[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 57799-57801] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2011-23841] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposal That Electronic Filing of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Reports Be Required; Comment Request AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: FinCEN is proposing to require electronic filing of certain Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reports not later than June 30, 2012. This requirement will significantly enhance the quality of our electronic data, improve our analytic capabilities in supporting law enforcement requirements and result in significant reduction in real costs to the United States Government and ultimately to U.S. taxpayers. Specifically, we propose mandatory electronic submission of all BSA reports excluding the Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (CMIR).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ All CMIRs are filed with the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the port of entry/ exit or mailed to the Commissioner of Customs in Washington, DC. There are no electronic filing capabilities at the ports. A CBP contractor keys the data on the completed form into a data tape that is electronically uploaded to the BSA database. FinCEN receives no paper filed CMIRs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before November 15, 2011. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Regulatory Policy and Programs Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, Virginia 22183, Attention: PRA Comments--BSA Required Electronic Filing. BSA Required Electronic Filing comments also may be submitted by electronic mail to the following Internet address: regcomments@fincen.gov, with the caption, ``Attention: BSA Required Electronic Filing,'' in the body of the text. Inspection of comments. Comments may be inspected, between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., in the FinCEN reading room in Vienna, VA. Persons wishing to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment with the Disclosure Officer by telephoning (703) 905-5034 (not a toll free call). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FinCEN Regulatory Helpline at 800- 949-2732, select option 7. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Bank Secrecy Act, Reporting Forms, (31 CFR chapter X). Abstract: The statute generally referred to as the ``Bank Secrecy Act,'' Titles I and II of Public Law 91-508, as amended, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5332, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary), inter alia, to require financial institutions to file reports that are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory matters, or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against international terrorism, and to implement counter-money laundering programs and compliance procedures.\2\ Regulations implementing Title II of the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary to administer the BSA has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Language expanding the scope of the BSA to intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against international terrorism was added by Section 358 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Secretary was granted authority with the enactment of Title 31 U.S.C., to require financial institutions and other persons to file various BSA reports. The information collected on the reports is required to be provided pursuant to Title 31 U.S.C., as implemented by FinCEN regulations found throughout 31 CFR chapter X. The information collected pursuant to this authority is made available to appropriate agencies and organizations as disclosed in FinCEN's Privacy Act System of Records Notice.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Treasury Department bureaus such as FinCEN renew their System of Records Notices every three years unless there is cause to amend them more frequently. FinCEN's System of Records Notice was most recently published at 73 FR 42405, 42407-9 (July 21, 2008). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Action: In support of Treasury's paperless initiative and efforts to make the government operations more efficient, FinCEN has chosen to mandate electronic filing of certain BSA reports effective June 30, 2012. This requirement will significantly enhance the quality of our electronic data, improve our analytic capabilities in supporting law enforcement requirements, and result in a significant reduction in real costs to the U.S. government and ultimately to U.S. taxpayers. Specifically, we propose to make mandatory the electronic submission of all BSA reports excluding the CMIR.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See supra note 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background: Since October 2002, FinCEN has provided financial institutions with the capability of electronically filing BSA reports through its system called BSA E-Filing. Effective August 2011, the system was expanded to support individuals filing the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) report. BSA E-Filing is a secure, Web-based electronic filing system. It is a flexible solution for financial institutions or individuals, whether they file one BSA report or thousands. BSA E-Filing is an accessible service that filers can access by using their existing internet connections regardless of connection speed. In addition, it is designed to minimize filing errors and provide enhanced feedback to filing institutions or individuals, thereby providing a significant improvement in data quality. BSA E-Filing, which is provided free of charge, features streamlined BSA information submission; faster routing of information to law enforcement; greater data security and privacy compared with paper forms; long-term [[Page 57800]] cost savings to institutions, individuals, and the government; and insures compatibility with future versions of BSA reports. In addition, BSA E-Filing offers the following features not available on paper: Electronic notification of submissions, receipt of submission, and errors, warnings, and alerts; Batch validation; Acknowledgement that a currency transaction report (CTR) and or suspicious activity report (SAR) was filed; Feedback reports to filers; Faster receipt for money services businesses of registration acknowledgement letter; Ability to send and receive secure messages; Use of Adobe forms that allows users to create templates, reducing data entry but still providing for printing paper copies if the filer wants to use a paper copy for its internal review and approval processes; Ability for supervisory users to assign system roles to their staff; and Availability of helpful training materials. In 2010, we initiated a complete redesign and rebuilding of a new system-of-record that significantly enhances FinCEN's current technical capabilities to receive, process, share, and store BSA data. A significant part of this upgrade was the implementation of state-of- the-art electronic reporting or information collection tools. As of July 1, 2011, over 84% of BSA reports are filed electronically with FinCEN.\5\ FinCEN annually measures customer satisfaction with BSA E- Filing and has a performance goal of at least 90% satisfaction; in Fiscal Year 2010, 96% of customers were satisfied with BSA E-Filing.\6\ To enroll with BSA E-Filing financial institutions or individuals go to http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov/main.html and follow four easy steps. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ As of July 2011, there are over 12,000 registered e-filers. Of the 1250 major filers, 659 are currently e-filing. FinCEN anticipates that many current paper filers will convert to e-file when the new BSA E-Filing system becomes available. \6\ See FinCEN's 2010 Annual Report, available at http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/annual_report_fy2010.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result of the 2010 initiative, FinCEN is in the process of fielding a new BSA Collection, Processing, and Analytic system. The new system, which includes significant e-filing improvements, is designed to support the most efficient state-of-the-art electronic filing. The database will accept XML-based dynamic reports as well as certain other file formats. The various file formats \7\ will be provided to permit integration into in-house systems or for use by service providers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The XML Schema, ACSII, and the electronic file specifications will be provided at no cost to filers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- All filings (batch, computer-to-computer, and discrete) will be initiated through the BSA E-Filing system \8\ using current registration and log-in procedures. Although batch and computer-to- computer filing processes will remain unchanged, the file format will change to match the database. Batch and computer-to-computer filers will file reports, which are based on an electronic file specification that will be provided free of charge. Discrete filings (the replacement for submitting a single paper report) will be based on Adobe LiveCycle Designer ES dynamic forms. The discrete function is available for all small business report filers (as well as individuals). The discrete filing function will be accessed by logging into the BSA E-Filing System and entering a pre-approved user ID and password. During log-in to the discrete filing option, filers will be prompted through a series of questions.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ BSA E-Filing is a free Web-based service provided by FinCEN. More information on the filing methods may be accessed at http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov/main.html. \9\ A series of predetermined questions designed to establish the type of institution and filing in much the same manner as used in widely accepted income tax filing software. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After log-in, a financial institution filing a report through the discrete function will answer another set of questions that will establish a subset of the data fields appropriate to the filer's specific type of filing institution. Today's proposal requiring filers to submit certain BSA reports electronically using the free FinCEN BSA E-Filing system will provide a range of benefits. Electronic filing will also facilitate the rapid dissemination of financial and suspicious activity information in connection with BSA filings, making information contained in these filings more readily available to--and more easily searchable by--law enforcement, the financial regulatory community, and other users of BSA data. Additionally, the proposal to require certain BSA reports to be filed electronically will result in a significant reduction in the use of paper, producing a positive environmental impact. Further, the implementation of the proposal has the potential to save the government a few million dollars per year through the reduction of expenditures associated with current paper processing, in particular the physical intake and sorting of incoming reports, and the electronic keying of reported information into the database. Security: Mandatory electronic filing will provide increased security not available with paper filings. At the present time, all paper reports are mailed to the IRS Enterprise Computing Center-- Detroit (ECC-D) as unclassified mail with no special handling via the U.S. Postal Service system. On occasion, mailed paper reports have been delayed, and in some cases damaged beyond readability. A financial institution may not discover that a report was not received by ECC-D until many months after the report was due.\10\ For example, problems with delivery of reports may not be discovered until the financial institution is examined by its regulator, and the regulator compares a list of the reports that are posted to the database against the institution's official files. The BSA E-Filing System is a secure 128- bit single socket layer protected Web-based filing system. Reports received are acknowledged and any noted errors are reported back to the filer. This process provides the filer with a record that the required filing was received, as well as suggestions on how to improve the accuracy of their future reports. Reports originated by the filer are posted securely directly to the database, thereby significantly reducing or eliminating possibility of data compromise. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The missing report becomes more critical if it was reporting suspicious activity--especially when relating to terrorist financing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Filer Impact Assessment a. Depository institutions: Based on information available we believe this change in filing procedures will have minimal impact on depository institutions. All depository institutions are currently required to file quarterly call or thrift financial reports with their regulator electronically through a Web-based portal provided by the appropriate federal regulator. This same electronic connectivity may be used to file BSA reports with FinCEN by logging in to the BSA E-Filing System Web-based portal. b. Broker-Dealers, Future-Commission Merchants (FCMs), Introducing Brokers in Commodities (IB-Cs), and Mutual Funds: \11\ Based on information available we believe this change in filing procedures will have minimal impact on these filing institutions. This group is highly automated and enjoys robust electronic buying and selling systems with sophisticated processing [[Page 57801]] and reporting systems.\12\ Currently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) mandates electronic filing,\13\ as does the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ FinCEN is considering adding a SAR reporting requirement to Investment Adviser's (IA's) registered with the SEC. Mandatory e- filing will have minimum impact on this group. \12\ Currently both the SEC and the CFTC require electronic reporting, The SEC through the EDGAR system and the CFTC through the NFC Windjammer and Easy File systems. \13\ See http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/regoverview.htm. \14\ For financial institutions subject to CFTC oversight See NFA Electronic Filings at http://www.nfa.futures.org/NFA-electronic-filings/index.HTML. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. Insurance companies: Based on information available we believe this change in filing procedures will have minimal impact on these institutions. This group is highly automated.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See the National Insurance Producer Registry (NIPR) at http://www.nipr.com/. NIPR is a unique public-private partnership that supports the work of the states and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in making the producer-licensing process more cost-effective, streamlined and uniform for the benefit of regulators, the insurance industry and the consumers they protect and serve. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d. Casinos and Card Clubs: \16\ Based on information available we believe this change in filing procedures will have minimal impact on these institutions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Casinos and Card Clubs with gross annual gaming revenues in excess of $1 million (see 31 CFR1010.100 (t)(5)(ii) and (6)(ii)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- e. Money Services Businesses (MSBs): Information gained from a review of the MSB filings of the currency transaction report (CTR), SAR, and Registration of Money Services Business (RMSB) forms indicates that some impact to this group can be expected. Information in trade journals and other publications, along with informal comments from the Internal Revenue Service Small Business/Self Employed, indicate that most filers have Internet connectivity. MSBs routinely accept and process credit card transactions requiring automated communications with the approving card center. They also routinely place orders for goods and services through the Internet and electronically access bill paying services. Additionally, basic Internet access can be obtained through a simple inexpensive dial-up connection or at professional external Internet facilities such as service providers for those MSBs without Internet connectivity. Lastly, FinCEN has included provisions for requesting a hardship exception in this notice in case unforeseen situations arise.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See Filer impact paragraph ``g.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- f. Service Providers: There is a network of third-party service providers with which financial institutions may contract to provide electronic filing services to the BSA E-Filing System. FinCEN believes this group to be highly automated and many are already using the BSA E- Filing System. We do not anticipate that this proposal will have an impact on this group. g. Small businesses: \18\ In support of small businesses, FinCEN's Office of Compliance will provide a temporary hardship exemption capability. A small business may request, and may be granted, an emergency extension of up to one year if it can document a sufficiently serious problem that prevents compliance with the new filing requirements. The approved extension will be effective for one year from the effective date of this notice.\19\ A hardship request based solely on a lack of Internet connectivity or a business decision to restrict Internet connectivity will not be considered adequate justification for an extension. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Web site http://www.sba.gov/content/what-sbas-definition-small-business-concern for SBA's definition of a small business concern. \19\ Request for emergency extension will be mailed to: Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Attention RPP-CP, PO Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183 or may be e-mailed to: regcomments@fincen.gov. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- h. Individual filers: Effective August 2011, FinCEN expanded its support of electronic filing to individuals.\20\ The capability to file the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR Form TD F 90- 22.1) became available and individuals worldwide can sign up to file their individual FBAR's by accessing the FinCEN E-Filing Web site. Based on new applications to date, there is no indication of any issues with individuals using this new capability. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See page 3 Background. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Type of Review: Review of a new proposal to mandate the electronic filing of BSA reports. Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and non-profit institutions. Frequency: As required. Estimated Burden: Effective with the FinCEN IT Modernization, BSA reporting will be supported by seven BSA reports.\21\ The burden for electronic filing and recordkeeping of each BSA report is reflected in the OMB approved burden \22\ for each of these reports. The non- reporting recordkeeping burden is reflected separately.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ BSA-SAR, BSA-CTR, Designation Of Exempt Person, CMIR, RMSB, Foreign Bank Account Report, and the Report of Cash Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business (Form 8300). \22\ See OMB Control Numbers 1506-0065, 1506-0064, 1506-0009, 1506-0013, 1506-0014, 1506-0018. \23\ See OMB Control Numbers 1506-0051 through 1506-0059. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated number of respondents for all reports = 74,900.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ All filers subject to BSA reporting requirements excluding CMIR. See supra note 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Total Annual Responses for all reports = 16,172,770. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours = 20,874,761.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ Includes all reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with filing BSA reports. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Records required to be retained pursuant to the BSA must be retained for five years. Request for Comments Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information only by electronic means is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents (filers), including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; (e) the practicality of utilizing external Internet facilities or service providers to occasionally file BSA reports, (f) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, or purchase of services to provide information by filers that currently do not have Internet access, and (g) the enhanced security of sensitive information and significant cost savings of electronic filing. Dated: September 13, 2011. James H. Freis, Jr., Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. [FR Doc. 2011-23841 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
Tag: customs and border protection
TOP-SECRET – EIS of Huge Security Complex Along US-Canadian Border
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 57751-57754] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2011-23993] ———————————————————————– DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Customs and Border Protection Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Northern Border Activities AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS. ACTION: Notice of availability; Request for comments; Notice of public meetings. ———————————————————————– SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announces that a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is now available and open for public comment. The Draft PEIS analyzes the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects associated with its ongoing and potential future activities along the Northern Border between the United States and Canada. The overall area of study analyzed in the document extends approximately 4,000 miles from Maine to Washington and 100 miles south of the U.S.-Canada Border. CBP also announces that it will be holding a series of public meetings in October to obtain comments regarding the Draft PEIS. DATES: CBP invites comments on the Draft PEIS during the 45 day comment period, which begins on September 16, 2011. To ensure consideration, comments must be received by October 31, 2011. Comments may be submitted as set forth in the ADDRESSES section of this document. CBP will hold public meetings on the Draft PEIS. The locations, dates, and times are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to the Draft PEIS by any of the following methods. Please include your name and address and the state or region to which the comment applies, as appropriate. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods for providing comments: Project Web site: http://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com/public-
involvement/comments.html; E-mail: Comments@NorthernBorderPEIS.com; Mail: CBP Northern Border PEIS, P.O. Box 3625, McLean, Virginia 22102; Phone voicemail box: (866) 760-1421 (comments recorded in the voicemail box will be transcribed). You may download the Draft PEIS from the project Web site: http://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com. It will also be made available on the Department of Homeland Security Web site (http://www.dhs.gov). Copies of the Draft PEIS may also be obtained by submitting a request through one of the methods listed below. Please include your name and mailing address in your request. E-mail: Comments@NorthernBorderPEIS.com and write “Draft PEIS” in the subject line; Mail: CBP Northern Border PEIS, (Draft PEIS Request), P.O. Box 3625, McLean, VA 22102; Phone: (866) 760-1421. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hass, CBP, Office of Administration, telephone (202) 344-1929. You may also visit the project’s Web site at: http://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Meetings and Invitation To Comment CBP invites comments on all aspects of the Draft PEIS. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific section of the Draft PEIS, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Substantive comments received during the comment period will be addressed in, and included as an appendix to, the Final PEIS. The Final PEIS will be made available to the public through a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Comments may be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Respondents may request to withhold names or street addresses, except for city or town, from public view or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Such a request must be stated prominently at the beginning of the comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. This request to withhold personal information does not apply to submissions from organizations or businesses, or from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses. CBP will hold public meetings to inform the public and solicit comments about the Draft PEIS. Meetings will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at each of the locations and dates provided below. The meeting in the Washington, DC area is for interested parties located outside of the project’s areas of interest. Meetings will include displays, handouts, and a presentation by CBP, and will provide an opportunity for the public to record their comments on the Draft PEIS. Changes in meeting plans, due to inclement weather or other causes, will be announced on the project’s Web site at: http://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com, and on a telephone message at: (866) 760-1421. —————————————————————————————— Date City, state Location —————————————————————————————— October 3…. Duluth, MN…………. Holiday Inn, 200 West First Street, Duluth, MN 55802. October 4…. Massena, NY………… VFW, 101 W Hatfield St., Massena, NY 13662. October 4…. Caribou, ME………… Caribou Inn and Convention Center, 19 Main Street, Caribou, ME 04736. October 5…. Augusta, ME………… The Senator Inn & Spa, 284 Western Ave., Augusta, ME 04330. October 5…. Bottineau, ND………. Twin Oaks Resort & Convention Center, 10723 Lake Loop Road, Bottineau, ND 58318. October 6…. St. Albans, VT……… The Senator Historical Museum, 9 Church Street, St. Albans, VT 05478. October 6…. Detroit, MI………… Holiday Inn Express, 1020 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226. October 6…. Havre, MT………….. The Town House Inn, 627 1st Street West, Havre, MT 59501. October 11… Bellingham, WA……… Hampton Inn, 3958 Bennett Drive, Bellingham, WA 98225. October 11… Rochester, NY………. Holiday Inn–Rochester Airport, 911 Brooks Avenue, Rochester, NY 14624. October 12… Erie, PA…………… Ambassador Banquet Center, 7794 Peach Street, Erie, PA 16509. October 13… Naples, ID…………. The Great Northwest Territories Event Center, 336 County Road 8, Naples, ID 83847. October 17… Washington, DC……… Crystal City Marriott at Regan National Airport, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22201. —————————————————————————————— [[Page 57752]] The public may obtain information concerning the status and progress of the PEIS, as well as view and download the document, via the project’s Web site at: http://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com. Background U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is charged with the mission of enforcing customs, immigration, agriculture, and numerous other laws and regulations at the Nation’s borders and facilitating legitimate trade and travel through legal ports of entry. As the guardian of the United States’ borders, CBP protects the roughly 4,000 miles of Northern Border between United States and Canada, from Maine to Washington. The terrain ranges from densely forested lands on the west and east coasts to open plains in the middle of the country. CBP has completed a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for its ongoing and potential future activities along the Northern Border. The Draft PEIS is now available for public review and comment. (For instructions on obtaining a copy of the PEIS or on submitting comments, please see the ADDRESSES section of this document.) An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a study of the potential effects on the environment from a specific Federal action. A Programmatic EIS (PEIS) is an EIS that looks at the general types of effects of a whole broad program of actions. It often forms the foundation for a “regular” or site-specific EIS, which looks in general detail at the effects of a specific project slated for a particular place. Because this effort is programmatic in nature, the Draft PEIS does not define effects for a specific or planned action. Instead, it analyzes the overall environmental and socioeconomic effects of activities supporting the homeland security mission of CBP focused on applying alternative approaches to better secure the border. On July 6, 2010, CBP published in the Federal Register (75 FR 38822) a notice announcing that CBP intended to prepare four PEISs to analyze the environmental effects of current and potential future CBP border security activities along the Northern Border. Each PEIS was to cover one region of the Northern Border: the New England region, the Great Lakes region, the region east of the Rocky Mountains, and the region west of the Rocky Mountains. The notice also announced and initiated the public scoping process to gather information from the public in preparation for drafting the PEISs. As indicated in the notice, the scoping period concluded on August 5, 2010. However, CBP continued to take comments past the initial scoping period. For more information on this process, please see the section of this document entitled Public Scoping Process. Subsequently, and in part due to comments received during public scoping, CBP decided to refocus its approach and develop one PEIS covering the entire Northern Border, rather than four separate, regional PEISs. This new approach was designed to ensure that CBP could effectively analyze and convey impacts that occur across regions of the Northern Border. CBP published a notice in the Federal Register announcing this intention on November 9, 2010 (75 FR 68810). While this makes for a somewhat larger single document, it offers the advantage of less duplication and greater usefulness as a CBP planning tool. Aided by the information gained during the public scoping process, CBP has prepared the Draft PEIS to analyze the environmental and socioeconomic effects of current and potential future CBP border security activities along the Northern Border between the United States and Canada, including an area extending approximately 100 miles south of the Northern Border. For the purposes of the PEIS, the Northern Border is defined as the area between the United States and Canada extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean encompassing all the States between Maine and Washington, inclusively. (The Alaska- Canada border is not included in this effort.) CBP is evaluating the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of routine aspects of its operations along the Northern Border and considering enhancements to its infrastructure, technologies, and application of manpower to continue to deter existing and evolving threats to the Nation’s physical and economic security. Due to the diverse and natural environments along the Northern Border, the Draft PEIS analyzes four Northern Border regions, referred to above: the New England region, the Great Lakes region, the region east of the Rocky Mountains, and the region west of the Rocky Mountains. CBP plans to use the information derived from the analysis in the PEIS in management, planning, and decision-making for its mission and its environmental stewardship responsibilities. It will also be used to establish a foundation for future impact analyses. More specifically, CBP plans to use the PEIS analysis over the next five to seven years as CBP works to improve security along the Northern Border. To protect the Northern Border against evolving terrorist and criminal threats, CBP plans to implement a diversified approach to border security over the next five to seven years that responds most effectively to those threats. This will involve some combination of facilities, security infrastructure, technologies, and operational activities, although the specific combination of elements that will be used over this period cannot be determined at this time. CBP will use this PEIS as a foundation for future environmental analyses of specific programs or locations as CBP’s plans for particular Northern Border security activities develop. Alternatives Considered The Draft PEIS considers the environmental impacts of several alternative approaches CBP may use to protect the Northern Border against evolving threats. These alternatives would all support continued deployment of existing CBP personnel in the most effective manner while maintaining officer safety and continued use of partnerships with other Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada. CBP needs to maintain effective control of the Northern Border via all air, land, and maritime pathways for cross-border movement. The No Action Alternative (or “status quo”) would be to continue with the same facilities, technology, infrastructure, and approximate level of personnel currently in use, deployed, or currently planned by CBP. Normal maintenance of existing facilities is included in this alternative. This alternative would not meet CBP’s goals as it would not allow CBP to improve its capability to interdict cross-border violators or to identify and resolve threats at the ports of entry in a manner that avoids adverse effects on legal trade and travel. However, it is evaluated in this Draft PEIS because it provides a baseline against which the impacts of the other reasonable alternatives can be compared. The Facilities Development and Improvement Alternative would focus on providing new permanent facilities or improvements to existing facilities such as Border Patrol stations, ports of entry, and other facilities to allow CBP agents to operate more efficiently and respond to situations more quickly. This alternative would help meet CBP’s goals because the new and improved facilities would make it more difficult for cross-border violators to cross the border. It [[Page 57753]] would also divert traffic from or increase the capacity of the more heavily used ports of entry, decreasing waiting times. The applicability of this alternative would be limited, as most roads crossing the Northern Border already have a crossing facility. The Detection, Inspection, Surveillance and Communications Technology Expansion Alternative would focus on deploying more effective detection, inspection surveillance and communication technologies in support of CBP activities. This alternative would involve utilizing upgraded systems that would enable CBP to focus efforts on identifying threat areas, improving agent and officer communication systems, and deploying personnel to resolve incidents with maximum efficiency. This alternative would help meet CBP’s goals by improving CBP’s situational awareness and allowing CBP to more efficiently and effectively direct its resources for interdicting cross-border violators. The Tactical Security Infrastructure Deployment Alternative would focus on constructing additional barriers, access roads, and related facilities. The barriers would include selective fencing and vehicle barriers at selected points along the border and would deter and delay cross-border violators. The access roads and related facilities would increase the mobility of agents, and enhance their capabilities for surveillance and for responding to various international border violations. This alternative would help meet CBP’s goals by discouraging cross-border violators and improving CBP’s capacity to respond. The Flexible Direction Alternative (the Preferred Alternative) would allow CBP to follow any of the above directions in order to employ the most effective response to the changing threat environment along the Northern Border. This approach would allow CBP to respond more appropriately to a constantly changing threat environment. Public Scoping Process CBP developed and executed a public scoping program for the PEIS to identify public concerns to be examined in the PEIS. “Scoping” of an EIS is a process of informing diverse stakeholders about an action that an agency is planning and seeking those stakeholders’ feedback on the environmental concerns that the action could generate. The intent of the scoping effort is to adopt the scope of the planned environmental document to ensure that it addresses relevant concerns identified by interested members of the public as well as organizations, Native American Tribes, and other government agencies and officials. CBP’s public scoping period for the Northern Border PEIS commenced on July 6, 2010 and concluded on August 5, 2010. See 75 FR 38822. The public scoping process was initiated with the publishing of a notice of intent (NOI) notifying the public of CBP’s decision to prepare the PEISs. In coordination with the publication of the NOI, display advertisements were published in various newspapers serving local communities, public service announcements were broadcasted on local radio stations, scoping letters were mailed to potentially interested stakeholders consisting of agencies, organizations, and individuals, and a project Web site was developed. Following the publication of the NOI, a series of public scoping meetings were held in July 2010. CBP encouraged the public to submit comments concerning the scope of the PEIS during the public meetings, or via Web site, e-mail, or letter. The comments CBP received during the public scoping process were used to adapt the scope of the Draft PEIS and to ensure that it addressed relevant concerns identified by interested members of the public as well as organizations, Native American Tribes, and other government agencies and officials. CBP has compiled a list of comments received in a scoping report. This report is available on the project’s Web site at: http://www.NorthernBorderPEIS.com. NEPA This environmental analysis is being conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 (renumbered from 5100.1), Environmental Planning Program of April 19, 2006. NEPA addresses concerns about environmental quality and the government’s role in protecting it. The essence of NEPA is the requirement that every Federal agency examine the environmental effects of any proposed action before deciding to proceed with it or with some alternative. NEPA and the implementing regulations issued by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality call for agencies to document the potential environmental effects of actions they are proposing. Generally, agencies must make those documents public, and seek public feedback on them. In accordance with NEPA, the PEIS analyzes the effects on the environment of the Northern Border Security Program. CBP will seek public input on these studies and will use them in agency planning and decision making. Because NEPA is a uniquely broad environmental law and covers the full spectrum of the natural and human environment, the PEIS will also address environmental considerations governed by other environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NHPA Programmatic Agreement CBP is developing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for operations along the Northern Border in accordance with Section 106 of NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470f, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800). While the PA is being pursued as an independent action from the PEIS, it will be applied to future activities occurring within the Northern Border study area and therefore is relevant to the Northern Border PEIS project. The Northern Border is defined for purposes of the PA as extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean encompassing all the States between Maine to Washington, including an area extending approximately 100 miles south of the U.S.-Canada border. This area is identical to the area of study of the PEIS. CBP is currently consulting and coordinating with the Historic Preservation Officers of the states of Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Vermont, and Washington, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to finalize an agreed upon framework for future Section 106 reviews for CBP actions. The PA will be signed by CBP, the ACHP, State Historic Preservation Officers, and other consulting parties. The signed PA will identify (1) activities and projects carried out by CBP that are agreed do not have the potential to affect properties either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and (2) activities that are considered undertakings that do not require consultation under Section 106. Additionally, the PA identifies actions that may have an effect but that will not require Section 106 review by CBP, State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Tribes and other consulting parties, so long as all terms and conditions as described in the PA are satisfactorily met. The signed PA will be valid for five years from the date of [[Page 57754]] execution, as verified with CBP filing the PA with the ACHP. Next Steps After the public comment period on the draft PEIS, CBP will complete a Final PEIS. The Final PEIS will be made available to the public through a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. CBP will then select a programmatic course of action to guide CBP’s activities along the Northern Border for the next five to seven years. That decision will be published in the Federal Register in a Record of Decision. Dated: September 14, 2011. Trent Frazier, Acting Executive Director, Facilities Management and Engineering, Office of Administration. [FR Doc. 2011-23993 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
AMBASSADOR ADVOCATES FOR BOEING AND CBP WITH AER
VZCZCXRO4216 RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ DE RUEHDL #0493/01 1241516 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 041516Z MAY 06 FM AMEMBASSY DUBLIN TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6872 INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES RUEHBL/AMCONSUL BELFAST 0373 RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC RHEFHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 DUBLIN 000493 SIPDIS SIPDIS COMMERCE FOR ITA/MAC/ROBERT MCLAUGHLIN COMMERCE FOR ITA/MAC/ADVOCACY CENTER OR PAT NUGENT DHS FOR CBP/JENNIFER SAVA E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAIR ECON ETRD EI SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR ADVOCATES FOR BOEING AND CBP WITH AER LINGUS CEO REF: DUBLIN 361 AND PREVIOUS DUBLIN 00000493 001.2 OF 002 ¶1. Summary: In a May 2 meeting with Aer Lingus CEO Dermot Mannion, the Ambassador advocated Boeing aircraft for the carrier's long-haul needs and sought Mannion's help in pushing the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) to upgrade U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operations in Ireland. Mannion said that the Boeing offer was attractive, and he noted that Aer Lingus would decide between Boeing and Airbus at roughly the same time as the carrier's likely stock flotation in September. He also observed that Aer Lingus could enjoy the full benefits of trans-Atlantic Open Skies only if Dublin's new terminal were sized to accommodate rising passenger volume and to enable CBP to conduct full pre-clearance (adding agricultural and customs checks to passport screening.) Mannion added that Aer Lingus needed clarity on the prospects for the U.S.-EU aviation agreement, including the phase-out of the Shannon Stop requirement, in order to start planning for the 2007-2008 winter travel season. Post will continue efforts to press the case for both Boeing and CBP in our regular discussions with industry, the Irish parliament, and the GOI. End summary. Advocacy for Boeing ------------------- ¶2. In a May 2 meeting with Aer Lingus CEO Dermot Mannion, the Ambassador strongly advocated Boeing's 787 Dreamliner for the carrier's long-haul needs. Mannion replied that Aer Lingus would probably decide between Boeing and Airbus at roughly the same time as the carrier's stock flotation, expected in September. He added, however, that aircraft orders might also have to await the Dublin Airport Authority's decision on the size of Dublin's planned second terminal, which would determine the number of gates available to Aer Lingus planes (see para 4). He noted that "the door remains very open to Boeing," and he observed that Aer Lingus would take advantage of Ex-Im Bank financing options if Boeing were to win the aircraft bid. Mannion also recounted his efforts to quash press reports that Airbus had secured Aer Lingus' long-haul aircraft orders, following on the carrier's deal to acquire four Airbus A-330s in 2006-2007 for intra-European service. Noting recent reports on the Airbus A-350's design flaws, the Ambassador stressed Post's intention to continue advocacy for Boeing. Mannion recommended that emboffs speak with members of the airline's newly formed aircraft purchases evaluation team. Needed Clarity on U.S.-EU Open Skies ------------------------------------ ¶3. Aer Lingus needs clarity on prospects for the U.S.-EU aviation agreement, including the U.S.-Ireland annex, to plan future trans-Atlantic service, said Mannion. He explained that Aer Lingus sold seats 300 days in advance and was already preparing its tentative schedule for the 2007 summer season. A delay until October 2006 in the signing of the U.S.-EU agreement would only give Aer Lingus enough time to plan for the 2007-2008 winter season. Mannion expected, however, that Aer Lingus would launch service to San Francisco in 2007 as the first of the three additional U.S. points that Aer Lingus would be permitted to serve under the U.S.-Ireland annex to the U.S.-EU agreement. He also remarked that, due to the uncertain timing of the U.S.-EU agreement, the Irish Department of Transport intended to re-engage with USG negotiators on the U.S.-Ireland annex during U.S.-EU aviation discussions the week of May 8. (Under the annex, October 29, 2006, is the start date for the phase-out of the current "Shannon Stop" requirement, by which U.S. and Irish carriers may operate one non-stop flight to/from Dublin for each non-stop flight to/from Shannon.) Right-sizing Dublin Airport for Aer Lingus and CBP --------------------------------------------- ----- ¶4. With the April 5 Irish Cabinet decision to privatize Aer Lingus through a stock flotation, the carrier's next goal was to ensure that Dublin Airport's planned second terminal would meet the carrier's needs, observed Mannion. He noted that the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) had aimed to submit the planning application for the new terminal this month, a target that now would not be met. Mannion cautioned that further delay with the planning application would seriously jeopardize the terminal's scheduled opening in 2009. On the DUBLIN 00000493 002.2 OF 002 upside, the delay had allowed Aer Lingus more time to consult with the DAA on the terminal size required to accommodate the carrier's rising passenger volume projections. The Ambassador cited an April 28 Irish Times report that Aer Lingus and Ryanair had convinced the DAA on the need to expand the planned terminal, at a possible extra cost of euro 100 million. Mannion responded that whereas Aer Lingus had had regular contact with working-level DAA officials on the terminal, the DAA Board of Directors had refused to consider expansion until this past week. ¶5. Aer Lingus could enjoy the full benefits of trans-Atlantic Open Skies only if the new terminal were also configured to enable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to conduct full pre-clearance, adding agricultural and customs checks to passport screening, remarked Mannion. The Ambassador said that he was focused not only on the DAA's plans to accommodate CBP in the new terminal, but also on dealing with mounting passenger congestion in CBP's current facilities over the next two summers, especially with the likely onset of bilateral Open Skies. Mannion pointed out that a delay in the terminal's opening till 2010 would exacerbate pressures on CBP staff. He added that CBP would be key to Aer Lingus' plans to link its new Dublin-Dubai service with established Dublin-U.S. flights in 2007, since Middle Eastern passengers would prefer to be pre-cleared outside the United States. Mannion and the Ambassador agreed to continue coordinated approaches to the DAA on CBP's needs, with emboffs noting the possibility of moving sooner to full pre-clearance in the more spacious Shannon Airport. Comment: Pressing the cases for Boeing and CBP --------------------------------------------- - ¶6. This was the Ambassador's third meeting with Mannion since he assumed his Aer Lingus post last summer, and in each discussion the Ambassador has urged Aer Lingus to choose Boeing and to choose quickly, with orders for the 787 Dreamliner now backed up to roughly 2011. In previous discussions, Mannion noted difficulties in placing orders during ongoing negotiations with labor about the stock flotation, lest he create doubts about his commitment to reduce the carrier's reported euro 340 million pension deficit with the flotation proceeds. The Irish Cabinet's April 5 decision to proceed with the stock flotation has lent certainty to Aer Lingus' ability to raise equity for the aircraft orders. We are concerned, however, that the Dublin Airport sizing issue might become another reason for delay in Aer Lingus' aircraft purchase decisions. ¶7. Post will continue to press the case for upgrading CBP operations at Dublin and Shannon Airports. In a recent dinner with Irish Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, the Ambassador described the potential advantages of full pre-clearance for Dublin as a trans-Atlantic hub, leading one committee member to raise the issue in Parliament the next day. Shannon Airport has also hired a U.S. consultant to do a feasibility study on Shannon's ability to move to full pre-clearance. We look forward to receiving from CBP headquarters an updated standards document that outlines for airports the logistical requirements for CBP to provide full pre-clearance. BENTON
