49 C.F.R. § 1544.305

Security Directives and Information Circulars

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) TSA may issue an Information Circular to notify aircraft operators of security concerns. When TSA determines that additional security measures are necessary to respond to a threat assessment or to a specific threat against civil aviation, TSA issues a Security Directive setting forth mandatory measures.

(b) Each aircraft operator required to have an approved aircraft operator security program must comply with each Security Directive issued to the aircraft operator by TSA, within the time prescribed in the Security Directive for compliance.

(1) Within the time prescribed in the Security Directive, verbally acknowledge receipt of the Security Directive to TSA.

(2) Within the time prescribed in the Security Directive, specify the method by which the measures in the Security Directive have been implemented (or will be implemented, if the Security Directive is not yet effective).

(d) In the event that the aircraft operator is unable to implement the measures in the Security Directive, the aircraft operator must submit proposed alternative measures and the basis for submitting the alternative measures to TSA for approval. The aircraft operator must submit the proposed alternative measures within the time prescribed in the Security Directive. The aircraft operator must implement any alternative measures approved by TSA.

(e) Each aircraft operator that receives a Security Directive may comment on the Security Directive by submitting data, views, or arguments in writing to TSA. TSA may amend the Security Directive based on comments received. Submission of a comment does not delay the effective date of the Security Directive.

(f) Each aircraft operator that receives a Security Directive or Information Circular and each person who receives information from a Security Directive or Information Circular must:

(1) Restrict the availability of the Security Directive or Information Circular, and information contained in either document, to those persons with an operational need-to-know.

(2) Refuse to release the Security Directive or Information Circular, and information contained in either document, to persons other than those with an operational need-to-know without the prior written consent of TSA.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2003–2014 · leading case: Amerijet Int'l, Inc. v. John Pistole, 753 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amerijet Int'l, Inc. v. John Pistole, 753 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “”) 59-63 (“August Application”); see also 49 C.F.R. § 1544.305 (d). These requests form the basis of the present dispute.”

Green v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (W.D. Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “49 CFR § 1544.305 (b). Plaintiffs’ argument that the Security Directives are not orders within the meaning of Section 46110 because the TSA has not created or published findings of fact or otherwise created an administrative record is without merit.”

Amerijet Int'l, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 43 F. Supp. 3d 4 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 1544.305 (b); see also Defs.’ Mem.”

Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006). “” 49 C.F.R. § 1544.305 (b) (2005). Therefore, having reviewed the TSA Security Directive that requires airline operators to enforce the identification policy, we hold that it is an “order” within the meaning of § 46110(a).”

Kalantar v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 276 F. Supp. 2d 5 (D.D.C. 2003). “18 (d) (2001) (current version at 49 C.F.R. § 1544.305 (f) (2003)). These security requirements apply equally to foreign carriers.”

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.