Enhanced Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)

To support the new biographic data transmission requirement, detailed under Section IV.E.5., CBP is adding a records retention requirement under the new 19 CFR 122.48b(c)(7). When ACAS filers are required to transmit the biographic data conditional data element (i.e., when (1) the customer account shipping frequency/volume, identified under 19 CFR 122.48b(d)(4)(ii)(C), is assigned the shipping outlet/walk-in code, or (2) when a shipment contains household goods or personal effects), CBP may, following prior notification from CBP to ACAS filers, require that ACAS filers obtain a copy of the government- issued photo identification document used to supply the text-based biographic data and retain the copy for 3 years. During the retention period, the ACAS filer must provide the copy to CBP if requested.

The language used here and in the regulatory text, new 19 CFR 122.48b(c)(7), specifies that ACAS filers are not required to retain document copies by default; however, CBP may require the retention of document copies at CBP's discretion. ACAS filers will not be required to obtain and retain copies unless prior notification is provided to ACAS filers by CBP. CBP will provide the notification to ACAS filers through an established, pre-existing means of communication. For example, CBP may send the notification to the email address provided by ACAS filers under 19 CFR 122.48b(c)(3)(iv), the 24 hours/7 days a week ACAS filer email address.

The biographic data transmission requirement found under the new 19 CFR 122.48b(d)(4)(v)(A) requires ACAS filers to transmit the date and time the individual shipping the cargo provided the government-issued photo identification document to supply the text-based biographic data. An ACAS filer's compliance with the document copy retention requirement will be determined by comparing the date and time CBP sent the copy retention notification to the ACAS filer and the date and time an individual presented a government-issued photo identification document for the collection of text-based biographic data under the new 19 CFR 122.48b(d)(4)(v)(A).

CBP retains discretion over the applicability of any requirement to retain copies, including, but not limited to, requirements to retain copies on a temporary or ongoing basis and the applicability of retention requirements to ACAS filings originating from certain ACAS filers, geographic regions, or countries.

CBP selected a 3-year copy retention period to identify individuals that present a risk to air cargo security, aid in the resolution of any questions regarding an individual's identity, and assist CBP in verifying the accuracy of transmitted biographic data under the new 19 CFR 122.48b(d)(4)(v)(A). As discussed previously, CBP will not require ACAS filers to provide document copies to CBP unless CBP requests a copy; thus, a 3-year copy retention period is also necessary to ensure that document copies remain available in the event that an enforcement action occurs. See 19 CFR 113.62(l), 113.63(h), 113.64(i).

Under section 343(a)(3)(G) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(G)), CBP is required to promulgate regulations that protect the privacy of business proprietary and any other confidential cargo information provided to CBP pursuant to the ACAS regulations. Data electronically presented to CBP in accordance with 19 CFR 122.48a is specifically exempt from disclosure as either trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information under 19 CFR 103.31a, unless CBP receives a specific request for such records pursuant to 6 CFR 5.3, and the owner of the information expressly agrees in writing to its release. 19 CFR 122.48a(a) states that ACAS data is a subset of data required under 19 CFR 122.48a and notes that any data identified as ACAS data under 19 CFR 122.48a(d) is “subject to the requirements and time frame described in Sec. 122.48b.”

The original ACAS data elements, delineated under the 2018 IFR, are exempt from disclosure under 19 CFR 103.31(a) because those data elements are entirely a subset of data required under 19 CFR 122.48a. However, the enhanced set of ACAS data elements, introduced in this IFR, combines the previous subset of 19 CFR 122.48a data elements with a new set of data elements unique to the ACAS program (19 CFR 122.48b). As such, information transmitted pursuant to the new ACAS data element requirements would not be explicitly exempt from disclosure

unless 19 CFR 103.31a is revised to specifically exempt those data elements.

While the ACAS data elements delineated in the 2018 IFR would continue to be exempt from disclosure without revising 19 CFR 103.31a and the new ACAS data elements could be protected by applicable Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions (see 5 U.S.C. 552(b)), CBP determined that it is necessary to modify 19 CFR 103.31a(a) to per se exempt the new ACAS data elements introduced in this IFR from disclosure.

Information transmitted pursuant to the new data element requirements may contain trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information; thus, it is immediately necessary to per se exempt information transmitted pursuant to those data element requirements to promote industry compliance with the enhanced ACAS requirements. If information transmitted pursuant to these data element requirements were not per se exempt from disclosure, ACAS filers, and parties who supply ACAS filers with information to complete ACAS filings, may be hesitant to provide information that could be disclosed. As discussed throughout this IFR, complete and accurate ACAS data is necessary to inform CBP's assessments of threats to aircraft, crewmembers, and passengers entering the United States. Thus, in accordance with Trade Act requirements, CBP is adding a specific reference to “Sec. 122.48b” in 19 CFR 103.31a(a) to ensure that the new enhanced ACAS data elements introduced in this IFR receive the same per se exemptions from disclosure that the original ACAS data elements presently receive.

As required under section 343(a)(3)(J) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(J)), CBP considered whether it would be appropriate to provide a transition period between the promulgation of the new ACAS data elements and the effective date of the regulation. Given the immediate threat to aviation security discussed in Sections III.E. and V.A., CBP determined that a delayed effective date would be inappropriate because the immediate implementation of the new ACAS data elements is necessary to address a demonstrated, existing security vulnerability.

However, to provide members of industry 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 transmission requirements introduced by this IFR for 12 months after the effective date, taking into account difficulties that inbound air carriers and other eligible ACAS filers 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.

While full enforcement will be phased in over this 12-month period, willful and egregious violators will be subject to enforcement actions at all times. CBP welcomes comments on this phased enforcement.

As required under section 343(a)(3)(E) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 1415(a)(3)(E)), CBP also considered whether interim requirements may be appropriate to the extent the technology necessary for parties to transmit ACAS data, and for CBP to receive and analyze the data, is available at the time of promulgation. Members of the air cargo industry have successfully transmitted ACAS data to CBP on a mandatory basis since 2018; thus, the technological framework for transmitting ACAS data to CBP currently exists. Although the addition of new data elements will likely require ACAS filers to modify their transmission software to accommodate the new requirements, some ACAS filers have already adapted their systems to source and transmit information for many of the new requirements, and for other ACAS filers, updated commercial software is available. CBP has developed the technical ability to receive and analyze the enhanced ACAS data elements.

Based on these observations and CBP's conversations with members of the air cargo industry, the technology necessary to implement the enhanced ACAS data element transmission requirements exists and is widely available. CBP recognizes that additional software development, technology acquisition, and coordination and negotiation among supply chain participants may be needed to implement the sourcing or transmission of information for specific requirements. However, CBP determined that the imposition of interim requirements would not be appropriate because the technology necessary to transmit and source information for the enhanced ACAS data elements presently exists. Instead, CBP determined that the previously discussed phased enforcement period would be most beneficial for ACAS filers in adapting existing systems to source and transmit information for the enhanced ACAS data element requirements. A phased enforcement period will immediately provide CBP with available enhanced ACAS data and enable ACAS filers to effectively allocate technology development resources toward adapting existing technology to comply with one set of requirements.

CBP intends for the decisions contained in this rule to be severable from each other and to be given effect to the maximum extent possible, such that if a court holds that any provision is invalid or unenforceable--whether in their entirety or as to a particular person or circumstance--the other provisions will remain in effect as to any other person or circumstance.\32\ The various decisions in this IFR are designed to function sensibly without the others, and CBP intends for them to be severable so that each can operate independently.

\32\ Courts have uniformly held that the APA, 5 U.S.C. 706(2), authorizes courts to sever and set aside “only the offending parts of the rule.” Carlson v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n, 938 F.3d 337, 351 (D.C. Cir. 2019); see, e.g., K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 294 (1988).

For example, CBP would intend to be able to implement as much of the rule as possible, even if it could not implement some of the rule (such as a conditional data element) due to a court order. This approach ensures that CBP can make necessary security improvements to the greatest extent possible.

Even if a court order were to render the requirement to transmit a particular data element invalid or unenforceable and ACAS filers' responses under that data element inform filers' responsibilities to transmit other data elements, CBP would intend that ACAS filers continue to provide the other data elements, using the preamble of this IFR as guidance for the applicability of any conditions to the extent this conditionality interpretation does not violate a court order. For example, if a court holds that the requirement to provide the customer account shipping frequency/volume data element is unenforceable, CBP intends that ACAS filers would continue to be required to transmit biographic data if the conditions described in the preamble for the shipping outlet/walk-in code exist.

If a stricken provision creates a question of whether or not a conditional data element should be transmitted, CBP intends that ACAS filers would interpret the stricken provision as satisfied such that transmission of the conditional data element is required.

For example, if a court holds that the verified known consignor information data element is unenforceable, CBP would intend that ACAS filers be required to provide a customer account establishment date for all ACAS filings where the immediate transaction code was not assigned to the ACAS filing. In this example, the verified known consignor precondition under the new 19 CFR 122.48b(d)(4) would be considered satisfied, regardless of the existence of a known consignor.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., generally requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide interested persons the opportunity to submit comments prior to issuing a final rule. 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 good cause exception “excuses notice and comment in emergency situations . . . or where delay could result in serious harm.” \33\

\33\ Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

Notice and comment is impracticable when the due and required execution of agency functions would be unavoidably prevented by undertaking public rulemaking proceedings.\34\ Impracticability can occur when there is an imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, or property within the United States, or when immediate implementation of a rule might directly affect public safety.\35\

\34\ See S. Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 200 (1946).

\35\ See Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2004); NRDC v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 894 F.3d 95, 114 (2d Cir. 2018).

The public interest prong of the good cause exception applies when ordinary procedures of notice and comment, generally presumed to serve the public interest, would actually harm the public interest.\36\ This prong is distinct from the need for immediacy under the impracticability prong and is “appropriately invoked when the timing and disclosure requirements of the usual procedures would defeat the purpose of the proposal.” \37\

\36\ Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 95 (D.C. Cir. 2012); see Florida v. HHS, 19 F.4th 1271, 1306 (11th Cir. 2021).

\37\ See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 95 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

The implementation of this rule as an interim final rule, with provisions for post-promulgation public comments, is based on the APA's good cause exception. As explained below, delaying the publication of this IFR for purposes of providing public notice and comment and following the APA's 30-day waiting period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Delaying the publication of this IFR for purposes of conducting notice and comment would be impracticable because of the immediate need for CBP to address imminent threats to the security of aircraft and persons entering the United States. CBP issued the 2018 ACAS regulations as an IFR because of specific, classified intelligence that certain terrorist organizations sought to exploit vulnerabilities in international air cargo security to cause damage to infrastructure and to cause injury or loss of life in the United States. While the regulations introduced by the 2018 IFR addressed certain security risks, since then, CBP's ongoing review of the ACAS program and specific, classified intelligence regarding the evolving threat environment have identified additional vulnerabilities.

Recent incidents, such as the July 2024 incendiary attacks described in Section III.E., demonstrate the immediate risk that threat actors pose to the security of air cargo infrastructure and the safety of individuals. CBP's discussions with members of the air cargo industry during the implementation period, detailed in Section III.F., also highlighted the immediate need for CBP regulations that could mandate the provision of the enhanced ACAS data elements for both air carriers and other eligible ACAS filers. Given the demonstrated vulnerability within air cargo security and heightened global tensions that may result in further attempts to attack critical air cargo infrastructure, it would be impracticable to delay the publication of this IFR for the purposes of conducting notice and comment procedures.

Notice and comment procedures would be contrary to the public interest because advance public notice of these regulations would highlight a vulnerability that threat actors could leverage in the period between the provision of public notice and the effective date of the enhanced ACAS requirements. The abilities of threat actors vary significantly; thus, while a threat from certain sophisticated actors poses an imminent threat to air cargo security, other less sophisticated actors may not be aware of the existence or full scope of a vulnerability until public notice from a government entity alerts that threat actor. In this case, public notice and comment procedures would provide threat actors with the list of enhanced ACAS data elements with sufficient time prior to the effective date of the regulations to plan and act on any perceived vulnerabilities. In the current threat environment, attempted or unsuccessful attacks can still threaten the safety of the American public and have disruptive effects to the supply chain similar to those of a successful attack, such that any perceived actionable vulnerability significantly outweighs the public's interest in conducting notice and comment prior to implementation of the enhanced ACAS data elements.

For the reasons stated above, CBP has determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay the implementation of this rule to provide for prior public notice and comment. While CBP has determined that this rule is exempt from the APA's notice and comment requirements, CBP is providing the public with the opportunity to comment without delaying implementation of this rule. CBP will accept public comments for 60 days following the publication of this IFR. CBP will respond to the comments received when it issues a final rule.

In addition to finding that this IFR meets the good cause exception from the APA's notice and comment procedures, CBP finds that good cause exists such that this rule is not subject to the 30-day delayed effective date requirement found under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3); thus, this rule is effective immediately upon publication. Delaying the effective date of this rule for 30 days after publication would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the same critical national security reasons that necessitated the publication of this rule without notice and comment procedures. Without an immediate effective date, the United States would be left unnecessarily vulnerable to a specific threat. Therefore, this rule is effective upon publication.

As such, CBP finds that this rule is exempt from the public notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements of the APA under the good cause exception.

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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule an economically significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to a national security or homeland security function of the United States. The benefit-cost analysis demonstrates that the regulation is anticipated to improve national or homeland security as its primary direct benefit and OIRA and the promulgating agency agree the regulation qualifies for a `good cause' exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). See OMB Memorandum M-25-20, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”' (Mar. 26, 2025). CBP conducted an economic analysis to assess the potential impacts of this IFR, which can be found in the following sections. Although this analysis attempts to mirror the terms and wording of the rule, readers are cautioned that the regulatory text, not the text of this assessment, is binding. In summary, CBP expects that during the period of analysis (from 2024 to 2033), the net cost of this IFR will range from $877 million (7% discount rate, 2024 U.S. dollars) to $1.04 billion (3% discount rate, 2024 U.S. dollars). The annualized costs will range from $116,754,193 to $118,721,545 (7% and 3% discount rate respectively). This IFR will affect CBP, air carriers, and other trade members engaging in the process of importing cargo into the United States by air. CBP anticipates that this IFR will also provide added benefits in the form of enhanced cargo safety and security measures that will reduce the potential for the loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, and the disruption of supply chains due to a threat. Due to data limitations, CBP is unable to monetize the benefits of this rule. Instead, CBP conducts a “break-even” 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 enhanced ACAS program. As this rule has annualized costs of over $100 million, 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 Table 2. BILLING CODE 9111-14-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.015

BILLING CODE 9111-14-C 1. Purpose, Background, and Baseline

Section 343(a) of the Trade Act 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 from 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. Within DHS, CBP and TSA have responsibilities for securing inbound air cargo and work together to identify high-risk cargo prior to the aircraft's departure 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 high-risk cargo and to mitigate any risks posed.

For any aircraft required to make entry under 19 CFR 122.41 that will have commercial cargo on board, an inbound air carrier or other eligible party must transmit specified advance air cargo data to CBP. See 19 CFR 122.48a. Under 19 CFR 122.48a, advance data pertaining to air cargo

must be transmitted to CBP no later than the time of departure (when the aircraft departs from certain foreign ports near the United States) and four hours prior to arrival of the aircraft in the United States (when the aircraft departs from any other foreign area). Under this data transmission timeline, aircraft could depart from foreign ports and be enroute to the United States prior to the transmission of air cargo data or a risk assessment by CBP.

To address this issue, CBP published an IFR in 2018, establishing a mandatory ACAS program that requires the transmission of certain advance air cargo data earlier in the import process 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 requires that ACAS data be transmitted prior to the loading of cargo onto an aircraft departing for the United States. This timeline is required to enable the performance of a risk assessment for each cargo shipment and to conduct the required screening. The earlier in the import process ACAS data is transmitted, the sooner CBP can conduct risk assessments and determinations can be communicated to air carriers and other trade members, which minimizes the impact to operations. Obtaining this import data in advance enables CBP to identify high-risk cargo before the cargo is transported aboard an aircraft destined to the United States. These ACAS requirements, in conjunction with the existing 19 CFR 122.48a data requirements and TSA's updated security programs, enhance air cargo safety and security measures.

To provide added flexibility in the ACAS program, CBP allows for any eligible party that has the most direct information about the data elements to provide the information directly to CBP.\38\ However, the air carrier is required to file the ACAS data if no other eligible party elects to submit the data. The ACAS regulations divide the ACAS data requirements into data elements. Mandatory data elements must be transmitted in all circumstances. Conditional data elements must be transmitted only in certain circumstances. The transmission of optional data elements is recommended, but not required. CBP requires that ACAS data be transmitted at the lowest air waybill level by all ACAS filers. The ACAS data elements introduced through the publication of the 2018 IFR include (data elements are mandatory unless otherwise noted):

\38\ Eligible parties to provide ACAS data to CBP include freight forwarders, Automated Broker Interface (ABI) filers, Container Freight Station/deconsolidators, Express Consignment Carrier Facilities, or the air carrier. CBP requires all ACAS filers to meet the following requirements: establish the communication protocol to properly transmit ACAS data to CBP through a CBP- approved EDI system, possess the appropriate bond, have access to report all of the originator codes that will be used to file ACAS data, and provide 24 hours/7 days a week contact information including a telephone number and email address that CBP can use to notify and communicate as needed.

\44\ 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 an eligible ACAS filer.

CBP also encourages ACAS filers to submit additional information regarding any of the ACAS data or any data listed in 19 CFR 122.48a that is not ACAS data. CBP and/or TSA may also require additional information such as flight numbers and routing information to address ACAS referrals for information. This information will be requested in a referral message, when necessary.

As stated previously, CBP's objective with the ACAS program is to obtain the most accurate data possible at the earliest point in the import process. Therefore, CBP allows multiple parties to submit the ACAS data and requires the ACAS data to be disclosed to the ACAS filer by parties in the supply chain. If any third party that is not an eligible ACAS filer possesses required ACAS data, that party must fully disclose and present the required ACAS data to either the inbound air carrier or other eligible ACAS filer for transmission to CBP. See 19 CFR 122.48b(c)(5). If no other eligible filer elects to submit the ACAS data, then it is the inbound air carrier's responsibility to provide the ACAS data to CBP. Even if another eligible party decides to submit the ACAS data directly to CBP, the inbound air carrier may also elect to file the ACAS data. The party that transmits the ACAS data to CBP (the ACAS filer) is the party responsible for updating the information if any data changes or more accurate information becomes available and this party is also responsible for responding to any CBP questions or referrals that may arise during the review of that ACAS data. CBP requires ACAS filers to provide CBP with a telephone number and email address that the filer must monitor 24 hours, 7 days a week to quickly address any instructions or referrals that CBP issues. After ACAS data is submitted to CBP, the ACAS filer receives a confirmation message.\45\ CBP's ATS reviews each ACAS filing and uses targeting strategies to identify filings that require additional review. ACAS filings that are identified by ATS are then manually reviewed by a CBP or TSA officer to determine if an ACAS referral or DNL instruction should be issued. Once the determination is made by the CBP or TSA officer, the ACAS filer is notified electronically.

\45\ If the ACAS filer designates a Second Notify Party, that party will also receive the status notification (and any subsequent status notifications).

There are two types of ACAS referrals that may be issued after an officer manually reviews the ACAS filing information, a referral for information and/or a referral for screening. The responsible party must address any ACAS referrals no later than prior to the departure of the aircraft to the United States. Until referrals are resolved, the inbound air carrier is prohibited from transporting that cargo on an aircraft destined to the United States. A referral for information is issued after the ACAS filing is manually reviewed and determined to have non-descriptive, inaccurate, or insufficient ACAS data, preventing CBP from conducting a proper risk assessment.\46\ For these referrals, the ACAS filer must resolve the referral by providing CBP with the requested clarifying data. The last party to file the ACAS data is responsible for addressing a referral for information because that party is generally in the best position, relative to earlier filers, to

lead in correcting any data inconsistencies or errors.\47\

\46\ This can be due to typographical errors, vague cargo descriptions, and/or unverifiable data.

\47\ 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.

An ACAS referral for screening is issued after manual review of ACAS data and the risk assessment concludes that the cargo presents an elevated level of risk that warrants enhanced security screening. Once a referral for screening is issued, the ACAS filer and/or the 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.\48\ A referral for screening mandates that the ACAS filer implement a higher security screening before the cargo can be imported into the United States. The ACAS filer can perform the necessary screening provided that it is a party recognized by TSA to perform screening. If the ACAS filer is a party other than the inbound air carrier and chooses not to perform the screening, or is not a party recognized by TSA to perform screening, then that 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.\49\ 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 the departure of the aircraft.

\48\ All inbound cargo must be screened in accordance with the TSA-approved or accepted enhanced screening methods contained in the carrier's security program.

\49\ If a screening is not performed, TSA will follow up with any administrative action against the ACAS filer.

If it is determined during a manual review of ACAS data that the cargo contains a potential immediate and lethal threat to an aircraft and/or its vicinity, CBP will issue a DNL instruction. If a DNL is issued, the cargo must not be loaded onto the aircraft. If a DNL were issued, it would pose significant costs to the airline and their customers. Since the implementation of the 2018 ACAS IFR, CBP has limited the issuance of DNL orders by working closely with carriers and other ACAS filers to resolve issues as they arise; however, CBP reserves the right to issue a DNL when necessary. Additionally, a DNL prohibits any party that currently has physical possession of that cargo from transporting that cargo until further guidance is received from law enforcement authorities. When a DNL is issued, the ACAS filer will be contacted by CBP and TSA using the 24/7 contact information that must be provided for all eligible filers. CBP has defined the process described above as the baseline scenario, the environment since the 2018 ACAS IFR was implemented. The analysis of this IFR attempts to measure any incremental costs, cost savings, or benefits compared to the baseline scenario.

Since 2018, the ACAS program has improved CBP's ability to ensure cargo safety and security; however, security concerns have expanded while the amount and quality of information mandated to be transmitted has remained static. As an example of expanding security concerns, in recent months, there have been heightened concerns about unconventional incendiary devices being sent in parcels which have avoided detection and have caught fire while in transit.\50\ Experience has shown that the existing ACAS regulations require further refinement for CBP to effectively identify high-risk cargo.\51\ CBP believes an expansion of the required ACAS data elements is needed to conduct effective pre- loading cargo screening and targeting measures. This rule will require inbound air carriers or other eligible filers to transmit this additional data in advance of loading so that appropriate security vetting can occur.

\50\ See, e.g., German Firms Warned of Packages Containing Incendiary Devices, Reuters (Aug. 30, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-security-services-warn-danger-packages-containing-incendiary-devices-2024-08-30/ (last visited October 18, 2024).

\51\ Other countries, including Australia and Canada, have also taken steps to increase security measures on inbound air freight shipments in recent months.

Since 2018, air cargo imports to the United States have evolved and increased significantly in volume. CBP determined that additional ACAS data requirements are needed to ensure the safety and security of air cargo entering the United States. To enhance CBP's ability to identify high-risk cargo, prevent that cargo from being loaded onto aircraft destined for the United States, and prevent aircraft with high-risk cargo onboard from departing a foreign country and entering the United States, CBP is introducing the enhanced ACAS filing which contains additional data element requirements. CBP will continue to use ATS for screening and risk assessment. Based on targeting results, CBP and TSA officers will continue to review certain ACAS shipments and issue referrals for information, referrals for screening, and DNL instructions, as discussed above in the baseline. Additionally, ACAS filers and other parties involved in the supply chain must meet the same requirements as established in the 2018 ACAS IFR, and will continue to be subject to penalties and/or claims for liquidated damages of $5,000 for each violation up to a maximum of $100,000 per conveyance arrival for noncompliance with the enhanced ACAS filing.\52\

\52\ See 83 FR 27392 (Jun. 12, 2018) (discussing amendments to the relevant bond conditions to account for enforcement of ACAS requirements).

The enhanced ACAS filing will include new mandatory and conditional data elements, in addition to the existing ACAS data elements, which must be transmitted no later than prior to the loading of cargo onto an aircraft that is departing a foreign port bound for the United States. ACAS filers must transmit ACAS data elements at the lowest air waybill level. These data elements can be provided by any eligible ACAS filer; however, if any party in the supply chain does not elect to provide the enhanced ACAS filing data, then it must be provided by the air carrier within the ACAS time frames. CBP lists the new mandatory and conditional ACAS data elements below:

1. Consignee email address (mandatory) 2. Consignee phone number (mandatory) 3. Shipment packing location and/or scheduled shipment pickup location (mandatory) 4. Ship to party (mandatory) 5. Verified Known Consignor (conditional) 6. Shipper email address (conditional) 7. Shipper phone number (conditional) 8. Customer account name (conditional) 9. Customer account issuer (conditional) 10. Customer account number (conditional) 11. Customer account shipping frequency/volume (conditional) 12. Customer account establishment date (conditional) 13. Customer account billing type (conditional) 14. Unmasked internet protocol (IP) address or media access control (MAC) address of the device used during account creation (conditional) 15. Unmasked internet protocol (IP) address or media access control (MAC) address of the device used to initiate the shipping transaction and the unmasked IP address or MAC address of the device used to

file the ACAS filing each time an ACAS filing is submitted (conditional) 16. Shipping cost (conditional) 17. Biographic data (conditional) 18. Link to product listing (conditional)

In addition to the data elements listed above, CBP is also revising the list of optional data elements. Under the 2018 IFR, CBP encouraged ACAS filers to transmit data elements that are not required or additional information regarding data elements. CBP continues to encourage these transmissions; however, CBP determined that additional guidance was needed in the form of new optional data elements. CBP continues to encourage the transmission of additional optional data when available. CBP believes that filers will provide the optional information if it is collected already and poses no extra burden to collect. The additional information will further help CBP target high- risk shipments. Higher levels of security will benefit trade members who have valuable assets, such as aircraft, involved in the supply chain. CBP lists the new optional data elements below:

1. Origin of shipment 2. Declared value 3. Harmonized commodity code 4. Transaction type 5. Special handling type 6. Customer account email address 7. Customer account phone number 8. Shipper Manufacturer Identification (MID) code or Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) number 9. Consignee importer of record number 10. Regulated agent name, address, and code 11. ACAS filing type

This IFR will implement the addition of the enhanced data elements and the retention of biographic data as noted in the regulatory text. The process and requirements to complete an ACAS filing will continue in the same manner as the baseline scenario prior to this IFR, but now with the additional data elements. 3. Population Affected by Rule

CBP expects that this IFR will affect a number of different trade members that engage in importing cargo into the United States in the air environment. CBP expects that this IFR will affect all air carriers currently participating in importing cargo into the United States and a number of other trade members, such as freight forwarders, involved in the process of importing cargo into the United States in the air environment. In the regulatory impact analysis for the ACAS IFR published in 2018, CBP expected there would be 293 unique ACAS filers affected by the IFR, including passenger carriers, cargo carriers, express carriers, and freight forwarders. CBP was able to obtain the number of unique ACAS filers for fiscal years 2020 through 2024.\53\ The number of unique filers declined after the COVID-19 pandemic, but is now trending upward toward, and remaining close to, pre-pandemic levels. CBP anticipates that the number of unique ACAS filers will remain relatively constant in the future because trade members that will transmit enhanced ACAS data are already involved in transmitting ACAS data to CBP. The level of ACAS filers has reached pre-pandemic levels and CBP believes it will remain constant at this rate.\54\ CBP assumes that the number of filers will remain constant, and that this IFR will affect 281 trade members acting as ACAS filers, largely including passenger carriers, cargo carriers, express carriers, and freight forwarders. CBP anticipates that this IFR will also affect a large number of other trade members, including freight forwarders and customs brokers, that are involved in the process of importing cargo into the United States in the air environment.

\53\ Data obtained from CBP, National Targeting Center, Cargo Division, subject matter expert on Oct. 3, 2024. Number of unique ACAS filers per fiscal year: 2020--295, 2021--204, 2022--227, 2023-- 244, 2024--281.

\54\ Information obtained from CBP, National Targeting Center, Cargo Division, subject matter expert on Oct. 7, 2024.

CBP also anticipates that this IFR will affect a number of software vendors that provide data processing services to the trade community. These companies will need to adjust their systems to incorporate the additional enhanced ACAS data elements for their clients to provide the enhanced ACAS data elements to CBP. CBP expects that around 50 software vendors will be affected as a result of this IFR.\55\

\55\ CBP, ABI Software Vendors (Sept. 26, 2024), https://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/abi-software-vendors-list (last visited Oct. 21, 2024). CBP assumes that ABI software vendors that act as Entry Vendors or Entry Service Bureaus would be affected by this IFR.

To estimate the effects from this IFR, CBP examines costs and benefits to CBP, air carriers, and other trade members involved in the process of importing cargo into the United States in the air environment during a 10-year period of analysis from fiscal years 2024- 2033 compared to the baseline scenario (prior to requiring the enhanced ACAS filing data elements). Though this rule was not in place in 2024, many of the affected parties incurred costs in 2024 in anticipation of this rulemaking, so we use 2024 as the first year of the analysis to capture all relevant costs. Moving forward in this analysis, all references to years are for fiscal years unless otherwise noted. 5. ACAS Filings, Referral Data, and Projections

CBP anticipates that this IFR will not affect the annual number of ACAS filings submitted to CBP but may increase the time burden incurred by trade members when submitting the additional data elements for each ACAS filing.\56\ To determine how many ACAS filings will be submitted in future years, CBP examined recent trends in the number of ACAS filings. CBP was able to identify the actual number of ACAS filings submitted to CBP by air carriers and other trade members from 2020- 2024.\57\ Additionally, as an ACAS filing may be resubmitted several times prior to departure, we differentiate between the number of total ACAS filings and the number of unique ACAS filings. Total ACAS filings are the total number of submissions in a given year and unique ACAS filings are the total number minus any resubmissions. We make this differentiation to ensure that the time burden of submitting an ACAS filing is not double counted.\58\

\56\ CBP expects that this IFR will increase the number of data elements that need to be included in the ACAS filings. CBP does not expect that this IFR will result in additional or fewer ACAS filings when compared to the baseline scenario.

\57\ Information obtained from CBP, National Targeting Center, Cargo Division, subject matter expert on Oct. 3, 2024.

\58\ Trade members have noted that they resubmit data at specific intervals regardless of new information being added to the filing. For example, an air carrier may submit the ACAS filing 12 hours before departure and then resubmit 8 hours before departure. In these cases, resubmitting the same data would not increase the time burden because the resubmission is automated. CBP filters data for unique filings to ensure that this time burden is not double counted.

First, we estimate the actual unique number of ACAS filings from 2020-2024 and CBP's estimates for the future number of unique ACAS filings in Table 4. According to CBP data, the number of ACAS filings have been increasing as e-commerce has increased significantly, resulting in a higher volume of shipments to the United States in the air environment. In 2020, there were a total of 237,778,028 unique ACAS filings and filings increased by 108 percent in 2021 to 493,447,602. Growth slowed in 2022 as unique ACAS filings only increased by 2 percent to 504,948,978, but ACAS filings increased by 53 percent in 2023, and by 62 percent in 2024 when there were 1,249,182,643 ACAS filings. CBP subject matter experts anticipate that the

annual number of unique ACAS filings submitted will continue to increase in future years as e-commerce continues to grow; however, CBP does not expect unique ACAS filings to increase at the same rate as 2023 and 2024. The rapid growth of ACAS filings was tied to the increase of direct business to consumer shipments, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the increase in the administrative exemption limit from $200 to $800 (commonly referred to as the de minimis limit). CBP believes that consumers have already adjusted their behavior to these factors and that the rapid growth will not continue for the next 5 years. CBP also notes that ongoing policy developments, including recent Executive Order 14324 which eliminated the tariff exemption for de minimis shipments starting August 29, 2025, could have significant effects on the number of unique ACAS filings.\59\ Since it is too soon to determine the full impact of such factors affecting the volume of shipments, CBP presents a range of estimates for the possible number of future unique ACAS filings that will be submitted.

\59\ See, e.g., E.O. 14256, Further Amendment to Duties Addressing the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China as Applied to Low-Value Imports, 90 FR 14899 (Apr. 7, 2025).

To estimate how many unique ACAS filings will be submitted in future years, CBP provides a primary, low, and high estimate. CBP acknowledges that currently there is significant uncertainty on how ongoing and future policy developments will affect the number of unique ACAS filings. Specifically, this uncertainty refers to the effects of changing tariff rates and the elimination of the de minimis tariff exemption. It is too early to know exactly how trade members will react, but CBP expects there could be a significant drop in the number of unique ACAS filings as a result of this policy change. Thus, CBP addresses this uncertainty by providing a wide range of estimates. As CBP's primary estimate for the number of unique ACAS filings that will be submitted in future years, CBP assumes the number of unique ACAS filings will mirror gross domestic product (GDP) growth each year in the future. CBP models growth in unique ACAS filings using the GDP projection developed by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for its “Annual Energy Outlook 2023.” \60\ EIA projects real annual GDP growth ranging from 1.56 percent to 2.11 percent for years 2025 through 2033 (see Table 3). CBP acknowledges that due to uncertainty from ongoing policy developments, the actual number of unique ACAS filings submitted could be more or less than what CBP expects. CBP's high estimate shows how many unique ACAS filings would be submitted in future years if the number of ACAS filings increases by 5 percent annually (CBP's high estimate). CBP's low estimate assumes that the elimination of the tariff exemption in 2025 could result in a significant decrease (15%) in the number of unique ACAS filings in the first year as trade adjusts to policy changes. Then CBP assumes that the number of unique ACAS filings would continue slowing by 1 percent each year, as ongoing trade policy developments could decrease the overall number of unique ACAS filings despite increasing economic growth. According to CBP's primary estimate, in future years (2024- 2033), trade members will submit a total of 12.3 billion unique ACAS filings or, on average, 1.4 billion annually. CBP's low and high estimates suggest that the number of unique ACAS filings in future years of the period of analysis could range from 9.2 billion to 14.5 billion or, on average, trade members will submit 1.0 billion to 1.6 billion unique ACAS filings annually. CBP acknowledges that it is too early to tell what the effect of ongoing policy decisions will be on the number of unique ACAS filings in future years, and CBP intends to revisit these estimates for the number of future unique ACAS filings in the final rule.

\60\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Macroeconomic Indicators: Real Gross Domestic Product (Reference Case), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=18-AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0 (last visited Nov. 14, 2024).

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.017

BILLING CODE 9111-14-C

Next, we estimate the total number of ACAS filings from 2020-2024 and CBP's estimates for the future number of total ACAS filings, including resubmissions, in Table 5. According to a sample of historical data, there are 12.5 resubmissions for every 100 unique ACAS filings.\62\ We use this estimate to calculate the estimated total number of ACAS filings from 2020-2024 by multiplying the unique number of filings by 1.125 (1+0.125). CBP subject matter experts anticipate that the total rate of resubmissions will remain constant in future years. This analysis will apply the rate of resubmissions to our predicted future unique ACAS filings and will keep the assumption that growth will mirror GDP growth each year in the future. CBP acknowledges that the actual number of total ACAS filings submitted could be more or less than what CBP expects, and therefore, to show how the number of total ACAS filings could vary in future years, CBP provides a range of estimates. CBP's low and high estimates show how many total ACAS filings would be submitted in future years if the number of ACAS filings decrease by 15 percent in 2025 and then decline by 1 percent annually (CBP's low estimate) and if total ACAS filings increase by 5 percent annually (CBP's high estimate). According to CBP's primary estimate, in future years (2024-2033), trade members will submit a total of 13.9 billion total ACAS submissions or, on average, 1.5 billion annually. CBP's low and high estimates suggest that the number of total ACAS filings in future years of the period of analysis could range from 10.3 billion to 16.2 billion or, on average, trade members will submit 1.1billion to 1.8 billion total ACAS filings annually. Trade members and CBP subject matter experts state that resubmissions are typically fully automated and updated based on a pre-set schedule (i.e., 12 hours before

\61\ The rapid growth of ACAS filings from 2020 to 2021 was primarily driven by the increase of direct business to consumer (B2C) shipments, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the increase in the administrative exemption limit from $200 to $800 (commonly referred to as the de minimis limit). This growth slowed in 2022 as businesses who were able to adapt quickly had already shifted their business models to ship directly to consumers. We see an increase in ACAS filings in the subsequent years as companies slower to change adapted and new companies entered the market that focused on B2C shipments.

\62\ Information obtained from CBP, National Targeting Center, Cargo Division, subject matter expert on Nov. 26, 2024.

departure, 8 hours before departure, etc.). Therefore, CBP will use the unique number of ACAS filings for all future calculations unless otherwise stated.\63\

\63\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.018

CBP acknowledges it may be possible that when ACAS filers submit the additional enhanced ACAS data elements, this could result in additional ACAS shipments being targeted and needing to be manually reviewed by a CBP or TSA officer compared to the baseline. However, CBP anticipates that the additional data elements will help CBP or TSA officers validate existing business relationships and patterns, assisting in the identification of legitimate shipments which could reduce the number of ACAS shipments that will be targeted for manual review.\64\ Therefore, CBP expects that this IFR will have a negligible effect on the overall percentage of ACAS shipments that need to be manually reviewed when compared to the baseline scenario. During future years of the period of analysis, CBP believes that this IFR will not result in a higher percentage of total ACAS filings being targeted for manual review, issued referrals for information, issued referrals for screening, or issued DNL instructions when compared to the baseline. Therefore, CBP does not include the time associated with manually reviewing filings, issuing referrals for information, issuing referrals for screening, or issuing DNL instructions as a cost.

\64\ Information obtained from CBP, National Targeting Center, Cargo Division, subject matter expert on Oct. 3, 2024.

As stated earlier, CBP believes that this IFR will not result in a higher percentage of total ACAS filings being targeted for manual review when compared to the baseline.\68\ CBP expects that the time burden to manually review an ACAS filing with the additional enhanced data elements would be the same as the time burden to manually review an ACAS filing before this IFR.\69\ Additionally, CBP does not anticipate that providing the enhanced ACAS data elements will result in more referrals for information, referrals for screening, and DNL instructions when compared to the baseline. This rule will not result in more targeting or more referrals, and instead, will improve the quality of the targeting and referrals that are made. As such, CBP does not expect that this rule will increase time spent by CBP and TSA.

\67\ CBP estimates that the cost to maintain the system will increase each year as the technology ages.

\68\ Information obtained from CBP, National Targeting Center, Cargo Division, subject matter expert on Oct. 3, 2024. Additional data could lead to more referrals, but the additional data also helps CBP identify legitimate shipments as the data could validate established relationships and patterns and reduce the number of referrals. Therefore, CBP assumes that the percentage of total ACAS filings that will result in a referral should remain relatively constant in future years compared to the baseline.

\69\ Information obtained from CBP, National Targeting Center, Cargo Division, subject matter expert on Oct. 18, 2024. CBP expects that manual review of ACAS shipments targeted for review will not necessarily require the reviewing officers to review each data element or to resolve each data element. Instead, the data elements will assist the reviewing officer to better understand the totality of the circumstances.

However, if CBP's assumption is inaccurate and the submission of the enhanced ACAS data elements results in a higher percentage of ACAS filings being targeted for manual review, CBP and TSA officers would incur added costs to review and resolve those additional ACAS filings. CBP notes that the time burden to manually review an ACAS filing varies significantly based on the complexity of the ACAS filing. CBP estimates that the time burden to manually review an ACAS filing can range from 5 minutes for a simple filing to as much as 60 minutes for a complex filing. CBP assumes that the average time to manually review an ACAS filing will be around 10 minutes. Therefore, if submitting the enhanced ACAS data elements results in a higher percentage of ACAS filings being referred for manual review, then CBP assumes that each additional manual review above the baseline will result in a 10-minute time burden to CBP. CBP uses the average hourly wage rate for a CBP officer of $99.33, to estimate that the average added cost will be around $16.56 to review an additional ACAS filing.\70\ In summary, CBP does not expect that this rule will increase the number of manual reviews by CBP officers, but to the extent that it does, the additional opportunity cost will be about $16.56 per review.

\70\ CBP bases this wage on the FY 2024 salary, benefits, premium pay and non-salary costs of the national average of CBP Officer Positions, which is equal to a GS-11, Step 10. Source: Email correspondence with CBP's Office of Finance on June 17, 2024.

Based on numerous conversations with trade members throughout the course of this analysis, CBP estimates that all ACAS filers and some other trade members involved in the process of importing goods into the United States in the air environment will incur IT system costs as a result of this IFR. Additionally, trade members have experienced costs to keep IT systems in line with CBP's ACAS Implementation Guide.\71\ CBP reports these costs because trade members have adjusted their systems to meet CBP's request for more information to improve targeting efficiency. The cost to adjust IT systems will vary significantly depending on the trade member. Most affected trade members have existing systems for completing ACAS filings and will not need to develop entirely new systems, and instead, would adjust their existing systems to meet the new requirements of the enhanced ACAS filing. Based on feedback from trade members, the investment needed will vary based on the size of the affected party. Larger trade members that manage their own integrated IT systems will have significantly higher costs than smaller to medium sized trade members. Additionally, many smaller trade

members will have minimal IT system adjustments as they rely heavily on purchasing software packages from software vendors to provide ACAS data.

\71\ The most recent version of the ACAS Implementation Guide can be found at https://www.cbp.gov/document/guides/air-cargo-advance-screening-acas-implementation-guide (last visited May 16, 2025).

In order to estimate the total IT system costs to trade members as a result of this rule, CBP provides estimates for each category of trade member. First, CBP categorizes ACAS filers into small, medium, or large-volume filers based on how many ACAS filings the entity submitted in 2024. In 2024, there were approximately 1.2 billion ACAS filings and 281 unique filers. CBP analyzed the number of ACAS filings per company in 2024 to decide size categories. First, we calculated the average number of filings per company per day by dividing the total number of ACAS filings per company by 365 days. Based on feedback from trade members, CBP assumes that large companies file, on average, over 5,000 ACAS filings a day. Medium companies, on average, file between 101 and 5,000 filings a day, and small companies will file, on average, 100 or fewer filings a day. The resulting distribution is 39 large-volume, 88 medium-volume, and 154 small-volume filers. See Table 7. CBP assumes that the future number of filers will remain constant at 281. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.020

First, we estimate the costs faced by large and medium trade members to reprogram their internal systems to match CBP's ACAS Implementation Guide published in August 2024.\72\ Representatives from trade members estimate that updating systems to match the latest guide cost $139,600 (undiscounted 2024 U.S. dollars) per firm. Due to limited feedback, this analysis assumes that large and medium firms faced similar costs to update their systems to match guidance. CBP requests public comment on this assumption. Additionally, CBP assumes this is a one-time cost that trade members experienced in 2024.

\72\ CBP, Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Implementation Guide, version 2.3.1 (Aug. 30, 2024), https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/ACAS%20IG%20v2.3.1_508.pdf (last visited Nov. 25, 2024).

Next, we estimate the cost that large firms will pay to further reprogram their internal IT systems to match the data elements in this IFR. According to feedback from large trade members, each member will experience an initial cost of $900,000 (undiscounted 2024 U.S. dollars).\73\ After reprogramming their systems, each large-volume filer will experience an operating and maintenance cost of $90,000 per year. On average, a large-volume filer will pay $1,620,000 ($900,000 (cost to reprogram internal IT system) + ($90,000 (yearly cost of maintenance) x 8 (years in the regulatory period where maintenance is needed)) to further update its IT systems as a result of this IFR. Costs for large-volume filers are presented in Table 8. CBP requests comments on the cost of updating IT systems.

\73\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

Medium-volume filers will also have to further reprogram their IT systems as a result of this IFR. According to trade members, the initial cost to these filers will be $20,000 (undiscounted 2024 U.S. dollars).\74\ After reprogramming their systems, each medium-volume filer will experience an operating and maintenance cost of $10,000 per year. On average, a medium-volume filer will pay $100,000 ($20,000 (cost to reprogram the system) + ($10,000 (yearly cost of maintenance) x 8 (years in the regulatory period where maintenance is needed)) = $100,000) to update its IT systems as a result of this IFR. Costs for medium-volume filers are presented in Table 8. CBP requests comments on the cost of updating IT systems.

\74\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. During these discussions larger companies indicated that they were more willing to substantially change their IT systems to reduce time burden. Additionally, large companies have extremely complex IT systems. Whereas, medium filers mentioned they would not have to make as many changes. Information obtained in October 2024.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.021

Small-volume ACAS filers generally do not program their own systems to file ACAS, but instead pay for access to software developed by vendors for that purpose. According to interviews with small-volume ACAS filers and software vendors, any changes to the software to comply with ACAS requirements are made at no cost to the customer. As such, this rule will have no software costs for small-volume filers. CBP requests public comment on this assumption.

Software vendors incurred costs to reprogram software to match CBP's ACAS Implementation Guide published in August 2024.\75\ Representatives from trade members estimate that updating systems to match the latest guide cost $55,920 per firm (undiscounted 2024 U.S. dollars). Due to limited feedback, this analysis assumes that large and small software vendors faced similar costs to update their systems to match the latest guidance. CBP requests public comment on this assumption. Additionally, CBP assumes this is a one-time cost that trade members experienced in 2024.

\75\ CBP, Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Implementation Guide, version 2.3.1 (Aug. 30, 2024), https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/ACAS%20IG%20v2.3.1_508.pdf (last visited Nov. 25, 2024).

Software vendors will also incur costs to update their platforms to accept the enhanced data elements in this IFR. Small-volume filers rely on software vendors to update their software based on the latest regulations. Based on conversations with software vendors and their clients, CBP expects that in the situations where trade members purchase the software necessary to provide the ACAS data, the costs to update the software to comply with this rule will be incurred by the software vendors at no cost to the clients as the existing contract provides that the software will stay up to date with any changing filing requirements. Therefore, CBP assumes that the total costs to software vendors to adjust their systems accurately reflects the total costs to smaller trade members that rely on their software. There are 50 approved software providers and CBP finds that there are 11 large vendors and 39 small vendors.\76\ CBP assumes that each large vendor will have an upfront cost of $140,000 with operating and maintenance costs of $40,000 that they pay in 2025.\77\ On average, a large vendor will pay $460,000 ($140,000 (cost to reprogram the system) + ($40,000 (yearly cost of maintenance) x 8 (years in the regulatory period where maintenance is needed)) = $100,000) as a result of this IFR. Small vendors will have an upfront cost of $50,000, with operating and maintenance costs of $5,000 that they pay in 2025.\78\ On average, a small vendor will pay $90,000 ($50,000 (cost to reprogram the system) + ($5,000 (yearly cost of maintenance) x 8 (years in the regulatory period where maintenance is needed)) = $90,000) as a result of this IFR. Table 9 provides a breakdown by category of trade members. CBP requests public comment on the IT costs as a result of the rule.

\76\ CBP used Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers business database to obtain business level data on the software vendors identified by CBP to be affected by this IFR. CBP then compared the number of employees or revenue for each company with the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards to determine if that company is a small entity. The SBA size standards can be found at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards (last visited Dec. 31, 2024). Sampling was conducted in 2024.

\77\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

\78\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.022

This IFR requires ACAS filers to submit biographic data elements of a customer and the date and time when this information was collected. Additionally, CBP may, following prior notification from CBP to ACAS filers, require ACAS filers to store a copy of a government-issued photo identification document for 3 years for potential inspection. There will be a cost to filers to store this information. Because of differing existing data storage capacities for different filers and privacy requirements in foreign countries, CBP notes that this could lead to significant variations in the costs of storing this information per ACAS filer. CBP does not know exactly how much this data storage will cost ACAS filers, but to illustrate the potential costs, CBP provides an estimate below. CBP assumes that, on average, an ACAS filer will incur costs of approximately $200 annually to secure sufficient space to store a copy of the photo identification documents.\79\ Therefore, CBP estimates that the total annual cost to the 281 ACAS filers would be around $56,200 (undiscounted 2024 U.S. dollars) each year. CBP requests public comment on the cost of storing copies of customers' government-issued photo identification.

\79\ CBP based this cost estimate on the average cost of cloud storage space across 10 cloud service products for around 1TB of cloud storage, which would allow for each ACAS filer to store around 300,000 photos annually. Sources: CloudZero: `The 2025 Cloud Storage Price Guide”, July 14, 2025, https://www.cloudzero.com/blog/cloud-storage-pricing/. Accessed August 11, 2025. 10StoredBits.com: “Photo Storage Calculator: Estimated Storage Required for Photos”, https://storedbits.com/photo-storage-calculator/. Accessed August 8, 2025.

In addition to costs associated with adjusting and maintaining IT systems, trade members may face an added time burden to submit the enhanced ACAS data elements. Based on feedback from trade members, most ACAS filers do not actually incur time burdens to compile the data for the ACAS filing as trade members submit the air waybills and ACAS data to the filer. In this situation, the ACAS filer acts as a conduit, accepting the ACAS data from the customer and transmitting the ACAS filing on the customer's behalf. In addition, with respect to the original set of ACAS data elements, these data elements are already needed for other purposes within the ordinary course of business, so there is not an additional time burden for gathering that information. ACAS filers have automated this process such that there is no time burden to the ACAS filers. This is also the case for the enhanced ACAS data as ACAS filers report that other than software costs, they do not anticipate an additional cost to submit the enhanced ACAS data.

Filers themselves do not have an opportunity cost to submit the enhanced ACAS data, as it is an automated transmission of information in their systems. However, CBP has learned through its interviews that other trade members will bear an opportunity cost to gather this data and provide it to the ACAS filer. While the basic ACAS data was already provided on a routine basis to the filer for other purposes, that is not the case for all of the enhanced ACAS data. CBP assumes the time burden to provide these additional data elements will be incurred across a number of companies engaging in the importation of air cargo into the United States, such as freight forwarders, exporters, importers, etc., and will vary depending on the business model used; thus, CBP provides these cost estimates to the trade as a whole.

CBP met with several trade members that engage in importing goods into the United States in the air environment and worked with them to develop a list of data elements that meets the security needs of CBP without creating undue burden to the public. Based on feedback from trade members, CBP acknowledges that, for certain trade members, some of the data elements may be difficult to obtain.\80\ Specifically, for foreign-based trade members, there are concerns about the changes that need to be made to obtain some of the data elements. Some trade members do not currently track the unmasked IP address from customers or other trade members. Another element of concern is the link to product description URL, as some trade members do not currently obtain that information from customers.\81\ CBP notes that trade members have the incentive to be efficient and CBP expects trade members to automate the processes of obtaining and providing the additional enhanced ACAS data elements, as much as possible. CBP nonetheless anticipates that there will

be some added time burden for these trade members.

\80\ CBP notes that most of the enhanced ACAS data elements are conditional, and in most situations, ACAS filers or their customers will not be providing all additional data elements.

\81\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

During the enhanced ACAS program development process, several trade members expressed concerns about the public burden imposed by the new information collection requirements. To reduce public burden, CBP has made certain data elements conditional which means that those data elements are only required under certain circumstances. The majority of the new conditional data elements are only required if the shipper is not a Verified Known Consignor. In addition to the existence or absence of a Verified Known Consignor, certain conditional data elements are only required if additional circumstances exist. These additional circumstances generally refer to the assignment of certain codes under the customer account shipping frequency/volume data element, with some exceptions. According to conversations with trade members and subject matter experts, CBP estimates that 85% of shipments will come from accounts with a Verified Known Consignor or from customers that have a shipping frequency code of regular/daily shipper or high-volume shipper and there will be no time burden to submit an ACAS filing.\82\ Feedback from industry indicates that the process to submit ACAS filings is fully automated and, if the above condition is met, has no time burden because the data elements they are required to provide already exist in their systems and the software modifications discussed above will seamlessly transmit that data to CBP. However, for accounts that are not from a Verified Known Consignor or from customers that have a shipping frequency of regular/daily shipper or high-volume shipper, there will be a time burden associated with submitting an ACAS filing. Due to the automated nature of ACAS filing, trade members will need to update systems to compile needed information or capture new information. CBP requests public comment on the percentage of customers who will have a Verified Known Consignor or have a shipping frequency of regular/daily shipper or high-volume shipper. Additionally, CBP requests comments on the assumption that shipments made by Verified Known Consignor or from customers that have a shipping frequency of regular/daily shipper or high-volume shipper will pose no additional time burden per ACAS filing.

\82\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in November 2024.

CBP anticipates that trade members will incur an additional time burden of around 1 minute (0.017 hours) to submit the average enhanced ACAS filing if the customer is not a Verified Known Consignor or does not ship with a frequency of regular/daily shipper or high-volume shipper.\83\ Trade members believe that 85% of shipments have an associated Verified Known Consignor number or a shipping frequency of regular/daily shipper or high-volume shipper and will incur no time burden to submit an ACAS filing. To estimate the time burden costs to trade members from submitting enhanced ACAS filings, CBP multiplied the additional time burden per ACAS filing (.017 hours) by CBP's range of estimates for the future number of ACAS filings submitted each year that do not have a Verified Known Consignor number or a shipping frequency of regular/daily shipper or high-volume shipper (15%). According to CBP's primary estimate, from 2025-2033, trade members will incur an added time burden of 30,793,324 hours or, on average, 3.4 million hours annually. From 2024-2033, CBP's low and high estimates suggest that the time burden could range from 22,956,960 hours to 36,157,256 hours or, on average, 2.5 million hours to 4 million hours annually.\84\ Table 10 below displays the affected numbers of ACAS filings and CBP's range estimates for the total time burden to trade members to submit the additional enhanced ACAS data elements as required by this IFR. CBP requests public comments on the time burden incurred by shippers who are not a Verified Known Consignor or have a shipping frequency of regular/daily shipper or high-volume shipper.

\83\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

\84\ Average annual time burdens are for 2025-2033 and exclude 2024 since CBP does not anticipate an added time burden in that year.

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.023

BILLING CODE 9111-14-C

To calculate the cost to trade members from this additional time burden, CBP multiplied the time burden hours by the average loaded hourly wage rate for importers of $35.59.\85\ CBP calculated this loaded wage rate by first multiplying the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2023 median hourly wage rate for Cargo and Freight Agents ($23.24), which CBP assumes best represents the wage for importers, by the ratio of BLS' Q4 2023 total compensation to wages and salaries for Office and Administrative Support occupations (1.4774), the assumed occupational group for importers, to account for non-salary employee benefits.\86\ CBP assumes an annual growth rate of 3.64% based on the prior year's change in the implicit price deflator, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.\87\ According to CBP's primary estimate from 2024-2033, total opportunity costs to trade members from submitting the additional ACAS data elements will be around $1.095 billion. Additionally, CBP's low and high estimates for the number of ACAS filings that will be submitted show that from 2024-2033 the opportunity costs to trade members could range from $0.817 billion to $1.286 billion. Table 11 below shows CBP's estimates for the opportunity cost to trade members from providing the additional data elements required for the enhanced ACAS filing.

\85\ CBP assumes that this is the most appropriate wage rate for the trade member personnel that actually compile and provide the ACAS data and information.

\86\ Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, “May 2023 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.” Updated April 3, 2024. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes_nat.htm. Accessed June 4, 2024. The total compensation to wages and salaries ratio is equal to the total compensation cost per hour worked for Office and Administrative Support occupations ($33.98) divided by the wages and salaries cost per hour worked for the same occupation category ($23.00). See “Table 2. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for civilian workers by occupational and industry group.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--December 2023.” Released March 13, 2024. Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03132024.pdf. Accessed June 4, 2024.

\87\ To adjust to 2024 dollars, multiply by the 2022-2023 percent change in the Bureau of Economic Analysis's Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (122.273/117.973-1). See “Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product,” Line 1 Gross Domestic Product, annual. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Updated May 30, 2024. Available at https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&categories=survey#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDMsM10sImRhdGEiOltbImNhdGVnb3JpZXMiLCJTdXJ2ZXkiXSxbIk5JUEFfVGFibGVfTGlzdCIsIjEzIl0sWyJGaXJzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAxNiJdLFsiTGFzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAyNCJdLFsiU2NhbGUiLCIwIl0sWyJTZXJpZXMiLCJBIl1dfQ==. Accessed June 4, 2024.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.024

CBP anticipates that some trade members will also incur time burden costs related to training their staff and becoming familiar with the process of providing data elements required in the enhanced ACAS filings. CBP expects that the training costs will vary depending on the trade member and larger companies will likely incur larger costs to train their staff and to become familiar with the new processes. CBP spoke with several trade members to determine the cost of training staff members and took the average of these costs. Based on feedback from the trade, CBP assumes that each filer will spend an average of $12,200 on training staff members and customers on the required elements. In 2025, this will cost the 281 trade members $3,428,200 (in undiscounted 2024 U.S. dollars). CBP requests public comment on the costs to train staff members for large and small trade members on the additional enhanced data element requirements. See Table 12 for summary of miscellaneous costs.

Requiring additional ACAS data elements will likely also result in other costs to trade members beyond IT systems, opportunity costs to provide the ACAS data, and training costs. Implementing new requirements for the ACAS filing can result in disruptions to supply chain and result in significant costs. Inbound air carriers are the responsible party for loading and transporting cargo into the United States, and those carriers are required to submit the ACAS filing if another trade member does not elect to do so, but the carriers may also submit an ACAS filing in addition to an ACAS filing submitted by another trade member. Because the loading of cargo onto aircraft is the responsibility of the carrier, the carriers have the right to decide whether or not the ACAS data provided by freight forwarders or other trade members is sufficient to load the cargo for import to the United States. When carriers begin transitioning to requiring additional ACAS data elements, trade members who provide the ACAS data to the carriers may not have access to all of the data elements that carriers are requiring, which could result in the cargo not being shipped or being delayed until data can be researched and provided to the carrier. This situation could be costly to trade members.\88\ CBP cannot accurately predict the frequency at which this is currently occurring or the frequency at which this will occur after the enhanced ACAS data requirements are implemented. In recognition of these challenges and to ensure trade members will have sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements, CBP will phase in full enforcement over a 12-month period following publication of the IFR. However, willful and egregious violators will be subject to enforcement actions at all times. CBP obtained feedback suggesting that the average carrier could lose up to $30,000 a day in lost revenue when shipments are rejected and not moved.\89\

\88\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

\89\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

The IFR could also cause significant disruptions to the supply chain, and depending on the time required to research and provide the necessary data to carriers, other trade members may decide to reroute their cargo shipment from the air environment to the sea environment.\90\ However, after speaking with trade members, CBP updated requirements to make certain data elements conditional. Trade members and CBP believe that this change will minimize the risk of shipping delays.\91\ Additionally, CBP will be flexible in implementing enforcement to allow time for trade members to update systems. CBP requests public comment on the costs of shipping delays and how often they may occur.

\90\ Importing cargo into the United States through the sea environment has different requirements for import data compared to the air environment. As a result of this rule, it may be possible that there could be a slight transfer in cargo movement from air to sea but CBP expects this will be negligible since moving cargo by sea can be significantly slower and not practicable in a company that engages in B2C shipments (which suggests that these modes of transport are not readily substitutable in many instances).

\91\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

CBP received feedback from trade members about certain enhanced ACAS data elements not being readily available to foreign-based companies.\92\ The supply chain processes of foreign and U.S. carriers vary in operational structure and complexity. The time to collect ACAS data for foreign carriers

may be significantly longer compared to U.S. carriers due to their varying operational practices. For U.S. carriers, the freight forwarders typically provide the ACAS data at the house air waybill level; however, under foreign carrier operations, the carriers typically submit the house air waybill, not the freight forwarder. Therefore, foreign carriers may not be able to rely on the freight forwarder to provide certain ACAS data, unlike the U.S. carriers. Additionally, feedback from some trade members suggests that they may need to adjust their business practices to start requiring new data elements from customers that they do not currently request that data from in order to obtain all the enhanced ACAS data elements.\93\ As a result, there could be some significant administrative costs to foreign companies to alter their export business practices so that foreign- based ACAS filers can obtain and transmit all the enhanced ACAS filing data elements in the appropriate time frame before loading cargo onto aircraft. CBP acknowledges that for some scenarios, some data elements may be difficult to obtain or may not exist. To mitigate issues with the existence of information and to add flexibility to the enhanced ACAS requirements, CBP developed alternative data transmission requirements, such as allowing ACAS filers to choose to transmit either the shipment packing location or the scheduled shipment pickup location, or both. Additionally, for certain conditional data elements, CBP structured the conditions such that the information would not be required if it does not exist under certain circumstances. For example, when the immediate transaction code is assigned under the customer account shipping frequency/volume data element, a customer account name would not exist and would not be required.\94\ CBP expects that trade members will attempt to automate this process through their IT systems as much as possible to streamline the process, and CBP notes that some of these costs may be captured in the IT systems development and operations and maintenance costs discussed above. However, the costs to adjust business practices could go beyond IT system adjustments. For example, companies may have to allocate staff to refine their current procedures to comply with new regulations. CBP does not know the extent of these administrative costs but recognizes that they could be significant, based on feedback from trade members.\95\ After speaking with trade members, CBP updated certain data elements to be conditional. Based on conversations with the trade while developing this rule and the economic analysis, CBP believes that this will minimize the burden on foreign businesses. CBP requests comments from trade members on these potential costs due to altering foreign business practices to comply with the requirements of the enhanced ACAS filing.

\92\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

\93\ Data obtained from CBP discussion with trade members on the impacts to trade from implementing the enhanced ACAS filing data elements.

\94\ The customer account name is required under the new 19 CFR 122.48b(d)(4)(iii).

\95\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

In the air environment, trade associations help trade members stay informed and compliant with air cargo regulations and help set standards throughout the industry. CBP anticipates that these associations will incur some costs related to adjusting the industry standards for air cargo as a result of increasing the number of data elements required for the ACAS filing. Based on feedback from trade members, CBP anticipates that trade associations will incur costs of around $50,000 to adjust standards to meet the new requirements of the enhanced ACAS filing regulation.\96\ Additionally, the trade associations will incur other time burdens to educate the industry through working groups, webinars, and in-person events to ensure industry compliance. CBP expects that the time burden to trade association staff from these tasks would be around 50 hours.\97\ In order to monetize the time burden of trade association staff, CBP multiplies the time burden of 50 hours by $106.51 (the fully loaded wage rate for in-house attorneys).\98\ CBP calculated this loaded wage rate by first multiplying the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2023 median hourly wage rate for Lawyers ($70.08), which CBP assumes best represents the wage for attorneys, by the ratio of BLS' Q4 2023 total compensation to wages and salaries for professionals and related occupations (1.4664), the assumed occupational group for attorneys, to account for non-salary employee benefits.\99\ CBP assumes an annual growth rate of 3.64% based on the prior year's change in the implicit price deflator, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.\100\ Trade associations will likely incur costs of $55,326 to educate members about changing requirements. See Table 12 for a summary of miscellaneous costs.

\96\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with Trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

\97\ Information obtained from CBP discussions with Trade members on the impacts from implementing enhanced ACAS filing data requirements. Information obtained in October 2024.

\98\ CBP assumes that this is the most appropriate wage rate for the trade association personnel who educate industry about the required information for ACAS filings.

\99\ Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, “May 2023 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.” Updated April 3, 2024. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes_nat.htm. Accessed June 4, 2024. The total compensation to wages and salaries ratio is equal to the total compensation cost per hour worked for Professional and related occupations ($67.50) divided by the wages and salaries cost per hour worked for the same occupation category ($46.03). See “Table 2. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for civilian workers by occupational and industry group.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--December 2023.” Released March 13, 2024. Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03132024.pdf. Accessed June 4, 2024.

\100\ To adjust to 2024 dollars, multiply by the 2022-2023 percent change in the Bureau of Economic Analysis's Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (122.273/117.973-1). See “Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product,” Line 1 Gross Domestic Product, annual. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Updated May 30, 2024. Available at https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&categories=survey#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDMsM10sImRhdGEiOltbImNhdGVnb3JpZXMiLCJTdXJ2ZXkiXSxbIk5JUEFfVGFibGVfTGlzdCIsIjEzIl0sWyJGaXJzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAxNiJdLFsiTGFzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAyNCJdLFsiU2NhbGUiLCIwIl0sWyJTZXJpZXMiLCJBIl1dfQ==. Accessed June 4, 2024.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.025

CBP anticipates that the enhanced ACAS filing will generate benefits after this IFR is implemented. However, CBP is unable to quantify those benefits in this analysis because of unknown risk factors and therefore discusses these benefits qualitatively. CBP expects the enhanced ACAS filing will improve lawful international trade by reducing the risk of terrorism and improving efforts to ensure cargo safety and security by providing CBP and TSA with more in-depth information about inbound shipments earlier in the import process. This section will discuss the potential threats to air cargo, the current vulnerabilities CBP faces, and the consequences of not addressing the threat.

CBP processes over a billion air cargo shipments per year, and because of the volume of shipments compared to operational resources, is limited in its ability to manually inspect all cargo shipments upon arrival. Compounding the vulnerability is that by the time the shipments get to the United States to be inspected, it is already too late, because if a dangerous package was on the plane, it may do little good to have it interdicted after the flight. For this reason, CBP relies on advance data to identify shipments before planes depart for the United States. Using a mix of computer-based targeting and the expertise of CBP officers, CBP identifies shipments needing additional data or a manual inspection before the aircraft takes flight.

The advance data provided under the original ACAS program has strengthened CBP's ability to ensure cargo safety and security. Security concerns have increased in recent years due in part to increased trade and the increased volume of shipments arriving in the United States by air. However, the amount and quality of information mandated for transmission has remained static. In 2024, packages containing unconventional incendiaries caught fire while in transit.\101\ Had these incendiaries activated during a flight, the resulting conflagration could have caused significant damage to the aircraft, potentially resulting in the complete destruction of the aircraft and its cargo and loss of life for any crew or passengers on board. Even the

perception of this kind of vulnerability, let alone the reality that multiple such parcels entered the supply chain, creates a heightened threat to the United States air cargo sector, as this dangerous cargo poses a threat to aviation and the physical supply chain.

\101\ See, German Firms Warned of Packages Containing Incendiary Devices, Reuters (Aug. 30, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-security-services-warn-danger-packages-containing-incendiary-devices-2024-08-30/.

The new data elements introduced through the publication of this IFR will provide CBP with additional information that can help CBP identify the highest-risk and lowest-risk cargo prior to cargo being loaded on an aircraft. CBP believes that the enhanced ACAS filing will improve entity identification by leveraging business relationships that naturally exist between the actual shippers and their logistics providers. The new data elements will provide CBP with more information about the original party shipping cargo into the United States. For example, customer account frequency information will allow CBP to know if the original shipper frequently ships cargo to the United States or if the shipper is relatively unknown. For frequent shippers, this information will allow for analyses of shipping patterns to either clear shipments in less time or identify shipments for further review. Other new data elements, put together with existing information, will allow officers to identify suspicious inconsistencies. The additional information will help officers effectively target and screen air cargo.

CBP believes that improving entity identification is critical for CBP to conduct proper risk assessments, because it allows CBP to better identify legitimate shipments by validating established relationships and patterns. This important data would be one added piece to the overall information that CBP uses for targeting efforts, and in turn, will allow CBP officers to focus more time and effort on identifying other potentially illicit shipments. If a potential threat is loaded on an aircraft, there could be serious harm or loss of life to the public, air carrier staff, and CBP officers. Additionally, if a potential threat is able to destroy an airplane, airport facilities, or supply chain infrastructure, it can cause large economic losses through destroying infrastructure and disrupting supply chains. This rule will benefit the public, industry, and CBP through the mitigation of potential threats.

Additionally, while this rule is intended to address aviation safety and security risks, the enhanced data elements may also have the added benefit of preventing prohibited goods, such as narcotics, from entering the United States. In particular, CBP believes that these data elements may identify shipments of illicit synthetic drugs, synthetic drug raw materials, and related manufacturing equipment. Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, continues to be prevalent in the air environment and poses a significant risk to the United States. In calendar year 2023, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that 107,543 individuals died in the United States from a drug overdose, and approximately 70% of these overdoses were caused by fentanyl.\102\ In fiscal year 2024, CBP seized 676.17 pounds of fentanyl and 349.66 pounds of precursor chemicals in the air environment.\103\ The additional data elements will enhance CBP's ability to assess air cargo risk and, by extension, could assist officers in identifying shipments that contain prohibited goods. Additionally, CBP anticipates that that the new data elements will allow CBP to segment risk and identify shipments that can move through without physical inspection which would allow CBP to focus on shipments that are more likely to contain fentanyl and other illicit goods. CBP believes that the enhanced ACAS data elements could improve enforcement actions against these goods.

\102\ Ahmad FB, Cisewski JA, Rossen LM, Sutton P. Provisional drug overdose death counts. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm. National Center for Health Statistics. 2025. Last accessed Jan. 29, 2025.

\103\ Information provided by CBP's National Targeting Center, Cargo Division, Office of Field Operations, subject matter expert on Jan. 29, 2025.

Lastly, trade members will benefit from the improved security of their supply chains. As trade members identify entities earlier in the import process, it will help secure members' supply chains to protect their employees, customers, and sources of revenue. Break-Even Analysis

Ideally, CBP would quantify and monetize the security benefit of the IFR through a two-step process. First, CBP would need to estimate the reduction in the probability of a successful attack on a flight carrying air cargo. CBP would also need to estimate the quantified consequences of an averted attack. However, due to unknown risk factors, it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an attack and the probability that it would be successful. Instead, CBP presented the benefits of the analysis qualitatively above. Additionally, to explore the effects of the uncertainty surrounding the unknown risk factors, CBP prepared a break-even analysis. OMB Circular A-4 recommends conducting a threshold, or break-even analysis, if the non-monetized benefits are likely to be important and cannot be quantified. CBP believes that the non-monetized benefits in this analysis are important to capture. According to OMB, a “threshold” or “break-even” analysis answers the question, “How small could the value of the non- monetized benefits be (or how large would the value of the non- monetized costs need to be) before the regulation would yield zero net benefits (or before the most net-beneficial regulatory alternative changes)?” \104\

\104\ Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, OMB Circ. A-4, Regulatory Analysis (2003), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4 (last visited Feb. 12, 2025).

In this break-even analysis, CBP compares the estimated costs to implement the enhanced ACAS data elements with the estimated monetary value of the avoided consequences of a successful attack. The direct consequences of an attack (or averted costs) include the monetized value of avoided fatalities, non-fatal injuries, property damage, and rescue and cleanup costs. Dividing the averted costs of an attack by the annualized costs of the regulation results in the number of such attacks that must be avoided on an annual basis for benefits to equal costs.

In order to compare direct costs with direct benefits, CBP considers major direct costs of the attack scenarios. The analysis does not account for possible macroeconomic consequences of attacks, specifically the indirect benefits (in terms of avoided indirect costs), from preventing a successful attack. Indirect effects might include, for example, macroeconomic effects associated with temporary closures of airports or specific air routes, resulting in business interruption and cargo delays; broader reductions in air travel; and other follow-on effects. The omission of indirect effects, due to data limitation and uncertainty, leads to a likely understated total avoided cost.

To identify the types of attack scenarios that may be averted by the regulation, we rely on TSA's Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA). TSA uses TSSRA to evaluate risk for hundreds of attack scenarios across aviation, mass transit, highway, freight rail, and pipeline transportation modes. The assessments are used to inform mitigation priorities, security strategy and program development, and resource allocation.\105\

\105\ General background on TSSRA is taken from Pekoske, David P., Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, “Biennial National Strategy for Transportation Security (NSTS)” April 18, 2023.

TSA provided CBP with data on the consequences of possible attack scenarios incorporated in TSSRA. These scenarios are characteristic of the types of events the ACAS rule is intended to prevent. In this analysis, we consider the range of potential outcomes for these scenarios.

For the value of reducing the risk of death and injuries, we apply the estimates used in TSSRA. To estimate the value of reducing the risk of deaths and injuries, DHS uses the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recommended value of a statistical life (VSL) of $13.2 million dollars.\106\ DOT also recommends relative disutility factors that can be applied to the VSL to estimate the value of reducing the risk of non-fatal injuries of varying levels of severity. We apply DOT's factor of 26.6 percent to value avoided “severe” injuries and 4.7 percent to value avoided “moderate” injuries.\107\ In other words, we assume the value of avoiding one severe injury is equal to 26.6 percent of the VSL ($13.2 million x 0.266 = $3.5 million), and similarly, the value of avoiding one moderate injury is approximately 4.7 percent of the VSL ($13.2 million x 0.047 = $620,400).

\106\ Economists estimate VSL by measuring individual WTP for a defined change in his or her own mortality risk. This tradeoff between money and small changes in mortality risk is reported as the VSL, and is often estimated by dividing the value of a small risk reduction by the size of the risk change (for example, if an individual is willing to pay $1,320 for a 1 in 10,000 reduction in his or her risk of dying in the current year, then his or her VSL is calculated as $1,320 / 1/10,000 annual risk change = $13.2 million VSL). Alternatively, this tradeoff can be multiplied by the population risk change to determine the value of a community-wide risk reduction (for example, if $1,320 is the average WTP for a 1 in 10,000 risk reduction across all affected individuals, and the number of affected individuals is 10,000, then aggregating these values leads to the same VSL: $1,320 average individual WTP x 10,000 affected individuals = $13.2 million). Therefore, VSL is not the value of an individual's life; it is simply the conventional way to express the value of small risk reductions.

The VSL terminology has led to substantial confusion. Therefore, agencies have begun to instead use the term “value of mortality risk reduction” (VMRR) to refer to WTP for a risk change of specific magnitude. For example, the estimates above reflect a VMRR of $1,320 for a 1 in 10,000 risk reduction. However, in this break- even analysis, we express this change as the VSL to clarify the relationship of the results to the expected number of deaths averted in each binned scenario and for consistency with DOT guidance.

U.S. Department of Transportation, “Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis”, May 7, 2024. Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis. Last accessed on Dec. 5, 2024.

\107\ The selection of the DOT severity level that corresponds most closely to the types of injuries likely to result from the scenarios included in the TSSRA model is based on guidance provided by TSA. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, “Departmental Guidance, Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses”, March 2021. Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/resources/value-of-a-statistical-life-guidance. Last accessed on Dec. 5, 2024.

For the value of private property losses and rescue and cleanup costs, we apply the estimates used in TSSRA. Private property losses generally include the depreciated value of the plane and the value of lost cargo, as appropriate, depending on the extent of damage to the plane(s). We use the GDP implicit price deflator of 1.024 (124.874/ 122.273) to update the costs from 2023 to 2024 dollars.\108\

\108\ U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product”. Available at: https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=13#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDMsM10sImRhdGEiOltbIk5JUEFfVGFibGVfTGlzdCIsIjEzIl0sWyJDYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwiU3VydmV5Il0sWyJGaXJzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAyMCJdLFsiTGFzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAyNCJdLFsiU2NhbGUiLCIwIl0sWyJTZXJpZXMiLCJBIl1dfQ==. Last accessed on Dec. 5, 2024.

Table 14 indicates what would need to occur for the costs of the interim final rule to equal its benefits, assuming the rule reduces the risk of a successful attack (based on the annualized costs of the regulation using a three or seven percent discount rate, see Table 14). For the low consequence estimate, CBP estimates the regulation must result in the avoidance of an attack event about every 0.6 years (or about every 7 months) for the benefits of the rule to equal the costs. For the higher consequence estimate, CBP estimates that the regulation must result in the avoidance of an attack event approximately once every 21.6 years. As a result, if the rule only reduces the risk of a single type of attack, the attack would need to be avoided once every 0.6 years to 21.6 years, depending on the scenario of attack, for the benefits of the rule to equal costs.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.027

The benefits of the rule and break-even analysis have limitations that may lead us to under- or overstate the potential benefits of the interim final rule. Notably, we are unable to quantify the incremental risk reduction likely to result from the regulation, providing a qualitative discussion instead. The break-even analysis is limited, as macroeconomic consequences and indirect consequences, such as closures of airports and air routes, are excluded from our analysis. As a result, the break-even analysis likely overstates the frequency at which an attack would need to be averted for the avoided consequences of a successful attack to equal the costs of the rule. Additionally, this analysis focuses on the consequences of a single attack. We compare these costs to the annualized costs of the IFR, which only identifies the critical event avoidance rate for one aircraft attack at a time. In reality, the rule reduces the risk for all aircrafts simultaneously and even if the rule only partially achieved each of the targets in Table 14, it might still break even if the sum of the monetized risk-reduction benefits across all events equals its cost. Finally, this analysis does not address other benefits of the rule. It does not address, for instance, the rule's potential to reduce the amount of fentanyl and other illicit goods that enter the United States and enrich bad actors. 8. Net Impact of Rule

CBP expects that the enhanced ACAS filing data requirements rule result in overall net quantified cost but will result in significant unquantified security benefits. CBP estimates that during the period of analysis, CBP and trade members will incur a total net present value cost between $820,717,002 (7% discount rate) and $1,016,568,529 (3% discount rate). The annualized costs of the rule are between $116,851,637 (7% discount rate) and $118,821,152 (3% discount rate). CBP notes that the net impact is largely driven by time burden costs. This time burden is largely faced by unknown or occasional shippers that pose the highest security risk. The total cost of the rule can be found in Table 15 and Table 16. We present the costs in 2024 dollars and discounted at a rate of three and seven percent.

Additionally, CBP anticipates that this IFR will result in added benefits, but CBP was unable to quantify these benefits. The enhanced ACAS filing will improve commercial risk assessment targeting, prevent smuggling, and increase cargo security by providing CBP and TSA with more in-depth information about inbound shipments earlier in the import process. It will also give CBP more information about business relationships between parties. This allows CBP officers to identify legitimate shipments and spend more time identifying potentially illicit shipments. Trade members will also benefit from added security and will have more confidence in their cargo. Table 17 displays CBP's primary estimate for costs to CBP and trade members during each year of the regulatory period and summarizes potential benefits. CBP believes that the increased risk to aviation security merits the collection of additional ACAS information. While the collection will result in significant costs to CBP and the public, CBP has worked with trade members to minimize those costs to the extent possible. During these conversations, trade members were focused on providing CBP the data needed in a way that did not overly burden industry, and trade members CBP interviewed generally understood the need to collect additional information due to the recent increased risk. CBP believes that the security benefits that will result from this collection of information will outweigh the costs. CBP requests public comment on this conclusion.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO25.030

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P 9. Alternatives

In accordance with E.O. 12866, the following alternatives were considered:

(1) Alternative 1 (the chosen alternative): Submission of 4 new mandatory ACAS data elements, 14 new conditional elements, and 11 new optional elements in addition to the original ACAS data elements. In particular, copies of documents used to provide biographic data will only be required with prior notice from CBP and copies should be retained for 3 years. The transmission of these data elements is required no later than prior to loading the cargo onto any inbound aircraft required to make entry under 19 CFR 122.41 that will have commercial cargo aboard;

(2) Alternative 2: Submission of 18 new mandatory ACAS data elements and 11 new optional elements in addition to the original ACAS data elements. Additionally, copies of documents used to provide biographic data would be required for all shipping outlet/walk-in transactions and copies should be retained for 3 years. The transmission of these data elements is required no later than prior to loading the cargo onto any inbound aircraft required to make entry under 19 CFR 122.41 that will have commercial cargo aboard;

(3) Alternative 3: Same as Alternative 1, however, there would be no requirement to store a copy of the document used to provide biographic data. The ACAS filer would still be required to transmit text-based biographic data when the shipping outlet/walk-in code is assigned or when a shipment contains household goods or personal effects. The transmission of the data elements is required no later than prior to loading the cargo onto any inbound aircraft required to make entry under 19 CFR 122.41 that will have commercial cargo aboard;

(4) Alternative 4: Same as Alternative 1, however, the portion of the link to product listing data element that requires transmission of the unmasked IP or MAC address of the device used by the consignee to purchase a product from an e-commerce platform would be optional. Required data elements must

be transmitted no later than prior to loading the cargo onto any inbound aircraft required to make entry under 19 CFR 122.41 that will have commercial cargo aboard.

These alternatives represent how CBP adjusted conditional and mandatory elements to balance the anticipated security benefits and potential effects of the requirements on the air cargo industry. In comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 requires more mandatory data elements that will pose a large burden on ACAS filers. CBP believes that making certain elements conditional will lessen the burden on trade members while still increasing security. In particular, CBP made the unmasked IP or MAC address and the shipping cost data elements conditional. Trade members expressed concern about the availability of these elements in certain cases. After speaking with trade members, CBP updated certain data elements to be conditional. Based on conversations with the trade while developing this rule and the economic analysis, CBP believes that this will minimize the burden on industry members. CBP's preferred alternative only requires these elements when the security risk outweighs the potential burden on trade members. Additionally, in Alternative 2, CBP would require all walk-in transactions to store a copy of the document used to provide biographic data for 3 years. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) only requires copies of biographic data documents in select cases and with prior notice from CBP.

In comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 does not require industry members to store copies of the identification documents used to provide text-based biographic data. This alternative would have a lower time burden and cost on industry. However, this alternative does not provide a way for CBP to verify that the information collected is accurate. The lack of an accountability mechanism could result in poor compliance which could consequently affect the quality of the data CBP receives and reduce the effectiveness of CBP's targeting of high-risk air cargo.

In comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 makes the portion of the link to product listing data element that requires transmission of the unmasked IP or MAC address of the device used to purchase a product from an e-commerce platform optional. This would slightly lower the burden on trade members and the cost of this rule. However, the rise of B2C shipping and e-commerce platforms necessitates the transmission of these unmasked IP or MAC addresses. Shipments from e-commerce transactions present a special risk to aircraft, crewmembers, and passengers, in part, due to the relative anonymity associated with the transactions. To ensure that CBP receives adequate identity and location information for parties involved in e-commerce transactions, CBP determined that it is necessary to require the IP or MAC address of certain consignees involved in e-commerce shipping transactions.

After speaking with trade members, CBP set mandatory and conditional data elements that will minimize the burden on trade members while achieving the goal of minimizing threats in the air cargo space. CBP's preferred alternative requires data elements when the security risk outweighs the potential burden on trade members. In evaluating these three alternatives, CBP sought the most favorable balance between security outcomes and impacts to air transportation. Based on this analysis of alternatives, CBP determined that Alternative 1 provides the most favorable balance between security outcomes and impacts to air transportation.