 43 

Air Courier and Express Delivery 

Services (492110).

22 18 1,500 employees .............................. 13 72 

Total ........................................... 215 86 N/A ................................................... 61 71 

Notes: 

1Some of the 215 entities are foreign-owned companies. 

2 ‘‘Table of Small Business Size Standards’’, U.S. Small Business Administration, accessed at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf on October 3, 2016. 3 If no data were available, we assume the entity is small. This may overstate the number of small entities. None of the small entities identified 

were non-profit organizations. 

Table Source: Exhibit 5–2 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this rulemaking, entitled Regulatory Assessment and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

4. A description of the projected 

reporting, record-keeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities that will be subject to the 

requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the 

report or record. 

The rule requires the transmission of 

six mandatory ACAS data elements to 

CBP as early as practicable, but no later 

than prior to loading of the cargo onto 

any inbound aircraft required to make 

entry under 19 CFR 122.41 that will 

have commercial cargo aboard. The six 

ACAS data elements include: (1) 

Shipper name and address; (2) 

consignee name and address; (3) cargo 

description; (4) total quantity based on 

the smallest external packing unit; (5) 

total weight of cargo; and (6) air waybill 

number. The rule also requires the 

ACAS filer to transmit a MAWB number 

under certain conditions, as described 

in Chapter 1 of the full regulatory 

impact analysis.33 Filers will include 

passenger airlines (NAICS 481111), 

cargo-only airlines (NAICS 481112), 

freight forwarders (NAICS 488510), and 

air courier and express delivery services 

(NAICS 492110). 

Generally, regulated entities will meet 

this requirement using existing 

information and communication 

systems; however, these systems, along 

with certain business processes, may 

require modification. In addition, some 

entities may purchase new systems or 

adopt new processes. In either case, new 

training will be required for existing 

staff (generally logistics professionals 

and support staff). In addition, entities 

will need to designate a 24/7 point of 

contact to respond to DNL instructions 

issued by CBP. Costs that may be 

incurred by these small entities in the 

first year of the rule are summarized in 

Table 12. For a detailed discussion of 

the derivation of the cost estimates, see 

Chapter 3 of the full regulatory impact 

analysis. 

TABLE 12—FIRST YEAR COSTS OF THE INTERIM FINAL RULE RELATIVE TO AVERAGE ANNUAL SMALL ENTITY REVENUES

Affected industry 

(NAICS code) 

Number of 

small U.S. 

entities 

Cost per small 

entity for first 

year of rule 

($2016) 1

Average annual 

revenues of 

small entities 

($2016) 2

Percentage of 

first–year 

costs relative to 

average annual 

revenues 3 4

(%) 

Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation (481111) ........................ 18 $420,000 $35,387,000 1.2 

Scheduled Freight Air Transportation (481112) .............................. 27 420,000 120,408,000 0.3 

Freight Transportation Arrangement (488510) ................................ 3 17,400 3,503,000 0.5 

Air Courier and Express Delivery Services (492110) ...................... 13 325,000 48,845,000 0.7 

Notes: 

1We assume that many small passenger and cargo carriers (as defined by SBA) incur costs identical to carriers transmitting 100 or more 

AWBs per year, while some may submit less and incur fewer costs. We assume small freight forwarders (as defined by SBA) transmit between 

1,000 and 100,000 AWBs per year. We also assume small express carriers (as defined by SBA) transmit fewer than 15,000 AWBs per year. 2 Represents the average of the annual revenues of the entities that are small and for which we were able to obtain revenue data from Hoover’s (26 small entities). 3We also calculate these percentages using the average annual cost (based on analysis and data presented in Chapter 3) instead of first-year 

costs, finding percentages of 0.2 percent for passenger carriers, 0.1 percent for cargo carriers, 0.5 percent for freight forwarders, and 0.1 percent 

for air express couriers. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27403 

4As a sensitivity analysis, we also report the first-year cost impacts for small passenger and cargo carriers using the lower AWB volumes reported in Chapter 3. Assuming small passenger and cargo carriers transmit fewer than 100 AWBs annually, the average costs equal 0.6 percent 

and 0.2 percent of revenues, respectively. 5 Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand. Totals may not calculate due to rounding. 

Table Source: Exhibit 5–4 of the full regulatory impact analysis included in the docket of this, entitled Regulatory Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule: Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Rule. 

5. An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap or conflict 

with the rule. 

The data elements required to be 

transmitted in this rule are, largely, 

already required under existing Federal 

rules (i.e., 19 CFR 122.48a). The main 

impact of this rule is to advance (make 

earlier) the time frame at which a subset 

of the existing 19 CFR 122.48a data 

elements for air cargo are required. Refer 

to Chapter 1 of the full regulatory 

impact analysis for further detail. 

6. An establishment of any significant 

alternatives to the rule that accomplish 

the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes and that minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities. 

CBP does not identify any significant 

alternatives to the rule that specifically 

address small entities. Due to the 

security nature of the regulation, CBP is 

unable to provide an alternative 

regulatory framework for small entities 

that would not jeopardize the security of 

the United States. Excluding small 

entities would undermine the rule and 

increase in-flight security risks for 

aircraft operated by small entities. We 

evaluate two alternatives in our 

analysis, in addition to the chosen 

alternative; however as discussed in 

Chapter 3 of the full regulatory impact 

analysis, these alternatives affect all 

regulated entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

agencies to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. The regulation is exempt from 

these requirements under 2 U.S.C. 1503 

(Exclusions) which states that the 

UMRA ‘‘shall not apply to any provision 

in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, 

motion, or conference report before 

Congress and any provision in a 

proposed or final Federal regulation’’ 

that ‘‘is necessary for the national 

security or the ratification or 

implementation of international treaty 

obligations.’’ 

E. Privacy 

CBP will ensure that all Privacy Act 

requirements and policies are adhered 

to in the implementation of this rule, 

and will issue or update any necessary 

Privacy Impact Assessment and/or 

Privacy Act System of Records notice to 

fully outline processes that will ensure 

compliance with Privacy Act 

protections. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

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 collection of information regarding 

electronic information for air cargo 

required in advance of arrival under 19 

CFR 122.48a was previously reviewed 

and approved by OMB in accordance 

with the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) 

under OMB Control Number 1651–0001. 

When CBP began the ACAS pilot, 

however, CBP did not publish the 

collection of information specific to the 

pilot for notice and comment under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act because there 

is no new burden associated with 

ACAS, just a change in when the data 

is submitted. Any additional cost to file 

the ACAS subset of the 19 CFR 122.48a 

filing on the ACAS time frame was not 

captured under the OMB Control 

Number mentioned above. CBP requests 

comment on what, if any, additional 

burden ACAS represents. CBP notes that 

when this rule is implemented, carriers 

will have the option to file the full 19 

CFR 122.48a filing withn the ACAS time 

frame to satisfy both requirements in a 

single filing. Many carriers are able to 

submit their 19 CFR 122.48a 

information well in advance of the flight 

and this would allow them to only file 

once, if they choose to do so. This 

document adds an additional data 

element, the flight departure message, to 

19 CFR 122.48a and this collection. This 

data element is readily accessible for 

those filers for whom it is required and 

it is already routinely provided. The 

collection of information for ACAS 

under 19 CFR 122.48b is comprised of 

a subset of information already collected 

pursuant to 19 CFR 122.48a under this 

approval, but information for ACAS will 

be now be collected earlier. Filers will 

need to modify their systems in order to 

provide these data earlier in an 

automated manner, but as the only new 

required data element (the flight 

departure message) is already routinely 

provided on a voluntary basis and is 

readily available, CBP does not estimate 

any change in the burden hours as a 

result of this rule. 

The resulting estimated burden 

associated with the electronic 

information for air cargo required in 

advance of arrival under this rule is as 

follows: 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

215. 

Estimated Number of Total Annual 

Responses: 1,466,400. 

Estimated Time per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 366,600. 

Comments concerning the accuracy of 

this cost estimate and suggestions for 

reducing this burden should be directed 

to the Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, at DHSDeskOfficer@

omb.eop.gov. A copy should also be sent 

to Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

Trade, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Attention: Border Security 

Regulations Branch, 90 K Street NE, 

10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229 or by 

email at CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov. 

The list of approved information 

collections contained in 19 CFR part 

178 is revised to add an appropriate 

reference to section 122.48b to reflect 

the approved information collection. 

VI. Signing Authority 

The signing authority for this 

document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a). 

Accordingly, this document is signed by 

the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

List of Subjects 

19 CFR Part 12 

Customs duties and inspection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

19 CFR Part 113 

Common carriers, Customs duties and 

inspection, Exports, Freight, 

Laboratories, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Surety 

bonds. 

19 CFR Part 122 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft, 

Airports, Alcohol and alcoholic 

beverages, Cigars and cigarettes, 

Customs duties and inspection, Drug 

traffic control, Freight, Penalties, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27404 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures. 

19 CFR Part 141 

Customs duties and inspection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

19 CFR Part 178 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

19 CFR Part 192 

Aircraft, Exports, Motor vehicles, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vessels. 

Regulatory Amendments 

For the reasons set forth above, CBP 

amends parts 12, 113, 122, 141, 178, and 

192 of title 19 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (19 CFR parts 12, 113, 122, 

141, 178, and 192) as follows: 

PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF 

MERCHANDISE 

■ 1. The general authority citation for 

part 12 and specific authority citation 

for § 12.3 continue to read as follows: 

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

1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 

1624. 

* * * * * 

Section 12.3 also issued under 7 U.S.C. 

135h, 21 U.S.C. 381; 

* * * * * 

§ 12.3 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 12.3(b)(2) and (c) by 

removing the references to 

‘‘§ 113.62(m)(1)’’ and adding in their 

place ‘‘§ 113.62(n)(1)’’. 

PART 113—CBP BONDS 

■ 3. The general authority citation for 

part 113 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 113.62 as follows: 

■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (l) and (m) 

as paragraphs (m) and (n); 

■ b. Add a new paragraph (l); 

■ c. In redesignated paragraph (n)(1), 

remove the word ‘‘or’’ after the text 

‘‘(k)(2)’’ and after the text ‘‘(l)’’, add ‘‘, 

or (m)’’; 

■ d. In redesignated paragraph (n)(4), 

remove the reference to ‘‘paragraph 

(m)(1)’’ and add in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(n)(1)’’; and 

■ e. In redesignated paragraph (n)(5), 

remove the reference to ‘‘paragraph (l)’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘paragraph (m)’’. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 113.62 Basic importation and entry bond 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

(l) Agreement to comply with Air 

Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) 

requirements. The principal agrees to 

comply with all ACAS requirements set 

forth in §§ 122.48a and 122.48b of this 

chapter including, but not limited to, 

providing ACAS data to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection in the manner 

and in the time period prescribed by 

regulation and taking the necessary 

action to address ACAS referrals and 

Do-Not-Load (DNL) instructions as 

prescribed by regulation. If the principal 

defaults with regard to these obligations, 

the principal and surety (jointly and 

severally) agree to pay liquidated 

damages of $5,000 for each violation. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 113.63 by redesignating 

paragraphs (h) and (i) as paragraphs (i) 

and (j) and adding a new paragraph (h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 113.63 Basic custodial bond conditions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Agreement to comply with Air 

Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) 

requirements. The principal agrees to 

comply with all ACAS requirements set 

forth in §§ 122.48a and 122.48b of this 

chapter including, but not limited to, 

providing ACAS data to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection in the manner 

and in the time period prescribed by 

regulation and taking the necessary 

action to address ACAS referrals and 

Do-Not-Load (DNL) instructions as 

prescribed by regulation. If the principal 

defaults with regard to these obligations, 

the principal and surety (jointly and 

severally) agree to pay liquidated 

damages of $5,000 for each violation. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 113.64 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), add ‘‘or 

§ 122.48b(c)(2)’’ after the words ‘‘as 

specified in § 122.48a(c)(1)(ii)– 

(c)(1)(iv)’’; 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (i) through 

(l) as paragraphs (j) through (m); and 

■ c. Add a new paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 113.64 International carrier bond 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

(i) Agreement to comply with Air 

Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) 

requirements. (1) The inbound air 

carrier agrees to comply with all ACAS 

requirements set forth in §§ 122.48a and 

122.48b of this chapter including, but 

not limited to, providing ACAS data to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) in the manner and in the time 

period prescribed by regulation and 

taking the necessary action to address 

ACAS referrals and Do-Not-Load (DNL) 

instructions as prescribed by regulation. 

If the inbound air carrier, as principal, 

defaults with regard to these obligations, 

the principal and surety (jointly and 

severally) agree to pay liquidated 

damages of $5,000 for each violation, to 

a maximum of $100,000 per conveyance 

arrival. 

(2) If a party specified in 

§ 122.48b(c)(2) of this chapter provides 

the ACAS data to CBP, that party, as 

principal under this bond, agrees to 

comply with all ACAS requirements set 

forth in §§ 122.48a and 122.48b of this 

chapter including, but not limited to, 

providing ACAS data to CBP in the 

manner and in the time period 

prescribed by regulation and taking the 

necessary action to address ACAS 

referrals and Do-Not-Load (DNL) 

instructions as prescribed by regulation. 

If the principal defaults with regard to 

these obligations, the principal and 

surety (jointly and severally) agree to 

pay liquidated damages of $5,000 for 

each violation, to a maximum of 

$100,000 per conveyance arrival. 

* * * * * 

PART 122—AIR COMMERCE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 7. The general authority citation for 

part 122 continues to read as follows: 

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

1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 

1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 122.48a as follows: 

■ a. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (a); 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the 

phrase ‘‘, on behalf of the party,’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory 

text, add the phrase ‘‘; and an ‘‘A’’ next 

to any listed data element indicates that 

the data element is an ACAS data 

element that is also subject to the 

requirements and time frame specified 

in § 122.48b’’ before the closing 

parenthesis; 

■ d. In paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and 

(d)(1)(vii)–(x), add the text ‘‘(A)’’ after 

the text ‘‘(M)’’; 

■ e. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(xi); 

■ f. In paragraph (d)(1)(xvi), remove the 

word ‘‘and’’ after the last semicolon; 

■ g. In paragraph (d)(1)(xvii), remove 

the period and add in its place the text 

‘‘; and’’; 

■ h. Add paragraph (d)(1)(xviii); 

■ i. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory 

text, add the phrase ‘‘; and an ‘‘A’’ next 

to any listed data element indicates that 

the data element is an ACAS data 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27405 

element that is also subject to the 

requirements and time frame specified 

in § 122.48b’’ before the closing 

parenthesis; 

■ j. In paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and 

(d)(2)(iii)–(vi), add the text ‘‘(A)’’ after 

the text ‘‘(M)’’; and 

■ k. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(vii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 122.48a Electronic information for air 

cargo required in advance of arrival. 

(a) General requirement. Pursuant to 

section 343(a), Trade Act of 2002, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), for any 

inbound aircraft required to make entry 

under § 122.41, that will have 

commercial cargo aboard, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) must 

electronically receive from the inbound 

air carrier and, if applicable, an 

approved party as specified in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, certain 

information concerning the inbound 

cargo, as enumerated, respectively, in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this 

section. CBP must receive such 

information according to the time 

frames prescribed in paragraph (b) of 

this section. However, a subset of these 

data elements known as ACAS data and 

identified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, is also subject to the 

requirements and time frame described 

in § 122.48b. The advance electronic 

transmission of the required cargo 

information to CBP must be effected 

through a CBP-approved electronic data 

interchange system. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(xi) Consignee name and address (M) 

(A) (for consolidated shipments, the 

identity of the container station (see 19 

CFR 19.40–19.49), express consignment 

or other carrier is sufficient for the 

master air waybill record; for nonconsolidated shipments, the name and 

address of the party to whom the cargo 

will be delivered is required regardless 

of the location of the party; this party 

need not be located at the arrival or 

destination port); 

* * * * * 

(xviii) Flight departure message (M) 

(this data element includes the liftoff 

date and liftoff time using the 

Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)/Universal 

Time, Coordinated (UTC) at the time of 

departure from each foreign airport en 

route to the United States; if an aircraft 

en route to the United States stops at 

one or more foreign airports and cargo 

is loaded on board, the flight departure 

message must be provided for each 

departure). 

(2) * * * 

(vii) Consignee name and address (M) 

(A) (the name and address of the party 

to whom the cargo will be delivered is 

required regardless of the location of the 

party; this party need not be located at 

the arrival or destination port); and 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Add § 122.48b to read as follows: 

§ 122.48b Air Cargo Advance Screening 

(ACAS). 

(a) General requirement. Pursuant to 

section 343(a), Trade Act of 2002, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), in 

addition to the advance filing 

requirements pursuant to § 122.48a, for 

any inbound aircraft required to make 

entry under § 122.41, that will have 

commercial cargo aboard, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) must 

electronically receive from the inbound 

air carrier and/or another eligible ACAS 

filer, as specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section, certain information concerning 

the inbound cargo, as enumerated in 

paragraph (d) of this section. CBP must 

receive such information, known as 

ACAS data, no later than the time frame 

prescribed in paragraph (b) of this 

section. The transmission of the 

required ACAS data to CBP (ACAS 

filing) must be effected through a CBPapproved electronic data interchange 

system. Any ACAS referrals must be 

resolved in accordance with the 

provisions and time frame prescribed in 

paragraph (e) of this section. Any DoNot-Load (DNL) instruction must be 

addressed in accordance with the 

provisions prescribed in paragraph (f) of 

this section. 

(b) Time frame for presenting data. (1) 

Initial filing. The ACAS data must be 

submitted as early as practicable, but no 

later than prior to loading of the cargo 

onto the aircraft. 

(2) Update of ACAS filing. The party 

who submitted the initial ACAS filing 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 

must update the initial filing if, after the 

filing is submitted, any of the submitted 

data changes or more accurate data 

becomes available. Updates are required 

up until the time frame specified in 

§ 122.48a(b) for submitting advance 

information under § 122.48a(a). 

(c) Parties filing ACAS data—(1) 

Inbound air carrier. If no other eligible 

party elects to file the ACAS data, the 

inbound air carrier must file the ACAS 

data. If another eligible party does elect 

to file ACAS data, the inbound air 

carrier may also choose to file the ACAS 

data. 

(2) Other filers. The following entities 

can elect to be ACAS filers, provided 

they also meet the ACAS filer 

requirements in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section: 

(i) All parties eligible to elect to file 

advance electronic cargo data listed in 

§ 122.48a(c); and 

(ii) Foreign Indirect Air Carriers. For 

purposes of this section, ‘‘foreign 

indirect air carrier’’ (FIAC) is defined as 

any person, not a citizen of the United 

States, who undertakes indirectly to 

engage in the air transportation of 

property. A FIAC may volunteer to be 

an ACAS filer and accept responsibility 

for the submission of accurate and 

timely ACAS filings, as well as for 

taking the necessary action to address 

any referrals and Do-Not-Load (DNL) 

instructions when applicable. 

(3) ACAS filer requirements. All 

inbound air carriers and other entities 

electing to be ACAS filers must: 

(i) Establish the communication 

protocol required by CBP for properly 

transmitting an ACAS filing through a 

CBP-approved electronic data 

interchange system; 

(ii) Possess the appropriate bond 

containing all the necessary provisions 

of § 113.62, § 113.63, or § 113.64 of this 

chapter; 

(iii) Report all of the originator codes 

that will be used to file ACAS data. If 

at any time, ACAS filers wish to utilize 

additional originator codes to file ACAS 

data, the originator code must be 

reported to CBP prior to its use; and 

(iv) Provide 24 hours/7 days a week 

contact information consisting of a 

telephone number and email address. 

CBP will use the 24 hours/7 days a week 

contact information to notify, 

communicate, and carry out response 

protocols for Do-Not-Load (DNL) 

instructions, even if an electronic 

message is sent. 

(4) Nonparticipation by other party. If 

a party specified in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section does not participate in an 

ACAS filing, the party that arranges for 

and/or delivers the cargo to the inbound 

air carrier must fully disclose and 

present to the inbound air carrier the 

required cargo data listed in paragraph 

(d) of this section; and the inbound air 

carrier must present this data 

electronically to CBP under paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(5) Required information in 

possession of third party. Any other 

entity in possession of required ACAS 

data that is not the inbound air carrier 

or a party described in paragraph (c)(2) 

of this section must fully disclose and 

present the required data for the 

inbound air cargo to either the inbound 

air carrier or other eligible ACAS filer, 

as applicable, which must present such 

data to CBP. 

(6) Party receiving information 

believed to be accurate. Where the party 

electronically presenting the cargo data 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
27406 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

required in paragraph (d) of this section 

receives any of this data from another 

party, CBP will take into consideration 

how, in accordance with ordinary 

commercial practices, the presenting 

party acquired such information, and 

whether and how the presenting party is 

able to verify this information. Where 

the presenting party is not reasonably 

able to verify such information, CBP 

will permit the party to electronically 

present the data on the basis of what 

that party reasonably believes to be true. 

(d) ACAS data elements. Some of the 

ACAS data elements are mandatory in 

all circumstances, one is conditional 

and is required only in certain 

circumstances, and others are optional. 

The definitions of the mandatory and 

conditional ACAS data elements are set 

forth in § 122.48a. 

(1) Mandatory data elements. The 

following data elements are required to 

be submitted at the lowest air waybill 

level (i.e., at the house air waybill level 

if applicable) by all ACAS filers: 

(i) Shipper name and address; 

(ii) Consignee name and address; 

(iii) Cargo description; 

(iv) Total quantity based on the 

smallest external packing unit; 

(v) Total weight of cargo; and 

(vi) Air waybill number. The air 

waybill number must be the same in the 

filing required by this section and the 

filing required by § 122.48a. 

(2) Conditional data element: Master 

air waybill number. The master air 

waybill (MAWB) number for each leg of 

the flight is a conditional data element. 

The MAWB number is a required data 

element in the following circumstances; 

otherwise, the submission of the MAWB 

number is optional, but encouraged: 

(i) When the ACAS filer is a different 

party than the party that will file the 

advance electronic air cargo data 

required by § 122.48a. To allow for 

earlier submission of the ACAS filing, 

the initial ACAS filing may be 

submitted without the MAWB number, 

as long as the MAWB number is later 

submitted by the ACAS filer or the 

inbound air carrier according to the 

applicable ACAS time frame for data 

submission in paragraph (b) of this 

section; or 

(ii) When the ACAS filer is 

transmitting all the data elements 

required by § 122.48a according to the 

applicable ACAS time frame for data 

submission; or 

(iii) When the inbound air carrier 

would like to receive from CBP a check 

on the ACAS status of a specific 

shipment. If the MAWB number is 

submitted, either by the ACAS filer or 

the inbound air carrier, CBP will 

provide this information to the inbound 

air carrier upon request. 

(3) Optional data elements—(i) 

Second Notify Party. The ACAS filer 

may choose to designate a Second 

Notify Party to receive shipment status 

messages from CBP. 

(ii) Any additional data elements 

listed in § 122.48a or any additional 

information regarding ACAS data 

elements (e.g., telephone number, email 

address, and/or internet protocol 

address for shipper and/or consignee) 

may be provided and are encouraged. 

(e) ACAS referrals—(1) Potential 

referrals. There are two types of referrals 

that may be issued by CBP after a risk 

assessment of an ACAS submission: 

(i) Referral for information. A referral 

for information will be issued if a risk 

assessment of the cargo cannot be 

conducted due to non-descriptive, 

inaccurate, or insufficient data. This can 

be due to typographical errors, vague 

cargo descriptions, and/or unverifiable 

information; and 

(ii) Referral for screening. A referral 

for screening will be issued if the 

potential risk of the cargo is deemed 

high enough to warrant enhanced 

screening. A referral for screening must 

be resolved according to TSA-approved 

enhanced screening methods. 

(2) ACAS referral resolution. All 

ACAS filers and/or inbound air carriers, 

as applicable, must respond to and take 

the necessary action to address all 

referrals as provided in paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i)–(ii) of this section, no later than 

prior to departure of the aircraft. The 

appropriate protocols and time frame for 

taking the necessary action to address 

these referrals must be followed as 

directed. The parties responsible for 

taking the necessary action to address 

ACAS referrals are as follows: 

(i) Referral for information. The ACAS 

filer is responsible for taking the 

necessary action to address a referral for 

information. The last party to file the 

ACAS data is responsible for such 

action. For instance, the inbound air 

carrier is responsible for taking the 

necessary action to address a referral for 

information if the inbound air carrier 

retransmits an original ACAS filer’s data 

and the referral is issued after this 

retransmission. 

(ii) Referral for screening. As provided 

in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, a 

referral for screening must be resolved 

according to TSA-approved enhanced 

screening methods. If the ACAS filer is 

a party recognized by TSA to perform 

screening, the ACAS filer may address 

a referral for screening directly; if the 

ACAS filer is a party other than the 

inbound air carrier and chooses not to 

address the referral for screening or is 

not a party recognized by TSA to 

perform screening, the ACAS filer must 

notify the inbound air carrier of the 

referral for screening. The inbound air 

carrier is responsible for taking the 

necessary action to address a referral for 

screening, unless another ACAS filer 

recognized by TSA to perform screening 

has taken such action. 

(3) Prohibition on transporting cargo 

with unresolved ACAS referrals. The 

inbound air carrier may not transport 

cargo on an aircraft destined to the 

United States until any and all referrals 

issued pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section with respect to such cargo 

have been resolved. 

(f) Do-Not-Load (DNL) instructions. (1) 

A Do-Not-Load (DNL) instruction will 

be issued if it is determined that the 

cargo may contain a potential bomb, 

improvised explosive device, or other 

material that may pose an immediate, 

lethal threat to the aircraft and its 

vicinity. 

(2) As provided in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) 

of this section, all ACAS filers must 

provide a telephone number and email 

address that is monitored 24 hours/7 

days a week in case a Do-Not-Load 

(DNL) instruction is issued. All ACAS 

filers and/or inbound air carriers, as 

applicable, must respond and fully 

cooperate when the entity is reached by 

phone and/or email when a Do-NotLoad (DNL) instruction is issued. The 

party with physical possession of the 

cargo will be required to carry out the 

Do-Not-Load (DNL) protocols and the 

directions provided by law enforcement 

authorities. 

(3) The inbound air carrier may not 

transport cargo with a Do-Not-Load 

(DNL) instruction. 

PART 141—ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE 

■ 10. The general authority citation for 

part 141 and specific authority citation 

for § 141.113 continue to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1498, 

1624. 

* * * * * 

Section 141.113 also issued under 19 

U.S.C. 1499, 1623. 

§ 141.113 [Amended] 

■ 11. Amend § 141.113(b) by removing 

the reference to ‘‘§ 113.62(m)(1)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 113.62(n)(1)’’. 

PART 178—APPROVAL OF 

INFORMATION COLLECTION 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 178 

continues to read as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27407 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

§ 178.2 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 178.2 by removing 

‘‘§ 122.48a’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§§ 122.48a, 122.48b’’. 

PART 192—EXPORT CONTROL 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 192 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624, 1646c. 

Subpart A also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1627a, 

1646a, 1646b; subpart B also issued under 13 

U.S.C. 303; 19 U.S.C. 2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 91. 

§ 192.14 [Amended] 

■ 15. Amend § 192.14(c)(4)(ii) by 

removing the reference to 

‘‘§ 113.64(k)(2)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 113.64(m)(2)’’. 

Dated: June 4, 2018. 

Kirstjen M. Nielsen, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12315 Filed 6–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2