Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 40


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 39
Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions 39 Figure 16. Passenger/baggage flow for checked baggage exemption from FIS. or manual delivery). Once screened and cleared by the TSA, the bag would be diverted to the outbound baggage make-up area. Depending on local operating conditions, the onward con- necting baggage would be separated from originating outbound bags until a locally agreed-upon pre-flight release time. At any point during the baggage process, CBP has the absolute authority to request that a selected passenger's checked baggage be retrieved and delivered to CBP for secondary process- ing. It is the responsibility of the operating carrier (and the baggage handling team) to retrieve and deliver the requested baggage within a pre-determined timeframe (e.g., 20 minutes). Issues and Considerations There are three major obstacles for widespread implementation of this alternative procedure: Risk levels: Historically, CBP is amenable to this alternative process when applied for international-to-international flights, but views international-to-domestic with significant caution due to the potential for contraband to enter the commerce of the United States. Operations: Separating bags between connecting/terminating passengers requires improved tracking capability or dedicated ground handlers to sort/retrieve bags. Facilities: Bags directed to TSA for explosive detection system screening may involve a man- ual process; storage of bags for connecting flights may also be an issue. Overall, the key implementation issue is whether airport facilities have sufficient space to deal with ramp-level transfers for connecting bags, particularly those airports with a 50 to 75 percent connection volume during peak periods. Alternative Procedure 2: Alternative Procedure 1 + New Airline/ Airport Processes on Arrival To secure support for various facilitation processes, some airports with CBP Preclearance have introduced new processes to provide CBP with more information to assist in risk man- agement. Alternative Procedure 2 outlines procedures that the participating air carriers or the airport operator could advance at the airport which would provide additional information to CBP to assist in its risk analysis. The precedent for this concept is contained within the CBP requirements at Preclearance sites for exempting bags from being present in the FIS area. Process As shown in Figure 17, there are new processes that CBP has accepted to mitigate potential risks: Bag image: With a transfer passenger's baggage no longer appearing in the FIS area, a digital photograph of the passenger's baggage is shown on CBP officers' workstations. This practice