An official website of the United States Government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Twenty-second Meeting of the U.S.-EU Joint Committee

Record of Meeting

1. The 22nd meeting of the U.S.-EU Joint Committee (JC) was held on 8 March 2019 in Washington, DC. The list of participants is included in Attachment 1, the approved agenda in Attachment 2, the subsequently-approved Action Agenda in Attachment 3, and the Joint Statement on Aviation Security developed by the EU‐U.S. Transportation Security Cooperation Group after meetings in Washington in November 2018 in Attachment 4.

Adoption of the Record of the Previous Joint Committee Meeting

2. The adoption of the record of the 20th meeting of the U.S.-EU JC, held on 25 April 2018 in The Hague, was approved via correspondence on September 11, 2019.


3. Participants welcomed the continuing opportunity the JC offers to address aviation developments, commercial and policy issues, and challenges, as well as to provide updates and information, to further develop transatlantic aviation relations and maximize the benefits of our agreements. 

4. In that context, the EU delegation underlined that triggering the future development foreseen in Article 21 of the EU-U.S. Air Transport Agreement (ATA) remains a priority and recalled its position that the EU has fulfilled the conditions to trigger said Article. 

5. The U.S. and EU delegations noted their recent discussions on ways to streamline both the proceedings and the records of JC meetings.  To make JC sessions more efficient and productive, two innovations were introduced.  Firstly, the delegations would produce a short action agenda document to reflect outcomes and commitments and facilitate follow-up on priority issues.  Secondly, formal calls or meetings would be scheduled between the Commission and appropriate U.S. officials to follow up and track developments between JCs.  In addition, the delegations noted their intention to pursue the inclusion of a stakeholder input segment on a relevant topic during the next JC, which is to be held in Europe. 

Wet Leasing

6. The delegations noted that, after several years of discussion and negotiation, significant progress has been made to resolve differences on the subject of time limitations on the leasing of aircraft with crew (wet leasing).  The U.S. delegation welcomed the successful conclusion of the negotiations and encouraged all parties to work to ensure the agreement is signed and applied provisionally as soon as possible.  

7. The EU delegation described the steps the EU had taken to resolve the issue to date, including the December 2018 amendment of EU regulation 1008/2008.  The EU delegation further expressed its strongest concerns about the timing and necessity of a Show-Cause Order issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, tentatively terminating EU-carrier wet lease authorizations under Part 212 (see, DOT Order 2019-2-17 in docket DOT-OST-2019-0031), when the United States was aware of the imminent steps that the EU was going to take to resolve the matter.  Notwithstanding this, the EU delegation indicated it was ready to sign, along with the delegations of the United States, Iceland and Norway, a Memorandum of Consultation regarding wet leasing, and to initial the ad referendum agreement.  [Note: Representatives of the four parties to the wet-leasing agreement accomplished these tasks on the margins of the JC meeting.]   

8. The U.S. delegation responded to the concerns of the EU delegation regarding the tentative Show-Cause Order.  The EU, Norway, and Iceland assured that they would proceed swiftly with internal procedures to allow the signing and provisional application of the agreement as soon as possible.  In light of progress and plans to resolve the issue, the U.S. delegation stated its expectation that DOT would take appropriate action regarding the Show-Cause Order.    

Dispute Resolution

9. At the request of the EU delegation, the U.S. delegation provided information on an International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act (IATFCPA) complaint filed with DOT by a U.S. carrier regarding access to slots in a European airport that is subject to EU slot regulation.  Kalitta Air filed its IATFCPA complaint against the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, and Stichting Airport Coordination Netherlands, alleging that the latter two entities purposefully withheld slots from Kalitta at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport.  The EU delegation noted its interest, beyond the facts of the present complaint, in addressing the relationship between the dispute resolution mechanisms of the ATA and each side’s domestic mechanisms to address unfair competition.  The EU stated its position that the ATA provides a robust mechanism for addressing disputes and a unilateral approach should not be used for matters covered by the ATA.  

10. The U.S. delegation explained its view that there is no conflict between the U.S. domestic mechanisms and the ATA dispute resolution procedures, and noted that it had engaged with the Dutch authorities, both before and after Kalitta filed its complaint.  After considerable discussion regarding the best channels and approaches to addressing concerns and resolving disagreements, the two sides decided that it would be appropriate to have further exchanges on this matter.  The delegations affirmed that a collaborative approach and timely consultations, whether formal or informal, have been effective in the past and are the preferred mechanism for resolving concerns and differences.  


11. The U.S. delegation requested information about current legislation and timelines, and how the European Union plans to address various safety, security, operational, and legal issues related to the planned departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.  The EU delegation provided a general update on the status of the withdrawal agreement and the accompanying political statement.  Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, the EU would continue to treat the UK as a member through the end of 2020, to provide continuity and time to negotiate a future comprehensive air services agreement between the EU and UK.  

12. Because the withdrawal agreement had not yet been approved by the UK and the EU, the EU prepared two contingency regulations to assure basic connectivity in the event of a “no-deal” exit of the UK from the EU, and to fill any potential gaps regarding safety oversight.  The U.S. delegation voiced appreciation for the updates, and asked a series of questions based on concerns raised by U.S. airlines relating to the regulation’s treatment of fifth-freedom, code-sharing, and wet-lease operations.  The U.S. delegation committed to follow up on specific additional issues and questions, particularly with respect to safety oversight.  The U.S. delegation noted the benefits to the aviation industry and to third countries of joint guidance from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and strongly encouraged the delegations to urge their governments to issue such guidance.  The U.S. delegation also committed to follow up with respect to legal actions that may be necessary from the U.S. perspective to address the implications of the UK’s exit from the EU in existing aviation agreements between the parties, some of which may depend on whether there is a withdrawal agreement or a “no-deal” exit.  The delegations confirmed their intention to remain in touch on these matters.

Environment-Related Policies

13. The U.S. delegation detailed continuing U.S. concerns regarding relevant Member State taxes, including Imposta Regionale sulle Emissioni Sonore degli Aeromobili Civili (IRESA) in Italy and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in Spain, and the importance of consistent and timely implementation of Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) as the exclusive measure for international aviation, and to avoid a patchwork of duplicative taxes and charges at the country or regional level.  The EU delegation clarified that taxes are a legitimate policy instrument, and not prohibited by the ATA, provided they are not discriminatory.  The EU delegation stated it considers it is not necessary to discuss these matters at every JC meeting.  The two delegations committed to follow up on these concerns.  The EU delegation further recalled the commitment of the European Union to address aviation carbon emissions, including notably through CORSIA, on which work to implement monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) rules has started, and should be as effective and efficient as possible.  A report is due to the European Parliament and Council within the next year on the implementation of CORSIA.  

“No-Show” Policy

14. The U.S. delegation provided an update on responses that had been provided by Spain and Italy regarding U.S. concerns about treatment of U.S. carriers with respect to their “no-show” ticketing policies.  As noted during previous JC meetings, the U.S. position is that airline “no-show” policies are protected by the pricing freedom established by Article 13 of the ATA, and that carriers should have the ability to price freely, recognizing that individual pricing segments are not the basis for network pricing.  The EU delegation emphasized that the freedom of pricing of the ATA is not without limitations.  In response to the concerns raised about court rulings in Members States, the EU delegation stressed that neither ruling precludes the freedom of airlines to establish tariffs or conditions on these tariffs, as long as these conditions are not abusive.  The EU delegation further informed that, while Member States’ national laws may prohibit “no-show” policies, EU law is neutral on such practice and the EU delegation committed to provide an update and indicative planning for the revision of EU Regulation 261/2004.  The U.S. delegation took note of the EU delegation’s position and reiterated it would view any adverse actions taken by the Member States against U.S. carriers’ “no-show” policies as inconsistent with Article 13 of the ATA.  In view of the explanations given above, the EU delegation disagreed with this position.

Other Issues

15. The U.S. delegation raised concerns about practices developing in the EU concerning financial liability and regulatory burdens born by U.S. carriers.  In particular, the U.S. delegation shared its views on measures relating to airline insolvency protection, especially as regards a proposal being drafted in the UK and considered elsewhere.  The U.S. delegation also noted concerns about implementation of the Package Travel Directive (EU Directive 2015/2302), describing U.S. carrier concerns that EU carriers receive a commercial advantage arising from the requirements regarding the vetting of plans and associated costs for implementation and compliance.  The EU delegation referred to the reply by the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST) to a letter sent by U.S. carriers, which answered the questions already raised in July 2018 and clarified why EU internal market treatment cannot be extended to third-country air carriers.

16. Delegations shared their respective priorities and interests related to the upcoming International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Assembly and areas of potential cooperation, and encouraged coordination as the General Assembly grew closer in time.

17. Delegations hailed the conclusion of negotiations on protocols to the ATA and associated agreements that reflect Croatia’s accession to the European Union.  [Note: Representatives of the parties initialed the ad referendum agreements on the margins of the JC meeting.]

18. Delegations briefly discussed challenges of congested airports, with the EU delegation noting that half of the world’s most slot-constrained airports are within the European Union and that the European Parliament will be carrying out a study.

19. With respect to EASA fees and charges, the U.S. delegation indicated the remaining areas of concern after recent correspondence on the issue, particularly with new or changing fees to third-country operator approvals, flight simulator training devices and adjustments to fees for holders of multiple type certificates, and expressed the intent to follow up with the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG-MOVE) and EASA on remaining concerns regarding competition and processes that were outlined previously.  The EU delegation informed that EASA’s user pay system requires the internal revision of fees and charges, which is an ongoing task that will also be on the agenda of the EASA Committee in 2019.

20. The U.S. delegation circulated a written update regarding the ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP).  In relation to the development of supersonic aircraft, the U.S. delegation offered its perspective on the recent discussions and outcome at the CAEP and an update on the actions the United States is taking domestically in this high priority area.  EC underlined the good outcome of CAEP and stressed that innovation needs to be balanced with public acceptance, in particular in terms of noise and emissions.

21. The EU delegation raised the lack of crew visa reciprocity, which continues to tilt the playing field against EU airlines, and emphasized that, unlike other sectors, airline crews are excluded from the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).  The EU delegation further expressed concerns about continued insufficient U.S. Customs and Border Protection staffing at certain U.S. airports.  The U.S. delegation undertook to pass on the concerns to the responsible U.S. agencies and departments. 

22. The delegations shared updates and views on drug and alcohol testing.  The U.S. delegation requested assurances to participate in the EASA technical work group to define implementations of guidance material to the EU’s regulation on random testing of third country operators.

23. The U.S. delegation informed the EU delegation that it would be ready to move forward with the entry into force of the ATA once the wet-leasing issue is resolved.  [Note: The 2007 ATA has entered into force on June 29, 2020.]

24. The delegations shared initial inputs for an Action Agenda.  [Note: The Action Agenda was subsequently approved via correspondence on May 22, 2019.]

Next Meeting of the Joint Committee

25. The delegations decided to hold the next meeting in early 2020.


For the U.S. delegation: Hugo Yon
Date: November 30, 2020
Place: Washington
For the European delegation: Filip Cornelis
Date: November 16, 2020
Place: Brussels

1 – List of Participants
2 – Agenda
3 – Action Agenda
4 – Joint Statement on Aviation Security 


United States Delegation 

U.S. Government

U.S. Department of State

1. Mr. Hugo Yon, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Transportation Affairs (EB/TRA)

2. Ms. Terri Robl, Senior Advisor, EB/TRA

3. Mr. Aaron Forsberg, Director, Office of Aviation Negotiations, EB/TRA

4. Mr. Landry Carr, Deputy Director, Office of Transportation Policy, EB/TRA

5. Mr. Joshua Mater, Senior Sanctions Coordinator, Office of Terrorism Finance and Sanctions

6. Ms. Gabrielle Moseley, International Civil Aviation Officer, Office of Aviation Negotiations, EB/TRA

7. Mr. Jesse Tampio, Senior Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser

8. Ms. Elizabeth Wewerka, Economic Officer, Office of the European Union and Regional Affairs

U.S. Department of Transportation

9. Mr. Brian Hedberg, Director of International Aviation, Office of the Secretary (OST)

10. Mr. Joseph Landart, International Air Services Negotiator, OST

11. Ms. Jennifer Thibodeau, Senior Attorney

U.S. Department of Commerce

12. Mr. Eugene Alford, International Transportation Specialist, International Trade Administration

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

13. Mr. Bailey Edwards, Assistant Administrator for Policy, International Affairs, and Environment

14. Ms. Minh Favila, Acting Manager, Africa, Europe and Middle East, Office of International Affairs

15. Mr. Kevin Partowazam, Senior International Advisor, Office of Environment and Energy

16. Mr. Kevin Welsh, Executive Director, Office of Environment and Energy, FAA

U.S. Industry

17. Mr. Connor Alexander, Attorney, International Regulatory and Policy, Delta Air Lines

18. Ms. Cecilia Bethke, Managing Director, International Affairs, Airlines for America (A4A)

19. Mr. Ralph Carter, Vice President, International Regulatory Affairs, FedEx Express

20. Mr. Matthew J. Cornelius, Vice President, Air Policy, Airports Council International – North America

21. Mr. Reese Davidson, Manager, Staff Counsel International, JetBlue

22. Mr. Paul H. Doell, Director of Government Affairs, National Air Carriers Association

23. Ms. Rosalind Ellingsworth, Principal, Independent Pilots Association

24. Mr. Conor McAuliffe, Managing Director, European & Industry Affairs, United Airlines

25. Ms. Julie Oettinger, Managing Director, International Regulatory and Policy, Delta Air Lines

26. Mr. Aneil Patel, Managing Director, Air Policy, Airports Council International – North America

27. Mr. Bradley Rubinstein, Manager, Industry and Regulatory Relations, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

28. Mr. David M. Semanchik, Senior Attorney & Regulatory Counsel, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), International

29. Mr. Dontai L. Smalls, Vice President, Global Public Affairs, United Parcel Service

30. Mr. Robert Wirick, Managing Director, American Airlines


EU Delegation

European Commission

1. Mr Filip Cornelis, Director Aviation, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission [Head of Delegation]

2. Mr Carlos Bermejo Acosta, Head of Unit – Aviation Agreements, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission

3. Mr Georg Hasslinger, Policy Officer, Aviation Agreements, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission

4. Mr Knut Simonsson, Member, Legal Service, European Commission

EU Delegation to the United States

5. Mr James Bradbury, Transport and Energy Counsellor, Delegation of the European Union to the United States.

EU Member States

6. Mr Gareth Alston, First Secretary, Transportation Policy, British Embassy in Washington [UK]

7. Mr Mark David Bosly, Head of International Aviation Relations / Chief Air Services negotiator, UK Department of Transport [UK]

8. Ms Laura Brogi, Italian Embassy in Washington [IT]

9. Mr Simon Ellmauer-Klambauer, Senior Advisor (Trade and Economic Affairs), Embassy of Austria in Washington [AT]

10. Mr Michael Fischer, Senior Advisor for Economic Affairs, Embassy of Luxembourg in Washington [LU]

11. Mr Jonathan Gilad, Counselor for Transport, Embassy of France in the United States [FR]

12. Ms Païvi Jamsa, Chief Specialist, Air Services Negotiations, Finnish Transport Safety Agency [FI]

13. Mr Liam Keogh, Aviation Services Division, Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport [IE]

14. Ms Janneke Kolk, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, The Netherlands [NL]

15. Ms Maria Teresa Lioi, Senior Officer, Focal point for EU External Relations and Economic Regulation Matters, Italian Civil Aviation Authority [IT]

16. Mr Lothar Neuhoff, Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, International Air Transport Division [DE]


17. Ms Una Særún Jóhannsdóttir, Counsellor, Embassy of Iceland in Washington


18. Mr Øyvind Ek, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Transport and Communications

19. Ms Ann-Kristin Hanssen, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Transport and Communications


20. Mr Jonathan Bailey, Head of Corporate Affairs, IAG (International Airlines Group)

21. Ms Roxanne Clements, Compliance Officer for the Americas, Cargolux.

22. Mr Giorgio Garbeglio, Alliances & International Affairs, Alitalia

23. Mr John Hanlon, Head of International Government and Industry Relations, Norwegian Airlines

24. Mr Sami Lahdensuo, Manager, International Market Access & Aeropolitics, Finnair Plc

25. Ms Rosella Marasco, Policy Advisor, European Cockpit Association (AISBL) _ Piloting Safety

26. Mr Jörg Meinke, Head of EU Liaison Office, Lufthansa Group

27. Ms Stefanie Zugmann, Austrian Airlines AG



22nd U.S.-EU Joint Committee Meeting
Friday, March 8, 2019
U.S. Department of State – Harry S. Truman Building
2201 C Street, NW, Room 1105
Washington, DC  20520


08:00 AM EU delegation arrives; separate pre-meeting (EU delegates only) in Loy Henderson Room from 08:15 until 09:00

08:15 AM U.S. delegation arrives; escorted to Room 1105 for separate meeting from 08:30 until 09:00

09:00 AM Coffee and tea for all attendees outside 1105

9:30 AM Plenary session begins; welcoming remarks by DAS Hugo Yon


  1. Wet leasing
  2. U.S. International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act (IATFCPA)
  3. Brexit
  4. No-show policy
  5. Airline insolvency issues
    1. Package travel directive 2015/2302
    2. UK Airline Insolvency Review
  6. ICAO Assembly
  7. Environmental issues
    1. Taxes
    3. CAEP 
    4. Supersonic
  8. Crew visa reciprocity
  9. EASA fees and charges
  10. Drug and alcohol testing
  11. U.S. Customs and Border Protection staffing
  12. Accession of Croatia
  13. Aviation security [written]
  14. AOB

10:45 AM Coffee break

11:00 AM Plenary session continues

12:30 PM Lunch in Exhibit Hall

1:45 PM Industry delegates escorted to Loy Henderson room; government delegates to Room 1105

2:00 PM Government-to-Government Session in 1105; industry delegates have “office time” in Loy Henderson

3:15 PM Plenary session reconvenes

4:00 PM Coffee break

4:10 PM Plenary session resumes

5:30 PM Plenary session concludes


Action Agenda Developed at 22nd U.S.-EU Joint Committee – March 8, 2019

1. Wet Lease

  • EU, Norway, and Iceland to proceed swiftly with internal procedures to allow the signing of the agreement as soon as possible.
  • United States to consider withdrawing the show-cause order issued on 22 February 2019; or if not possible, stay the proceedings for a sufficient time to allow for the signature of the agreement.  (Note:  On March 13, the United States issued a Notice Suspending Proceeding.  Link:

2. Dispute Resolution

  • EU and United States to clarify their respective positions on the relationship between their respective domestic instruments and the dispute resolution mechanisms of the ATA. 

3. Brexit

  • United States to provide the EU and EASA a list of specific concerns on connectivity regulation and safety oversight post-Brexit.  
  • United States to follow up with the EU and other appropriate parties on legal actions to address the UK’s exit from the EU, depending on whether there is a withdrawal agreement or a “no deal” exit.

4. No-Show Policy

  • EU to provide an update and indicative planning for the revision of Regulation EC 261/2004.

5. Environment

  • United States to provide previous communications on its concerns regarding Italian (IRESA) and Spanish (NOx) taxes and the exercise of rights contained in the ATA. 
  • EU to respond and provide information in accordance with Article 15(2) and in coordination with the relevant EU Member States. 

6. EASA Fees and Charges

  • United States to follow up with DG-MOVE and EASA on concerns regarding competition and processes outlined in letter dated December 14, 2018.


The 27th Meeting of the EU‐U.S. Transportation Security Cooperation Group, held in Washington in November 2018 and subsequent discussions between the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (DGMOVE) of the European Commission (EC) on emerging threats to civil aviation clearly express the commitment of all participants in addressing important issues in transportation security.

Discussions highlighted the common understanding of current and emerging threats, measures to address the threats and raising the global baseline on aviation security, and offered the opportunity to enhance the already high level of cooperation the participants have entertained for years.

Specific topics of recent discussion included:

(a) The Aviation Security Bilateral Updates, where TSA noted the success of recent expert exchanges on chemical threat streams, cybersecurity, risk profiles, and more. Both participants reinforced commitment to ongoing dialogue on current threat streams, and decided to collaborate on covert testing, joint exercise options, and work together with industry manufacturers.  Both TSA and DG-MOVE highlighted respective capacity development priorities; DG-MOVE continues to focus on North Africa/Middle-East and has recently expanded its CASE program to focus on the Asia Region. TSA extended an offer for DG-MOVE to participate in TSA-led training within its region providing the Host Government concurs. DG-MOVE reported that they have a number of amendments to existing legislation underway including EU certification for security equipment.   

(b) Insider Threat Mitigation Efforts, where TSA provided an overview of its Advanced Threat and Local Allocation Strategy (ATLAS) program, which is part of its Public Area Risk Mitigation initiative. In addition to expansion and piloting of new initiatives to include enhanced aviation worker screening, TSA is also assessing additional countermeasures within the scope of ATLAS. As part of the REFS-EU efforts, TSA is currently exploring options for screening aviation workers servicing the aircraft using ATLAS teams at the jet bridge and on the airport apron.  Discussions are underway to expand these efforts to all 41 airports with direct flights to the EU. TSA also continues to prioritize international engagement on insider threats and has recently delivered capacity building training through both multilateral venues, such as AIRPOL, and via bilateral collaboration. DG-MOVE also provided an overview of the new proposed background measures have been incorporated within EC300 regulations. The new measures will go into effect within the next 18 months and are expected to be fully implemented within 3 years. The package of measures is aimed at enhancing regulations against the insider threat through the further integration of intelligence sharing of airport workers amongst the Member States. They also include provisions for transitioning to a semi-dynamic vetting process with enhanced background checks required either every 12 months or on a continuous basis, as well as a requirement for phasing out pre-employment background checks as the accepted basis for off-airport staff vetting. Instead, personnel will be required to undergo full background check. TSA reported similar work to assess the feasibility of 100% physical screening of aviation workers and offered to share the recommendations put forward by the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) once completed.

(c) Raising the global baseline, where both TSA and DG-MOVE discussed the efforts underway to realize effective aviation security measures to mitigate the current powders threat. DG-MOVE shared concerns regarding TSA’s process for issuing Security Directives (SD) / Emergency Amendments (EA), and evaluating Alternate Procedure (AP) requests. Specifically, there is a perception that TSA’s evaluation of proposed APs does not take into consideration the outcomes-focused measures already in place as required by the EC-300.  TSA noted it welcomes dialogue on areas of improvement and has revised the SD/EA to address concerns while preserving the intent to raise the security baseline. It also continues to explore how to acknowledge country measures in totality in a manner that complements measures that a carrier implements. Both TSA and DG-MOVE decided to continue the discussion on options for commensurability of measures during the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) High-Level Conference on Aviation Security (HLCAS) at the end of November.  The parties reviewed respective priorities for the HLCAS, which include a desire to see the aviation security portfolio elevated to its safety equivalent through the creation of a Bureau.  Other shared priorities include increased focus on insider risk, an enhanced ICAO audit program, and targeted ICAO capacity building deliveries. 

(d) Parking Lot to Plane, where the participants agree to continue the excellent cooperation on exchanging information on innovative countermeasures implemented across the entire passenger journey. DG-MOVE reported the recent completion of a study designed to reduce landside security threats by optimizing passenger flow at airports. It also commissioned a review of the benefits of One Stop Security arrangements. TSA has also created a Future Lane Experience (FLEx), which seeks to modify checkpoint passenger screening with targeted screening based on what is known about the passenger, requires minimum divestiture, and provides a dynamic and seamless experience. TSA also provided updates to work on biometrics, which include the recent release of a TSA Biometrics Strategy as well as the successful completion of several biometrics pilots at airports. The participants also shared information on current research and development for land transport operations, including Mass Transit and Passenger Rail.  

(e) Air Cargo Security Discussion and Stakeholder Session, where the participants discussed the National Cargo Security Program (NCSP) perpetual recognition process, whereby air carriers would only need to resubmit previously approved applications on a triennial basis. TSA noted the recent completion of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessing the effectiveness of its cargo program and pending GAO approvals, TSA will review the outcomes with DG-MOVE. TSA also noted recent Congressional approvals for a new air cargo security office, which will further enhance its capabilities. Both participants discussed options for enhancing research and development for air cargo; it was decided to seek feedback on the way forward through intensified collaboration with industry partners. TSA also shared updates noting that a one-year deadline is already in place that would expand and transition the Air Cargo Advanced Screening (ACAS) program from a pilot program to a mandatory requirement for all air carriers transporting cargo to the United States. The EC provided an updated implementation of the Pre-Loading Advance Cargo Information (PLACI) for cargo shipments, that will enter into force on the basis of a phased-in approach. The focused stakeholder session with industry counterparts was considered a success with discussions on NCSP recognition, Explosive Detection Dogs (EDD), as well as opportunities for alignment between the ACAS/PLACI and ICAO/World Customs Organization (WCO) programs to avoid duplication of – and differing – program requirements. The attendees expressed appreciation for the efforts made by DG-MOVE and TSA to consult and engage with industry partners through the routine policymaking process.

The next meeting of the Transportation Security Cooperation Group is scheduled for May 2019 in Brussels.

U.S. Department of State

The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future