Persons subject to the requirements of part 1520 are:
(a) Each airport operator, aircraft operator, and fixed base operator subject to the requirements of subchapter C of this chapter, and each armed security officer under subpart B of part 1562.
(b) Each indirect air carrier (IAC), as described in 49 CFR part 1548; and each certified cargo screening facility and its personnel, as described in 49 CFR part 1549.
(c) Each owner, charterer, or operator of a vessel, including foreign vessel owners, charterers, and operators, required to have a security plan under Federal or International law.
(d) Each owner or operator of a maritime facility required to have a security plan under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, (Pub.L. 107-295), 46 U.S.C. 70101 et seq., 33 CFR part 6, or 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.
(e) Each person performing the function of a computer reservation system or global distribution system for airline passenger information.
(f) Each person participating in a national or area security committee established under 46 U.S.C. 70112, or a port security committee.
(g) Each industry trade association that represents covered persons and has entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the DHS or DOT.
(h) DHS and DOT.
(i) Each person conducting research and development activities that relate to aviation or maritime transportation security and are approved, accepted, funded, recommended, or directed by DHS or DOT.
(j) Each person who has access to SSI, as specified in § 1520.11.
(k) Each person employed by, contracted to, or acting for a covered person, including a grantee of DHS or DOT, and including a person formerly in such position.
(l) Each person for which a vulnerability assessment has been directed, created, held, funded, or approved by the DOT, DHS, or that has prepared a vulnerability assessment that will be provided to DOT or DHS in support of a Federal security program.
(m) Each person receiving SSI under § 1520.15(d) or (e).
(n) Each owner/operator of maritime or surface transportation subject to the requirements of subchapter D of this chapter.
[69 FR 28082, May 18, 2004, as amended at 70 FR 41600, July 19, 2005; 73 FR 72173, Nov. 26, 2008; 74 FR 47695, Sept. 16, 2009; 76 FR 51867, Aug. 18, 2011; 85 FR 16499, Mar. 23, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913 (2015).
· cites it 2× “" 49 CFR § 1520.7 (j) (2002). Sensitive security information is not classified, so the TSA can share it with individuals who do not have a security clearance, such as airport employees.”
MacLean v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 543 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Permissible Agency Adjudication MacLean contends that the TSA order is an incorrect application of 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7 (j) (2003) and is unsupported by substantial evidence.”
MacLean v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 714 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 3× “MacLean contends that the Board wrongly concluded that the regulation it ultimately relied on to uphold his removal, 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7 (j), which was in force in 2003, is the same as the 2005 regulation.”
Gordon v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 390 F. Supp. 2d 897 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
· cites it 2× “, and any comments, instructions, or implementing guidance pertaining thereto” as sensitive security information that cannot be disclosed.”
Chowdhury v. Nw. Airlines Corp., 226 F.R.D. 608 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
“” 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7 (a) & (c). The regulations further provide that air carriers, among others, “must restrict disclosure of access to sensitive security information .”
Crooker v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 323 F. Supp. 3d 148 (D.D.C. 2018).
“49 C.F.R. §§ 1520.7 (a), 1520.11. In some cases, such status may also be disclosed to United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who are denied boarding on a commercial aircraft, seek redress for that denial of boarding, and are determined to be appropriately on the…”
MacLean v. Homeland (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “The agency alleged that MacLean’s disclosure of the text message on July 29, 2003, violated 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7 (j) (2003), which barred the disclosure of “sensitive security information.”
Anas Elhady v. David Pekoske (6th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. §§ 1520.7 , 1520.11. And a party to a civil proceeding can be a “covered person” under 49 C.”
Robert Stephens v. Kirstjen Nielsen (C.D. Cal. 2020).
“Access to SSI is limited to “covered persons” with a “need to know” as set 10 forth in 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7 and § 1520.11. Because the parties, their attorneys, the Court 11 and its employees may be “covered persons” with a “need to know” some or all of the 12 SSI relevant to this…”
Cynthia Alcala v. Kevin K. McAleenan (C.D. Cal. 2020).
“Access to SSI is limited to “covered persons” with a “need to know” as set 10 forth in 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7 and § 1520.11. Because the parties, their attorneys, the 11 Court and its employees may be “covered persons” with a “need to know” some or all of 12 the SSI relevant to this…”
Jonathan Morris v. Chad Wolf (C.D. Cal. 2020).
“Access to SSI is limited to “covered persons” with a “need to know” as set 7 forth in 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7 and § 1520.11. Because the parties, their attorneys, the Court 8 and its employees may be “covered persons” with a “need to know” some or all of the 9 SSI relevant to this…”
Nathaniel Hampton v. Chad Wolf (C.D. Cal. 2021).
“24 (a) Access to SSI is limited to “covered persons” with a “need to know” 25 as set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7 and § 1520.11. Because the parties, their 26 attorneys, the Court and its employees may be “covered persons” with a 27 “need to know” some or all of the SSI relevant…”
— 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7(b) — 1 case
Gordon v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 390 F. Supp. 2d 897 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
“, and any comments, instructions, or implementing guidance pertaining thereto” as sensitive security information that cannot be disclosed.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 1520.7(c) — 1 case
Gordon v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 390 F. Supp. 2d 897 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
“, and any comments, instructions, or implementing guidance pertaining thereto” as sensitive security information that cannot be disclosed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.