Joint Review of the implementation of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security Accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the joint review of the implementation of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security
Date: 2013-11-27
Institutions: European Commission, United States
Subjects: Eurojust, Europol, IATA, United States, agreement (EU), air transport, carriage of passengers, exchange of information, protection of privacy, terrorism













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0630 - EN











|



52013SC0630

Joint Review of the implementation of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security Accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the joint review of the implementation of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security /* SEC/2013/0630 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... BACKGROUND
AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE JOINT REVIEW…...2
2........... THE OUTCOME
OF THE JOINT REVIEW………………………;………………4
3........... CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………;……………..….20
ANNEX A EU QUESTIONNAIRE AND DHS
REPLIES. 21
ANNEX B COMPOSITION OF THE REVIEW
TEAMS. 51
1.      BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE JOINT REVIEW
Following the 11
September 2001 terrorist attack, the United States enacted a statute in
November 2001[1]
and regulations[2]
implementing this statute, requiring each air carrier operating passenger
flights to and from the United States to transfer to the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘CBP’) personal data contained in the Passenger Name Record
(‘PNR’) of air carriers. In June 2002 the Commission informed the U.S.
authorities that these requirements could conflict with European and Member
States’ legislation on data protection which impose conditions on the transfer
of personal data to third countries. 
As a result, the EU and
the U.S. entered into negotiations aimed at reaching agreement on sharing air
passenger data while securing an adequate level of data protection. To avoid
repetitions as to the background of PNR Agreements, reference is made to the
joint review reports of 2006 and 2010.[3]

According to
Article 23(1) of the Agreement on the use and transfer of passsenger name
records to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS)[4],
the Parties shall jointly review the implementation of the Agreement one year
after its entry into force and regularly thereafter as jointly agreed.  In line with this requirement, the first
joint review of the Agreement was carried out one year after its entry into
force on 1 July 2012, i.e. in Washington on 8 and 9 July 2013. Under the terms
of Article 23(2), the EU would be represented by the European
Commission, and the U.S. would be represented by DHS. The EU Commissioner for
Home Affairs delegated this task to Reinhard Priebe, Director in DG Home
Affairs, while the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security delegated this task to
Jonathan Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, DHS Privacy Office. Both
officials nominated teams to assist them in their tasks. A full list of the
members of both teams appears in Annex B. It is noted that the EU team included
two experts to assist it in its tasks, namely a data protection expert and a
law enforcement expert.
The
methodology which was developed and followed for the joint review exercise was the
following:
·       
The
EU team was composed of 5 Commission officials and 2 external experts. 
·       
The
Commission had sent out a questionnaire to DHS in advance of the joint  review.
This questionnaire contained specific questions in relation to the
implementation of the Agreement by DHS. DHS provided written replies to the
questionnaire prior to the joint review.
·       
The
EU team was granted access to DHS premises and carried out a field visit at DHS
National Targeting Center (NTC).
·       
The
EU team was given the opportunity to watch the databases being operated in real
time with the results shown and explained on screen by a senior analyst.
·       
The
EU team had the opportunity to have direct exchanges with DHS personnel
responsible for the PNR program and targeters and analysts who use and have
access to PNR data.
·       
The
replies to the questionnaire were discussed in detail with DHS. The EU team
also had the opportunity and the time to raise further questions to DHS
officials and address all the various parameters of the Agreement. A full day
meeting was dedicated to this purpose.
·       
At
the request of DHS, all members of the EU team signed a copy of a
non-disclosure agreement as a condition for their participation in this review
exercise.
·       
DHS
had the opportunity to ask questions to the EU team about the status of the EU
PNR proposal.
·       
In
preparation of the joint review exercise, the DHS Privacy Office prepared its
own report on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records between the
European Union and the United States.[5]
·       
For
the preparation of this report, the EU team used information contained in the
written replies that DHS provided to the EU questionnaire, information obtained
from its discussions with DHS personnel, information contained in the
aforementioned DHS Privacy Office report, as well as information contained in
other publicly available DHS documents.  
Due to the
sensitive nature of the PNR program, there were limitations on the provision of
some internal operational documents. Each member of the EU team received a copy
of two internal operational documents for review during the meeting on 9 July
2013. One document concerned a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Directive on
the use and disclosure of PNR data. It outlines the use, handling, and
disclosure of PNR data and provides a framework for granting access to PNR to
authorized personnel within DHS and for sharing PNR with DHS’s domestic and
international partners. The other document consists of internal guidelines on
quarterly reviews of travel targeting scenarios, targeting rules and analysis,
aimed at minimizing the impact of the use of such scenarios and rules on civil
rights, civil liberties and privacy.
Other
information was provided to the EU team with the condition that it would be
treated as classified up to the level of EU Restricted.  The present
report should be read in the light of these limitations, as well as in the
light of the fact that all members of the EU team had to sign non-disclosure
agreements exposing them to criminal and/or civil sanctions for breaches. 
It has to be
noted that the joint review is not an inspection of DHSs PNR policies and the
EU team had no investigative powers.
In spite of
such limitations, before, during, and after the review there has been an
exchange of views in an open and constructive spirit which covered all the
questions of the EU team. Therefore the Commission would like to acknowledge
the good cooperation on the part of all DHS and other US personnel and  express
its gratitude for the way in which the questions of the review team have been
replied to.
The
Commission also acknowledges the professional and constructive assistance it
received from the data protection and law enforcement experts who participated
in the EU team. 
The joint
review also allowed for a preliminary assessment whether the Agreement serves
its purpose and contributes to the fight against terrorism and serious crime.
Finally, it should be noted that the procedure for the issuance of this report
was agreed with the U.S. team. The EU team prepared a draft report, which was
sent to DHS, providing DHS with the opportunity to comment on inaccuracies and
on information that could not be disclosed to public audiences. It is clarified
that this is the report of the EU team as delegated by the Commissioner for Home
Affairs, and is not a joint report of the EU and U.S. teams. 
The present
report has received the unanimous agreement of the members of the EU team.  
2.      THE OUTCOME OF THE JOINT REVIEW 

This Chapter
provides the main findings resulting from the joint review of the EU team.
In order to
comply with the Agreement, the U.S. incorporated the terms thereof into a
System of Records Notice (SORN) for the system that holds the PNR data, the
Automated Targeting System (ATS), published on 22.5.2012.[6] DHS
had to introduce changes to the technology of the ATS (specifically the module
referred to as ATS-Passenger) in order to comply with the Agreement, such as
introduce a depersonalization mechanism and a repersonalization functionality
as part of the retention requirements under Article 8 of the Agreement.
Notwithstanding 
Article 23(1) on a joint evaluation of the Agreement four years after its entry
into force, a preliminary assessment of the question whether PNR serves the
purpose of supporting the fight against terrorism and other crimes that are
transnational in nature showed that PNR provides DHS with the possibility of
carrying out pre-departure assessments of all passengers up to 96 hours which
gives DHS sufficient time to carry out all the background checks before the
arrival of a passenger and prepare its response. This processing also supports
DHS when deciding if a passenger should board a plane or not. It also provides
DHS with the opportunity to perform risk assessments on the basis of
scenario-based targeting rules in order to identify the ‘unknown’ potential
high-risk individuals.[7]
PNR further provides the possibility to make associations between passengers
and identify criminals who belong to the same organised crime group. According
to DHS PNR is also successfully used for identifying trends of how criminals
tend to behave when they travel, for example by understanding which routes they
use. 
As regards
the implementation of the Agreement, the overall finding is that DHS has
implemented the Agreement in line with the conditions set out therein. This is
reflected in more detail in the list of the main findings outlined below.
2.1.        Main
findings
2.1.1      Scope
(Article 2)
Although most flights
operate directly between the U.S. and a foreign airport, the ATS system uses
flight numbers and airport codes to identify flights with a U.S. nexus. First,
the ATS selects PNR of flights that contain a U.S. segment, for example Flight
#103 Singapore-Brussels-New York. Then the ATS screens the data again, this
time using airport codes to identify those parts of Flight #103 that have a
U.S. nexus, i.e. the segment Brussels-New York. As a result of this selection,
ATS will filter out the PNRs of those travellers that only take the
Singapore-Brussels segment.
DHS also deploys an override
mechanism, allowing it to obtain PNRs from passengers on flights that do not
have a U.S. airport code, in case such a flight intends to land on U.S. soil
for unforeseen reasons such as weather conditions. In order to activate the
override mechanism, a DHS officer must have authority to access PNRs on flights
with a U.S. nexus. The use of the override mechanism is reviewed every 24 hours
for validation.[8] During the
period of 1 July 2012-31 March 2013, 192 overrides were registered. In three
cases it had not been entirely clear why the override mechanism had been used.
The DHS managers overseeing the use of this mechanism found that in two cases
the use was the result of a mistaken interpretation of an airport code, which
are used to differentiate between flights with an U.S. nexus and those which
are not. In the other case there was a transmission of Advance Passenger
Information (API) [9] which
triggered the officer to take a look at the related PNR data but the review of
the use of the override mechanism revealed that this API transmission was
mistaken and that as a result also the consultation of the PNR data should not
have taken place. 
DHS clarified that the
consultation of the 192 overrides concerned the consultation of 192 individual
PNRs.
Conclusion: DHS has a
filtering mechanism in place to filter out flights with no clear U.S. nexus
using flight numbers and airport codes. This mechanism has been reviewed as
part of the DHS Privacy Office internal review. DHS also deploys user access
controls and a review mechanism 24 hours after the override occurred to see if
this mechanism was used correctly. 
The number of cases in
which the override mechanism was used, show a limited use, in particular when
compared to the figure mentioned in the 2010 joint review report. The 2010
joint report signalled that since the override mechanism was established in
October 2009, it had been used to access 2500 individual PNRs for 198 flights
during a period of 4 months (October 2009 – 8 February 2010, i.e. the date of the
then joint review).[10] 
DHS respects the
obligation under the Agreement to only use PNRs of flights with a U.S. nexus.
The use of the override mechanism is submitted to a number of conditions, used
in a limited way and overseen.
2.1.2.     Provision of PNR (Article 3)
DHS has a filtering
mechanism in place to filter out PNR data beyond those listed in the Annex to
the Agreement. This mechanism has also been reviewed as part of the DHS Privacy
Office internal review. It applies irrespective of whether the data are
“pushed” or “pulled”.  
DHS indicated that it
has not encountered any problems in receiving PNR as listed in the Annex to the
Agreement and that it sees no need to reduce or expand the current list of PNR.

At the request of the EU
team about the usefulness of the PNR data types listed in the Annex to the
Agreement, DHS outlined that it uses 18 out of the 19 data types (except for
historical PNR) for matching against their scenario-based targeting rules.
However DHS underlined that there are differences depending on the kind of
situation. In case there is a (short term) lookout for a particular passenger,
notably the PNR data types indicating the dynamics (changes) will be of
importance, whereas PNR is used differently in case of a more static situation.

Conclusion: DHS filters
out PNR data elements that it receives which are outside the 19 data elements
listed in the Annex to the Agreement.
2.1.3.     Use
of PNR (Article 4)
Different data sets are
used to vet passengers when applying to travel, prior to departure and upon
arrival: visa data or alternatively if no visa is required, data collected
under the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA); booking
information; check-in information; and information collected upon the departure
of a flight.
For the year 2012, the
number of individuals targeted by ATS for further attention was 101 805 (out of
an average number of 110 million air travellers), which is 0.09%.  Of those 101
805 air passengers, 52 734 arrived to the U.S. by European flights.[11]  Persons
that have been identified as a result of manual processing by a targeter are
marked for the border guards’ attention. The border guard who receives such a
person at the border will make his or her own assessment whether this person
should be cleared, sent to secondary screening, arrested or denied entry into
the U.S. 
In its reply to the
questionnaire, DHS explains to quite some extent the nature of the Regional
Carriers Liaison Groups Program, the Immigration Advisory Program and the
Secure Flight Program. DHS mentioned that the Secure Flight system does not
utilize PNR. For this reason the discussions focused on the other two programs
with the aim to obtain further insight into the way PNR supports those
programs.  
DHS explained that the
Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) and the Regional Carriers Liaison Groups
Program (RCLG) are complementary. In fact, the IAP, implemented since 2004, is
used at 11 non-U.S. airports located in 9 countries[12], whereas the
RCLG covers around 250 other airports around the world using three regional
RCLG offices based in the U.S., each covering a part of the world. 
Under the IAP, the role
of DHS staff is to assist airlines and security personnel with document
examination and traveller security assessment.[13] The CBP
liaison officers evaluate passengers selected by the targeters of the DHS
National Targeting Center through further questions and assessment and, where
appropriate, contact the airline for coordination. Eventually, the liaison
officer will inform the air carrier if a passenger will be denied entry into
the U.S. upon arrival and on this basis will recommend that the air carrier not
carry this passenger on the aircraft. The IAP thus is intended to increase the
number of travellers who are prevented from boarding an aircraft to the U.S.,
rather than permitting travellers to board but then deny them entry into the
U.S. upon their arrival. This program concerns people who are not listed in the
no-fly database which is used under the Secure Flight Program. 
The RCLG, implemented
since 2010, basically is an extension of the IAP to locations where the U.S.
does not have liaison officers at non-U.S. airports. Under the RCLG, which
works otherwise in the same way as the IAP, the DHS National Targeting Centre
makes direct contact with the carrier and recommends that it not carry the
specific passenger, rather than having a CBP liaison officer making contact
with the air carrier.
The IAP led in 2012 to
3600 global cases where travellers did not board a flight to the U.S. In the case
of the RCLG, the number of global cases in 2012 amounted to 600 travellers,
which brings the total number for 2012 under both programs to 4200 travellers.
According to DHS, in most of the cases the inadmissibility is determined on the
basis of the lack of a visa, or the use of a stolen or otherwise not valid
passport. If the denial of boarding is a denial generated as a result of an
ESTA, the passenger will need to obtain a visa. 
DHS explained that the
CBP officers decide themselves to what extent they want to consult a PNR if
they analyse a specific case as part of the IAP or the RCLG. DHS (CBP) does not
engage into a systematic cross-checking of PNR under the IAP and the RCLG but
instead reviews all available data, including PNR, when a specific passenger is
being looked at. The relevance of PNR will depend on what kind of information a
CBP officer wants to look at following the information s/he received from other
agencies. For example a PNR may be looked at if the officer considers it
necessary to check if the passenger travels with another person, as PNR may
provide such information. 
Also, if available law
enforcement information includes a telephone number, the officer may consult a
PNR as a telephone number may be included in the passenger’s booking
information. Also the name in a PNR constitutes an important data element, not
in the least because it is available at an earlier stage (at 96 hours prior to
scheduled flight departure) compared to the name as part of the API (passport)
data, which are only collected upon check-in. 
DHS further explained
that the Secure Flight Program (SFP) is a separate program and is meant to
identify known or suspected terrorists under the U.S no-fly or selectee list.[14] It is a
terrorism related and aviation security related program. A passenger identified
under the SFP who is on the no-fly list is not allowed to board a flight to the
U.S., including flights overflying U.S. airspace. Passengers on the selectee
list must be subject to a physical check by airport security officials prior to
boarding. The SFP requires air carriers to send the passengers’ full name as
mentioned in their passport or other ID document used for travelling, gender
and date of birth. In addition the air carrier has to send the itinerary,
including arrival time/departure time information (depending on whether the
flight is an inbound or outbound flight) to prioritise analysis. The program
has no access to PNR. If available, air carriers are also requested to send
known trusted traveller information. 
In the case of the SFP
the air carriers have to follow a no-fly decision made by DHS (its component
Transportation Security Administration). DHS mentioned that the SFP on average
results in 5 to 6 no-fly cases per day (qualified as true matches, i.e. not
including any possible false positives). 
Article 4(3) enables DHS
to use and process PNR to identify persons who would be subject to closer
questioning or examination upon arrival to or departure from the U.S. or who
may require further examination. It concerns one of the ways in which PNR is
used, i.e. allowing DHS to focus on air passengers upon arrival that require
further attention from a security perspective and clarifies that PNR may, in
accordance with its purpose and scope, be processed to identify persons who may
require further examination.  On a daily basis the data enable DHS to select
around 1% of air passengers for closer examination by targeters from the DHS
National Targeting Centre followed by a final decision taken by CBP staff at
the border on whether the passenger should be permitted to enter, sent to
secondary inspection, arrested or denied entry into the U.S. Between July 2012
and April 2013 CBP collected 68 million PNR. 10 902 passengers were targeted
due to an analysis of PNR only, or 0.016%.  
Under Article 4(2), PNR
may be used on a case-by-case basis where necessary in view of a serious threat
and for the protection of vital interest of any individual or if ordered by a
court. 
In the light of media
revelations about US surveillance programmes, the EU team enquired if under
Article 4(2) of the Agreement, which allows PNR to be “used and processed on
a case-by-case basis [….] if ordered by court”, if an order from the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court would be considered as an
“order by court” within the meaning of Article 4(2). DHS replied that it had
not received any FISA Court order. In subsequent discussions in the ad hoc
EU-US Working Group on Data Protection, the US side further clarified that the
FISA Court only has jurisdiction to hear applications for surveillance measures
under FISA.
Under Article 4(4),
subpoenas or other legally mandated disclosures are responded to with the
assistance from DHS or CBP Counsel. Between 1 July 2012 and 31 March 2013,
users logged 15 disclosures for these purposes. DHS furthermore confirmed that
none of these subpoenas or other legally mandated disclosure were from the FISA
Court.
Conclusion: The way in
which DHS uses PNR is consistent with the use of such data by other countries
deploying PNR systems. The various ways in which PNR is used follows an
approach allowing it to maximize the added value of using PNR for law
enforcement purposes. 
The exceptions to the
main purposes of the Agreement are used in a limited manner. As outlined under
2.1.13.1. on domestic sharing, ,the system logged 589 disclosures, of which two
are related to disclosures with third countries under Article 17. Of the
remaining 587 disclosures, another 15 took place under Article 4(4) of the
Agreement. This means that 572 disclosures took place under Article 4(2). Of
those 572 disclosures, DHS made seven disclosures to the U.S. Center for
Disease Control and Prevention to coordinate responses to health associated
with international air transportation. 
2.1.4.     Data
security (Article 5)
DHS reported that no
privacy incidents, including unauthorised access or disclosure, occurred since
the Agreement entered into force. 
In its reply to the EU
questionnaire, DHS referred to a CBP Directive regarding use and disclosure of
PNR data. This Directive (hereinafter referred to as the “CBP Directive”)
updated to reflect the current Agreement, outlines the use, handling, and
disclosure of PNR data. 
At the request of the EU
team, DHS provided a copy of this internal Directive to each of the team
members for review during the meeting on 9 July.
Article 5(2) requires
DHS to make appropriate use of technology to ensure data protection, security,
confidentiality and integrity. The DHS Privacy Office internal review report
indicates that, in order to promote data integrity, “DHS provides
individuals with the means to seek correction or rectification of their PNR”.[15]
With regard to
accountability measures, the report outlines in more detail the layers of
oversight ensuring compliance with data security requirements. The report
mentions that with regard to the risk of unauthorized access or use of PNR, “CBP’s
Office of Internal Affairs audits the use of ATS and the CBP Office of
Intelligence and Investigation Liaison (OIIL) verifies that users with PNR
access are authorized to retain that access. To guard against unintended or
inappropriate disclosure of PNR data, OIIL conducts audits of all disclosures
within and outside DHS. The CBP Privacy Office oversees the results of these
audits and takes appropriate corrective action if warranted. OIIL, in
coordination with CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) and Office of
Information and Technology (OIT), is responsible for maintaining updated
technical/security procedures by which PNR is accessed by DHS and Non-DHS
Users. CBP completed a security Plan for ATS and in 2011 received its
certification and accreditation (C&A) under the Federal Information
Security Management Act (FISMA) and Authority to Operate ATS for three years.”[16]     
The report also mentions
that between 1 July 2012 and 31 March 2013 the DHS Privacy Office did not
receive reports of the loss or compromise of EU PNR.[17]
Conclusion: DHS applies
a series of measures to ensure data security of the ATS. It limits access to
ATS to those with a need to know basis, including a further limitation by
confining access to what is required to conduct assigned duties. It deploys
access controls, has put audit trails in place, data separation and data
encryption, and provides training to staff. The use of ATS is also the subject
of various accounting measures. The CBP Directive regarding the use and
disclosure of PNR has been reviewed by the EU team members during the meeting
of 9 July 2013. It outlines the conditions set by the Agreement accurately and
is in line with the Agreement. 
2.1.5.     Sensitive data (Article 6)
DHS mentioned that
certain codes and terms that may appear in a PNR have been identified as
sensitive. These sensitive codes and terms are blocked from view in CBP’s
systems and are deleted after 30 days. According to DHS’ explanations, access
to sensitive codes and terms may be granted only upon approval by the Deputy
Commissioner of CBP, in consultation with other senior CBP and DHS executive
officers. Access to sensitive codes or terms in PNR without proper permission
will result in suspension of the user’s access to PNR and/or ATS-P system
access.[18]  
If sensitive codes or
terms in PNR are accessed, the system will notify CBP Headquarters managers
within 24 hours. In such a case the managers will conduct a review of the
access and examine any supporting documentation. Although not required under
the Agreement, under DHS rules the DHS Office of International Affairs will
provide notice to the European Commission within 48 hours.[19]
DHS confirmed that it
did not access and use sensitive data for operational purposes[20].
In accordance with
Article 6(2), DHS provided the European Commission within 90 days of the entry
into force of the Agreement a list of codes and terms identifying sensitive
data that shall be filtered out.
Conclusion: Until the
date of the joint review (i.e. 8-9 July 2013), DHS has not accessed and used
sensitive data for the exceptional circumstances outlined in the Agreement. For
this reason DHS cannot provide the EU with any information about the
performance of the DHS senior manager overseeing such exceptional access and
use. DHS also notified to the Commission the list of sensitive codes and terms
filtered by their system.
Although not required
under the Agreement, under DHS rules the DHS Office of International Affairs
will provide notice to the European Commission within 48 hours in case
sensitive data would have been accessed by DHS staff.
2.1.6.     Automated individual decisions(Article 7)
The EU team did not
raise questions as regards Article 7 of the Agreement on “automated individual
decision”. The explanations provided in U.S. documents explaining the way in
which the system handling PNR data functions[21] show that
DHS does not take decisions producing significant adverse actions affecting the
legal interests of individuals on the sole basis of an automated processing and
use of PNR. 
The DHS Privacy Office
internal review report mentions that it received statistics from DHS showing
its use of PNR. The report mentions that internal instructions[22] “require
that no decisions concerning travelers are to be based solely on the automated
processing and use of PNR”. [23]
2.1.7.     Retention
of data (except for the start of the depersonalization mechanism)
(Article 8)During the
meeting at the National Targeting Center, DHS staff outlined that in its
experience, individuals may try to hide their criminal intentions, but the
information in a PNR often helps to detect this.  As outlined under point
2.1.2, DHS uses 18 out of the 19 PNR data types for matching against their
scenario-based –targeting rules, with the exception of historical PNR.
Historical data are used to match and verify actual data, so if the data of a
person “known” to DHS have changed, the comparison between the historical data
and the real time data may again trigger matches. With regard to historical
PNR, DHS indicated that it is difficult from an operational perspective to
identify how long one should go back in time. In case of matching new PNR
against historical PNR, the system will actually read the latest PNR against
the entirety of PNRs generated in the past.
Article 8(1) of the
Agreement stipulates that after the initial six months of the five years
retention period during which PNR are retained in an active database, PNR shall
be depersonalised and masked. Such depersonalisation and masking had to start
under the Agreement as from 1 January 2013. During the meeting at the National
Targeting Center the EU team asked DHS what its experiences are with masking
and with re-personalisation. DHS replied that it is able to maintain its
operations despite the masking of PNR. DHS also mentioned that the
re-personalisation functionality is operable as from March 2013. Between March
2013 and the joint review, there have been 29 cases of repersonalisation of PNR
records.[24]  
Also in Article 8(1),
the Agreement specifies that access to the active database shall be restricted
to a limited number of specifically authorised officials. DHS clarified that
out of the approximate 40 000 users having direct access to the ATS-P, 12 448
users have direct access to the PNR kept in the active PNR database within the
ATS-P. Of those 12 448 users, 1049 are DHS users with supervisory PNR access.[25] The access
to ATS-P needs supervisory approval and is approved or denied by CBP
Headquarters. Access is submitted to supervisory review. There are automated
safeguards, as passwords have to be renewed after 30 days and inactive accounts
are locked after 90 days.[26] Audits are
conducted every 6 months to verify that the user continues to require PNR
access, and to review user profile information and user role.
Article 8(3) on the
transfer of PNR from the active database to a dormant database will only become
relevant at the moment the primary five-year period starts expiring as from the
effective date of the agreement, 1 July 2012. As indicated in the reply to the
questionnaire, for this reason no PNR are scheduled to be transferred to a
dormant database until 1 July 2017. 
In case of sharing of
PNR data with a law enforcement agency because the record meets the
requirements for sharing, the agency shall afford to that record equivalent and
comparable safeguards as set out in the Agreement as outlined in Article
16(1)(d). 
Conclusion: DHS has
developed automated processes to depersonalise PNR. DHS has also limited the
number of users that has access to the active PNR database.
The implementation of
Article 8(3) will only become relevant as from 1 July 2017.
2.1.8.     Non-discrimination (Article 9)
The DHS Privacy Office,
together with the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS
Office of the General Counsel proceed on a quarterly basis with ex-post reviews
of the targeting rules DHS runs against PNR to identify high-risk travellers
based on specific risk scenarios as identified on the basis of intelligence. 
This is a new feature of the oversight role the Privacy office plays as regards
the use of PNR. The quarterly reviews aim to ensure, amongst others, that DHS
does not use PNR to unlawfully discriminate against passengers. To achieve
this, the three Offices review all travel targeting scenarios, targeting rules
and analysis to ensure that they are tailored to minimize the impact on bona
fide travellers’ civil rights, civil liberties and privacy.[27] The DHS
Privacy Office underlined that a result of its internal review process, is the
further assurance that targeting rules are not unlawfully discriminatory.[28] The DHS
Privacy Office also underlined that the DHS targeting rules are timely defined,
i.e. they are adapted regularly to reflect the changes in the intelligence they
are based on, and narrowly defined in order to meet their objective of
identifying high-risk travellers.  
Conclusion: The
quarterly review assists DHS in respecting the non-discrimination requirement
of the Agreement. The EU review team was provided with a copy of the document
outlining such reviews and was given the possibility to review this document
during the meeting on 9 July. The document respects the Agreement.  
2.1.9.     Transparency (Article 10)
The DHS Privacy Office
internal review report mentions that CBP’s Frequently Asked Questions and PNR
Privacy Policy “reflected the 2007 PNR Agreement rather than the 2011
Agreement”. It recommended to promptly amending these documents to provide
full transparency.[29] The report
mentions that information on the Agreement (additional to the ones mentioned in
the DHS reply) can be found under the Reports section of its website.  DHS has
updated those documents in June 2013.
The report further
signals (in relation to Article 11 on access) that information on a number of
programs providing passengers with information about travelling to the U.S is
available online.[30]
Conclusion: The FAQs
and the DHS Privacy Policy Document were updated 11 months after the entry into
force of the Agreement. The EU team fully concurs with the recommendation of
the DHS Privacy Office that a prompt amendment of those documents was needed to
meet the transparency requirements under the Agreement and notes with satisfaction
that DHS has updated the documents accordingly. Together with other information
provided on its website and through notice to passengers via the carriers,
there is a wide range of information available on how DHS handles PNR. However,
this conclusion should be read together with the conclusion made under 2.2.4
which addresses the need for more transparency on the redress mechanisms
available to passengers.
2.1.10.   Access,
correction/rectification (Articles 11-12)
2.1.10.1.          Access
(Article 11)
DHS specified that
during 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013, it received 21 606 requests for access to
information, of which 16 875 were requests for traveller data. Of those 16 875
requests, 27 came from requesters asking for access to their PNR. Of those 27
requesters, none provided an EU place of birth, citizenship or mailing address.[31]  
The DHS Privacy Office
reviewed the activities of the CBP Customer Service Center, the CBP Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA)/Privacy Act Program and DHS TRIP, because these programs
accept requests for access to PNR from individuals regardless of  their status
within the U.S.. Information on how to submit an access request under these
programs is available to passengers online.[32] The DHS
Privacy Office internal review report mentions that during 1 July 2012 to 31
March 2013, the CBP Customer Service Centre did not receive specific requests
related to PNR. It also indicates that in case a traveller would submit a PNR
access request to the CBP Customer Service Centre, the latter would direct the
requester to submit a Freedom of Information Act (or FOIA) request or a Privacy
Act request.[33]  
The report signals that
PNR-specific FOIA requests were handled on average within 38 days, which is
also the average response time for all CBP FOIA requests. In this respect the
report highlights that this is a significant improvement compared to the
situation reported on in its 2008 Privacy Report, which signalled that some PNR
requests took more than a year to be handled.[34] 
Following
recommendations made by the DHS Privacy Office in 2008 and 2010, CBP developed
“Processing Instructions for PNR”, including instructions on how to
conduct searches in the ATS database in response to a FOIA request for access
to PNR. The internal review of these instructions by the DHS Privacy Office
revealed that none of the 27 PNR-related access requests were EU related within
the definition used by CBP (i.e. a request is EU-related if the requester
claims citizenship, a mailing address, or place of birth in the EU). The internal
review also revealed that in one instance, personal information of another
person contained in the requester’s PNR was made available to a requester. This
finding has led to a new rule to double check all FOIA responses before they
are sent.[35]
The Privacy Office did
not find any cases where access to PNR following a FOIA request was refused or
restricted.[36] 
Conclusion: The CBP
tracking system tracks if the request for access is a specific request related
to PNR, and tracks if requests are made by individuals that provide an EU place
of birth, citizenship or mailing address. The processing time of such requests
has been greatly improved, as outlined in the review of the DHS Privacy Office.
DHS took steps to ensure that only the requester’s PNR is included in responses
to FOIA requests for access to PNR.
DHS also issued new
recommendations on how to search for PNRs in ATS to best meet the requirement
under the Agreement and under the FOIA to provide a requester access to his or
her PNR.
The above-mentioned
changes introduced by DHS in relation to access to PNR should be welcomed and
acknowledged. 
2.1.10.2.          Correction (Article 12)
In its reply to the EU
questionnaire DHS reported that it had not received any request to correct,
rectify, erase or block PNR.
The DHS Privacy Office
internal review report mentions that several options are available to those who
want to seek correction of personal information (such as PNR) held by DHS. In
case a traveller is not an U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, s/he
may request a correction of his or her PNR by filing a Privacy Act Amendment
Request through the CBP FOIA Headquarters Office, either online or by mail. A
traveller may also file a request for correction by contacting the Assistant
Commissioner, CBP Office of Field Operations. Alternatively a traveller may
also address him or herself directly to the Office of the DHS Chief Privacy
Officer by email or in writing.[37]  
Conclusion: Several
avenues are available to passengers to seek correction, but until the date of
the joint review Article 12 has not been applied to any request for correction
of PNR.
2.1.10.3.          Redress (except for transparency on
redress mechanisms) (Article 13)
The DHS Traveller
Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP)[38] provides all
individuals an administrative means to seek a resolution for travel-related
inquiries including those related to the use of PNR. TRIP provides a redress
process for individuals who believe they have been unfairly or incorrectly
delayed, denied boarding or identified for additional screening at U.S.
airports or other U.S. transportation hubs. 
According to DHS,
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and Title 49, United States Code,
Section 46110, as applicable given the particular facts of a given case, any
individual is entitled to petition for judicial review in an U.S. federal court
against any final agency action taken by DHS relating to the above-mentioned
concerns.
The Privacy Office
reviewed the DHS TRIP program and found that during the period 1 July 2012 to
31 March 2013, this program had received over 13 000 inquiries, of which two
specifically related to PNR. These inquiries did not involve inquiries from EU
individuals. 
Conclusion: Until the
date of the joint review Article 13 has not been applied as none of the TRIP
inquiries involved PNR-related inquiries from EU individuals. 
2.1.11.   Oversight (Article 14)
The DHS Privacy Office
has the authority to investigate and review all programs, such as ATS, and
policies for their privacy impact. The DHS Privacy Office internal review
report mentions that the Privacy Office “conducts ongoing oversight of ATS
and has conducted formal reviews of the system many times, including PIA and
SORN updates and previous PNR Reports”.[39]
The report highlights
the central role in relation to oversight of the CBP Directive regarding use
and disclosure of PNR data. Because of its rules on issues such as maintaining
records of access to PNR and records on sharing PNR both within DHS and with
Non-DHS users, the Directive provides the framework for auditing and oversight
by CBP. 
The report observed that
during the reporting period the DHS Privacy Office did not receive any
complaints related to non-compliance with the current PNR Agreement or any
complaints related to a misuse of PNR.[40]  
Besides the Privacy
Office, other DHS components, such as the CBP Privacy Officer and the CBP
Office of Internal Affairs have oversight functions. The CBP Privacy Officer
keeps copies of all requests for PNR by Non-DHS users and the correspondence
regarding PNR disclosures for audit purposes and maintains a record of access
determinations for oversight purposes. As mentioned earlier, the CBP Office of
Internal Affairs audits the use of ATS-P to guard against unauthorized use.
Conclusion: The CBP
Directive of 2010 on the use and disclosure of PNR was updated in June 2013 to
reflect the current PNR Agreement. The EU team concurs with the DHS Privacy
Office recommendation to promptly update this Directive, notably in view of the
role this document plays in the day-to-day use of PNR by DHS staff. The EU team
notes with satisfaction that DHS updated the Directive reflecting the
requirements of the Agreement and related PIA and SORN, and that this Directive
is available to all DHS staff with PNR access.
The EU team also noted
the new task conferred upon the DHS Privacy Office, together with the DHS
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS Office of the General
Counsel, to quarterly review targeting rules used in relation to PNR to ensure
that DHS does not use PNR to unlawfully discriminate against individuals. This
new task should be welcomed and acknowledged as another important step towards
ensuring that PNR meets the purposes as outlined in Article 4 of the Agreement
whilst ensuring the protection of civil rights and liberties.
2.1.12.   Method of PNR transmission (except for ad hoc
“pulls”) (Article 15)
Air carriers can provide
PNR to DHS electronically via a service provider or they can provide the data
directly. Only for very small carriers the data are provided manually to DHS
instead of electronically. 
According to DHS, out of
the 47 air carriers affected by the Agreement, 15 use the “pull” method.  Those
carriers include EU based and US based air carriers and air carriers based at
other countries.
In relation to the
requirement under Article 15(4) of the Agreement “that all carriers shall be
required to acquire the technical ability to use the ‘push’ method not later
than 24 months following entry into force of this Agreement”, DHS mentioned
that the transition from a “pull” method to a “push” method might be influenced
by the introduction of a new transmission standard called PNRGOV, which is
being tested by an IATA member. DHS will not make PNRGOV a compulsory standard
for air carriers, although the Agreement provides that carriers shall be
required to acquire the technical ability to  “push” data prior to July 1,
2014.  Each of the remaining carriers indicated that they are working towards
implementing PNR push. As an alternative to utilizing a service provider that
does not have PNR push capability, carriers do have the option of changing to a
service provider that already has PNR push capabilities. At the EU team request
whether it will be feasible for air carriers to meet the deadline for transition
from “pull” to “push” (which is 1 July 2014, i.e. two years after the Agreement
entered into force), DHS showed confidence that the remaining air carriers will
indeed be in a position to meet this deadline. DHS also mentioned that it
welcomes and actively supports the development and use of the common PNRGOV
“push” standard within the relevant WCO/ICAO/IATA working party. The EU team
underlined the importance of respecting the 1 July 2014 deadline.
The Commission also sent
questionnaires to the stakeholders in the air industry to further understand
the use of the ”push” and “pull” methods under the Agreement. 
According to the
information provided, DHS continues to have access to PNR held by air carriers
via the “pull” method by having access to terminals which provide direct access
to airline’s reservation system. This was confirmed by DHS during the joint
review. 
DHS noted that the
direct “pull” access is tightly controlled. DHS specified that no staff outside
the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) component of DHS has access to PNR in
this way, with the exception of 40 staff members working for another component
of DHS, namely Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the investigative
agency in DHS tasked with enforcing the U.S.’ immigration and customs laws.
According to DHS, within CBP only a limited number of staff, i.e. 901, that has
access to air carriers’ databases. According to DHS the PNR retrieved is
logged, and the “pull” access appears in the system as if CBP were an air
carrier (“CBP air carrier”). CBP has a workforce of over 58 000 employees, of
which 21 180 officers inspect and examine passengers and cargo at over 300
ports of entry.
The DHS Privacy Office
internal review report mentions that DHS (CBP) has made significant progress to
ensure that airlines “push” PNR to CBP and that as of 22 April 2013 68% of air
carriers operating flights between the U.S and the EU has moved to the “push”
method, an increase of 20 air carriers since the 2010 review report of the DHS
Privacy Office.[41]  
CBP is informing those
air carriers using the “push” method that it seeks to receive PNR at 96 hours
before scheduled flight departure. DHS confirmed that it has started
preparations to allow transfer of PNR data starting at 96 hours prior to
scheduled departure.
Conclusion: It is
recommended to ensure as quickly as possible a full move to the “push” method
and in any case by 1 July 2014, as required under Article 15(4) of the
Agreement. DHS (CBP) is working with air carriers to implement the “push”
method in view of this deadline. As of 1 June 2013, 15 air carriers still use
the “pull” method, whereas 32 use the “push” method. This is a considerable
improvement compared to the situation on 1 January 2010 (reported in the 2010
joint review report), when only 13 air carriers used the “push” method. 
DHS makes substantial
efforts for the implementation of the push system internationally through the
WCO/ICAO/IATA working party on common PNR standards.
2.1.13.   Domestic
sharing and onward transfers (Articles 16-17)
2.1.13.1.          Domestic sharing (Article 16)
As outlined in its reply
to the EU questionnaire, DHS referred to a specific message which appears as
part of written understandings entered into with each domestic agency with
which individual PNRs are shared. 
DHS further indicated
that PNRs are shared with other U.S. government authorities only for the
purposes of Article 4 of the Agreement, i.e. the requesting agency should
perform law enforcement, public security or counterterrorism functions and
require the PNRs as part of examinations or investigations undertaken  as part
of those functions pursuant to their lawful authority.[42]   
DHS also outlined that
all disclosures of PNR are logged in ATS-P. Because of this logging, it has
been established that between 1 July 2012 and 31 March 2013, PNR users
proceeded with 589 disclosures.[43] This figure includes
all sharing of PNRs outside DHS, so also sharing with foreign agencies under
Article 17. Of those 589 disclosures, 15 disclosures resulted from subpoenas or
other legally mandated instruments under U.S. law.[44] Another 7
disclosures took place with the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (see
also Article 4(2) of the Agreement under 2.1.3). DHS further specified that
sometimes it may disclose the same PNR more than once. Also, sometimes there
may be more than one individual record in a disclosure. For these reasons the
figures represent the number of times DHS disclosed PNR.
DHS has declared that it
shares PNR with the U.S. Intelligence Community if there is a confirmed case
with a clear nexus to terrorism and always under the terms of the Agreement.
During the review period, DHS made 23 disclosures of PNR data to the US
National Security Agency (NSA) on a case-by-case basis in support of
counterterrorism cases, consistent with the specific terms of the Agreement.
Conclusion: The sharing
of PNR with other domestic agencies takes place on a case-by-case basis and
concerns the sharing of individual PNRs. Prior to the sharing DHS determines
whether the requesting agency has a need to know the information to carry out
its functions.  The sharing takes place on the basis of written understandings
referring to the sensitiveness of the data. The sharing of PNR with other
domestic agencies remains limited.  
2.1.13.2.           Onward transfer (Article 17)
DHS indicated that
between 1 July 2012 and 31 March 2013, it shared PNR on a case-by-case basis
with two international partners (Canada and the United Kingdom). One case
concerned the sharing of extracts of data from 14 PNR[45] with the UK
in view of the 2012 Olympics. The other case concerned the sharing of PNR with
the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). Sharing with CBSA takes place under
an information sharing arrangement in place since 2006 and updated in 2009 and
which is designed to ensure that only PNR records with a nexus to terrorism or
serious transnational crime are transmitted. DHS requires an express
understanding that the recipient will treat PNR as sensitive and confidential,
including privacy protections that are comparable to those applied to PNR by
DHS, and that it will not provide PNR to any other third party without DHS’
prior written authorization. The sharing takes place for specific cases and
only after DHS determines that the recipient has a need to know the information
to carry out its law functions.[46]
In reviewing the sharing
of PNR with foreign agencies, the DHS Privacy Office found that CBP shared PNR
with one non-EU international partner pursuant to an existing arrangement and
that this sharing was not notified to EU Member States as required under the
Agreement.  The DHS Privacy Office thus recommends that CBP should provide the
DHS Office of International Affairs with notification about such disclosures
and that in turn this DHS Office should notify EU Member States as appropriate,
in a timely manner and develop a consistent approach on notifications.[47]  DHS
informed the EU team that it has put protocols in place to improve the
information sharing with EU Member States in case of the sharing of EU PNR with
its international partners, following the recommendation made in the DHS
Privacy Office internal report. 
Conclusion: The sharing
of PNR with international agencies takes place on a case-by-case basis and
concerns the sharing of individual PNRs. Prior to the sharing DHS determines
whether the requesting agency has a need to know the information to carry out
its functions. The sharing takes place on the basis of written understandings
referring to the sensitiveness of the data. ATS logs the sharing, which can be used
for auditing purposes. 
The sharing of
individual PNRs with international agencies is very limited. 
Measures beyond the Agreement’s
requirements
Lastly, DHS also
implemented measures that go beyond the Agreements’ requirements. 
First, DHS foresees a
notification to the European Commission within 48 hours of access to sensitive
PNRs. 
Secondly, DHS has
installed a new procedure to quarterly oversee and review the implementation of
the ATS   travel targeting scenarios, analysis and rules to ensure that they
are proportionate to minimize the impact on bona fide travellers’ civil rights,
civil liberties and privacy, and to avoid unlawful discrimination against
travellers.  
Conclusion: The EU team
welcomes and acknowledges these measures.
2.2.        Issues
to be further addressed 
Despite the
implementation of the Agreement, some improvements are necessary in the
following areas. 
2.2.1.     Retention of data – the start of the
depersonalization mechanism (Article 8)
In relation to Article
8(1) of the Agreement, the EU team noted that the DHS Privacy Office internal
report refers to an automated depersonalisation six months from the last update
of a PNR in the ATS. This observation by the DHS Privacy Office triggered some
discussion on what is meant in Article 8(1) of the Agreement by “After the
initial six months of this period (i.e. the five years during which the
data are retained in an active database), PNR shall be depersonalised and
masked in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.” DHS gave an example
of how the depersonalisation in ATS-P works. The example of a depersonalized
PNR showed that DHS received the initial PNR of a given passenger on 8 July
2012 (ATS Load Date) and showed 25 July 2012 as the Last ATS Update, meaning
that the PNR of that particular passenger was updated for the last time on that
date. According to the example the calculation of the depersonalization period
started on 25 July 2012, i.e. the depersonalization date in ATS-P is 25 January
2013.
Recommendation: The EU team
recommends that the six months period should start as from the day the PNR is
loaded in ATS (the so-called ATS Load Date) which is the first day the data are
stored in ATS, instead of the current practice, which delays applying the six
months period until the last Update of the PNR in ATS. 
2.2.2.     Method of PNR transmission – ad hoc “pulls”
(Article 15)
DHS explained
that there are three different reasons why it requires ad-hoc “pulls”: 
1. Technical reason: the
air carrier is not in a position to send the data via the “push” method it
normally uses;
2. Threat reason: there
is a need to provide PNR between or after the regular PNR transfers in order to
respond to a specific, urgent and serious threat;
3. Override reason: in
case a flight with no U.S. nexus will land on U.S soil for reasons linked to
weather conditions or other unforeseen reasons.
The ATS system does not
record the reason why an ad-hoc “pull” is requested, so it is not possible to
know how many times an ad-hoc “pull” was requested for each of the three different
reasons. DHS specified that in case PNR is accessed for the third reason
mentioned above, i.e. for a flight with no U.S. nexus because the flight will
land on U.S soil for unforeseen reasons, access is monitored via the override
functionality.  In such a case a review mechanism is triggered by ATS through
sending an email to CBP Headquarters managers, allowing them to monitor and
check overrides 24 hours after the override occurred.
The total number of
ad-hoc “pulls” in 2011 was 570 401, or 0.72% of the total of PNRs received that
year, which was 79 005 866. [48]  The total number of ad-hoc “pulls” for 2012 were 243 120,
or 0.3% of the total of PNRs received, which was 81 252 544.  The total number
of ad hoc “pulls” during the first six months of 2013 were 55 886, or 0.13 % of
the total of PNRs received during that period, which was 42 164 105. DHS
clarified that these numbers refer to individual PNR records and do not include
the number of times PNR are pulled in case air carriers still use a “pull” method
for regular PNR transfers. These numbers cover the three ways of collecting PNR
through the ad hoc “pull” method as outlined above.  
DHS further clarified
that even in the case where all air carriers affected by the Agreement will use
a “push” method for transmitting the data, this would not affect the use by DHS
of the ad-hoc “pull”. DHS underlined that currently air carriers are not in a
position to provide DHS with an ad-hoc “push” service available on a 24 hours,
seven days a week basis. Air carriers therefore cannot provide PNR data by way
of a “push” method between or after the regular data transfers, in cases of
technical failure of their “push” system, or in cases where a flight without
U.S. nexus intends to land on U.S. soil for unforeseen reasons. This is the
case for all carriers, whether they are European carriers, U.S. carriers or
other.
At the request of the EU
team to illustrate the application of Article 15(5) in more detail, DHS
mentioned that the requests made under this provision are made when the air
carrier fails to push the data to CBP due to a carrier system failure. In this
instance, CBP pulls the information it is legally authorized to collect. CBP
has developed a process whereby the system reviews the number of travellers on
a given flight and compares that to the number of PNRs received. When there is
a discrepancy, CBP automated systems retrieve the PNR from the air carrier. For
example, the automated messages are received from the system when PNRs have not
been received from an airline or a reservation service provider. The timeframe
will vary based on established levels of anticipated volume. Upon receipt of an
automated alert, troubleshooting will occur to determine if the issue is due to
CBP hardware/software or failure by the airline or the service provider.
In relation to the ad
hoc “pulls”, the DHS Privacy Office internal review report indicates that
during 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013, on one single occasion, DHS (CBP)
requested one retransmission of PNR by an EU-based service provider as the PNR
had not been provided timely.[49]
Recommendation: The EU team
recommends that particular attention should be paid to the use of the ad hoc
“pull” method. It is recommended to DHS, in addition to its current logging of
ad hoc “pulls”, keeps better records of the reason why the ad hoc “pull” method
is applied in each case DHS uses  this method, which would allow for a better
assessment of the proportionality and a more effective auditing thereof. In
this respect it would be welcomed if the discussions in WCO/ICAO/IATA on a
common PNRGOV “push” standard also would lead to a common standard for ad hoc
“push”.
2.2.3.     Police, law enforcement and judicial cooperation
(Article 18)
DHS explained that it
needs to further look at how to exchange information under Article 18, and
suggested to further discuss how to increase the use of this Article. DHS
suggested addressing this as part of a wider discussion on passenger data,
travel trends and travelling threats. DHS underlined that both DHS and CBP maintain
dialogues on potential cooperation with Europol and EU Member States interested
in using advance traveller information.[50] 
The EU team suggested
organising a workshop with EU Member States, Europol and other stakeholders to
discuss this issue in more detail in order to identify what is needed to
increase the sharing of individual PNR and analytical information derived
therefrom. DHS welcomed this idea.
Recommendation: The EU team
welcomes the DHS Privacy Office recommendation to improve the procedure aimed
at notifying to EU Member States in case sharing of EU PNRs between DHS and
third countries occurs. 
The EU team notes that
the level of law enforcement cooperation in the area of sharing of advance
traveller information requires more attention. DHS is thus requested to respect
its commitment to ensure reciprocity and pro-actively share individual PNRs and
analytical information flowing from PNR data with EU Member States and where
appropriate with Europol and Eurojust. The EU team suggested organising a
workshop to explore ways on how to improve this cooperation
2.2.4.     Redress – transparency on redress mechanisms
(Article 13)
It is explained under
3.1.3 that the use and analysis of PNR data, in particular under the
Immigration Advisory Program and the Regional Carriers Liaison Groups Program,
may contribute to a recommendation to deny boarding. It is also noted the
Secure Flight Program and the No-Fly List as its essential part are not covered
by the Agreement. The different programmes and different DHS agencies’ involved
may make it difficult for those denied boarding to understand how to challenge
this decision.
Recommendation: Taking into
account the complex interaction between the different programs using PNR data,
the EU team sees a need to provide more transparency on the possible
interrelation of the various programs and in particular on the redress
mechanisms available under U.S. law. Such transparency should allow passengers
who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents to challenge DHS decisions related
to the use of PNR data, in particular when the use of such data has led to a
decision to recommend the denial of boarding by carriers.  
3.     
CONCLUSIONS
The EU team
finds that the joint review mechanism is a valuable tool for the assessment of
the compliance of DHS with the Agreement. It enabled the EU team to witness how
the data is used in practice and to have some direct exchanges with targeters,
analysts and other officials who use PNR data. 
The EU team
also finds that DHS implements the Agreement in accordance with the terms of
the Agreement.  DHS respects its obligations as regards the access rights of
passengers and has a regular oversight mechanism in place to guard against
unlawful non-discrimination. It is especially important to note that the U.S.
has transposed its commitments towards the EU into domestic rules through the
publication of a System of Records Notice in the U.S. Federal Register. 
While it is
acknowledged that the implementation of some commitments is technically and
operationally challenging, especially as regards the implementation of the push
method, DHS should intensify its efforts to ensure that all carriers use the
push method by 1 July 2014 and continue to actively working in international
fora for an overall resolution of this issue, including finding a common
standard for ad hoc “push”. 
A number of
recommendations are made to DHS which appear in Chapter 3 above.  They relate
to the start of the depersonalisation mechanism, the use of the ad hoc “pull”
method, the redress mechanisms and the need to further improve implementation
of the reciprocity commitment on sharing individual PNRs and analytical
information flowing from PNR data with Members States, Europol and Eurojust.
It is proposed to
organise the next joint review of the Agreement during the first half of 2015.
ANNEX A
EU QUESTIONNAIRE AND DHS REPLIES
A. Questions of a
general nature
Because the current
Agreement replaced the Agreement of 2007, a number of questions were raised in
connection to the transition from the old to the new Agreement.
Question: Has the
transition from the 2007 Agreement to the 2012 Agreement given rise to any
particular difficulties?
Response: No.
Question: Are all
mechanisms required to properly implement the Agreement, in particular those
aimed at implementing the safeguards, in place and operating satisfactorily?
Response: As of June
18, 2013, all technological, legal, procedural and policy mechanisms are in
place to secure and appropriately process the data currently held consistent with
the agreement. By July 1, 2017, a means for transferring data from active to
dormant storage will be added. Pursuant to the agreement data acquired on the
first day of operation of the agreement, July 1, 2012, is scheduled to transfer
to a dormant state.
Question: Have any
specific incidents occurred during the first year of implementation of the
Agreement?
Response: No privacy
incidents pursuant to Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4 occurred during the first
year of implementation.
B. Scope
B.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
The
scope of the Agreement is expressed in Article 2 of the Agreement. It states
that:
‘1. PNR, as set forth
in the Giudelines of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, shall mean
the record created by air carriers or their authorised agents for each journey
by on or behalf of any passenger and contained in carriers’ reservation
systesm, departure control systems, or equivalent systems providing similar
functionality (collectively referred to in this Agreement as ‘reservations
systems’). Specifically, as used in this Agreement, PNR consists of the data
types set forth in the Annex to this Agreement (‘Annex’).’
‘2. This Agreement shall
apply to carriers operating passenger flights between the European Union and
the United States.’
‘3. This Agreement shall
also apply to carriers incorporated or storing data in the European Union and
operating passenger flights to or from the United States.’
B.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: Is the
mechanism to filter out flights with no U.S. nexus still in place to ensure
that the PNR data received regards solely flights with an U.S. nexus? Has this
mechanism been audited and if so, which conclusions have been drawn?
Response: Yes, the
filter mechanism is still in place. This mechanism was reviewed by DHS Privacy
during an internal review in May 2013; a report of that review was completed in
July 2013.
Question: Is the
overriding functionality (operational since October 2009) still in place? If
so, has it been audited and if so, how many audits have taken place and which
conclusions have been drawn?
Response: Yes, the
overriding functionality is still in place. This functionality was reviewed by
DHS Privacy during an internal review in May 2013; a report of that review was
completed in July 2013. Each override is reviewed the day after the override
occurs at CBP Headquarters to determine the validity for each occurrence.
Question: How is
access to this functionality regulated?
Response: This
functionality is limited by user access controls. Users seeking access to
perform overrides must first be sponsored by a manager, who validates the
user’s need to access the override functionality prior to granting access to
the user’s account.
Question: Is the
override functionality still an exclusive pull mechanism? How does it relate to
the agreed push method under Article 15?
Response: Airline
service providers have not provided an override push alternative that meets
DHS/CBP’s operational needs, as a result, all overrides continue to be via a pull
of specific flight data.
B.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The Privacy Office
interviewed staff of the National Targeting Center and saw live demonstrations
of how CBP has programmed ATS-P to use flight numbers and airport codes to
identify flights with a U.S. nexus as requested under Articles 2(2) and (3).  
The report further
mentions that in case a system user seeks to use the override mechanism to get
access to a flight without a clear U.S. nexus, a warning box appears informing
that person (i) that s/he has to provide a justification for the request, (ii)
affirm that s/he is authorized to access the PNR in question and (iii) that
s/he understands CBP policies regarding the override mechanism. In addition,
the report signals that the day following the use of the override mechanism, an
email notice is sent to a group of managers to ensure appropriate use of this
mechanism, allowing to identify any misuse of PNR and to recommend remedial
training and/or suspension of system access. 
The report mentions that
during the review period (1 July 2012-31 March 2013), a total of 192 overrides
were implemented. In three cases CBP managers could not readily determine the
justification for the use of the override mechanism, in which case they sought
clarification from the users and found that each of the three overrides were
justified. Each officer received a reminder of the policy on PNR access and
use.  
C.Provision of PNR
C.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
The
provision of PNR is regulated in Article 3 of the Agreement. It states that:
‘The Parties agree
that carriers shall provide PNR contained in their reservation systems to DHS
as required by and in accordance with DHS standards and consistent with this
Agreement. Should PNR transferred by carriers include data beyond those listed
in the Annex, DHS shall delete such data upon receipt.’
C.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: Is the
mechanism to filter out PNR data beyond those listed in the Annex to the
Agreement still in place? Has this mechanism been audited and if so, which
conclusions have been drawn?
Response: Yes, the
filter mechanism is still in place. This mechanism was most recently reviewed
by DHS Privacy during an internal review in May 2013; a report of that review
was completed in July 2013.
Question: Has DHS
become aware of any additional type of PNR information that may be available
and required for the purposes set out in Article 4 and if so, which?
Response: No.
Question: Has DHS
become aware of any type of PNR information that is no longer required for the
same purposes and if so, which?
Response: No.
Question: Has DHS
ever used information held in PNR beyond those listed in the Annex, including
sensitive information, and if so, how many times and for what reasons?
Response: No.
C.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
Based on the review of a
randomly selected PNR, the DHS Privacy Office determined that “no PNR data
outside of the 19 PNR types listed in the Annex to the 2011 Agreement was
received”[51].
D.Purpose limitation
D.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
The purpose
limitation of the use of PNR data by DHS is expressed in Article 4 of the
Agreement. It states that:
‘1. The
United States collects, uses and processes PNR for the purposes of preventing,
detecting, investigating, and prosecuting:
(a)
Terrorist offences and related crimes, including:
(i)
Conduct that —
1.
involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or
infrastructure; and
2.
appears to be intended to —
a.
intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
b.
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
c.
affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,
kidnapping, or hostage-taking;
(ii)
Activities constituting an offence within the scope of and as defined in
applicable international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism;
(iii)
Providing or collecting funds, by any means, directly or indirectly, with the
intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be
used, in full or in part, in order to carry out any of the acts described in
subparagraphs (i) or (ii);
(iv)
Attempting to commit any of the acts described in subparagraphs (i), (ii), or
(iii);
(v)
Participating as an accomplice in the commission of any of the acts described
in subparagraphs (i), (ii), or (iii);
(vi)
Organising or directing others to commit any of the acts described in
subparagraphs (i), (ii), or (iii);
(vii)
Contributing in any other way to the commission of any of the acts described in
subparagraphs (i), (ii), or (iii);
(viii)
Threatening to commit an act described in subparagraph (i) under circumstances
which indicate that the threat is credible;
(b)
Other crimes that are punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of three years
or more and that are transnational in nature.
A
crime is considered as transnational in nature in particular if:
(i)
it is committed in more than one country;
(ii)
it is committed in one country but a substantial part of its preparation,
planning, direction or control takes place in another country;
(iii)
it is committed in one country but involves an organised criminal group that
engages in criminal activities in more than one country;
(iv)
it is committed in one country but has substantial effects in another country;
or
(v)
it is committed in one country and the offender is in or intends to travel to
another country.
2.
PNR may be used and processed on a case-by-case basis where necessary in view
of a serious threat and for the protection of vital interests of any individual
or if ordered by a court.
3.
PNR may be used and processed by DHS to identify persons who would be subject
to closer questioning or examination upon arrival to or departure from the
United States or who may require further examination.
4.
Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 shall be without prejudice to domestic law enforcement,
judicial powers, or proceedings, where other violations of law or indications
thereof are detected in the course of the use and processing of PNR.’
D.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: Have PNR data
been used also under the Regional Carriers Liaison Groups Program and if so,
for what purposes? Has this Program been audited and if so, which conclusions
have been drawn? What are the differences between the Secure Flight Program and
this Program? 
Response:
DHS
Regional
Carrier Liaison Groups (RCLGs) fall under the National Targeting
Center-Passenger (NTC-P) Pre-Departure (PD) program and serve as liaisons
between NTC-P and carriers serving the U.S. They have a working relationship
with the carriers and have been given the responsibility of covering each
airport not currently serving as an Immigration Advisory Program (IAP)
location. Persons warranting further scrutiny are identified by NTC-P using the
Automated Targeting System-Passenger (ATS-P), which leverages both PNR and
Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) information to generate referrals
for RCLGs to investigate. The RCLGs will send carriers requests for denial of
boarding, additional information to further assist in vetting a traveler,
document validation, and enhanced screening of the traveler by airline security
prior to boarding the flight. The RCLGs’ targeting focus is mainly on alien
smuggling and criminal fraud detection.
Secure Flight is a
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) run program that identifies
domestic and international travellers on terrorist watch lists and designates
them for denial of boarding or additional physical screening prior to boarding
depending on the specific circumstances of the background case. While CBP and
TSA coordinate for identity resolution when appropriate, CBP and TSA systems
are separate and work on two different platforms. The Secure Flight system does
not have access to the PNR and instead, airlines send UN/EDIFACT PAXLIST
messages to Secure Flight via a DHS server with a very limited and some very
limited itinerary information. Under the system of records notice (SORN) titled
Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration 019
(DHS/TSA–019), Secure Flight Records, for the passenger and non-traveler
screening program known as Secure Flight, the data is stored in the Secure
Flight database for no more than seven days after completion of the last leg of
the individual’s directional travel itinerary, if there are no positive results
with the automated matching process. Potential matches are stored for seven
years and confirmed matches are stored for 99 years in accordance with current
retention schedules.
RCLG and Secure Flight
differ in their scope. Secure Flight is limited to identifying and mitigating
the risk associated with terrorist travel. As noted in the May 31, 2010 letter
from former DHS Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan to Reinhard Priebe,
the RCLG covers all security and admissibility issues, which can include
terrorism, crime, immigration, health and other issues – although PNR supports
this initiative solely for the purposes of preventing and detecting terrorism
and crime that is transnational in nature.
RCLG members with access
to PNR are subject to the same use audits as any other PNR user.
Question: Have PNR data
been used also under the Immigration Advisory Program and if so, for what
purposes? Has this Program been audited and if so, which conclusions have been
drawn? What are the differences between the Regional Carriers Liaison Groups
Program, the Secure Flight Program and this Program? 
Response: CBP Officers
deployed at foreign airports as part of the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP)
rely on the centralized analysis of PNR by ATS-P to identify travellers to
interview prior to departure and have similar access to raw PNR as other CBP
officers. Similar to its support of port of entry operations, NTC-P uses ATS-P,
which leverages both PNR and APIS information, to generate lists of passengers warranting
further scrutiny (usually in the form of an interview prior to departure) for
each IAP team, each day. IAP Officers responding to the NTC-P generated list
may access the underlying PNR as part of the case adjudication.
IAP, RCLG and Secure
Flight share similar goals of identifying the proper handling of travelers who
are more likely to pose a risk to the aircraft or United States, but each
functions separately and with unique goals. The primary difference between IAP
and RCLG is the method of human intervention. Both IAP and RCLG support all
admissibility operations, although as in the previous question PNR only
supports counterterrorism operations and to identify crime that is
transnational in nature. At IAP locations, a CBP Officer may personally
interview the traveller prior to boarding whereas the RCLG provides similar
benefits through liaison with the airlines as described in the previous
question. Secure Flight is a Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
program that identifies domestic and international travellers on terrorist
watchlists that either require additional physical screening by airport
security personnel prior to boarding or who are banned from boarding aircraft
in U.S. airspace. In Secure Flight, human intervention generally occurs prior
to the issuance of a boarding pass at the time of check-in for potential
matches to the watchlist, the results of which are communicated to the carrier
through automated means within the Secure Flight system. CBP and TSA coordinate
for identity resolution when appropriate, CBP and TSA systems are separate and
work on two different platforms.
IAP has been audited
through the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and CBP Headquarters site
visits of overseas locations. IAP managers at CBP Headquarters conduct a daily
review of advance target confirmation and boarding recommendations issued to
carriers. Joint reviews are also conducted periodically with host governments,
airline security officials and/or the U.S. Embassy to assess relationships and
operational practices. The Secure Flight Program has been audited by both the
GAO and the DHS Inspector General.
Question: In case the
override functionality mentioned under Article 2 has been audited, which
conclusions have been drawn in particular as regards accessing PNR data from
offloaded passengers that have not boarded an air craft towards the U.S. as
they have been identified by DHS to be inadmissible prior to boarding through its
Immigration Advisory Program (see also the question under Article 4.3)?
Response: DHS/CBP can
begin receiving PNR for passengers 96 hours before the flight, well in advance
of an admissibility recommendation by IAP, which generally occurs 24 hours
before a flight.
Question: Are the
data collected for the purposes of the Secure Flight Program still retained in
the SFP database? If so, does DHS consider the possibility to retain the data
only once, i.e. in the ATS-P database?
Response: Data that is
collected for the purposes of the Secure Flight Program is still retained in
the Secure Flight database. However, the Secure Flight system does not utilize
PNR, instead airlines send UN/EDIFACT PAXLIST messages to Secure Flight with a
very limited amount of passenger data to include name, date of birth, gender,
passport information, and some very limited itinerary information via DHS
router. This data is specifically enumerated in the pplicable regulation
(referred to as “Secure Flight Passenger Data”). Under the system of records
notice (SORN) titled Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security
Administration 019 (DHS/TSA–019), Secure Flight Records, for the passenger and
nontraveler screening program known as Secure Flight, the data is stored in the
Secure Flight database for no more than seven days after completion of the last
leg of the individual’s directional travel itinerary, if there are no positive
results with the automated matching process. Potential matches are stored for
seven years and confirmed matches are stored for 99 years in accordance with
current retention schedules.
DHS notes that in its
February 2010 report form the 2010 Joint Review the Commission recommended DHS
consider whether it is necessary to “duplicate” data in ATS-P and Secure
Flight. DHS does not consider the retention of Secure Flight Passenger Data to
be the “duplication” of data, but a unique collection that is processed
pursuant to the needs of the Secure Flight Programs. Neither ATS-P or Secure
Flight repurposed data for objectives outside of their given legal and
regulatory basis (see the applicable System of Records Notices and Privacy
Impact Assessments at www.DHS.gov/privacy).
Further, because of the
seven day retention period associated with Secure Flight, DHS believes the risk
associated with storing basic identifiers in multiple databases to be minimal
in comparison to the cost and operational disruption of reengineering
operations across multiple operational agencies of the Department. DHS notes,
its structure is not fundamentally different than the European Union’s own IT
infrastructure where common data elements are processed by the Schengen
Information System, Visa Information System and eventually the proposed Entry
Exit System and Registered Traveller Program. Further, DHS has worked to
minimize any impact on carrier operations of separated storage. As a result,
DHS is not currently considering limiting retention to one database.
Secure Flight is outside
the scope of the 2011 PNR Agreement.
Question: For how
many case-by-case situations PNR data have been used?
Response:
DHS
has disclosed PNR for case-by-case situations under Article 4, Paragraph 2
seven times since July 1, 2012.
Question:
How does this provision relate to the use of PNR data from
passengers that have not boarded an air craft towards the U.S. as they have
been identified by DHS to be inadmissible prior to boarding through its
Immigration Advisory Program?
Response: This
provision supports the operations of the IAP by acknowledging that at locations
where it is present many of the actions that would occur at the border may
occur prior to departure at the foreign airport where IAP is stationed. As
noted in response to previous questions, CBP receives the PNR upwards of 96
hours in advance of the IAP officer interaction with the traveller, the NTC-P
determines which travellers IAP team members should interview and provides the
IAP team a list 24 hours in advance. When a hit is received by NTC-P and deemed
worthy of a referral to IAP, it is placed in the system and added to a referral
spread sheet. Prior to the start of the day, the IAP officers review these
referral sheets and work through the targets to determine their workload. Much
of the admissibility opinions being given by the IAP officers are based on the
information provided by NTC-P and are not directly related to PNR.
D.3.
DHS Privacy Office review report
The report mentions that
“between July 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013, 0.002 percent of individuals
traveling to the U.S. were identified by ATS for additional attention based
primarily on analysis of their PNR. These individuals were identified
during an investigation related to terrorism or other serious crime as defined
in Article 4 of the 2011 Agreement.”[52]
The Report also mentions
that the Privacy Office reviewed a random sample of 13 disclosures of PNR
provided by DHS (CBP) to other U.S. government agencies between 1 July 2012 and
31 March 2013, of which seven concerned the sharing of PNR with the U.S Center
for Disease Control “to coordinate appropriate responses to health concerns
associated with international air transportation”.  According to the
Privacy Office these disclosures are within the scope of the purposes defined
in Article 4 of the Agreement[53].
Article 4(2) allows the use and processing of PNR “on a case-by-case basis
where necessary [….] for the protection of vital interests of any individual
[….]”.
Following a question by
the EU team if the Privacy Office had seen any use of Article 4(4) of the
Agreement during this period, the Privacy Office replied that it had not seen
such use. 
E. Data security
E.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
The
data security safeguards are laid down in Article 5 of the Agreement. It states
that:
‘1.
DHS shall ensure that appropriate technical measures and organisational arrangements
are implemented to protect personal data and personal information contained in
PNR against accidental, unlawful, or unauthorised destruction, loss,
disclosure, alteration, access, processing or use.  
2.
DHS shall make appropriate use of technology to ensure data protection,
security, confidentiality and integrity. In particular, DHS shall ensure that :
(a)
encryption, authorisation and documentation procedures recognised by competent
authorities are applied. In particular, access to PNR shall be secured and
limited to specifically authorised officials;
(b)
PNR shall be held in a secure physical environment and protected with physical
intrusion controls; and
(c)
a mechanism exists to ensure that PNR queries are conducted consistent with
Article 4.
3.
In the event of a privacy incident (including unauthorised access or
disclosure), DHS shall take reasonable measures to notify affected individuals
as appropriate, to mitigate the risk of harm of unauthorised disclosures of
personal data and information, and to institute remedial measures as may be
technical practicable. 
4.
Within the scope of this Agreement, DHS shall inform without undue delay the
relevant European authorities about cases of significant privacy incidents
involving PNR of EU citizens or residents resulting from accidental or unlawful
destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access,
or any unlawful forms of processing or use.  
5.
The United States confirms that effetcive administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement
measures are available under U.S. law for privacy incidents. DHS may take
disciplinary action against persons responsible for any such proivacy incident,
as appropriate, to include denial of system access, formal reprimands,
suspenion, demotion, or removal from duty.
6.
All access to PNR, as well as its processing and use, shall be logged or
documented by DHS. Logs or documentation shall be used only for oversight,
auditing, and system maintenance purposes or as otherwise required by law.’ 
E.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: Which
appropriate technical and organisational measures have been implemented to
protect personal data and personal information contained in PNR?
Response: Physical
and procedural safeguards are in place in ATS, including physical security,
access controls, data separation and encryption, audit capabilities, and
accountability measures.
Additionally, all PNR
users must undergo privacy training and obtain approval from their supervisor
and the ATS system owner before gaining role-based access to ATS. Data may only
be accessed using the CBP network with encrypted passwords and user sign-on
functionality. Notices upon sign-on remind users that they are accessing a law
enforcement sensitive database for official use only and that an improper
disclosure of PII contained in the system could constitute a violation of the
Privacy Act. The notice also states that information contained in the system is
subject to the third party rule and may not be disclosed to other government
agencies without the express permission of CBP. Access to ATS-P and PNR is
limited to those individuals with a need to know the information in order to
carry out their official duties. Furthermore, access to PNR is further
controlled by providing each user only those accesses required to perform his
or her job. Within the ATS-P database, audit trails of what information has
been accessed by whom are maintained and used to support internal audits to
ensure compliance with the stated purposes of the system. All ATS-P users are
required to undergo regular training, including annual privacy training, to
maintain their system access.
A system security plan
for ATS was completed and an Authority to Operate (ATO) was granted to ATS for
three years, on January 21, 2011.
Question: Which
encryption, authorisation, logging and documentation procedures are applied by
DHS?
Response:
Users
may only access PNR through ATS-P, which can only be accessed through a
webbased user interface over the DHS infrastructure or remotely through
secure-encrypted mobile devices for certain CBP officers in foreign locations
and at Ports of Entry. Within the ATS-P database, audit trails of what
information has been accessed by whom are maintained and used to support
internal audits to ensure compliance with the stated purposes of the system.
Question: Which
measures are in place to ensure limited access to specifically authorised
officials?
Response: Each user’s
access to PNR is reviewed twice per year by the supervisor who authorized the
role, and validated by a CBP Headquarters Manager.
Question: In what
secure physical environment is PNR being held and which physical intrusion
controls are implemented to protect PNR?
Response: PNR records
are stored electronically in an encrypted system or on paper in secure
facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door.
Question: Which
mechanism exists to ensure that PNR queries are conducted consistent with
Article 4?
Response: The
mechanism that exists to ensure that PNR queries are conducted consistent with
the PNR uses permitted under Article 4 of the 2011 Agreement is the CBP
Directive regarding use and disclosure of PNR data. The updated Directive
reflecting the 2011 Agreement is currently available under the Help tab in
ATS-P and outlines the appropriate use, handling, and disclosure of PNR data
and provides a framework for granting access to PNR to authorized personnel
within DHS and for sharing PNR with DHS’s domestic and international mission
partners, as appropriate. The updated Directive has been distributed throughout
CBP and to other DHS PNR users with updated field guidance. 
CBP has developed
policy, in the form of this directive, outlining the purposes for which PNR may
be used. CBP also maintains a process of user access control, by which a user
requiring access to PNR for his or her official duties must obtain prior
supervisory approval before receiving access. Each user’s level of access is
also validated twice per year by supervisory and management review. CBP’s use
of PNR in scenario-based targeting rules is also reviewed on a quarterly basis
by DHS oversight offices, including the Chief Privacy Officer, the Civil
Rights/Civil Liberties Officer, and the Office of General Counsel.
Question:
Which
reasonable measures are taken to notify affected individuals in the event of a
privacy incident? Have any such incidents occurred and if so, how many and what
was their nature (unauthorised access, unauthorised disclosure, any other form
of privacy incident)? Which remedial measures have been taken?
Response: There
have been no significant privacy incidents since the entry into force of the
2011 PNR Agreement.
Question: How many
cases of significant privacy incidents were reported by DHS to EU authorities
involving PNR of EU citizens or residents? Has any such incident occurred
without such reporting? 
Response: No
incidents have been reported by DHS to EU authorities because there have been
no significant privacy incidents and no unauthorized access or disclosure.
Question: What
effective administrative, civil and criminal enforcement measures are
implemented under U.S. law for privacy incidents?
Response:
Administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement measures are available under
U.S. law for unauthorized disclosure of U.S. records, including PNR. Relevant
provisions include but are not limited to:
·       
The
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030) allows individuals to
bring a civil action in court for actual damages, and in some cases punitive
damages plus attorney fees, when that individual’s personal information held on
a U.S. government computer system, including the Automated Targeting
System-Passenger (ATS-P) that holds PNR, has been improperly accessed, causing
a certain type of harm.
·       
The
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2710 et seq. and 18 U.S.C.
2510 et seq.) allows any person to bring a civil action in court for actual
damages, and in some cases punitive damages plus attorney fees, when that
person’s stored wire or electronic communications are improperly accessed or
disclosed, or when that person’s wire, oral, or electronic communications are
improperly intercepted or disclosed.
·       
18
U.S.C. § 641 – Public money, property or records provides for criminal fines
and imprisonment of persons convicted of stealing or conversion of U.S.
government records to his or her use, or the sale or disposal of such record
without authority.
·       
18
U.S.C. § 1030 – provides for criminal fines and imprisonment for fraud and
related activity involving unauthorized access to a U.S. government computer.
·       
19
C.F.R. § 103.34 – Provides for sanctions (including administrative and
criminal, where appropriate) for improper disclosure of confidential
information contained in Customs documents.
E.3.DHS Privacy Office review report
Article 5(2) requires
DHS to make appropriate use of technology to ensure data protection, security,
confidentiality and integrity. The report indicates that, in order to promote
data integrity, “DHS provides individuals with the means to seek correction
or rectification of their PNR”.[54] 

With regards to
accountability measures, the report outlines in more detail the layers of
oversight ensuring compliance with data security requirements. The report
mentions that with regard to the risk of unauthorized access or use of PNR, “CBP’s
Office of Internal Affairs audits the use of ATS and the CBP Office of
Intelligence and Investigation Liaison (OIIL) verifies that users with PNR
access are authorized to retain that access. To guard against unintended or
inappropriate disclosure of PNR data, OIIL conducts audits of al disclosures
within and outside DHS. The CBP Privacy Office oversees the results of these
audits and takes appropriate corrective action if warranted. OIIL, in
coordination with CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) and Office of
Information and Technology (OIT), is responsible for maintaining updated
technical/security procedures by which PNR is accessed by DHS and Non-DHS
Users. CBP completed a security Plan for ATS and in 2011 received its
certification and accreditation (C&A) under the Federal Information
Security Management Act (FISMA) and Authority to Operate ATS for three years.”[55] 
   
The report also mentions
that between 1 July 2012 and 31 March 2013 the DHS Privacy Office did not
receive reports of the loss or compromise of EU PNR.[56]
F. Use of sensitive
data
F.1. The relevant
Commitment of the U.S.
The use of sensitive
data is regulated in Article 6 of the Agreement. It states that:
‘1. To the extent that
PNR of a passenger as collected includes sensitive data (i.e. personal data and
information revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or
philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, or data concerning the health or
sex life of the individual), DHS shall employ automated systems to filter and
mask out sensitive data from PNR. In addition, DHS shall not further process or
use such data, except in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4.
2.
DHS shall provide to the European Commission within 90 days of the entry into
force of this Agreement a list of codes and terms identifying sensitive data
that shall be filtered out.
3.
Access to, as well as processing and use of, sensitive data shall be permitted
in exceptional circumstances where the life of an individual could be
imperilled or seriously impaired. Such data may be exclusively accessed using
restrictive processes on a case-by-case basis with the approval of a DHS senior
manager.
4.
Sensitive data shall be permanently deleted not later than 30 days from the
last receipt of PNR containing such data by DHS. However, sensitive data may be
retained for the time specified in U.S. law for the purpose of a specific
investigation, prosecution or enforcement action.’
F.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: Which
automated systems does DHS employ to filter and mask out sensitive data from
PNR?
Response: DHS/CBP has
developed automated processes within the ATS-P database to filter, mask out,
and delete sensitive data from PNR.
Question: How many
times DHS staff accessed, used and/or processed sensitive data and for which
type of circumstances? 
Response: Three; all
were conducted solely for the purpose of ensuring the proper functionality of
accessing sensitive data in the production system.
Question: In case
such data were used, how useful have they been in preventing the life of an
individual to become imperilled or seriously impaired?
Response: Not
applicable; please see response above.
Question: Which
restrictive processes are applied by DHS, and what are the experiences with the
role of the DHS senior manager providing approval?
Response: The only
cases of access to sensitive data to date were solely for the purpose of
ensuring the proper functionality of accessing sensitive data in the production
system.
Question: Which
measures have been taken by DHS to ensure that the data are permanently deleted
after no more than 30 days from the last receipt of PNR containing such data?
Response: DHS/CBP has
developed automated processes within the ATS-P database to delete sensitive
data from PNR in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Question: In how many
cases sensitive data have been retained for a time specified in U.S. law for
specific investigation, prosecution or enforcement actions?
Response: No
sensitive data has been retained for investigation, prosecution or enforcement
actions.
F.3. DHS Privacy Office
review report
The report indicates
that the Privacy Office observed that sensitive terms within the 19 PNR data
elements were appropriately masked. DHS also demonstrated to the Privacy Office
that “certain codes and terms that may appear in a PNR have been identified
as “sensitive” and are masked by ATS-P to prevent routine viewing”.[57]
The report also mentions that “Any retrieval of sensitive PNR through ATS-P
is recorded by the system and ATS generates a daily email informing CBP
management whether or not any sensitive data elements have been accessed”.[58]
In relation to the
automatic filtering by ATS of sensitive PNR codes and terms, the Privacy Office
reviewed samples of raw PNR from seven randomly-selected cases. The report
states that “Each PNR showed blocked data fields where a sensitive term that
may have been included in an air carrier’s record was hidden from DHS view”.[59]
G. Automated individual
decisions
Article 7 of the Agreement
The EU team did not
raise questions as regards Article 7 of the Agreement on “automated individual
decision”, as it is clear from the explanations of how the ATS-P functions as
outlined in the SORN and the PIA that DHS does not take decisions producing
significant adverse actions affecting the legal interests of individuals on the
sole basis of an automated processing and use of PNR. 
The DHS Privacy Office
review report mentions that it received statistics from CBP (DHS) showing its
use of PNR. The report mentions that the CBP Directive “requires that no
decisions concerning travelers are to be based solely on the automated
processing and use of PNR”. [60]
Article 7 seems to be
fully respected and implemented.
H. Data retention
H.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
The periods
of data retention is expressed in Article 8 of the Agreement. It states that:
‘1. DHS retains PNR in an
active database for up to five years. After the initial six months of this
period, PNR shall be depersonalised and masked in accordance with paragraph 2
of this Article. Access to this active database shall, unless otherwise
permitted by this Agreement, be restricted to a limited number of specifically
authorised officials.
2.
To achieve depersonalisation, personally identifiable information contained in
the following PNR data types shall be masked out:
(a)
name(s);
(b)
other names on PNR;
(c)
all available contact information (including originator information);
(d)
general remarks, including other supplementary information (OSI), special
service information (SSI), and special service request (SSR); and
(e)
any collected Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) information.
3.
After this active period, PNR shall be transferred to a dormant database for a
period of up to ten years. This dormant database shall be subject to additional
controls, including a more restricted number of authorised personnel, as well
as a higher level of supervisory approval required before access. In this
dormant database, PNR shall not be repersonalised except in connection with law
enforcement operations and then only in connection with an identifiable case,
threat or risk. As regards the purposes as set out in Article 4(1)(b), PNR in
this dormant database may only be repersonalised for a period of up to five
years.
4.
Following the dormant period, data retained must be rendered fully anonymised
by deleting all data types which could serve to identify the passenger to whom
PNR relate without the possibility of repersonalisation.
5.
Data that are related to a specific case or investigation may be retained in an
active PNR database until the case or investigation is archived. This paragraph
is without prejudice to data retention requirements for individual
investigation or prosecution files.
6.
The Parties agree that, within the framework of the evaluation as provided for
in Article 23(1), the necessity of a 10-year dormant period of retention will
be considered.’
H.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: Which
measures are in place to ensure the depersonalising and masking of the data
sets listed under paragraph 2?
Response: DHS/CBP has
developed automated processes within the ATS-P database to depersonalize PNR,
and has also developed manual processes to allow designated users to request
permission to repersonalize PNR.
Question:
What is the number of officials specifically authorised to access the active
database? 
Response: As of May
1, 2013, there were 12,448 users with access to the active PNR database. This
figure is roughly one quarter (25%) of all ATS-P users (approximately 40,000).
Question:
Has paragraph 5 been applied in practice yet?
Response: DHS/CBP has
developed automated processes within the ATS-P database to identify PNR linked
to law enforcement cases or investigations. No data is scheduled to be transferred
to a dormant database until July 1, 2017.
Question: What are
the data retention requirements under U.S. law that apply to this paragraph?
Response: This
paragraph is codified in the System of Records Notice for the Automated
Targeting System (DHS/CBP-006 - Automated Targeting System May 22, 2012 (77 FR
30297)), as follows:
Information maintained
only in ATS that is linked to active law enforcement lookout records, CBP
matches to enforcement activities, and/or investigations or cases (i.e.,
threats; flights, individuals, and routes of concern; or other defined sets of
circumstances) will remain accessible for the life of the law enforcement
matter to support that activity and other enforcement activities that may
become related.
The specific retention
period in the active system for any data tied to a specific case or
investigation would need to be determined upon its identification. However,
this provision does not become relevant until data must start being transferred
to a dormant database on July 1, 2017.
H.3. DHS Privacy Office
review report
The report mentions that
the Privacy Office has reviewed depersonalized records stored between 1 July
and 1 September 2012 and the process to repersonalise those records. The report
indicates that the ATS-P is programmed to “automatically depersonalize PNR
six months from its last use. Records older than six months reviewed by
the Privacy Office showed only the record locator, reservation system, date
record was created, load and update dates, and the itinerary. An affirmation of
depersonalization and the date of depersonalization are also included in the
depersonalized record”.[61]
The report further
mentions that “any use of repersonalized PNR is with supervisory approval
and only in connection with law enforcement operations that include an
identifiable case, threat, or risk”.[62]
In relation to the
requirement in Article 8(1) to restrict access to the active database to a
limited number of specifically authorised officials, the report signals that “each
user’s level of access is validated twice a year by supervisory and management
review. This process includes seeking supervisors’ verification that users have
continued need for access”. In case the user is a DHS official working for
another DHS component than CBP, the report mentions that CBP receives “written
confirmation from that other DHS component that a DHS employee requires access
to PNR to perform his or her official duties”. The Privacy Office reviewed
the sharing and use of PNR within DHS and found that this is done “on a
need-to-know basis and for the purposes specified in Article 4 of the Agreement”.
[63]
The Privacy Office also
reviewed biannual reports of CBP’s ATS-P User Access Verification audits from
July 2010 to September 2012. According to the DHS Privacy Office, these audits
demonstrated that “CBP has modified user access to ATS-P, adjusted user
roles, and even withdrawn user access completely, as appropriate, depending on
the results of field and headquarters review”.[64]
I. Non-discrimination
I.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
A
non-discrimination clause is laid down in Article 9 of the Agreement. It states
that:
 ‘The United States
shall ensure that the safeguards applicable to processing and use of PNR under
this Agreement apply to all passengers on an equal basis without unlawful
discrimination.’
I.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: What
measures are implemented to ensure that the safeguards to process and use PNR
are applied to all passengers?
Response: CBP issued
an updated Directive in June 2013 that governs the processing and use of all
PNR it receives. To ensure that the Department does not use PNR to unlawfully
discriminate against individuals, the Privacy Office, Office of Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties, the Office of the General Counsel, and relevant program
staff conduct quarterly reviews to oversee implementation of ATS and to assess
whether privacy and civil liberties protections are adequate and consistently
implemented. All travel targeting scenarios, analysis, and rules are reviewed
to ensure that they are appropriately tailored to minimize the impact upon bona
fide travelers’ civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy, and are in
compliance with relevant legal authorities, regulations, and DHS policies.
I.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The report further
specifies that as part of the quarterly reviews, not only the targeting rules,
but also all travel targeting scenarios and analysis are reviewed to minimize
the impact upon bona fide travellers’ civil rights, civil liberties and
privacy.[65]

J. Transparency
J.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
A
transparency clause is laid down in Article 10 of the Agreement. It states
that:
‘1. DHS shall provide
information to the travelling public regarding its use and processing of PNR
through:
(a) publications in the
Federal Register;
(b) publications on its
website;
(c) notices that may be
incorporated by the carriers into contracts of carriage;
(d) statutorily required
reporting to Congress; and
(e) other appropriate
measures as may be developed.
2. DHS shall publish and
provide to the EU for possible publication its procedures and modalities
regarding access, correction or rectification, and redress procedures.
3. The Parties shall
work with the aviation industry to encourage greater visibility to passengers
at the time of booking on the purpose of the collection, processing and use of
PNR by DHS, and on how to request access, correction and redress.’
J.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: Has
information to travelling public been provided through the channels mentioned
under (a) – (e)?
Response: A PNR
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document and a Privacy Policy Document are
posted on the CBP website 3. Both documents were updated in June 2013 to
reflect the 2011 Agreement, corresponding revised SORN, technical revisions to
implement the agreement and internal DHS implementing guidance.
The 2011 U.S.-EU PNR
Agreement and previous reports of DHS Privacy Office and joint reviews are
posted on the DHS website http://www.dhs.gov/privacy-foia-reports. For a
comprehensive explanation of the manner in which DHS/CBP generally handles PNR
data, the travelling public can refer to the Automated Targeting System (ATS)
System of Records
Notice (SORN) (May 22,
2012) at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05- 22/html/2012-12396.htm, and
the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for ATS (June 1, 2012) at:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbp_ats006b.pdf.
CBP’s interim regulation
regarding PNR is located in title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, section
122.49d, which is publicly available through multiple sources.
In addition to the
above, CBP updated its “DHS/CBP Procedures for Access, Correction or
Rectification, and Redress for Passenger Name Records (PNR)” with new contact
information in June 2013. An earlier version of this document was available on
DHS’s website from July 2012 through the update.
Question: Has DHS
published its procedures and modalities regarding access, correction or
rectification and redress procedures and has it provided the EU with such
information for possible publication by the EU? 
Response:
CBP
has taken steps to work with the aviation industry to encourage greater
visibility to passengers at the time of booking about the purpose of the collection,
processing, and use of PNR and how to request access, correction, and redress
by providing the FAQs and Privacy Policy documents on the CBP website. The
updated FAQs and Privacy Policy documents on the CBP website will be shared
with the carriers and with the EU for possible publication. The guidance that
has previously been provided to all carriers affected by the 2011 U.S.-EU PNR
Agreement has a link to the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP)
listed for the carriers to provide to passengers. Information about DHS TRIP is
located at http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip.
In addition to the
above, CBP updated and posted its “DHS/CBP Procedures for Access, Correction or
Rectification, and Redress for Passenger Name Records (PNR)” with new contact
information in June 2013. An earlier version of this document was available on
DHS’s website from July 2012 through the update. On July 30, 2012, former DHS
Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan sent a letter to Director Richard
Priebe with a copy of original DHS Procedures for Access, Correction or
Rectification, and Redress for Passenger Name Record (PNR), informing him
that DHS would post the document on both the CBP and Privacy Office websites
and encouraging the European Commission to also post this information publicly,
so as to refer travelers to EC resources as well.
Question: What
measures are implemented together with the aviation industry to encourage
greater visibility to the public?
Response:
In
addition to the information provided in response to the above question, the
guidance provided to air carriers also encouraged them to provide information
to passengers at the time of booking regarding the purpose of the collection,
processing and use of PNR by DHS, and many carriers have posted information on
their websites with links to the government sites provided.
J.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The report mentions the
Privacy Office’s finding that CBP’s Frequently Asked Questions and PNR Privacy
Policy “reflected the 2007 PNR Agreement rather than the 2011 Agreement”. 
It recommended to promptly amend these documents to provide full transparency. [66]
The report mentions that information on the Agreement (additional to the ones
mentioned in the DHS reply) can be found under the Reports section of its
website[67]. 

The report further
signals (in relation to Article 11 on access) that information on a number of
programs providing passengers with information about travelling to the U.S is
available online.[68]
K. Access for
individuals
K.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
Rules
on access for individuals to their PNR data are laid down in Article 11 of the
Agreement. It states that:
 1. In accordance with
the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, any individual, regardless of
nationality, country of origin, or place of residence is entitled to request
his or her PNR from DHS. DHS shall timely provide such PNR subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.
2. Disclosure of
information contained in PNR may be subject to reasonable legal limitations,
applicable under U.S. law, including any such limitations as may be necessary
to safeguard privacy-protected, national security, and law enforcement
sensitive information.
3. Any refusal or restriction
of access shall be set forth in writing and provided to the requesting
individual on a timely basis. Such notification shall include the legal basis
on which information was withheld and shall inform the individual of the
options available under U.S. law for seeking redress.
4. DHS shall not
disclose PNR to the public, except to the individual whose PNR has been
processed and used or his or her representative, or as required by U.S. law.’
K.2. The relevant
written reply of DHS
Question: Does the tracking
system deployed by DHS allow identifying requests for access to PNR data,
including EU-originating PNR data? How many requests for PNR have been received
from individuals? What was the average response time by DHS?
Response: Yes, DHS
identifies and tracks all requests for access to PNR, including requests from
individuals that provide an EU place of birth, citizenship, or mailing address.
DHS has received 27 requests for PNR since July 1, 2012, none of which came
from an individual with an EU place of birth, citizenship, or mailing address.
The average response time was 38 days.
Question: In how many
cases has disclosure of information been limited and for which reasons?
Response: Under the
terms of the System of Records Notice for ATS, which maintains PNR data, and
the DHS Privacy Policy Guidance Memorandum 2008-01, CBP provides access to all
persons requesting their own PNR. CBP has not limited disclosure of PNR to a
requestor seeking access to her or his own PNR data.
Question: How many
refusals or restrictions of access have been set forth in writing and provided
to requesting individuals? What was the average response time by DHS?
Response: DHS has not
refused or restricted access by an individual to his/her own PNR data.
Question: How many
times PNR has been disclosed to other persons than the requesting individual? 
Response: In the
course of the Privacy Office review we found that one PNR-related FOIA response
included PNR on other than the requesting individual. The PNR released was of a
family member and was not EU related. CBP FOIA took corrective measures and now
includes an additional layer of supervisory oversight before any FOIA responses
are released. There were no complaints as a result of this FOIA response and no
incident was reported.
K.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The Privacy Office
reviewed the activities of the CBP Customer Service Center, the CBP
FOIA/Privacy Act Program and DHS TRIP, because these programs accept requests
for access to PNR from individuals regardless of the their status within the
U.S. Information on how to submit an access request under these programs is
available online.[69]
The report mentions that during the review period (1 July 2012 to 31 March
2013), the CBP Customer Service Centre did not receive specific requests
related to PNR. It also indicates that in case a traveller would submit a PNR
access request to the CBP Customer Service Centre, the latter would direct the
requester to submit a Freedom of Information Act (or FOIA) request or a Privacy
Act request.[70]
The report signals that
PNR-specific FOIA requests were handled on average within 38 days, which is
also the average response time for all CBP FOIA requests. In this respect the
report highlights that this is a significant improvement compared to the
situation reported on in tis 2008 Privacy Report, which signalled that some PNR
requests took more than a year to be handled.  
Following
recommendations made by the Privacy Office in 2008 and 2010, CBP developed “Processing
Instructions for PNR”, including instructions on how to conduct searches in
the ATS database in response to a FOIA request for access to PNR. The review of
these instructions by the Privacy Office revealed that none of the 27
PNR-related access requests were EU related within the definition used by CBP
(i.e. a request is EU-related if the requester claims citizenship, a mailing
address, or place of birth in the EU). The review also revealed that in one
instance, personal information of another person was made available to a
requester. This finding has led to a new rule to double check all FOIA
responses before they are send.[71]
The Privacy Office did
not find any cases where access to PNR following a FOIA request was refused or
restricted.[72]
L. Correction or
rectification for individuals
L.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
Rules
on correction or rectification for individuals of their PNR data are laid down
in Article 12 of the Agreement. It states that:
‘1. Any individual
regardless of nationality, country of origin, or place of residence may seek
the correction or rectification, including the possibility of erasure or
blocking, of his or her PNR by DHS pursuant to the processes described in this
Agreement.
2. DHS shall inform,
without undue delay, the requesting individual in writing of its decision
whether to correct or rectify the PNR at issue.
3. Any refusal or
restriction of correction or rectification shall be set forth in writing and
provided to the requesting individual on a timely basis. Such notification
shall include the legal basis of such refusal or restriction and shall inform
the individual of the options available under U.S. law for seeking redress.’
L.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: How many
requests from individuals seeking for correction or rectification, erasure or
blocking their PNR have been received by DHS?
Response:
DHS has not received any requests to correct, rectify, erase, or block PNR.
Question: In how many
cases individuals were informed of DHS' decision to correct or rectify their
PNR? What was the average response time by DHS?
Response:
Not applicable. CBP received no requests to refer to DHS PRIV.
Question: How many
refusals or restrictions of correction or rectification have been set forth in
writing and provided to requesting individuals? What was the average response
time by DHS?
Response: Not applicable (see, response to 12.2 above).
L.3.  DHS Privacy Office review report
The report mentions that
several options are available to those who want to seek correction of personal
information (such as PNR) held by DHS. In case a traveller is not an U.S.
citizen or a lawful permanent resident, s/he may request a correction of his or
her PNR by filing a Privacy Act Amendment Request through the CBP FOIA
Headquarters Office, either online or by mail. A traveller may also file a
request for correction by contacting the Assistant Commissioner, CBP Office of
Field Operations.  Alternatively a traveller may also address him or herself
directly to the office of the DHS Chief Privacy Officer by email or in writing.[73]
M. Redress for
individuals
M.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
Rules
on redress for individuals are laid down in Article 13 of the Agreement. It
states that:
‘1. Any individual
regardless of nationality, country of origin, or place of residence whose
personal data and personal information has been processed and used in a manner
inconsistent with this Agreement may seek effective administrative and judicial
redress in accordance with U.S. law.
2. Any individual is
entitled to seek to administratively challenge DHS decisions related to the use
and processing of PNR.
3. Under the provisions
of the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law, any individual is
entitled to petition for judicial review in U.S. federal court of any final agency
action by DHS. Further, any individual is entitled to petition for judicial
review in accordance with applicable law and relevant provisions of:
(a) the Freedom of
Information Act;
(b) the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act;
(c) the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act; and
(d) other applicable
provisions of U.S. law.
4. In particular, DHS
provides all individuals an administrative means (currently the DHS Traveller
Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP)) to resolve travel-related inquiries
including those related to the use of PNR. DHS TRIP provides a redress process
for individuals who believe they have been delayed or prohibited from boarding
a commercial aircraft because they were wrongly identified as a threat.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and Title 49, United States Code,
Section 46110, any such aggrieved individual is entitled to petition for
judicial review in U.S. federal court from any final agency
action by DHS relating to such concerns.’
M.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: How
many individuals sought administrative or judicial redress in accordance with
U.S. law? What was the outcome of this procedure?
Response: No
individual has sought administrative or judicial redress from the United States
Government in connection with DHS’s collection and use of their PNR.
Of note, DHS TRIP
received over 13,000 inquires since July 1, 2012. Of these inquiries, there
were 1,834 with an EU address (DHS TRIP does not collect information on
citizenship or residency). There were no EU inquires specifically naming PNR.
There were two mentions of “PNR” in the aggregate inquires but neither related
EU nor to issues surrounding the use of PNR data. Of all inquiries received
since July 1, 2012, DHS has addressed 68 percent and provided the individuals
with a response. The average response time for all inquiries is 30 days, with
the average response time for EU inquires at 42 days.
Question: In
how many cases individuals sought to administratively challenge a DHS decision
related to the use or processing of PNR? What was the outcome of this
procedure?
Response: None.
Question: In how
many cases an individual decided to petition for judicial review in a U.S.
federal court of any final agency action by DHS? What was the outcome of this
procedure?
Response: No individual has petitioned for judicial review in
connection with a final agency action based on the use of PNR.
M.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The Privacy Office
reviewed the DHS TRIP program and found that during the review period (1 July
2012 to 31 March 2013) this program had received over 13 000 inquiries, of
which two specifically related to PNR but did not involve inquiries from EU
individuals.[74]
With regard to the
redress process provided under DHS TRIP for individuals who believe they have
been delayed or prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft because they
were wrongly identified as a threat, the Privacy Office also reviewed redress
applications from travellers living in or holding a passport from an EU Member
State and who raised a potential privacy issue. The Privacy Office found that
none of these travellers claimed that their PNR was abused. The Privacy Office
also found that the average processing time for an EU-originated DHS TRIP
request was comparable to the average processing time for all DHS TRIP
requests.[75]
M.5. Comments
Of the 13 000 TRIP
inquiries received between 1 July 2012 and 31 March 2013, DHS dealt with two
inquiries specifically related to PNR but these did not involve inquiries from
EU individuals. 
N. Oversight
N.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
Rules
on oversight are laid down in Article 14 of the Agreement. It states that:
‘1. Compliance with the
privacy safeguards in this Agreement shall be subject to independent review and
oversight by Department Privacy Officers, such as the DHS Chief Privacy
Officer, who:
(a) have a proven record
of autonomy;
(b) exercise effective
powers of oversight, investigation, intervention, and review; and
(c) have the power to
refer violations of law related to this Agreement for prosecution or
disciplinary action, when appropriate.
They shall, in
particular, ensure that complaints relating to non- compliance with this
Agreement are received, investigated, responded to, and appropriately
redressed. These complaints may be brought by any individual, regardless of
nationality, country of origin, or place of residence.
2. In addition,
application of this Agreement by the United States shall be subject to
independent review and oversight by one or more of the following entities:
(a) the DHS Office of
Inspector General;
(b) the Government
Accountability Office as established by Congress; and
(c) the U.S. Congress.
Such oversight may be
manifested in the findings and recommendations of public reports, public
hearings, and analyses.’
N.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: How many complaints have been lodged with the DHS Chief
Privacy Officer since the agreement entered into force? What were the issues
raised and what was the outcome of these complaints? What was the average response
time by the DHS Privacy Office to such complaints?
Response: There were
no complaints lodged with the DHS Privacy Office since the agreement entered
into force.
Question: How many independent reviews were conducted by the DHS
Office of Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office and the U.S.
Congress since the agreement entered into force? If so, what were the outcomes
of such reviews?
Response:  The DHS is
not aware of any reviews of the agreement or the Department’s use of PNR from
OIG, GAO or other Congressional oversight committees during the time in
question.
N.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The report refers to the
DHS Privacy Office authority to investigate and review all programs, such as
ATS, and policies for their privacy impact. It also mentions that the Privacy
Office “conducts ongoing oversight of ATS and has conducted formal reviews
of the system many times, including PIA and SORN updates and previous PNR
Reports”.
The report highlights
the central role in relation to oversight of the CBP Directive (regarding use
and disclosure of PNR data), which outlines the use, handling, and disclosure
of PNR data and provides a framework for granting access to PNR to authorized
personnel within DHS and for sharing PNR with DHS’s domestic and international
mission partners. Because of its rules on issues such as maintaining records of
access to PNR and records on sharing PNR both within DHS and with Non-DHS
users, the Directive provides the framework for auditing and oversight by CBP.
The Privacy Office reviewed documents recording instances of sharing PNR with
other U.S. agencies.
The report observes that
during the reporting period the DHS privacy Office did not receive any
complaints related to non-compliance with the current PNR Agreement or any
complaints related to a misuse of PNR.[76] 
Besides the Privacy
Office, other DHS components, such as the CBP Privacy Officer and the CBP
Office of Internal Affairs have oversight functions. The CBP Privacy Officer
keeps copies of all requests for PNR by Non-DHS users and the correspondence
regarding PNR disclosures for audit purposes and maintains a record of access
determinations for oversight purposes. As mentioned earlier, the CBP Office of
Internal Affairs audits the use of ATS-P to guard against unauthorized use.
In view of the
multi-faceted approach to oversight within CBP, the DHS Privacy Office
recommends that “CBP should consider consolidating the results of its
various audits into comprehensive reports for review by the CBP Privacy Office”
in order to enhance accountability and ensure efficient oversight, a
recommendation with which CBP agrees.[77]
O. Method of PNR
transmission 
O.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
Rules
on the method of transmission of PNR are laid down in Article 15 of the
Agreement. It states that:
‘For the purposes of
this Agreement, carriers shall be required to transfer PNR to DHS using the
‘push’ method, in furtherance of the need for accuracy, timeliness and
completeness of PNR.
2. Carriers shall be
required to transfer PNR to DHS by secure electronic means in compliance with
the technical requirements of DHS.
3. Carriers shall be
required to transfer PNR to DHS in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2,
initially at 96 hours before the scheduled flight departure and additionally
either in real time or for a fixed number of routine and scheduled transfers as
specified by DHS.
4. In any case, the
Parties agree that all carriers shall be required to acquire the technical
ability to use the ‘push’ method not later than 24 months following entry into
force of this Agreement.
5. DHS may, where
necessary, on a case-by-case basis, require a carrier to provide PNR between or
after the regular transfers described in paragraph 3. Wherever carriers are
unable, for technical reasons, to respond timely to requests under this Article
in accordance with DHS standards, or, in exceptional circumstances in order to
respond to a specific, urgent, and serious threat, DHS may require carriers to
otherwise provide access.’
O.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: All carriers should have acquired the technical ability to
use the push method not later than 1 July 2014. What is the state of play? How
many carriers operating flights from the EU do not yet have a push system in
place?
Response: CBP is
working with both the affected carriers and service providers to ‘push” prior
to July 1, 2014.
CBP has reached out,
individually via email and telephone, to all affected air carriers that are
required to change to the push method. DHS/CBP has posted the 2011 Agreement on
the DHS site and CBP has provided the link to the Agreement to carriers and
service providers.
So affected carriers can
better understand their obligations, CBP has also provided guidance, which
highlights the changes that are to be implemented, and specifically stated that
within 24 months from July 1, 2012, air carriers covered by the new Agreement
are required to utilize the PNR push process when providing PNR data to DHS/CBP
and that the pull process will only be utilized under limited circumstances.
CBP hosted a conference
call with a trade association to discuss the Agreement and the impact on
carriers.
In addition, CBP is also
contacting service providers that will need to make system changes for their
carriers to push data.
CBP will make CBP’s
Office of Information and Technology available to answer questions from
carriers’ service providers individually and has offered to have a technical
meeting with carriers.
The following list
represents the number of affected carriers using each method, as of June 1,
2013:
·       
47-
Total carriers affected by the Agreement:
·       
32-
Of the carriers affected, the number of carriers that already use the “push”
method;
·       
15-
Of the carriers affected, the number of carriers that use the “pull” method;
·       
5
utilize the services of the same service provider that we are working with;
·       
2
utilize the services of a service provider that “push” for other carriers
·       
4
utilize different service providers;
·       
4
large carriers have their own system.
Question: In how many cases DHS required carriers to provide PNR
between or after the regular transfers described in paragraph 3? Which method
of transmission was used?
Response: Total
number of PNRs received (push + pull) in calendar year 2012: 81,252,544
Total number of ad hoc PNRs
pulled in calendar year 2012: 243,120 (or 0.30% of total PNR)
Total number of PNRs
received (push + pull) in calendar year 2011: 79,005,866
Total number of ad hoc
PNRs pulled in calendar year 2011: 570,401 (or 0.72% of total PNR)
Question: Has DHS assessed
its way of using the ad hoc functionality and if so, what were the findings?
Response: Yes. The
mechanism was reviewed by DHS Privacy during an internal review in May 2013; a
report of that review was completed in July 2013.
Question: Has DHS
resumed talks with the air carriers for finding an acceptable ad hoc push
functionality? If so, what is the state of play of such talks? If not, what are
the reasons for not having pursued such talks? 
Response: As part of
the new PNRGOV International Standard, CBP is working with the International
Air Transport Association (IATA), air carriers and service providers, along
with other government representatives to include ad hoc push functionality as
part of the standard.
Question: Although
the Agreement does not explicitly require limiting access to the ad hoc
functionality to specifically authorised DHS officials, in order to assess the
way in which it is used, it is useful to understand how DHS has organised
access to this functionality. 
Response: Each user’s
access to the PNR ad hoc functionality is reviewed twice per year by the
supervisor who authorized the role, and validated by a CBP Headquarters
Manager.
O.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The report mentions that
DHS (CBP) has made significant progress to ensure that airlines “push” PNR to
CBP and that as of 22 April 2013 68% of air carriers operating flights between
the U.S and the EU has moved to the “push” method, an increase of 20 air
carriers since the 2010 review report of the DHS Privacy Office.[78]

The report signals that
CBP has promoted awareness with air carriers that are required to change to the
“push” method.  The guidance given focused on four key issues: the time
intervals for PNR transfers; the requirement to move to a PNR “push”; the need
to provide passengers with information about DHS’ collection, processing and
use of PNR; and information on how passengers can request access to or
correction of their PNR or redress for an action taken that resulted from use
of PNR.[79]
The report notes[80]
that DHS (CBP) had not yet begun to require air carriers to transfer PNR to DHS
at 96 hours before the scheduled flight departure as allowed under the new
Agreement, and continued to operate using the 72–hour interval as laid down in
the previous PNR Agreement of 2007.  The report also mentions that CBP is
informing those air carriers using the “push” method that it seeks to receive
PNR at 96 hours before scheduled flight departure. DHS confirmed that it has
started preparations to allow transfer of PNR data starting at 96 hours prior
to scheduled departure.
In relation to the ad
hoc “pulls”, the report indicates[81]
that on one occasion, DHS (CBP) requested one retransmission of PNR by an
EU-based service provider as the PNR had not been provided timely. 
The report further
mentions in relation to Articles 5 and 15 of the Agreement that when
information is transferred from the IT system (probably what is meant is the
system holding the PNR data, the ATS-P system), ATS logs the external sharing[82].
P. Domestic sharing     

P.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
Rules
on domestic sharing of PNR are laid down in Article 16 of the Agreement. It
states that:
‘1. DHS may share PNR
only pursuant to a careful assessment of the following safeguards:
(a) Exclusively as consistent
with Article 4;
(b) Only with domestic
government authorities when acting in furtherance of the uses outlined in
Article 4;
(c) Receiving
authorities shall afford to PNR equivalent or comparable safeguards as set out
in this Agreement; and
(d) PNR shall be shared
only in support of those cases under examination or investigation and pursuant
to written understandings and U.S. law on the exchange of information between
domestic government authorities.
2. When transferring
analytical information obtained from PNR under this Agreement, the safeguards
set forth in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be respected.’
P.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: How does DHS guarantee that receiving authorities afford to
PNR equivalent or comparable safeguards as set out in the agreement?
Response: CBP issued
an updated Directive governing the processing and use of all PNR it receives.
In addition, all EU PNR
shared within the U.S. government includes the following caveat:
“This document is
provided by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)/U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) to [insert authorized agency] for its official use
only. This document contains confidential personal information of the data
subject, including Passenger Name Record data (“Official Use Only”), which is
governed by the Agreement Between the United States of America and the European
Union on the Use and Transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States
Department of Homeland Security. Such data must receive equivalent and
comparable safeguards and be used only for the purposes outlined in the
Agreement. This document may also contain confidential commercial information.
The data is this document may only be used for authorized purposes and shall
not be disclosed to any third party without the express prior written
authorization of DHS/CBP.”
P.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The report indicates
that domestic sharing “only takes place for specific cases after DHS
determines that the recipient has a need to know the information to carry out
functions consistent with the routine uses set forth in the ATS SORN”. The
report also mentions that the recipient has to provide a written confirmation
to handle PNR with safeguards equivalent or comparable to those required by the
Agreement and also should be consistent with U.S. law on the exchange of
information between domestic government authorities. As part of an express
understanding, the recipient domestic authority also has to treat PNR as
sensitive and confidential and is prohibited from providing PNR to any other
third party without prior written authorization of DHS.[83]
The report mentions in
relation to Articles 5 and 15 of the Agreement that when information is
transferred from the IT system (probably what is meant is the system holding
the PNR data, the ATS-P system), ATS logs the external sharing.[84]
This observation is also relevant in relation to Article 16.
Q. Onward transfer 
Q.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
Rules on onward transfer
of PNR are laid down in Article 17 of the Agreement. It states that:
‘1. The United States
may transfer PNR to competent government authorities of third countries only
under terms consistent with this Agreement and only upon ascertaining that the
recipient’s intended use is consistent with those terms.
2. Apart from emergency
circumstances, any such transfer of data shall occur pursuant to express
understandings that incorporate data privacy protections comparable to those
applied to PNR by DHS as set out in this Agreement.
3. PNR shall be shared
only in support of those cases under examination or investigation.
4. Where DHS is aware
that PNR of a citizen or a resident of an EU Member State is transferred, the
competent authorities of the concerned Member State shall be informed of the
matter at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
5. When transferring
analytical information obtained from PNR under this Agreement, the safeguards
set forth in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be respected.’
This provision is
accompanied by a specific recital in the Agreement stating that ‘NOTING the
interest of the Parties, as well as EU Member States, in exchanging information
regarding the method of transmission of PNR as well as the onward transfer of
PNR as set forth in the relevant articles of this Agreement, and further noting
the EU’s interest in having this addressed in the context of the consultation
and review mechanism set forth in this Agreement;’.
Q.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: According
to paragraph 2, the U.S. will fulfil the conditions of paragraph 1 by way of
express understandings that incorporate data privacy protections comparable to
those applied to PNR by DHS under the Agreement. How many such
understandings have been entered into by the U.S.?
Response: DHS/CBP has
a pre-existing arrangement to exchange PNR data with the Canada Border Services
Agency on high-risk travelers. The arrangement was last updated to reflect the
provisions of the 2007 EU-U.S. PNR agreement, and discussions with CBSA on any
further updates will commence after the entry into force of the PNR agreement
currently in negotiations between Canada and the EU.
Question: Have any 'emergency circumstances' occurred since the entry
into force of the Agreement? If so, how many times and what type of emergency
had to be faced? 
Response: CBP is not
aware of any such emergency circumstances.
Question: How many times
DHS informed an EU Member State that the U.S. shared PNR of one of its citizens
or residents with a third country? Did the Member State react to this sharing of
information? Have there been situations in which a Member State was not
informed and if so, why?   
Response: CBP is not
aware of any sharing of EU PNR with third countries, other than PNR data on
high-risk travellers exchanged under the agreement with Canada described above.
Q.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
The report mentions that
also in the case of the sharing of PNR with foreign or international government
agencies, DHS requires an express understanding that the recipient will treat
PNR as sensitive and confidential and that it will not provide PNR to any other
third party without DHS’ prior written authorization. The report specifies that
“sharing takes place for specific cases and only after DHS determines that
the recipient has a need to know the information to carry out functions
consistent with the routine uses set forth in the ATS SORN”. The report
underlines that the Privacy Office and CBP review each international access
arrangement “to ensure that the terms are observed and that continued
sharing of PNR with a non-U.S. user is appropriate”. [85]
The report mentions that
in one case, EU PNR data were shared with an EU Member State. The Privacy
Office reviewed this case and found that ‘the PNR was shared for the
authorized purpose and pursuant to an agreement or arrangement that included
specific language governing the use and protection of the PNR shared’[86]. 

The report also mentions
that DHS (CBP) shared PNR with one international partner on the basis of an
information sharing agreement in place since 2006 and updated in 2009 so as ‘to
ensure that only PNR with a nexus to terrorism or serious transnational crime
are transmitted’. As shown by the reply of DHS to the questionnaire
mentioned above, this relates to an information sharing agreement with the
Canadian authorities. In relation to this U.S.-Canadian arrangement and this
specific PNR transfer, the Privacy Office found also that ‘the PNR was
shared for the authorized purpose and pursuant to an agreement or arrangement
that included specific language governing the use and protection of the PNR
shared’ yet notes that the notification to EU Member States was not
provided.[87]
The Privacy Office thus recommends in its report that ‘CBP should provide
the DHS Office of International Affairs (OIA) with notification about
disclosures and, in turn, OIA should notify EU Member States, as appropriate,
in a timely manner and develop a consistent approach moving forward for
notifications.’[88]
In its response to this recommendation, DHS (CBP) indicated it agrees with
the Privacy Office’s findings. The report also mentions that CBP and the OIA “are
working to develop a consistent process for notification to the EU Member
States. CBP will work with OIA to notify the EU Member States in a timely
fashion, as appropriate.”[89]
The DHS Privacy Office
review report further mentions in relation to Articles 5 and 15 of the
Agreement that when information is transferred from the IT system (probably
what is meant is the system holding the PNR data, the ATS-P system), ATS logs
the external sharing. This observation is also relevant in relation to Article
17.[90] 

R. Law enforcement
cooperation
R.1. The relevant Commitment of the U.S.
Rules on police, law
enforcement and judicial cooperation are laid down in Article 18 of the Agreement.
It states that:
“1. Consistent with
existing law enforcement or other information-sharing agreements or
arrangements between the United States and any EU Member State or Europol and
Eurojust, DHS shall provide to competent police, other specialised law
enforcement or judicial authorities of the EU Member States and Europol and
Eurojust within the remit of their respective mandates, as soon as practicable,
relevant, and appropriate, analytical information obtained from PNR in those
cases under examination or investigation to prevent, detect, investigate, or
prosecute within the European Union terrorist offences and related crimes or
transnational crime as described in Article 4(1)(b).
2. A police or judicial
authority of an EU Member State, or Europol or Eurojust, may request, within
its mandate, access to PNR or relevant analytical information obtained from PNR
that are necessary in a specific case to prevent, detect, investigate, or
prosecute within the European Union terrorist offences and related crimes or
transnational crime as described in Article 4(1)(b). DHS shall, subject to the
agreements and arrangements noted in paragraph 1 of this Article, provide such
information.
3. Pursuant to
paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, DHS shall share PNR only following a
careful assessment of the following safeguards:
(a) Exclusively as
consistent with Article 4;
(b) Only when acting in
furtherance of the uses outlined in Article 4; and
(c) Receiving
authorities shall afford to PNR equivalent or comparable safeguards as set out
in this Agreement.
4. When transferring
analytical information obtained from PNR under this Agreement, the safeguards
set forth in paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Article shall be respected.”
R.2. The relevant written reply of DHS
Question: In how many cases did DHS provide analytical information
obtained from PNR to relevant EU Member States authorities, Europol or
Eurojust?
Response: CBP is not
aware of any provision of analytical data obtained from PNR that has been
provided to relevant EU authorities. However, warnings derived from DHS’s
analysis of PNR and/or API have been provided to EU Member States. The specific
accounting and details of these exchanges are law enforcement sensitive and may
be discussed further during the Joint Review.
Question: What criteria does DHS use to define 'as soon as
practicable, relevant and appropriate' in order to provide analytical
information obtained from PNR?
Response: DHS views
“as soon as practicable, relevant and appropriate” to be directly tied to how the
receiving EU Member State will utilize the data upon receipt of it. As such, a
specialized decision based on the unique counterterrorism and law enforcement
interests and capabilities of each Member State must be compared to the terms
of the agreement. DHS will not release information that cannot be operationally
utilized consistent with the agreement, including to EU Member States.
Question: How many requests did DHS receive from relevant EU Member
States authorities, Europol or Eurojust for access to PNR or relevant
analytical information obtained from PNR? If so, what was the nature of the
specific investigation for which the data were requested, i.e. to combat
terrorism and related crimes, or to combat transnational crime as described in
Article 4?
Response: CBP is not
aware of any such requests.
Question: How does DHS guarantee that the transfers respect the
Agreement’s safeguards and that equivalent or comparable safeguards are
guaranteed by the receiving authorities? 
Response: Because the
agreement is binding on all Member States they should be legally bound to
provide such protections under EU law pursuant to 18.3(c), subject to the full
scope of sanctions available to the European Commission should they fail to
adhere to meet such a standard. Nonetheless, DHS will provide appropriate
markings on any data transferred under Article 18 under an existing authority
to remind the recipient of this obligation. Such markings state:
“This document is
provided by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)/U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION (CBP) to [insert authorized agency] for its official use
only. This document contains confidential personal information of the data
subject, including Passenger Name Record data (“Official Use Only”), which is
governed by the Agreement Between the United States of America and the European
Union on the Use and Transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States
Department of Homeland Security. Such data must receive equivalent and
comparable safeguards and be used only for the purposes outlined in the
Agreement. This document may also contain confidential commercial information.
The data is this document may only be used for authorized purposes and shall
not be disclosed to any third party without the express prior written
authorization of DHS/CBP.”
R.3. DHS Privacy Office review report
In reviewing the sharing
of PNR with foreign agencies, the Privacy Office observed that in one case the
sharing of EU PNR data with a third country was not notified to EU Member
States as required under the Agreement.[91] The DHS Privacy
Office thus recommends that CBP should provide the DHS Office of International
Affairs with notification about such disclosures, and that in turn this DHS
Office should notify EU Member States as appropriate, in a timely manner and
develop a consistent approach on notifications. [92]
S. Implementing and
final provisions 
Articles 19-21, Articles
23- 27 of the Agreement
The EU team did not
raise questions as regards these Articles and they were not discussed either
during the review meeting or addressed in the review report of the DHS Privacy
Office. 
T. Notification of
changes in domestic law
Article 22 of the Agreement
The EU team did not
raise questions as regards this Article. DHS informed the EU team that no changes
in U.S law occurred that materially would affect the implementation of the
Agreement.
ANNEX B
COMPOSITION OF THE REVIEW TEAMS
The members
of the EU team were:
–                        
Reinhard
Priebe, Director, European Commission, DG Home Affairs – Head of the EU delegation
–                        
Cecilia
Verkleij, European Commission, DG Home Affairs 
–                        
Julian
Siegl, European Commission, DG Home Affairs
–                        
Liene
Balta, European Commission, DG Justice
–                        
Karsten
Behn, expert on data protection in the law enforcement area from the German
Federal data protection authority
–                        
Muriel
Sylvan, PNR expert from the French Ministry of the Interior
–                        
Jose
Maria Muriel from the EU delegation in Washington.
The members
of the U.S. team were:
–                        
Jonathan
Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, DHS
–                        
Rebecca
Richards, Acting Deputy Chief Privacy Officer and Senior Director for Privacy
Compliance, Privacy Office, DHS 
–                        
Shannon
Ballard, Director, International Privacy Programs, Privacy Office, DHS
–                        
Kelli
Ann Walther, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Screening Coordination Office, DHS
–                        
Michael
Scardaville, Director, European and Multilateral Affairs, Office of
International Affairs, DHS
–                        
Regina
Hart, Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, DHS
–                        
David
Harding, Secure Flight Program, Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
DHS
–                        
Peter
Pietra, Privacy Office, TSA, DHS
–                        
Carey
Davis, Acting Executive Director, Office of filed Operations, CBP, DHS
–                        
Donald
Conroy, Director, National Targeting Center-Passenger, CBP, DHS
–                        
Franklin
Jones, Executive Director, Diversity and Civil Rights, CBP, DHS
–                        
Laurence
Castelli, Privacy Officer, CBP, DHS
–                        
Kristin
Dubelier, Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (Enforcement), CBP, DHS
–                        
Robert
M. Neumann, Acting director, Travel Entry Programs, Office of Field Operations,
CBP, DHS
–                        
Jeannine
Perniciaro, Program Manager, Travel Entry Programs, CBP, DHS
–                        
Akbar
Siddiqui, Attorney Advisor, CBP, DHS
–                        
Emily
Rohde, Attorney, CBP, DHSThomas Burrows, Assocaite Director, Office of
intrenatinal Afairs, U.S. Department of Justice
–                        
Leslie
Freriksen, Auropean Union Affairs, U.S. Department of State (DoS)
–                        
Kathlen
Wilson, Office of the Legal Advisor, DoS
–                        
Elaijne
Morris-Moxnes, Program Manager, Targeting and Analysis Systems Program Office,
CBP, DHS
[1]               Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA).
[2]               US Regulation 19 CFR 122.49d on PNR information.
[3]               Commission staff working paper on the joint review of
the implementation by the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the
Undertakings set out in Commission Decision 2004/535/EC of 14 May 2004, 20-21
September 2005, Redacted version, 12.12.2005. Report on the joint review of the
implementation of the Agreement between the European union and the United
States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR)
data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), 8-9 February 2010, Brussels, 7.4.2010.
[4]               OJ L 215/5, 11.08.2012.
[5]               DHS Privacy Office, a report on the use and transfer
of Passenger Name Records between the European Union and the United States, 3
July 2013, available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/dhs-pnr-privacy-review-20130703.pdf.
[6]               http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-22/html/2012-12396.htm.
[7]               Joint Review Discussion July 8 & 9, 2013
[8]               Joint Review Discussion July 8 & 9, 2013.
[9]               API data contain information held in a passport or
other travel document.
[10]             DHS clarified that the majority
of the 2500 individual PNRs for 198 flights during the four month period was
result of an officer inappropriately using the system. Necessary steps were
taken to avoid such an incident in the future. 
[11]             Joint Review Discussion July 8 & 9, 2013
[12]             In the EU these are: Roissy (Charles De Gaulle) (FR),
Frankfurt (DE), Heathrow, Manchester and Gatwick (UK), Schiphol (NL), and Madrid
(ES).
[13]             CBP Fact sheet on the IAP,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/travel.
[14]             Http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-tsa-secure-flight-update-09042013.pdf
[15]             DHS Privacy Office internal review report, Chapter 5,
page 17.
[16]             Ibid., Chapter 7, pages 20-21.
[17]             Ibid., Chapter 7, page 21.
[18]             Joint Review Discussion July 8 & 9, 2013
[19]             Ibid.
[20]             DHS only used sensitive data three times to test the
system’s access notification functionality.
[21]             DHS proceeded in June 2012 with an update of the
Privacy Impact Assessment for the system holding amongst others PNR data, with
the aim to inform the public about the changes in this system  It can be  found
at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbp_ats006b.pdf.
[22]             The CBP Directive.
[23]             DHS Privacy Office internal review report, Chapter 3,
page 13.
[24]             Joint Review Discussion July 8 & 9, 2013. 
[25]             Ibid.
[26]             Ibid.
[27]             DHS Privacy Office internal review report, Chapter 2,
page 12.
[28]             Joint Review Discussion July 8 & 9, 2013.
[29]             DHS Privacy Office review report, Overview, page 5.
[30]             Ibid., Chapter 6, page 18.
[31]             Ibid., Chapter 6, page 19.
[32]             Http://www.cbp.gocv/xp/cgov/travel/customerservice;
http://foia.cbp.gov/palMain.aspx; http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip.

[33]             DHS Privacy Office internal review report, Chapter 6,
page 18.
[34]             Ibid., Chapter 6, page 19.
[35]             Ibid., Overview, page 6 and Chapter 6, page 19.
[36]             Ibid., Chapter 6, page 19.
[37]             Ibid.
[38]             http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip.
[39]             Ibid., Chapter 8, page 21.
[40]             Ibid.
[41]             Ibid.
[42]             Joint Review Discussion July 8 & 9, 2013.
[43]             Ibid.
[44]             Ibid.
[45]             Ibid. 
[46]             DHS Privacy Office review report, Chapter 3, page 14.
[47]             Ibid., Overview, pages 5-6.
[48]             DHS reply to the EU questionnaire in relation to
Article 15 of the Agreement.
[49]             DHS Privacy Office internal review report, Chapter 5,
page 18.
[50]             Joint Review Discussion July 8 & 9, 2013.
[51]             DHS Privacy Office review report, Chapter 4, page 16.
[52]             Ibid., Chapter 2, pages 11-12.
[53]             Ibid., Chapter 3, page 14.
[54]             Ibid., Chapter 5, page 17.
[55]             Ibid, Chapter 7, pages 20-21.
[56]             Ibid., Chapter 7, page 21.
[57]             Ibid., Chapter 4, page 16.
[58]             Ibid.
[59]             Ibid.
[60]             Ibid., Chapter 3, page 13.
[61]             Ibid., Chapter 4, page 16.
[62]             Ibid., Chapter 3, page 13.
[63]             Ibid., Chapter 3, page 14.
[64]             Ibid., Chapter 3, page 13.
[65]             Ibid., Chapter 2, page 12.
[66]             Ibid., Overview,  page 5.
[67]             http://www.dhs.gov/privacy-foia-reports,
DHS Privacy Office review report, Chapter 1, page 10.
[68]             DHS Privacy Office review report, Chapter 6, page 18.
[69]             Http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/customerservice;
http://foia.cbp.gov/palMain.aspx; http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip.
[70]             DHS Privacy Office review report, Chapter 6, page 18.
[71]             Ibid., Overview, page 6 and Chapter 6, page 19.
[72]             Ibid., Chapter 6, page 19.
[73]             Ibid., Chapter 6, page 19.
[74]             Ibid., Chapter 6, page 19.
[75]             Ibid., Chapter 6, pages 19-20.
[76]             Ibid., Chapter 8, page 21.
[77]             Ibid., Overview, page 7 and Chapter 8, page 23.
[78]             Ibid., Overview, page 5.      
[79]             Ibid., Chapter 1, page 11.
[80]             Ibid., Chapter 5, page 17.
[81]             Ibid., Chapter 5, page 18.
[82]             Ibid., Chapter 7, page 21. 
[83]             Ibid., Chapter 3, page 14.
[84]             Ibid., Chapter 7, page 21. 
[85]             Ibid., Chapter 3, page 14.
[86]             Ibid., Chapter 3, page 15.
[87]             Ibid.
[88]             Ibid., Overview, pages 5-6.
[89]             Ibid., Overview, page 6.
[90]             Ibid., Chapter 7, page 21. 
[91]             Ibid., Overview, page 5 and Chapter 3, page 15.
[92]             Ibid., Overview, pages 5-6.