FR 2025-03438

Summary of the Document

This document from the Federal Register announces the extension of a test by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which focuses on using facial recognition technology to help airlines and sea carriers meet the regulatory requirements of the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS). Originally set to expire in February 2025, the test is now extended to February 16, 2027. Participating carriers can use CBP's Traveler Verification Service (TVS) to check travelers' identities by comparing their live facial images with those stored in CBP's systems. This aims to speed up passenger processing. Participants in the test include carriers and travelers who can voluntarily opt-in or -out.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Cost Implications

A notable issue identified in the document is the potential additional costs carriers might incur if a manual document check becomes necessary. These manual checks are required if the facial recognition system incorrectly matches a traveler. The document, however, does not address these costs, possibly leaving carriers unprepared for unexpected expenses.

Ambiguity in Implementation

The section dealing with compliance auditing for carriers lacks specificity, which could lead to inconsistency in how compliance checks are applied and enforced across different carriers. The document also notes a range of costs for the necessary equipment ($5,000 to $20,000 per departure gate) without providing clarity on what drives these cost differences. This could make budgeting challenging for carriers deciding whether to participate in the test.

Privacy and Data Protection

While the document discusses data retention policies for U.S. citizens and aliens, it does not deeply explain how these policies are enforced or audited. Such details are significant as they pertain to public concerns about privacy and data security, particularly regarding how long data is kept and who may access it.

Lack of Transparency

The eligibility criteria for carriers to participate in the test include a clause allowing CBP to refuse participation at its discretion, but no criteria for making such decisions are provided. This lack of transparency could lead to perceptions of bias or favoritism, impacting the test's credibility and acceptance.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Public Impact

For the general public, notably travelers, this facial recognition test could mean reduced waiting times when boarding flights or ships. However, for those concerned about privacy, it could also heighten anxieties about data security, given the lack of detailed assurances on how their data will be managed and protected.

Stakeholders' Impact

Carriers: The test could ultimately streamline operations, enabling carriers to reduce manual checks and potentially expedite passenger boarding. However, carriers face possible financial and operational impacts due to costs related to implementing the required technology and performing additional manual checks in cases of mismatches.

Privacy Advocates: The document might stir concerns among privacy advocates due to the perceived lack of comprehensive data protection measures. While it mentions policies and assessments, the absence of detailed compliance and enforcement procedures could raise red flags about safeguarding individual rights and data integrity.

Broader Implications

The trial's extension underscores a growing interest and reliance on biometric technology to enhance security and efficiency at borders. This document could pave the way for broader implementation in similar contexts if the test proves successful. However, it highlights a need for balancing technological advancements with robust data privacy protections.

Overall, while the initiative presents promising efficiency prospects, the issues raised regarding costs, transparency, and privacy emphasize the importance of clear guidelines and open communication from participating authorities to build trust and ensure successful implementation.

The document concerning the renewal of the Facial Comparison for Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) Compliance Test by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) includes financial references primarily related to equipment costs for carrier participation.

Summary of Spending and Financial Allocations

The primary financial reference in the document involves the costs associated with the equipment necessary for carriers to participate in the APIS test. CBP estimates that these costs will range between $5,000 and $20,000 per departure gate. This cost range is based on CBP's experience from the initial testing period and other facial comparison tests. Importantly, these numbers suggest that carriers participating in the test would need to procure image capture and transmission equipment that aligns with CBP's technical requirements, which appears to be a significant financial consideration, especially for larger carriers operating many gates.

Financial References and Identified Issues

One of the critical issues identified in the document concerns the variability in equipment costs. While the document gives a broad estimate, it does not clarify the factors influencing this cost range, which could lead to potential budget misestimations for the carriers. For instance, different carriers might need varying levels of equipment or technology, impacting cost significantly. The broad range provided could lead to financial planning challenges, where carriers face actual costs that either fall short or exceed expectations based on the vague estimate.

Additionally, the document does not address potential costs associated with the manual document checks required when a false positive occurs in the facial recognition process. These manual checks might incur additional labor or operational expenses for the carriers, but this aspect is conspicuously absent from the financial discussion.

Moreover, the section on compliance lacks clarity on how auditing of these financial expenditures will be conducted to ensure carriers adhere to the stipulation of not storing or retaining facial images. This lack of clear guidelines or disclosed auditing mechanisms could lead to various interpretations and thus inconsistent financial planning among carriers.

Given these financial references and issues, it would be beneficial for CBP to provide more detailed breakdowns of expected costs and potential financial liability to aid carriers in accurate budget planning and compliance. Transparency in cost-related criteria would also help reduce the risks associated with misjudging required financial commitments to participate in the facial comparison test.