This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 004334 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA, EB/TRA, AND INL 
STATE PLEASE PASS DHS/BTS FOR U/S HUTCHINSON, A/S VERDERY, 
AND CLAYTON 
JUSTICE FOR SWARTZ AND BURROWS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ASEC EAIR EWWT PHSA PTER EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: DHS U/S HUTCHINSON'S OCT 1 MEETING WITH TRANSPORT 
DG LAMOUREUX 
 
 
Sensitive but unclassified, entire text 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶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