Comment Submitted by Dave Palmer

I am an private pilot and airplane owner in Juneau, Alaska. To leave SE Alaska, I have to cross into Canada as SE Alaska is surrounded by Canada. The proposal to require prior flight notice and approval by CBP is fraught with operational problems that will increase costs and could impact flight safety. First, it is incorrect to assume that pilots have access to the internet. Many flights begin or end at remote locations. Even in towns and villages with electricty and internet, it is not correct to assume that internet is available at a landing strip, lake, lodge, or airport. To require a pilot to make a special flight to a town with services increases the cost of this rule and that cost is not evaluated. In some cases that cost is substantial, even if weather and fuel considerations allow the flight. This requirement icould impact flight safety by requiring flights to locations not necessarily intended by the pilot. Second, the analysis of the proposed rule is silent about the time, ability or expense for CBP to respond to a request to fly. The rule anticipates that a pilot will have to arrive at an airport 15 minutes early to complete the paperwork and make the notification (this seems to assume an internet connection by the aircraft?). However there is no analysis or discussion about the length of time it will take CBP to respond and issue the permission to take off. Since CBP prior permission is required both to leave the country (sounds un-American, doesn't it?) and to depart from a foreign location, it is necessary for a pilot to sit by a computer somewhere in an internet cafe, hotel lobby, or who knows where, and wait for an email from CBP. This will certainly take more time than the 15 minutes estimated to complete paperwork. In many cases, the landing strip or lake is remote, requiring some effort to even find a telephone, let alone, internet. There's no discussion as to the expectation of all of this burden placed on pilots will result in any reduction in threat. The rule seems to imply that terrorists will call ahead for permission to take off, complete an accurate passenger manifest, and await permission to depart. This advance notification rule places a burden on all of the honest pilots and there's no discussion or analysis of how it will prevent a terrorist or other bad person from utilizing an aircraft for illegal purposes. This rule singled out private pilots and privately owned aircraft. If the same restrictions were placed on passenger vehicles and trucks, it would never see the light of day. There is no discussion of the impact of this rule on CBP staffing or costs. If there is not a significant increase is capability, then there is will certainly be a delay in processing requests. Even if there is staffing, technology is not in place to handle the requests. For example, contrary to the instructions in this proposed rule, this electronic comment feature was not accessible for until I made 3 phone calls to CBP, none of which were answered by anything but a machine. I suggest that if CBP can not even answer its phone in Washington DC, we can't expect a timely response to a request from every port in the country or from every foreign location within range. If the rule advances, it should provide that absent a response by CBP within 5 minutes of the submission of the notification, approval is assumed to be granted. CBP should not place the burden of accuracy of manifest information on the pilot. The pilot should not be expected to do background checks, or to qualify a passenger's documents or documentation for CBP. The pilot can only transmit the information given to him/her, CBP should not expect more. There are many factors that go into a decision to initiate or terminate a flight, including weather, fatigue, fuel, logistics, and aircraft capabilities. This rule places an undue burden on the pilot by prempting the pilot's discretion to fly based on a need to submit a manifest and await permission to take off, without giving the pilot the ability to make a decision based on other more relevant factors to flight safety. Even to get to a telephone, or to a location where radio reception is adequate is sometimes a challenge for the pilot in remote locations, making the current 60 minute advance notice of arrival a burden. It is my hope that this misguided proposal is dropped. If not, it could be improved if CBP would develop a "Go Fly" list and allow pilots and passengers (private pilots generally know their passengers) to be placed on a FLY list to authorizing r flights in and out of the country without specific approval for each flight. It makes little sense to require prior flight approval for a pilot and family or friends for each trip. Either they're ok to travel or not, that's not likely to change. Law abiding pilots and passengers should be allowed to travel without pre-approval for takeoff from the USA or a foreign place. If it's essential to national security, then make a provision for annual approvals of citizens who elect to fly instead of drive or travel commercially, put them on a list and let CBP check them off the list when they clear back into the USA. Putting in place a provision to allow CBP to deny landing rights is silly; a terrorist isn't going to follow such instruction. Summary: Requesting permission from CBP to leave the country restricts the right to travel to pilots and passengers without good reason. Internet access is not consistently available. Even telephone or radio communication is problematic in remote areas and at odd hours. Flight safety could be impacted by this rule because it can not anticipate the impacts of weather, fuel, logistics, or increased flight hours as pilots try to comply. The cost of this rule, in practice, is significant, and incorrectly evaluated. If the rule is in place, a provision should be made to have an annual approval, not notification for each flight. CBP staffing and technological advances are necessary before this rule should be effective. Default to "approved" should be incorporated if CBP's response is delayed. Hopefully, the rule will be dropped, it seems unlikely it will have no practical effect.