La normativa de la Unión Europea que he mencionado estos dias tiene su origen en la de ICAO, la Organización Internacional de Aviación Civil.

Por ello me ha parecido interesante este artículo de Doug Newhouse del 3 de abril de 2007 y que he visto en TREND (Travel Retail Executive News Digest).

ICAO’s new retail security guidelines in full

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has issued its guideline recommendations to its 189 member airports for the specifications of tamper-evident bags plus «proposed security principles for retail liquid, aerosol and gel items for airport retailers and manufacturers”.

While these guidelines carry no obligation on the part of any country to comply, they are expected to be widely adopted as most ICAO guidelines are by international airports.

The new guidelines contain one or two «optional additions» to existing practice such as the inclusion of a security device – meaning a hidden graphic – inside the bag and a green coloured logo on the outside.

Section five of this document is also of particular significance, entitled: “proposed security principles for retail liquid, aerosol and gel items for airport retailers and manufacturers”. These guidelines say that all liquids, gels and aerosols (LAGs) should be handled in accordance with ICAO’s recommendations contained in State letter AS 8/11-06/100 dated 1 December 2006:

a) All LAGs should be carried in containers with a capacity not greater than 100 ml each (or the equivalent in other volumetric measurements, e.g. fluid ounces);

b) Any LAGs carried in a container larger than 100 ml are not to be accepted, even if the container is only part-filled;

c) Containers with LAGs should be placed in a transparent re-sealable plastic bag of a maximum capacity not exceeding one litre. The containers must fit comfortably within the transparent plastic bag, which should be completely closed;

d) Each passenger is permitted to carry only one such bag which is to be presented separately for screening;

e) All conventional security controls and checks, including random hand searches of passengers and cabin bags, are applicable;

f) Flight crew in uniform and on duty the day(s) of the journey are exempted from these restrictions; and

g) Exceptions are allowed for medications, baby milk/foods and special dietary or other medical requirements as enumerated in paragraph 2 of this document.

1.2 LAGs, in any volume, purchased at airport retail outlets or on board aircraft during the day(s) of the journey should not be allowed through security screening points unless they:

a) are carried in a Security Tamper-Evident Bag (STEB); and

b) have been protected from unlawful interference by a process of supply chain security, including the application of appropriate security measures at manufacturers and warehouses, during the delivery process for both LAGs and STEBs from the warehouse to the airport retail outlets and aircraft outlets, and while in stock/on display at those outlets.

ICAO notes: For the purpose of this document, liquids, gels and aerosols are referred to as LAGs and include but are not limited to: water and other drinks, soups, syrups, jams, stews, sauces and pastes; foods in sauces or containing a high liquid content; creams, lotions, cosmetics and oils; perfumes; sprays; gels including hair and shower gels; contents of pressurized containers, including shaving foam, other foam and deodorants; pastes including toothpaste; liquid-solid mixtures; mascara; lip gloss or lip balm; and any item of similar consistency at room temperature.

Empty containers with a capacity greater than 100 ml are permitted. Indicative size of the one litre re-sealable plastic bag: 20.5 cm x 20.5 cm or 25 cm x 15 cm, or equivalent.

1.3 ICAO’s security guidelines, available in the ICAO Security Manual for Safeguarding Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference (Doc 8973) may be adopted for the development of specific measures and incorporated, if needed, into the relevant airport and airline security programmes, regulated agent regimes and quality control measures. A set of minimum security principles for manufacturers and retailers of LAGs and STEBs is in paragraph 5 of this document.

1.4 A harmonized validation template will be available on the ICAO AVSECNET secure website for use by States. Ensuring compliance with the security measures applied to LAGs and STEBs within a State is a matter for the State concerned. Recognition of the robustness of LAGs and STEBs security in another State (or States) could be conducted via bilateral, multilateral or other arrangements as appropriate, which could include on-site verification.

2. EXEMPTIONS FOR MEDICATIONS AND SPECIAL DIETARY REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING BABY FOODS.

2.1 Passengers.
2.1.1 Liquids, aerosols and gels of any kind carried in containers with a maximum volume of 100ml should be placed in the one litre bag.

However exemptions may be granted for LAGs which cannot be so carried, but which are needed during the journey, either for essential medical purposes or to meet special and essential dietary needs. When required to do so, the passenger or staff member should provide proof of authenticity of the exempted liquid.

2.1.2 This paragraph describes procedures which airports and airlines should follow in order to establish whether LAGs claimed to be essential may be taken by passengers through search points. Persons may be sensitive about medicines they are carrying, and so will need similarly sensitive handling.

If, having followed the procedures in this guidance, doubts remain about the provenance of a LAG, the person in question should be told that they cannot take it into the cabin of the aircraft. It follows that, since the LAG was regarded as essential, he or she should also be advised not to fly.

a) Journey: The liquid is to be used during the journey refers to the journey of the person and so should not, per se, be linked to the length of the flight. A passenger may only be taking a one-hour flight, but may be taking medicine greater than 100 ml.

If the medicine is being carried in a container of more than 100 ml, whether or not it fits into the litre bag is irrelevant. He or she should be asked why the medicine is needed in this amount, and whether it could not be carried in the aircraft hold. Only if the responses give the necessary assurance should the LAG’s carriage in the cabin be permitted.

b) Medical purposes: Liquids required for medical purposes should be interpreted as meaning liquid medicines, both prescribed by a doctor and bought over-the-counter. In determining if medicine with a total volume of over 100ml is indeed essential to be carried in the cabin, and that the amount being carried is no more than is necessary for the trip, the passenger should be questioned on the nature of the medicine; the reasons why it is claimed as essential; the dosage; and the frequency of dose necessary.

However, in principle, derogations for over-the-counter medicines (e.g. nose sprays, cough medicines, contact lens solution) should be more restrictive in the quantity of liquid that is permitted since these are not “life-or death” medicines.

In addition, liquids that are not medicines but are used for medical purposes are permitted, examples of which include ice (if used to maintain the temperature of, for example, a transplant organ), blood or blood products, and even “normal” liquids if their use is justified on medical grounds (e.g. an autistic traveller that “needs” to have a particular brand of drink).

c) Dietary needs: Liquids as a special dietary need should be interpreted as meaning those foods without which the passenger’s health is threatened. Examples include baby food (provided, of course, that a baby is travelling), or foods such as special diets for lactose-intolerant passengers, or gluten-intolerant passengers.

Where the volume of baby food is deemed excessive for the length of the journey, it is not to be allowed through the screening point. Baby products may include: baby milk; sterilised water; baby juice; baby food in liquid, gel or paste form; and wet wipes.

d) Proof of authenticity: When requested to do so, the passenger should provide proof of authenticity of the exempted liquids. It should be established that the name on the label of the prescription medication matches the name on his/her boarding pass.

Where the medication is non-prescription, a determination on reasonable amounts is required. Reasonable amounts include what is required for length of the flight taking into account possible delays and flight diversions. If doubts are felt about the quantity of liquid being carried by a passenger, or that the liquids are for medical purposes or special dietary needs, then a plausibility check should be performed.

The passenger could be invited to sample the items or rub them on their skin to prove they are safe (hydrogen peroxide-based explosives are caustic, and thus could not be safely tasted or rubbed onto the skin).

For medicine prescribed by a doctor, the passenger should be able to show that it is for his/her own use, for example by having their name on the label of the medicine or a note from a doctor. When verifying the proof of authenticity, the following should be taken into consideration:

1) A passenger should not be asked to taste their medication if the dosage/usage instruction or advice from their doctor indicates that it would be dangerous to do so;

2) Passenger should not be made to taste any medication, either their own or their child’s, against their wishes;

3) For children’s prescription medication, the accompanying adult passenger should not be asked to taste the medicine, verification should instead be sought through questioning;

4) If a container is marked in grams, it may be assumed that 100g corresponds to 100 ml; and

5) Where a passenger has been asked to rub a small amount of the LAG onto their skin, the passenger’s skin should be monitored for at least two minutes to see if a reaction occurs.

2.2 Airport Staff
2.2.1 The personal items of airport staff entering a security restricted area and on board an aircraft (i.e. beverages, perfumes, cosmetics, medications and other similar items) should be subjected to the same restrictions and exemptions as passengers.

However, tools of the trade are exempt from LAGs restrictions. Tools of the trade are defined as articles in a person’s possession which are required for the lawful purpose for which he or she is in the sterile area. Tools of the trade may include items such as cleaning products, sealants, degreasers, glues, paints and oils.

2.3 Exempt Persons
2.3.1 The State may decide to exempt from LAGs restrictions (e.g. law enforcement officers and emergency personnel responding to a crisis).

3. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR STEBS.
3.1 Material to be used.

– transparent (high impact low density polyethylene (LDPE) or equivalent);
– recyclable and environment-friendly products if possible; and
– size and thickness (minimum of 50 microns) to be adjusted to the needs.

3.2 On the top face of the STEB
3.2.1 Closure:
– red tamper evident tape (minimum 30 mm tape with 40 mm release liner);
– high tack pressure sensitive self adhesive; and
– integral security device/hidden graphic to show if tampered with.

3.2.2 Border:
– side and bottom weld be no less than 15 mm width in red; and
– printed border of minimum 5 mm with «DO NOT OPEN», airport name, or any other continuous message or design which may bleed over the edge of the bag.
(Optional – integral security device/hidden graphic to show if borders are tampered with.)

3.2.3 Message:
– security sign in green in the middle of the security box; and
– box in red at bottom stating «Do not open until final destination -contents may be confiscated if bag is tampered with».

3.2.4 Confirmation/identification features:
– Receipt space (or jacket, optional) inside the bag visible in the top left of the security box.
The receipt should contain the following information:

a) date of purchase (dd/mm/yy or dd/mm/yyyy);

b) place of purchase (State, airport, airline) using international codes;
c) flight number(s) and name of passenger, if possible;

d) number and list of items purchased and placed in the STEB.

3.2.5 Origin of the bag:
– State three-letter code to determine the State of origin where the STEB was provided to the passenger, or airline international code (for duty free sales on board) to determine the origin of the STEB;
– Manufacturer name (in full pending ICAO’s registration number); and
– Inventory code and security code or device to protect STEB at retailers and shops.

3.3 On the back face of the bag.
– Individual airport/retailers/other branding or logos.

4. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE USE OF THE STEB.
4.1 Ideally, and in order to facilitate the visual inspection, only LAGs purchased at airport shops, and potentially subjected to security screening at a later stage of the journey, should be placed in the STEB. Other items which might not be confiscated should either be placed in another (regular) bag or, if placed inside the STEB, should not compromise the visual inspection performed at security screening points during the journey. No items other than those purchased at the airport shop should be placed in the STEB.

4.2 Receipts should be inside the STEB, face visible from outside, and securely placed in the left top of the security box (either with a jacket inside the bag, or fixed accordingly). If the receipt has moved and is not visible for security screening purposes, the bag will have to be opened and its contents may be confiscated (or placed in a new STEB by security staff at the security screening point).

4.3 State or airline and manufacturer codes are placed by the manufacturers. Inventory and security codes are the responsibility of the retailers. STEBs should be distributed to authentic parties only.

5. PROPOSED SECURITY PRINCIPLES FOR RETAIL LIQUID, AEROSOL AND GEL ITEMS FOR AIRPORT RETAILERS AND MANUFACTURERS.
5.1 Security measures during manufacture and warehousing.
5.1.1 In order to ensure the security integrity of LAGs and STEBs, the following security measures are recommended for implementation at the warehouse where retail LAGs and STEBs are consigned:

a) Access control system, including screening procedures, allowing only authorized personnel into the premises, including verification of staff and visitors’ identities (for airport staff, Standard 4.2.6 of Annex 17, Eighth Edition, is applicable);

b) Surveillance systems (i.e. CCTV or equivalent) to monitor activities in the warehouse for preventing intrusion, tampering with and thefts of goods, or interference in processes; and

c) Access control system upon exit from the warehouse so that nothing could be substituted or used to prepare an act of unlawful interference (for airport staff, exit control measures could be carried out when exiting the Security Restricted Area).

5.2 Security measures during shipments.
5.2.1 Only sealed bins/containers and/or trucks should be used for shipments of LAGs or STEBs to airport shops or airline outlets. Any LAGs or STEBs taken out of the warehouse must be accompanied by appropriate documentation and a delivery manifest, which should be retained for possible future audit.
Security tamper-evident bags at airport shops or airline outlets should always be protected and under surveillance before being used by authorized staff. Staff at airports with access to LAGs and/or STEBs should be subjected to appropriate background checks and physical search regime.
5.3 Quality control.
5.3.1 All security measures for LAGs and STEBs should normally be incorporated into relevant security programmes (retailer security programme if considered as regulated agent according to Standard 4.6.3 of Annex 17, Eighth Edition, airport security programme and operator security programme for airline outlets).

In addition, technical assessments/tests of the security measures on premises should be conducted in order to maintain an adequate level of protection.

Retailers are encouraged to discuss such assessments/tests with the Appropriate Security Authority or Airport Authority. If a security breach is detected, security/duty supervisors, and the Appropriate Security Authorities or the police should be immediately alerted so that appropriate actions are taken. Any suspicious parcels should be dealt with under standard operating procedures.

5.3.2 Details on the implementation of the above-mentioned principles are being developed in the ICAO Security Manual, Seventh Edition, Volume IV.

Las Leyes secretas son Leyes que no existen.

Es de cajón. Es la base de la seguridad jurídica. De donde surge la norma «el desconocimiento de la ley no exime de su cumplimiento» (o literalmente «1. La ignorancia de las leyes no excusa de su cumplimiento.» artículo 6 del Código Civil español).

A este respecto me hago eco de este artículo «Beyond Imagination» en el blog «EU Referendum»

Used as we are to the machinations of our supreme government in Brussels, there is very little that surprises us. But this one, even by EU standards, is a gem beyond imagining – a law produced by the commission which, although everybody was expected to obey it, it refused to publish.

To its credit, this Kafkaesque situation was picked up by the European Court of Justice, specifically by the Advocate General, Eleanor Sharpston – the British barrister who prosecuted metric martyr Steve Thoburn on behalf of Sunderland Council.

The case itself, which attracted uncommonly robust condemnation from Mz Sharpston, concerned a Dr Gottfried Heinrich. On 25 September 2005, he had committed the heinous crime of boarding a passenger airliner at Vienna-Schwechat Airport carrying as part of his cabin baggage some tennis racquets which he intended to use on his holiday.

He had been stopped at the security control and warned that these were «prohibited items» but nevertheless did board with the tennis racquets in his baggage, only to be summarily ordered off the aircraft.

The point – to which Mz Sharpston took very great exception – was that there was no way that Dr Heinrich could possibly know that his tennis racquets were prohibited items.

Although such items were listed in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 of 4 April 2003 «laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security», the commission had decided that the Annex should not be published. It should only be made available «to the appropriate authorities». This was even despite two amending regulations stating, in their recitals, the need for passengers to be clearly informed of the rules relating to prohibited items.

Dr Heinrich brought proceedings before the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Independent Administrative Chamber for the Land of Lower Austria) which referred questions to the ECJ asking whether regulations or parts thereof «can have legally binding force if they have not been published in the Official Journal».

The ECJ had no hesitation in finding that the commission was in clear breach of Article 254 of the EC Treaty, which provides that regulations shall be published in the Official Journal. Mz Sharpston noted that the duty to publish regulations is, «unequivocal and without exception» and thus considered that the failure to publish constituted «a violation of an essential procedural requirement, resulting, at the very least, in invalidity.»

However, given that that non-publication had been neither accidental nor unintentional, Mz Sharpston suggested that the Court should go further and declare the regulation to be non-existent.

The «persistent and deliberate disregard of the mandatory publication requirement of Article 254 EC», she said, was one «whose gravity is so obvious that it cannot be tolerated by the Community legal order.» Such a step, she added, «would make it very clear that non-publication of regulations or parts thereof – all the more so when deliberate – is unacceptable in the legal order of the European Union.»

Certainly, judgements do not get more unequivocal than that, and this one makes delicious reading. But there is a coda to the story.

The only organ of our loathsome British media to report the ruling (so far) is The Times. Yet, over a by-line from David Charter in Brussels, it offers the headline: «Airlines rebuked over hand luggage racket». And, with the airlines almost completely in the frame, all we get on the EU commission on its secret Annex is that it has «agreed to publish the full list soon.»

Just precisely what does the commission have to do to get criticised in this town?