Please read the instructions before completing the form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. |
|||
DHS/Transportation Security Administration |
a. __1652-XXXX_______ _________________ |
||
a. New collection b. Revision of a currently approved collection c. Extension of a currently approved collection d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. Existing collection in use without an OMB control number For b‑f, note Item A2 of Supporting Statement instructions |
a. Regular b. Emergency ‑ Approval requested by: c. Delegated
|
||
a. Three years from approval date b. Other Specify: __ _ |
|||
Secure Flight Program |
|||
N/A |
|||
Air transportation, Computer technology, Security measures |
|||
The Transportation Security Administration is proposing to collect information from U.S. aircraft operators and foreign air carriers in order to begin implementation of the Secure Flight Program. The collection would cover passenger reservation data for domestic and international flights, and also require aircraft operators submit an Aircraft Operator Implementation Plan (AOIP). The collection would also cover the collection from covered aircraft operators of certain identifying information for non-traveling individuals that the aircraft operators seek to authorize to enter a sterile area, i.e. to escort a minor or a passenger with disabilities or for another approved purpose.
|
|||
a. ___ Individuals or households d. ___ Farms b. _P_ Business or other-for-profit e. __ Federal Government c. ___ Not-for-profit institutions f. ___ State, Local, or Tribal Government |
a. ___ Voluntary b. ___ Required to obtain or retain benefits c. _P_ Mandatory |
||
|
|
||
a. Number of respondents |
600 |
a. Total annualized capital startup costs |
___$41,700 _______ |
b. Total annual responses 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically |
240,163 _100__ % |
b. Total annual cost (O&M) |
___$1,300__ |
c. Total annual hours requested |
28,300 |
c. Total annualized cost requested |
___$43,000 |
d. Current OMB inventory |
____0___ |
d. Current OMB inventory |
______0___ |
e. Difference (+/‑) |
28,300 |
e. Difference |
___$43,000 _ |
f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change (+/‑) 2. Adjustment (+/‑) |
28,300 ___ 0 ___ |
f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment |
___ _0_____ |
a. ___ Application of benefits e. _ _ Program planning or management b. ___ Program evaluation f. _ _ Research c. ___ General purpose statistics g. _P__ Regulatory compliance d. ___ Audit |
a. Recordkeeping b. Third party disclosures c. Reporting 1. On occasion 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. Quarterly 5. Semi‑annually 6. Annually 7. Biennially 8. Other (describe) Daily_______ |
||
Yes No |
Name: ___Joanna
Johnson______________________ |
||
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.
NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:
(a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;
(b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;
(c) It reduces burden on small entities;
(d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;
(e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;
(f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;
(g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3):
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information:
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory;
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number:
(h) It was developed by an office that has planned an allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected (see note in Item 19 of the instructions);
(i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and
(j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. |
|
Signature of Senior Official or Designee
|
Date
|
Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information. (Annotate the CFR parts/sections affected).
TSA is establishing this information collection in accordance with § 4012(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, Dec. 17, 2004), which requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to assume from aircraft operators the function of conducting pre-flight comparisons of airline passenger information to Federal Government watch lists. Through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), TSA is developing the Secure Flight program to implement this Congressional mandate. Under the Secure Flight program, TSA would receive passenger and non-traveler information, conduct watch list matching, and transmit watch list matching results back to aircraft operators for domestic and international flights. TSA would match identifying information of aviation passengers and certain non-travelers against the watch list maintained by the Federal Government in a consistent and accurate manner, while minimizing false matches and protecting privacy information.
Under the NPRM for the Secure Flight program, TSA would require certain U.S. aircraft operators and foreign air carriers (collectively, “covered aircraft operators”) to transmit to TSA information for all passengers on all flights conducted by covered U.S. aircraft operators and all flights into, out of, or overflying the United States conducted by covered foreign air carriers (“covered flights”) for watch list matching purposes. TSA would also require covered aircraft operators to transmit information on non-traveling individuals seeking authorization to enter an airport sterile area for watch list matching purposes.
Covered aircraft operators would be required to transmit each passenger’s or non-traveling individual’s full name and, to the extent available, date of birth, gender, Redress Number or known traveler number, information from the passenger’s passport (full name, passport number, country of issuance, expiration date, and gender), as well as certain non-personally identifiable information used to manage messages, including itinerary information. For non-traveling individuals, itinerary information would be the airport code for the airport sterile area the non-traveling individual seeks to enter.
TSA is proposing to require individuals seeking a reservation on a covered flight or authorization to enter a sterile area to provide their full names and would prohibit covered aircraft operators from accepting a reservation or generating a Passenger Name Record (PNR) for a passenger on a covered flight who does not provide a full name. Some aircraft operators currently collect partial names. Collection of partial names increases the likelihood of false positive matches because partial names are more likely to match a number of different entries on the watch list.
TSA is also proposing to request that covered aircraft operators collect gender from these individuals. Many names, including non-English names, do not indicate gender, because they can be used by either gender. Additionally, names not derived from the Latin alphabet, when transliterated into English, often do not denote gender. Providing information on gender would reduce the number of false positive watch list matches, because the information would distinguish persons who have the same or similar names but who are of a different gender. Date of birth also would be helpful in distinguishing a passenger from an individual on a watch list with the same or similar name, thereby reducing the number of potential false positive watch list matches.
TSA is also proposing that covered aircraft operators request the Redress Number from individuals, if applicable. Individuals who use the redress process provided by DHS will be assigned a unique Redress Number and may use it while making a reservation. Passport information will also assist TSA analysts in resolving possible false positive matches and make the watch list screening process more accurate. Covered aircraft operators would not be required to request passport information from passengers, and TSA recognizes that this information will not be available for all passengers. However, covered aircraft operators would be required to transmit this information to TSA, if it is available in the individual’s PNR. Finally, TSA must receive certain non-personally identifiable information, including itinerary information, in order to effectively prioritize watch list matching efforts, communicate with the aircraft operator, and facilitate an operational response, if necessary.
In the vast majority of cases, providing this information would be sufficient to eliminate the possibility that the passenger is a person on a Federal government watch list. In the event TSA is unable to distinguish the passenger from an individual on these lists with the information initially transmitted, TSA may request that the covered aircraft operator provide additional information, such as a physical description, to continue the watch list matching process.
TSA is also proposing to require covered aircraft operators to submit an Aircraft Operator Implementation Plan (AOIP), which would set forth the specific means by which the covered aircraft operator would transmit passenger information and non-traveler information to TSA, the timing and frequency of transmission, and any other related matters. The AOIP may include, for example, the covered aircraft operator’s plan for scheduling the transition of watch list matching to TSA, establishing connectivity to TSA or utilizing an electronic communication method to transmit passenger reservation data and dealing with a system outage.
At a future date, TSA may also collect full name, date of birth, and Redress Number, if available, for non-traveling individuals that an airport operator seeks to authorize to enter a sterile area for a purpose approved by TSA. TSA is not able to estimate the information collection burden for this future aspect of the Secure Flight program and therefore, did not include them in the burden estimates.
Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
TSA would use the information collected to enhance the security of air travel and support the Federal government’s counterterrorism efforts and enable TSA to conduct watch list matching through the Secure Flight program, to identify individuals who warrant further scrutiny prior to entering an airport sterile area or boarding an aircraft or to identify individuals who warrant denial of boarding or access to an airport sterile area on security grounds. To identify those individuals, TSA would compare individuals’ identifying data to information about individuals identified on the watch list.
The AOIP would enable TSA to understand the specific means by which the covered aircraft operator will transmit passenger information and non-traveler information to TSA, the timing and frequency of transmission, and any other related matters.
Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden. [Effective 03/22/01, your response must SPECIFICALLY reference the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which addresses electronic filing and recordkeeping, and what you are doing to adhere to it. You must explain how you will provide a fully electronic reporting option by October 2003, or an explanation of why this is not practicable.]
Consistent with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, TSA has considered technology to reduce the burden of this collection. Data required to be submitted by aircraft operators under this collection would be collected entirely through electronic means. For the AOIP collection, TSA would provide a template for the AOIP to aircraft operators in its Consolidated User Guide (CUG). The CUG is a joint document between TSA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). TSA also would post the AOIP template electronically on the TSA secure Web Board and request that aircraft operators provide the information electronically to TSA. TSA would accept the AOIP via mail also. At this time, TSA has not developed a final AOIP template but will provide it at the Final Rule stage. The passenger reservation data transmitted from aircraft operators to TSA would also be submitted electronically.
Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purpose(s) described in Item 2 above.
The information in passenger reservation data maintained by aircraft operators is the primary source of recorded information about the more than 2.5 million passengers who travel on commercial flights each day. Therefore, passenger reservation data are a unique source of passenger and flight information and would be the best information source for use in screening airline passengers and non-traveling individuals against Federal watch lists on an operational and real-time basis. Consequently, there is no available substitute for passenger reservation data in carrying out the watch list screening process.
Similarly, information about non-traveling individuals that would be collected by aircraft operators and may, at a future date, be collected by airport operators is a unique source of information about non-traveling individuals who seek authorization to enter a sterile area.
If the collection of information has a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses or other small entities (Item 5 of the Paperwork Reduction Act submission form), describe the methods used to minimize burden.
Domestic airlines with fewer than 1,500 employees are defined as small businesses, and twenty-four of the affected U.S. carriers meet this definition. Those carriers may deem this impact to be significant for them. However, TSA is committed to reducing the impact to those carriers by using alternative submission capabilities and by working collaboratively to develop an acceptable implementation plan.
Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
TSA proposes to collect this information in order to implement a screening program that shifts responsibility for pre-flight screening of passengers and non-traveling individuals against Federal government watch lists from the private sector to the Federal government, as required by section 4012(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and consolidation of the aviation passenger watch list matching function within one agency of the Federal Government. If this information collection was not conducted, TSA would not be able to comply with the Congressional mandate to assume operation of watch list matching from aircraft operators.
TSA has reduced the information collection burden by limiting the data elements that aircraft operators must send to TSA to just those data elements that are necessary to conduct effective watch list matching for aviation passengers. In addition, TSA believes that because the proposed collection of information from aircraft operators would require electronic transmission of information, the burden has been reduced as much as possible. TSA has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the proposed collection is the least burdensome necessary to achieve program objectives.
Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:
a) requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
b) requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than thirty days after receipt of it;
c) requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
d) requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;
e) in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
f) requiring the use of a statistical classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
g) that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or that unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential uses; or
h) requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency has demonstrated that it has instituted procedures to protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
a) Requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly
The commercial passenger aviation industry provides air transport to more than 2.5 million passengers per day, and aircraft operators accept reservations for transport on a continuous basis. Therefore, in order to be effective as a security measure, watch list matching of passengers must be carried out on a near real-time basis. Collecting passenger information from respondents less frequently than daily would not allow TSA to complete watch list matching of every passenger prior to their arrival at an airport security checkpoint. TSA’s collection of information from respondents must occur on at least a daily basis, if not more frequently, in order to take into account new or changed reservations for air travel.
Describe efforts to consult persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d) soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
TSA consulted with aircraft operators or their representatives to obtain their views on issues related to compliance with the proposed collection. TSA will modify the collection in response to comments from potential respondents, as appropriate.
TSA is providing notice of this information collection in its Secure Flight NPRM.
Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payment or gift would be provided to respondents.
Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
No specific assurances of confidentiality would be provided to respondents. Information provided by respondent aircraft operators would be protected from disclosure to the extent appropriate under applicable provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and, as applicable, 49 U.S.C. 114(s), as implemented by 49 C.F.R. part 1520, which limits the disclosure of sensitive security information. Data would be collected and transmitted in accordance with the Privacy Act System of Records notice published for the Secure Flight program: Secure Flight Records DHS/TSA019.
Provide additional justification for any questions of sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
The proposed collection would not include any questions of a sensitive nature.
Provide estimates of hour burden of the collection of information.
Aircraft Operators
Covered aircraft operators would be subject to two information collections under the proposed rule: submission of their Aircraft Operator Implementation Plans (AOIP) and transmission of passenger information to DHS. TSA has determined that the information aircraft operators would be required to collect from passengers is similar to that collected in the normal course of business; therefore, the collection of passenger information is exempt from the PRA as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).
TSA has estimated these collections would affect a total of 212 aircraft operators. Each of these operators would be subject to both information collections; however, due to differences in the frequency of the submissions, the two collections result in differing numbers of annual respondents. Submission of AOIPs would affect an average of 71 respondents for a total of 28,300 hours annually. Transmission of passenger information would affect an annual average of 163 respondents. TSA was unable to estimate an hour burden for aircraft operators to transmit passenger information to DHS.
The Secure Flight Program would require certain aircraft operators to submit passenger information to DHS for the purpose of watch list matching. Prior to submitting any passenger information to DHS, covered aircraft operators would first submit to TSA an AOIP. The AOIP would specify in detail the technology and processes an aircraft operator would use to transmit passenger information to DHS and receive and apply watch list responses. At the time of submission, 66 domestic and 146 foreign aircraft operators would be required to respond to the information collection. Domestic aircraft operators would be implemented in the first year of the program, while foreign aircraft operators would be implemented in the second year of the program.
TSA estimated that each carrier would invest 400 hours in the AOIP process if the carrier had not already connected to Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) APIS Quick Query (AQQ).1 TSA’s estimate includes high-level planning, resource allocation, budgeting and management review and approval before submitting the AOIP to TSA. Since TSA was unable to estimate the number of respondent air carriers that might connect to AQQ prior to implementation of Secure Flight, TSA assessed the 400 hours against each of the respondent air carriers, yielding a total of 84,800 hours
The AOIP would be a one-time submission. Consequently, TSA has determined this information collection would affect a total of 212 respondents for a total of 84,800 hours. Annualized over three years, these totals yield an average of 71 respondents and responses per year for an average annual burden of 28,300 hours, as shown in the table below.
Respondents and Hour Burden – Submit AOIPs |
|||
Year |
Aircraft Operators (Respondents) |
AOIPs Submitted (Responses) |
Annual Hour Burden |
1 |
66 |
66 |
26,400 |
2 |
146 |
146 |
58,400 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Annualized Total |
71 |
71 |
28,300 |
As noted, TSA was unable to calculate the hour burden on aircraft operators to transmit passenger information to DHS for the purpose of watch list matching. TSA did not have sufficient data to calculate this burden. However, TSA has monetized the burden on the aircraft operators to modify and update their systems to transmit passenger information in Question 13. TSA has determined, however, that this information collection would affect an average of 163 respondents, as indicated in the table below.
Respondents and Hour Burden – Transmit Passenger Information |
|||
Year |
Aircraft Operators (Respondents) |
Passenger Information Transmitted (Responses) |
Annual Hour Burden |
1 |
66 |
Unknown |
Unknown |
2 |
212 |
||
3 |
212 |
||
Annualized Total |
163 |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Airport Operators
TSA has established a pilot program whereby airports subject to TSA security programs may request permission from TSA to permit certain non-traveling individuals to enter the sterile area for commercial purposes. If TSA grants an airport’s request, the airport operator must compare the information of the person requesting access to the sterile area to the Federal Government’s watch lists. The Secure Flight NPRM proposes that, should Secure Flight be implemented, these airport operators would be required to use the Secure Flight system as the mechanism for conducting this watch list check.
Since airport participation in this program is voluntary, TSA is unable to say exactly how many airports would participate over the 3-year timeframe of the PRA. The pilot program and any expansion could operate independent of Secure Flight. The Secure Flight program would merely be a substitute for current reporting methodology. At present, only three airports are participating in the pilot program. However, there are currently 437 domestic airports that are eligible, and so TSA has adopted this total as the maximum number of airport operator respondents that might transmit information to Secure Flight. Based on the pilot program, TSA assumes that if this program were expanded to all airports, respondents would submit an annual total of 240,000 responses. TSA anticipates that airport operators would use a web application to transmit the personal information to Secure Flight and receive a response in real time. In most cases, the TSA response should be nearly instantaneous; thus, TSA believes the proposed provision would not result in an appreciable hour burden on respondents.
Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information.
Aircraft Operators
In addition to the hour burden reported in Question 12, it may cost respondents $129.2 million in the first three years to modify and maintain systems to accommodate the new communication requirements. This breaks down to $125,200,000 in the first two years for capital startup costs and $4,000,000 in the second and third years for operations and maintenance, for an annual average of $43,000,000. The capital startup costs encompass the cost for additional bandwidth that aircraft operators may require to transmit data from reservations booked online as well as extensive system modifications to enable two-way communication between respondents and the Secure Flight system.
Airport Operators
TSA does not anticipate that using the Secure Flight web application to perform watch list matching for non-traveling individuals requesting access to the sterile area would impose a cost burden on airport operators. These operators will be able to make these transmissions through an Internet application requiring only a personal computer equipped with web browser software. TSA believes all eligible airports have this technology already available.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, and other expenses that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.
The costs to the Federal Government for the Secure Flight program are described in the chart below. The cost estimation took into account the need to obtain, format, and compare passenger and non-traveler information against data maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center.
Table 3: Projected Secure Flight Transmission, Storage, and Retention Costs |
|||
|
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FY 2010 |
CBP/Communications lines and Charges |
$3,352,397 |
$7,649,089 |
$7,878,562 |
SF Implementation Expenses |
$31,516,397 |
$54,239,292 |
$55,222,018 |
Hardware/Software Procurement and Maintenance |
$13,310,196 |
$8,270,897 |
$7,341,958 |
Total |
$48,178,990 |
$70,159,278 |
$70,442,538 |
Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-I.
No changes or adjustments were reported because this is a new collection.
For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
The results of the proposed collection will not be published.
If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
TSA is seeking approval not to display the OMB control number and expiration date for the data transmission by aircraft operators of passenger information to TSA. As this collection likely will be an automatic transmission of the passenger data directly from the aircraft operators to TSA’s system and will not use a collection instrument, display would not be feasible.
Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19, “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,” of OMB Form 83-I.
No exceptions are claimed.
1 For carriers that are already connected to AQQ, TSA estimated that such carriers would invest 200 hours in developing their AOIPs.
OMB 83‑I (10/95)
| File Type | application/msword |
| File Title | Paperwork Reduction Form 9941 For Fill-In; with Supplemental Info Section |
| Author | Marisa.Mullen |
| Last Modified By | TSA Standard PC User |
| File Modified | 2007-07-27 |
| File Created | 2007-07-27 |