http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050224-105943-7064r
United Press International
U.S. wants passenger names one hour before takeoff
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 2/24/2005 11:25 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- The Department of Homeland Security is
drafting a rule that will require airlines to pass on passenger manifest
information as much as an hour before the departure of international
flights bound for the United States, officials confirmed to United Press
International Thursday.
"We need to be able to identify any suspected terrorists or other
criminals (on board) before the plane takes off," Christiana Halsey of the
department's Customs and Border Protection directorate said, adding that
the department was working on a so-called Notice of Proposed Rule Making --
the first legal step down the regulatory path.
The regulation then goes through several drafts, each of which is
published for comment by interested parties before being finalized by the
White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Industry representatives declined to comment for the record in advance of
the notice's publication but fretted privately that the logistical demands
would be another blow to the financially battered airlines. One
congressional official suggested that the federal government might have to
underwrite any additional costs incurred.
Halsey said that the passenger names would, as at present, be checked by
the directorate's National Targeting Center against the United States'
consolidated terrorist watchlist -- which contains the names and aliases of
thousands individuals thought linked to terrorism -- and against several
other law-enforcement databases.
"We're not just looking for terrorists," she said.
All that would change is that airlines would have to submit the data up to
one hour before the plane takes off, rather than within 15 minutes of
departure under current procedures.
Other knowledgeable sources said the rule would also cover passengers who
wanted to transit the United States on their way somewhere else, but Halsey
said she had no information about that.
In August 2003 the so-called Transit-Without-Visa program -- under which
foreigners with onward flights could enter U.S. airline transit lounges
regardless of whether they were entitled to enter the country or not -- was
suspended indefinitely by the United States.
The program was beneficial for airlines and U.S. airports, which
foreigners could use as hubs for intercontinental flights without having to
obtain a U.S. visa.
But the interrogation of Sept. 11, 2001, planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
and other detainees had revealed that the al-Qaida terror network saw the
program as a loophole in U.S. border security -- a way to get potential
hijackers into planes over American cities.
The option the department is currently working on, according to one person
familiar with it, would create one group of passengers -- U.S. citizens,
foreign visa holders and nationals of Canada and the so-called visa-waiver
nations -- who could transit the country without additional security checks.
Nationals of a second group of countries would also be eligible to transit
if their passenger information was received long enough in advance of their
departure.
Now that there is a single terror watchlist, officials explain, it makes
much less difference whether it is checked weeks in advance of a trip by a
consular officer at a U.S. embassy as part of a visa issuance process or
hours in advance of a plane's departure by a Customs and Border Protection
official at the directorate's National Targeting Center.
Indeed, the proposed change to the rule about the passenger manifests --
known as the Advanced Passenger Information System -- overlaps with and to
a certain extent renders moot the protracted tussle between Homeland
Security and the European Union over the so-called Passenger Name Record.
PNR data, a much more extensive record including credit-card and
frequent-flyer details as well as religious dietary preferences, has --
partly for that reason -- become a real cause celebre among privacy
advocates in Europe, while APIS, which has been submitted by airlines to
U.S Immigration and Customs authorities for years, has largely escaped
notice.
Officials insist -- not entirely convincingly -- that, either way, getting
passenger information to U.S. authorities early will benefit the airlines
and their customers.
Over the past year several transatlantic flights have been diverted --
generally to Bangor, Maine, the Eastern-most major U.S. airport -- after it
emerged that one or more passengers on board were matches for individuals
with suspected terror links.
In the most celebrated case a Washington, D.C.-bound jetliner was diverted
last September after officials discovered that Yusef Islam -- better known
as the singer Cat Stevens -- was on board.
He was deported after being questioned. Officials said at the time that
his name was on a "no fly" list and that he should not have been allowed to
board the plane.
And during the winter of 2004 a dozen flights from London and Paris were
canceled -- in some cases after names thought linked to terrorism turned up
on passenger manifests.
"If we get the information in advance," said Halsey, "we can minimize --
if not entirely eliminate" such costly diversions and cancellations. "They
are inconvenient for the passengers and expensive for the airlines."
But airlines seem unlikely to welcome the move, nonetheless.
"We are not going to comment until we see something definitive," said
Diana Cronin of the Air Transport Association, which represents major U.S.
carriers.
Other industry sources said privately the move could create serious
logistical problems for airlines, which currently do not finalize their
passenger manifests until the doors of the plane close at the gate as the
plane departs.
"Airlines make money when their planes are in the air," said one industry
lobbyist, pointing out that anything that increases wait times between
flights would squeeze an industry already beset by financial crisis.
"From our perspective," Ed Fluhr, manager of legislative affairs at the
Travel Industry Association of America, told UPI, "the U.S. government
recently has done a good job of explaining new security measures" such as
the digital fingerprinting and photographing of all foreign visitors
arriving by air and sea under the US-VISIT program.
But he added that, "Anything that adds to the perception -- or the reality
-- of unnecessarily intrusive security measures can be a reason for a
traveler to go elsewhere."
DHS spokesman Dennis Murphy said the department was very sensitive to the
needs of the traveler and the airline industry. "The objective is to get
the information early enough in the process without unduly impacting
airlines and their passengers.
"We are making a huge effort to counter the impression of fortress
America," he said, alluding to fears that the introduction of US-VISIT
would damage the image of the United States as a tourist destination.
Such concerns have so far proved largely groundless, although some
industry analysts fret that the weak dollar may be masking the deterrent
effect on visitors from Europe and Asia of being fingerprinted upon entry.
Nonetheless, officials say they recognize industry concerns about the
logistical issues the new rule raises and are working with the airlines to
allay them.
"We know there are issues with connecting flights," said Halsey. "We know
there is concern" about passengers who arrive or cancel their departure at
the last minute.
"We know there might be additional costs."
She said the department was listening to the industry's concerns. "We need
the stakeholders on board," she said.
One senior congressional staffer was dismissive of industry concerns.
"They'll complain about the cost, they'll warn about delays. ... They'll
make problems," he said, adding, "No one likes to be regulated. ... That's
capitalism."
He predicted that, in the end, the airlines would "suck it up" but try to
stick the taxpayer with any bill.
"There may be cost issues," he said, adding that the industry "lived and
died by its margins."
When Congress mandated hardened cockpit doors in the aftermath of the
Sept. 11 attacks, the staffer recalled, lawmakers made sure the industry
was reimbursed for the cost.
"If that (additional cost of the new rule) can be demonstrated, I'm sure
Congress would be receptive to the idea of doing that again," he said.
None of the officials UPI spoke to cared to make a prediction about when
the rule notice would be published.
"It is still in the inter-agency process," said Murphy.
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga