DHS U/S HUTCHINSON'S OCT 1 MEETING WITH TRANSPORT

1. (SBU) DHS Undersecretary for Border and Transportation
Security Asa Hutchinson met with Director General for
Transport and Energy Francois Lamoureux October 1. Lamoureux
briefed Hutchinson on the growing Commission program of
airport inspection. Hutchinson committed to Lamoureux that
DHS would brief the Commission on U.S. implementation of the
ISPS (International Ship and Port Security) code and discuss
with the Commission new U.S. requirements for container
seals. Lamoureux briefed Hutchinson on European Parliament
concerns over the allocation of costs of new security
measures. Hutchinson suggested to Lamoureux the U.S. and EU
exchange experiences in rail and mass transit security.
Hutchinson also told Lamoureux that, while he was interested
in further cooperation on air marshals, and the U.S. and EU
might find a mechanism outside the U.S.-EU bilateral aviation
services negotiations for that discussion.

Action items for follow-up include:

--- Hutchinson requested greater exchange between the U.S.
and EU on leading airport security technologies.

--- Hutchinson committed to further coordination with the EU
on implementation of ISPS rules and on container seals.

--- The U.S. and EU should consult further on rail/mass
transit security measures.

End summary.

Airport Inspection


--------------------------





2. (SBU) Lamoureux told Hutchinson that after the
Commission's initial year of experience conducting security
inspections of community airports, DG TREN would publish a
report on its findings. Lamoureux added that he found
Community airports' level of compliance with EU rules "not
satisfactory", though he had noticed some improvement. He
wanted to address improvement of controls and training of
inspectors in future meetings with the U.S. Hutchinson told
Lamoureux he hoped for greater exchanges with European
institutions on leading technologies in airport security.

U.S.-EU Maritime Cooperation


--------------------------





3. (SBU) Lamoureux told Hutchinson that the Commission would
begin inspecting maritime facilities in January 2005, and
this would be the first implementation of the maritime
security code. As such, the EU wanted to avoid differences
in implementation. Currently differences in U.S. ISPS code
implementation were creating practical problems. Acting
Director for Transport and Energy Security, Jean Trestour
claimed that through its legislation, the EU was abiding
strictly by the ISPS code, while the U.S. was not. Trestour
asked for a common identification of suspect port facilities.




4. (SBU) Lamoureux asked Hutchinson to explain DHS views on
container seals. Hutchinson noted that the shipping industry
was working to develop secure containers and locks. DHS is
in the process of considering requirements for seals and
locks on U.S. bound containers. As this process goes
forward, it would not be helpful for countries to develop
differing standards. Hutchinson pledged to share ideas on
container seals with the EU. Lamoureux felt seals integral
with the container would be most effective. He asked whether
the U.S. believed that seals were essential. Hutchinson said
they were important, but seals alone would not eliminate the
threat to the supply chain, which had to be considered in
total. Lamoureux noted that international views on seals
will affect EU decision-making, but he asked Hutchinson to
work multilaterally on a container seals measure.



5. (SBU) Hutchinson committed to respond to Lamoureux on
both the ISPS and container seals questions and to work with
the EU. He added that the effectiveness of measures taken
should also be part of any U.S.-EU discussion and that the
DHS industry advisory group COAC (Customs Operations Advisory
Committee) had been asked to make recommendations on
regulations governing container trade. He promised to share
the group's recommendation with the Commission. Trestour
suggested that given the security risks raised by
transshipment of containers, the U.S. and EU should also work
together on capacity building in third countries.


Parliament's Concern Over Costs


--------------------------





6. (SBU) Hutchinson asked whether the new Parliament were
more or less sensitive towards security questions. Lamoureux
said EU institutions, and particularly the Parliament were
becoming concerned with the costs of additional security, and
the Commission was preparing a communication on the subject
to answer the questions: Who should pay? users or the member
states. Lamoureux believed the overall conclusion would be
that public authorities, not the users, should pay, noting
that the Parliament frequently pointed to the U.S.
Government's willingness to pay for aviation security
upgrades as potentially distorting competition. Lamoureux
said the issue had become so contentious that new Community
security initiatives could be scuttled. Hutchinson told
Lamoureux that the question of who pays also came up in U.S.
discussions on containers where it was decided that shippers
would bear the costs for regulations due to be promulgated 6
months to a year from now. The U.S. Government had invested
heavily in aviation security, but in addressing container and
rail shipments, though DHS may make some grant money
available, shippers would likely bear most of the cost.



7. (SBU) Lamoureux also noted that the Parliament continued
to press on the PNR case and asked whether, given this
pressure, the U.S. might be amenable to negotiating with the
new Commission officials parts of the PNR agreement including
reducing the list of data elements it collected. Hutchinson
said the U.S. is content with the current agreement and his
objective would be to let experience demonstrate the
effectiveness of the privacy protection DHS has put into
place.

Rail/Mass Transit Security


--------------------------





8. (SBU) Lamoureux said that the Commission was concerned
over rail security, and had some competence to address the
issue, but not enough experience. Nonetheless, the
Commission would have to issue a regulation harmonizing
security practices in the area. Hutchinson said that while
the USG did not take over rail and mass transit security
following the Madrid bombings, he wanted to show leadership
in securing the U.S. rail network. DHS established "federal
leadership" for security. DHS had looked regionally at
individual networks to find the best practices in place and
used the best standards to create a benchmark to build from
in the case of an elevated threat. DHS was also developing a
federal response capability. The U.S. Congress is sensitive
to transit authorities' requests for additional funds, and it
has made some limited grants in this area.



9. (SBU) Lamoureux emphasized the importance of looking at
rail station security. It had become clear that the Madrid
bombers had intended their bombs to detonate inside stations
to maximize destruction. He believed the best example in
Europe of effective station security were the Eurostar
stations in London, Paris, and Brussels. Hutchinson noted
that such measures were expensive, but DHS wanted to do more
in this area. Some U.S operators had piloted checking
passengers, which they appreciated, but such measures had
been tried only at small stations. The U.S. had neither the
equipment nor the personnel to do more. Programs moved
slowly. Lamoureux noted that after Madrid, European national
railways established a clear separation between passengers
and luggage, with luggage loaded into a separate car.
Hutchinson suggested that there would be benefits in working
together on rail security.

U.S.-EU Bilateral Agreement/Air Marshals


--------------------------





10. (SBU) Lamoureux suggested that the bilateral aviation
agreement currently under negotiation between the U.S. and EU
could provide a better framework for discussions on some
security issues now underway in ICAO. One example would be
to use the aviation bilateral to find a more rapid solution
for a standard set of rules for the training and equipping of
air marshals. Lamoureux asked whether it would be
appropriate to discuss 'ICAO type' standards under the
auspices of the bilateral. Hutchinson said the U.S believed
that air marshals added security value, and he agreed that an
international standard on training and equipping marshals was
necessary. He suggested that the U.S. and EU might wish to
look for alternate venues to discuss the air marshal
question, but that as an economic agreement, the U.S.-EU
bilateral agreement may not be the best venue.

Scott