About APIS
APIS FAQ
<<Back to table of contentsVerifying Passenger Information/Provisional Boarding Passes
- The "provisional boarding pass" is not discussed in the Consolidated User Guide. What are the documentation requirements for a provisional boarding pass?
Answer: The APIS Pre-Departure Final Rule does not establish requirements for issuing provisional boarding passes. Carriers are required to submit complete APIS data no later than 30 minutes prior to securing of the aircraft for batch submissions and no later than up to securing of the aircraft for APIS Quick Query (AQQ) submissions. The Federal Register posting, pg 48331, indicates that travelers with connections can have a boarding pass issued, without receiving a screening response. The carrier in this instance would inhibit boarding until an appropriate screening response is receive.
- Section 5.3.3 of the Consolidated User Guide - Indicates that verification/validation is only required for those who have had an inhibited boarding pass printing result - is this correct?
Answer: Validation of submitted data is to occur prior to a traveler gaining access to their intended aircraft, regardless of the boarding pass printing result.
- Federal Register pg 48331, if a customer has a provisional boarding pass, can that customer be "verified" at the gate in order to receive a final boarding pass, or does this need to happen prior to passing through the security checkpoint? This question refers to original off-site check-in, not connections.
Answer: Where DHS has authority, a boarding pass cannot be issued until an appropriate screening response has been received. In those cases where the traveler is originating at a location outside of DHS authority and prior to Secure Flight implementation, a boarding pass may be issued, so long as the individual is not allowed to gain access to their intended aircraft without an appropriate screening response.
System Outages
- What are the backup methods for a system outage so we don't have the LAX event happen again?
Answer: During the testing and implementation phase, CBP will work with carriers to establish additional outage procedures based on their operational processes, including transmitting data from alternate locations or using alternate transmission methods such as switching from AQQ to Batch methods. Carriers are encouraged to submit APIS data early in the process to receive screening responses well before securing of the aircraft. CBP is also working to establish additional protocols to limit the impact of outages.
- If we are intended to use an internal fallback process, do you believe carriers should continue to maintain the new CBP system as well as our own system? Shouldn't CBP have a fallback method, not the air carriers?
Answer: The CBP APIS process currently is a redundant process, for circumstances where outages occur despite system redundancy, alternate processes should be in place. Certain carriers will need to maintain their own system during the transition to meet other requirements, such as screening domestic flights. During the testing CBP will work with carriers to establish additional outage procedures based on their operational processes. Carriers are encouraged to submit APIS data early in the process to receive screening responses well before securing of the aircraft, as one method for limiting the impact of outages.
- If AQQ experiences an outage are carriers to transmit their lists in batch format or follow another procedure (i.e., contact TSA to vet the watchlist)?
Answer: During the testing CBP will work with carriers to establish additional outage procedures based on their operational processes, including transmitting data from alternate locations or using alternate transmission methods such as switching from AQQ to Batch methods. Carriers are encouraged to submit APIS data early in the process to receive screening responses well before securing of the aircraft, in turn limiting the impact of outages.
- If e.g. connection between an aircraft operator and CBP is complete: when would the aircraft operarot realize that something is wrong? What procedure should they employ?
Answer: Carriers using the AQQ transmission method would identify there is a possible outage when their system attempts to send a message and after 5 attempts to receive a vetting response, nothing has been returned. At that time, the carriers security office should contact the DHS Service Center to determine if there is an outage. At the same time, the carrier should contact their National APIS Account Manager to determine if there is an outage at CBP and what next steps may be taken.
- Pg 64/66 of the Consolidated User Guide references the ability, when systems are back up, to resubmit all messages that couldn't be submitted to DHS.
Answer: System outages will be handled on a case-by-case basis with regard to APIS requirements. The procedures indicated in this above referenced page are associated with boarding pass requirements, which is related to Secure Flight.
Data Monitoring/Fines
- How does DHS check/monitor the 30 minutes deadline, knowing that the exact time of closing the doors is never known in advance? Would DHS be of the opinion that late queries would be the sole risk of the air carrier?
Answer: DHS will use several methods to ensure carrier compliance with transmission time requirements, including monitoring the estimated time of departure received in the submissions.
- How will APIS Pre-Departure affect the current APIS sufficiency measurements and compliance/penalty structure? Is there the expectation that compliance would be 100%? Is that based on the number of records being sent vs. data quality in the data sent? For example there are data field edits to ensure that DOB is in the correct format and to flag single digit names as errors. Will these errors continue to affect the 100% sufficiency? In Secure Flight there is mention that they will recognize that passengers can have a single digit first name. Is there a change in the current eAPIS reports related to first name edit?
Answer: CBP will continue to maintain the current validation rules for APIS submissions. It is expected that carriers will, or already have, instituted validation checks within their own systems to ensure valid dates are provided.
- Section 4.3 of the Consolidated User Guide references 100% compliance - is this based on just 100% compliance for sending APIS for passengers on board, not overall sufficiency after subtracting any errors related to data validation errors?
Answer: 100% compliance has always been the requirement for APIS transmissions. The statement in section 4.3 is referencing the submission of 100% of the names onboard.
Secure Flight
- Table 9 of the Consolidated User Guide (and other subsequent tables) indicates that PNR never changes. In fact the record locator can change in various situations. Should this change to "informational" instead of "never changes"?
Answer: Comments related to the ‘informational’ change requirement, should be submitted through the Secure Flight NPRM process.
- Pg 11 of the Consolidated User Guide Appendices - Table 2 Section 7.2.2.3 - states that the verified ID must be sent at time of purchase at ATO and/or boarding pass request. Is this only for those passengers previously inhibited, or for all passengers who purchase a ticket at the ATO day of departure?
Answer: The verified ID indicator is a Secure Flight requirement and needs to be addressed through the proper comment procedures of the Secure Flight NPRM.
- Pg 31/66 of the Consolidated User Guide references a verified ID indicator - what exactly is this field and how does it pertain to the pre-departure rule?
Answer: This is a Secure Flight requirement and does not pertain to the Pre-Departure Final Rule.
- Is the Gate Pass Request due by February 19, 2008?
Answer: The Gate Pass Request is a Secure Flight proposed requirement and is not expected for the February 19, 2008 date.
- Regarding Change Passenger Data on Page 68/69 of the UN/EDIFACT Implementation Guide (BGM type 745 Document ID – CP and CF with examples on Page 196 B.11. Qualified Change and Page 198, B.12. Non-Qualified Change):
When would this message be used?
What would trigger this message type?
What is a qualified change?
What is a non-qualified change?
Should this type of message be able to be done by Feb. 19?
Answer: The Change Passenger Data submission is a Secure Flight proposed requirement. It can be used to update a previous APIS submission if the APIS data has changed and the passenger data needs to be updated. Under normal circumstances, sending a subsequent APIS transmission will suffice. Qualified and Non-Qualified changes are Secure Flight proposed requirements.
- Regarding Reduction in Party on Page 68/69 of the UN/EDIFACT Implementation Guide (BGM type 745 Document ID – RP with example on page 200 B.13. Reduction in Party):
When would this message be used?
What would trigger this message type?
Should this type message be able to be done by Feb. 19?
Answer: The Reduction in Party function is a Secure Flight proposed requirement and is not expected for the February 19, 2008 date.
- Regarding Change Flight Information on Page 68/69 of the UN/EDIFACT Implementation Guide (BGM type 266 Document ID – CF Change Flight Information):
Will we be doing the Change Flight Information type message?
What is the Change Flight Information message?
What would trigger this message?
Note: we would need an example of this type of message.
Should this type of message be able to be done by Feb. 19?
Answer: The Change Flight Information submission is a Secure Flight proposed requirement and is not expected for the February 19, 2008 date.
- Consolidated User Guide, Page 12, states: “This proposed rule would not compel the passenger or non-traveler to provide the majority of the information requested by the aircraft operators. However, if that individual elects not to provide the requested information, TSA may not be able to distinguish him or her from an entry on the watchlist. Accordingly, the individual may be more likely to experience delays, be subject to additional screening, be denied transport, or be denied authorization to enter a sterile area.” Does the proposed rule prohibit aircraft operators from accepting a reservation, generating a PNR, or accepting a request for authorization to enter a sterile area from an individual who does not provide a full name?
Answer: The question being asked is related to Secure Flight and needs to be addressed through the proper Secure Flight comment process.
- Does CBP have any retention requirement for the carriers to retain data in regard to message transmissions, vetting results, etc?
Answer: Vetting result retention is a part of the Secure Flight proposed rule.
- When Secure Flight becomes effective, will both CBP and TSA send back a result in the Response Message?
Answer: Once Secure Flight is performing vetting for all domestic and international flights, only one response will be received by the carrier.
Support
- Does CBP expect to have a 24 hour phone/email contact for the unsolicited messages?
Answer: Carriers receiving an unsolicited message will continue to have the ability to contact a 24-hour DHS phone number for resolution assistance. Carriers identifying travelers on the watchlist currently have 24-hour DHS contact phone number for resolution, this will continue.
- For the contact email address does this need to be 24 hour?
Answer: Carriers transmit APIS data as part of their 24-hour flight operations and the point of contact information, including email contact need to be available as part of the 24-hour operation.
- Will there be a user guide for batch transmissions and the use of e-APIS? Is so, when?
Answer: The Consolidated User Guide and the UN/EDIFACT Implementation Guide, along with the APIS Pre-Departure Final Rule, should be used as guides for both APIS-30 and APIS Quick Query (AQQ) development. The eAPIS option is described in the APIS Pre-Departure Final Rule as the non-interactive option for carriers. eAPIS has been updated with News links and Contact Sensitive Help selections to provide additional information and guidance.
- Until now only carrier’s security department have had contacts with TSA as the designated contacts. Now can any check-in agent contact TSA?
Answer: The screening response is sent to the sender of the information. It is suggested the carrier continue to use existing processes including their security department in the resolution process. It is understood the check-in agent will have the traveler in front of them and may be able to provide additional information for the resolution.
Miscellaneous
- The table does not mention class of service as a qualified or informational item w/in the itinerary. Can you clarify if you will be looking at this information? I.e. A customer is coach and upgrades to first or business.
Answer: Class of service is not a required APIS data element under the CBP APIS Pre-Departure Final Rule. Class of service is part of the PNR discussion and it is presented as an option to the carrier, it is not a mandated requirement.
- Will the current "prevent departure list" issued to the carriers by DHS be included in Phase 1?
Answer: The ‘prevent departure list’ is not currently incorporated within the watchlist and the APIS Pre-Departure process.
- What is CBP's response to Sabre's letter stating that February 19th implementation of APIS 30/AQQ is unworkable?
Answer: CBP proposed new requirements in the APIS Pre-Departure NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2006 and has been working with the carrier industry to raise awareness of the changes. The APIS Pre-Departure Final Rule established the requirements would become effective 180 days from the August23, 2007 publication date. CBP is currently working with carriers and service providers to implement the changes within the established timeframe.
- Would DHS expect a similar number of not-cleared or selectee passengers on carriers as the carriers see today?
Answer: Based on data currently received by carriers, CBP anticipates a similar number of not-cleared and selectee results.
- Does the definition of securing of aircraft doors indicate the passenger door or the cargo doors? Could this be equated to an OUT event?
Answer: Securing of the door relates to the point in which a passenger can gain access to an aircraft. As the cargo door is not the normal point of gaining access to a regular passenger operated aircraft, the securing of the aircraft doors is associated with the securing of the door in which passengers entered.
- Parallel or Redundant processing - If our internal processing flags an individual as a selectee, but the government doesn't say they are a selectee, what should we do?
Answer: If the passenger is traveling on an international flight, the response provided by the DHS system is what the carrier should use for boarding pass issuance coding.
- Audit Trail/Accountability - Today, there are occasions where we receive calls that APIS was never transmitted. Should we retain the individual records or cumulative information sent for the occasion there is a question that an individual’s APIS data was not sent?
Answer: Maintaining an audit trail is always suggested.
- Pg 17 of the Consolidated User Guide references Training Support Documents - Do we know when these modules will be available? Specifically, in regards to Module 2?
Answer: CBP is currently working on the development of Module 2 training and expects to have it available October 2007.
- Section 4.9.3 of the Consolidated User Guide - International Travel (Messages & Response), does this apply to both batch and non-interactive, or only interactive batch and interactive individual?
Answer: I believe you are referencing section 4.8.3 of the Consolidated User Guide – International Travel (Message & Response), in this question. The examples provided are related to interactive batch and AQQ.
- The Consolidated User Guide is SSI. Where can individuals go to obtain a copy of this if they do not have access to the TSA secure site?
Answer: Individuals that do not have access to the TSA secure web-board can obtain a copy from ATA or IATA headquarters, from the News link of eAPIS, or from a National APIS Account Manager.
- Are we allowed to load baggage if we have not yet received a vetting response? Understanding we would remove the baggage and not transport the baggage for any passengers who receive a not cleared response. Does the final rule prohibit us from physically loading the baggage onto the airplane prior to the receipt of a cleared or selectee message?
Answer: The Final Rule establishes that the carrier must not issue a boarding pass to, or load the baggage of, any passenger subject to a not-cleared instruction. In the case of connecting passengers, the carrier must not board or load the baggage of any such passenger until the CBP system returns a cleared or selectee response for that passenger.
- Can you provide the standard ICE procedures that you reference in this section?
Answer: The CBP APIS Pre-Departure Final Rule does not cover Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) standard operating procedures. Questions related to ICE procedures for the deportation of individuals should be addressed to ICE, a component agency within DHS.
Networking Questions
Transmission Companies
- Which company/transmission does CBP use?
Answer: The CBP system supports and utilizes several transmission options.
- Which of the transmission options does CBP prefer?
Answer: CBP will provide information to carriers to assist in evaluating which transmission option will best suit their needs. The selection of a transmission option will be a business decision on the part of the carrier.
- Consolidated User Guide v1.0 Part 2, pg 57, Does CBP use SITA or ARINC or another vendor for its own programming as we may choose to use the same vendor? Which company/transmission does CBP use?
Answer: CBP currently receives APIS data thru both SITA and ARInc connections.
- Does Sabre have to test each carrier separately with CBP, or can Sabre test with CBP just once?
Answer: CBP expects to test with the various service providers currently sending APIS data for multiple carriers. Once CBP has completed testing with these service providers, they should notify their customers, so the carrier can make the business decision to test the service provider product if they so choose to. CBP would encourage the carrier to conduct testing, as the final responsibility lies with the carrier and not the service provider.
- What other providers of MPLS can we order circuits from?
Answer: Sprint and Verizon are the only current providers approved by CBP for
MPLS network connectivity.
Ability to Respond
- When will CBP be ready to respond to interactive queries and when will the CBP AQQ product be available for carriers to test the functionality?
Answer: The CBP system is currently ready to respond to interactive queries and CBP is prepared to test AQQ functionality with carriers.
Testing
- Is there anything different that CBP would have to do to test the -30 requirement now?
Answer: CBP has made internal system updates and is ready to conduct testing with carrier’s interested in implementing changes to meet the requirement to submit batch manifests no later than 30 minutes prior to securing the aircraft.
- If a carrier wanted to do a preliminary test to assess the impact of closing out a flight -30, what would CBP need in order to accomplish this and what would the carrier expect as a response?
Answer: Based on business practices, certain carriers with international flights have indicated they currently close out flights and submit APIS data in advance of securing the aircraft. Carriers could adjust their procedures to close-out procedures and simply start submitting data no later than 30 minutes prior to securing the aircraft. CBP will work with carriers and focus testing on the receive functions of the APIS interactive process.
- Are the Account Managers responsible for testing? If so, how could this impact the timelines? There is a real concern over CBP having the resources assigned to assist carriers in certification. This is a huge programming change, and likely the bulk of carriers won't be ready to test until the last months. Is CBP able to support that, and if not, how will that be taken into account in terms of meeting the mandated date?
Answer: CBP completed AQQ Tester training and has established a core of testers. As carriers request involvement in the APIS Pre-Departure project, they will be assigned an AQQ tester and communication will be initiated. Initially the testers will include the APIS Account Managers.
- Test Scenarios - 33/34/35/36 - Cancel Passenger submission: When exactly would we need to do this for AQQ? I thought the intent was to send a Flight Close-Out message which would accurately show everyone who had or had not boarded. Why would we need to also send a Cancel Passenger Submission request?
Answer: Carriers are not expected to complete the Cancel Passenger submissions for APIS Pre-Departure testing. These are tests that can be accomplished if the carrier wishes, so that when the carrier transitions to Secure Flight testing, they will be able to demonstrate they accomplished this type of message submission.
- Test Scenarios - 55/56 - Flight Cancellation Message: I was under the impression that the Flight Close-Out message precluded the need to have to send a Flight Cancellation message. Is it correct that there is an indicator within the Flight Close-Out Message that allows the carrier to tell you that the flight was cancelled?
Answer: The Flight Cancellation message was established to satisfy an industry request. If a carrier does not wish to test this functionality, it will not be expected. Carriers choosing to test a Flight Cancellation message should refer to the UN/EDIFACT Implementation guide, page 68 for the correct indicator in the BGM segment.
Connections/Communications
- How are messages communicated between DHS and air carriers?
Answer: Carriers deciding to utilize an interactive submission option will be expected to establish a dedicated connection that will be able to provide responses to carriers within seconds of submitting. Carriers choosing to utilize the interactive batch process may also establish a direct connection, to ensure timely responses.
- Which network option provides the lowest latency?
Answer: MPLS will be the fastest transport of data, because you are directly connecting to CBP's Wide Area Network.
- How much will a direct MPLS circuit cost?
Answer: Consult with Sprint and Verizon because costs are driven by a variety of factors that CBP does not have access to.
- Which network option provides the most reliability?
Answer: It would depend on how an airline engineers their Wide Area Network to CBP. The highest reliability comes from eliminating single points that can cause total failure of the network connection.
- What is the average time it will take to receive an AQQ response from CBP?
Answer: CBP has committed to a 4 seconds or less processing response time. End to end message delivery can be affected by many factors, outside the control of CBP.
- What is considered satisfactory network communication? Can we submit for certification under AQQ so we are sure our infrastructure will also work for SF?
Answer: CBP will work with carriers and their systems to ensure the network connection selected is sufficient for the traffic expected for each carrier. As carriers and their systems transition from one network connection to another, CBP and TSA will work diligently to ensure proper testing is performed.
- We are expecting CBP’s MQ Installation to be using Correlation ID. Please confirm. Can CBP provide Sabre DHS’s MQ Specification document?
Answer: CBP will support correlation ID. It is expected each carrier will have a slightly unique MQ Series architecture. CBP will work with each carrier/DCS to define the correct one.
- For disaster recovery, will DHS provide Sabre with a second router for our recovery location?
Answer: Acquisition of disaster recovery routers will be the responsibility of carriers or carrier systems.
