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 32
32
Alien Fingerprint Rules riers. One all-cargo manager said that his company's crew-
for Outbound Planes and Ships members move all over the company's network and mix with
other flight crews continually, so the company could not
Policy Description avoid the rule's requirements by limiting alien crewmembers
Under the current U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status In- to domestic routes.
dicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program, the U.S. govern- In formal comments, the Chamber of Shipping of Amer-
ment collects biometric data (digital finger scans and ica (CSA), which represents maritime carriers, said that, if the
photographs) from aliens seeking to enter the country. The rule applied to its members, they would have to install bio-
Federal government then checks that information against metric collection equipment on their vessels to take finger-
its databases to identify suspected terrorists, known crimi- prints of their crews. This approach would be the only work-
nals, or individuals who have previously violated U.S. im- able one, because the carriers generally do not own or operate
migration laws. Currently, however, there is no system to the facilities at which they berth. CSA said that, because vessel
help the Federal government determine whether or not an crews typically number less than 30, installing such equipment
alien has overstayed the terms of his or her visa or other would be "cost-prohibitive."
terms of admission.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the National Commis- Unexpected Impacts
sion on Terrorist Attacks upon the U.S. (the 9/11 Commis-
sion) observed that several of the 9/11 hijackers could have If this policy were implemented as proposed, with the re-
been denied admission to the United States based on previ- quirements extending to all crewmembers on air cargo planes
ous violations of immigration laws, including having previ- and marine freight vessels, then it could result in impacts on
ously overstayed their terms of admission. In response, the the freight industry that were not expected by the policymak-
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission ers. This is because the primary focus has been on aliens trav-
Act of 2007 required that an exit system be implemented to eling via passenger airlines and cruise lines. The RIA for the
complement the existing entry system. In April 2008, DHS rule refers repeatedly to "passenger carriers" and does not ex-
proposed a rule to create the exit system. The rule would re- plicitly identify freight carriers as part of the regulated popula-
quire aliens leaving the United States from an air or sea port tion. For example, the RIA assumes that the rule would apply
to provide biometric information if they were required to do to only 9 sea carriers and 33 seaports, totals that clearly do not
so when entering the country. capture the operations of cargo vessels at U.S. ports.21 It is rea-
sonable to believe that those drafting the rule may not have
considered cargo carriage or the rule's impact on it.
Policy Impacts
Freight carriers were not sure that the rule would apply to
Federal Emission Standards
their crews or other workers traveling, but they submitted
for Diesel Engines
comments to the docket asserting that complying with the
rule would be very costly. Their overriding concern with the Policy Description
rule, one that was shared by passenger carriers, was that it
Diesel engines are a major source of air pollution, including
would require the carriers themselves to collect the biometric
ground-level ozone (smog) and particulate matter (PM). Many
information and submit it to DHS. They said that it would be
areas of the country do not comply with Federal ambient air
more appropriate for the Federal government itself to collect
quality standards for these pollutants. In order to reduce the
the data.
public health impacts of air pollution, EPA has adopted increas-
Specifically regarding the rule's potential impacts on the
ingly stringent emission standards for new heavy-duty trucks,
freight industry, the Cargo Airline Association (CAA) said
locomotives, and marine vessels. The standards have taken ef-
that crews and workers traveling on all-cargo aircraft do not
fect in phases. Truck standards have generally preceded loco-
necessarily access the aircraft through a central location, so
motive and marine standards by 5 to 10 years in terms of level
collecting fingerprints from them would be more difficult
of emission control. To meet the standards, manufacturers have
and more costly than for passenger carriers. For example,
used, or will use, several new technologies, including exhaust
CAA said that there is no obvious place (e.g., a passenger
gas recirculation (EGR), diesel particulate filters (DPF), and
ticket counter) in the all-cargo environment to collect the re-
selective catalytic reduction (SCR).
quired biometric data. Furthermore, CAA said that, because
the number of affected aliens in the all-cargo environment
would be relatively small, the cost to carriers per individual 21
DHS, Air/Sea Biometric Exit Project: Regulatory Impact Analysis, DHS-2008-
fingerprinted would be much greater than for passenger car- 0039-0002, April 17, 2008, p. 45.
