Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Aaron Abadi, et al., Petitioners v. Transportation Security Administration

Supreme Court briefJul 5, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

In the

Supreme Court o! tlje ®ntteti States

AARON ABADI,

& URI MARCUS

Petitioners,

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMNISTRATION (“TSA”),

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

APPENDIX

Petitioners:

Aaron Abadi (Pro se)

82 Nassau Street Apt 140

New York, NY 10038

(212) 785-0370 * aabadi@optonline.net

Uri Marcus (Pro Se)

P.O. Box 126

Ojai, CA 93024

(909) 833-0065 * uri@ntcf.org

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DC CIRCUIT COURT ORDER TO BE REVIEWED

DC CIRCUIT DENIES HEARING EN BANC

CORBETT V. TRANSPORTATION SEC. ADMIN - COURT ORDER

49 U.S. Code § 114

16a

49 U.S. Code § 44903 - Air transportation security

36a

TSA Health Directive 1542-21-01

50a

TSA Health Directive 1544-21-02

55a

TSA Health Directive 1582/84-21-01

61a

TSA Emergency Amendment 1546-21-01

67a

TSA website Homepage

73a

Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) Disability Laws

76a

DC Circuit Wall v TSA Docket Report

114a

USCA Case #21-1220

Document #1985222

ffinitzb

Filed: 02/09/2023

Page 1 of 4

(&auxt ai appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 21-1220

September Term, 2022

Filed On: February 9,2023

Lucas Wall, et al.,

Petitioners

Transportation Security Administration,

Respondent

Consolidated with Nos. 21-1221,21-1225, 21-1236, 21-1237, 21-1258

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Transportation Security Administration

Before: Millett and Katsas, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

This case was considered on the record and on the briefs of the parties. We have accorded

the issues full consideration and have determined that they do not warrant a published opinion.

See D.C. ClR. R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petitions for review be DENIED.

In these consolidated cases, thirteen petitioners (to whom we shall refer collectively as

“Wall”) challenge four now-expired security directives issued by the Transportation Security

Administration (“TSA”). Those directives had generally required that facial masks be worn in

transportation hubs and on public transit. The TSA had promulgated those directives under 49

U.S.C. § 114(g), which authorizes that agency, “during a national emergency,” to “coordinate and

oversee the transportation-related responsibilities of other departments and agencies of the Federal

USCA Case #21-1220

Document #1985222

Filed: 02/09/2023

Page 2 of 4

Government,” and “[t]o carry out such other duties, and exercise such other powers, relating to

transportation during a national emergency as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe.”

49 U.S.C. § 114(g)(1)(B), (D). The TSA allowed those security directives to expire in April 2022

after a decision from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida struck down

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s similar mask order. See Press Release, Statement

Regarding Face Mask Use on Public Transportation, TSA (April 18, 2022),

https://go.usa.gov/xuSpN; see also Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc. v. Biden, 599 F. Supp. 3d 1144

(M.D. Fla. 2022), appeal pending No. 22-11287.

Because Wall’s challenges are foreclosed by settled precedent, we deny the petitions for

review.

We start, as we must, with jurisdiction. Full Value Advisors, LLC v. SEC, 633 F.3d 1101,

1106 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Ordinarily, the expiration of the challenged security directives would

render the petitions for review moot, depriving us of jurisdiction to decide the merits of Wall’s

claims. See North American Butterfly Ass’n v. Wolf, 977 F.3d 1244, 1258 (D.C. Cir. 2020)

(Mootness doctrine “focuses on whether events subsequent to the filing of the complaint have so

transpired that the decision will neither presently affect the parties’ rights nor have a more-thanspeculative chance of affecting them in the future.”) (formatting modified). These cases, though,

fall squarely within the voluntary cessation exception to mootness. That exception provides that

a defendant’s voluntary decision to halt challenged conduct will not moot a case unless

“subsequent events ma[k]e it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not

reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.,

528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n, 393

U.S. 199, 203 (1968)); National Black Police Ass’n v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 346, 349

(D.C. Cir. 1997). Said another way, a case will not be moot if there is a “more-than-speculative

chance” that the court’s ruling will affect the parties’ rights in the foreseeable future. North

American Butterfly Ass’n, 977 F.3d at 1258.

In this case, it is not “absolutely clear” that the TSA will not reinstitute its masking directives.

Quite the opposite: The government is actively seeking to overturn the Middle District of Florida’s

decision striking down another transportation mask directive. See generally Opening Brief for

Appellants, Health Freedom Def. Fund v. Biden, No. 22-11287 (11th Cir. May 31, 2022). And

critically, the TSA has told this court directly that “there is a more-than-speculative chance that

TSA will invoke the same authorities” to readopt another masking directive in the future. TSA

Suppl. Br. 7-9. In addition, this court has already affirmed the TSA’s statutory authority to issue

the challenged directives without notice and comment rulemaking, so the TSA could reinstate the

masking directives with relative procedural ease. See Corbett v. TSA, 19 F.4th 478, 486 (D.C.

Cir. 2021) (upholding TSA’s authority to issue mask directives); cf. Alaska v. Department of

Agric., 17 F.4th 1224, 1229 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (where voluntary cessation by the government is

USCA Case #21-1220

Document #1985222

Filed: 02/09/2023

Page 3 of 4

concerned, “structural obstacles to reimposing a challenged law * * * generally moot a case”).

Because there is a more-than-speculative chance that the challenged conduct will recur, these cases

are not moot.

That said, Wall’s challenge to the administrative record underlying the TSA’s expired orders

is moot. That is because, even if the TSA reissues its masking directives, it will necessarily create

a new administrative record underlying those orders. So it is certain that the administrative records

before us now will not have any continuing legal consequence.

Turning to the merits, Wall’s challenges to the TSA’s statutory authority to issue the masking

requirements and the related arguments that the TSA failed to promulgate the orders through notice

and comment rulemaking are squarely foreclosed by our earlier decision in Corbett, 19 F.4th at

486.

Wall’s arguments that the directives violate specified provisions of the Food, Drug, and

Cosmetics Act, see 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(l)(A), and the Air Carrier Access Act, see 49 U.S.C.

§ 41705(a), also fail because the TSA is not a regulated party, and the mask mandate is not

regulated conduct under any of the cited provisions. See 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(/), (e)(1)(A)

(regulated parties under this provision of Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, entitled “Authorization

for medical products for use in emergencies,” are only those that introduce medical products into

interstate commerce, and regulated conduct is that which runs afoul of conditions on an Emergency

Use Authorization set by the Food and Drug Administration); 49 U.S.C. § 41705(a) (regulated

parties are air carriers).

Equally lacking in merit are Wall’s claims that the masking directives impinge upon the

“freedom to travel” and the protections of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause for those

whose disabilities prevent them from masking. The TSA’s directives required airlines to exempt

those with disabilities “who cannot wear a mask, or cannot safely wear a mask, because of the

disability!)]” Security Directive No. 1542-21-0ID, at 3-4. In addition, the directives did not

dictate how private airlines should administer their own exemption processes. See Security

Directives Nos. 1542-21-01D, 1582/84-21-0ID. To the extent that Wall’s arguments include

challenges to individualized determinations in the past by private airline carriers to grant or deny

individual exemptions, relief on those claims must be sought from the Department of

Transportation, not the TSA. See 49 U.S.C. § 41705(c)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 382.159; 49 U.S.C.

§46110(a).

Wall’s remaining constitutional claims fare no better. First, the Commerce Clause empowers

Congress and, by delegation, the TSA, to regulate transportation in the manner undertaken here.

See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 16, 22 (2005) (Congress has the power to regulate “channels”

and “instrumentalities” of interstate commerce even if such regulation “ensnares some purely

intrastate activity[.]”). Second, the Supremacy Clause provides that the TSA’s directives override

any conflicting state laws on masks. See Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 576 (2009). Third, the

USCA Case #21 -1220

Document #1985222

Filed: 02/09/2023

Page 4 of 4

masking directives do not implicate anti-commandeering concerns as they are “evenhanded[]

regulation of] an activity”—transportation—“in which both States and private actors engage.”

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1478 (2018).

Finally, it is far from clear that the two international treaties Wall invokes---- the Convention

on International Civil Aviation, Dec. 7, 1944, 15 U.N.T.S. 295, and the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171—provide private causes of action in

federal court. And even if they did, Wall has made no showing that the TSA directives themselves,

which include accommodations for those with disabilities, discriminate against individuals with

disabilities in violation of those treaties.

jfc j|e *

For the foregoing reasons, the consolidated petitions for review are denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed

to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition

for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41(a)(1).

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

Is/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

DSCA Case #21-1220

Document #1994285

ffinitzb

Filed: 04/11/2023

Page 1 of 1

(ttourt of appeals

For The District of Columbia Circuit

No. 21-1220

September Term, 2022

TSA-SD 1542-21-01 B,TSA-SD

1544-21-02BJSA-SD

1582/84-21-01B, TSA-EA

1546-21-01B

Filed On: April 11,2023

Lucas Wall, et al.,

Petitioners

Transportation Security Administration,

Respondent

Consolidated with 21-1221,21-1225, 21-1236,

21-1237, 21-1258

BEFORE:

Srinivasan, Chief Judge; Henderson, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins,

Katsas, Rao, Walker, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges; and

Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Upon consideration of petitioners’ joint petition for rehearing en banc in Case

Nos. 21-1220, 21-1221,21-1225, 21-1237, and 21-1258, and the absence of a request

by any member of the court for a vote, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

/s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 (2021)

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

1 9 F.4th 478

United States Court of Appeals,

District of Columbia Circuit.

Jonathan CORBETT, Petitioner

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

and David P. Pekoske, in His Official Capacity

as Administrator of the Transportation

Security Administration, Respondents

Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S.

Department of Justice, and Jennifer L. Utrecht and Daniel

Tenny, Attorneys, were on the brief for respondents.

Before: Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Edwards,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge:

No. 21-1074

Submitted October 13, 2021

Decided December 10, 2021

Synopsis

Background: Frequent airline passenger filed petition for

review of Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

orders mandating that masks be worn in airports, on

commercial aircraft, and on surface transportation.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Edwards, Senior Circuit

Judge, held that:

passenger had standing to challenge orders;

TSA did not exceed its statutory authority when it issued

orders; and

Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) declaration

that COVID-19 pandemic constituted national emergency

provided TSA with authority to issue orders.

Petition denied.

*480 **27 In January 2021, in response to the

ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Transportation Security

Administration (“TSA”) issued several directives and an

emergency amendment mandating that masks be worn in

airports, on commercial aircraft, and on surface transportation

such as buses and trains (“Mask Directives”). In February

2021, pro se petitioner Jonathan Corbett (“Petitioner” or

“Corbett”), a frequent flyer, filed a petition for review

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) to challenge the Mask

Directives. Corbett does not challenge the wisdom of a

government agency requiring face masks in airports and on

airplanes. Rather, he claims that TSA had no authority to issue

the Mask Directives.

In support of his claim, Corbett's central argument is

that TSA's statutory authority under the Aviation and

Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-7.1, 115 Stat.

597 (2001) (codified in 49 U.S.C. § 114 and scattered sections

of 49 U.S.C.) (“Act”), is limited to developing policies and

promulgating directives to protect against violent threats to

transportation and ensure the security of airports and other

transportation facilities against criminal attack. According to

Corbett, this authority does not empower TSA to require face

masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Corbett contends

that TSA's Mask Directives purport to regulate general health

and safety, not transportation security. Therefore, in his view,

TSA's Mask Directives are ultra vires.

Henderson, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.

Procedural Posture(s): Review of Administrative Decision.

*479 On Petition for Review of Orders of the Transportation

Security Administration

Attorneys and Law Firms

Because we find no merit in Corbett's claim, we deny

the petition for review. The COVID-19 global pandemic

poses one of the greatest threats to the operational viability

of the transportation system and the lives of those on it

seen in decades. TSA, which is tasked with maintaining

transportation safety and security, plainly has the authority to

address such threats under both sections 114(f) and (g) of the

Jonathan Corbett, pro se, was on the briefs for petitioner.

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 {2021}

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

Aviation and Transportation Security Act. See 49 U.8.C. §

114(f), (g).

I. BACKGROUND

In the wake of the deadly September 11, 2001, terrorist

attacks, Congress created TSA to safeguard this country's

civil aviation security and safety. 49 U.S.C. § 11.4; see Alaska

Airlines. Inc. v. TSA, 588 F.3d 1116. 1117-18 (D.C. Cir.

2009) (citing 49 U.S.C. § 114). The Act confers upon the

agency broad authority to “assess threats to transportation”

and “develop policies, strategies, and plans for dealing with”

such threats. 49 U.S.C. § 114(f)(2). (3). This authority extends

to “ensuring] the adequacy[ ] of security measures at airports

and other transportation facilities,” as well as “working]

in conjunction with the ... Federal Aviation Administration

with respect to any actions or activities that may affect

aviation safety or air carrier operations.” Id. § 114(f)( 11), (13).

“[T]o carry out the functions of the [TSA],” the agency “is

authorized to issue, rescind, and revise such regulations as are

necessary.” Id. § 1 14(/i(it.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has, to date, resulted in the

deaths of more than 750,000 persons in the United States.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID Data

Tracker Weekly Review, http://go.usa.gov/x6Zge (last visited

Nov. 22, 2021). When President Biden assumed office, he

issued an Executive Order directing agencies, including TSA,

to “immediately take action ... to require masks to be worn”

in airports, on airplanes, and on *481 **28 buses and

trains. Exec. Order No. 13,998, 86 Fed. Reg. 7205,7205 (Jan.

21, 202!), reprinted in Supplemental Appendix (“S.A.”) 1

(“Executive Order”). The President said that the action was

critical “to save lives and allow all Americans, including the

millions of people employed in the transportation industry, to

travel and work safely.” Id.

On January 27, 2021, the Acting Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security determined that the

COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a “national emergency.” See

Determination of a National Emergency Requiring Actions to

Protect the Safety of Americans Using and Employed by the

Transportation System, 86 Fed. Reg. 8217, 8218, 8219 (Feb.

4, 2021), reprinted in S.A. 5-6. This determination reaffirmed

determinations that had been made by the Executive Branch

dating back to March 2020. Id. at 8218. The January 2021

determination found that the pandemic was “a threat to our

health and security” and “a threat to transportation.” Id. at

8218. 8219. The Secretary directed TSA “to take actions

consistent with the authorities in [the Act] ... to implement

the Executive Order to promote safety in and secure the

transportation system.” Id. at 8218. This included any

measures “necessary to protect the transportation system ...

from COVID-19 and to mitigate [its] spread ... through the

transportation system.” Id. at 8218-19.

In response to the emergency determination, TSA issued

several security directives and an emergency amendment

mandating that masks be worn in airports, on commercial

aircraft, and on surface transportation such as buses and

trains. Security Directives Nos. 1582/84-21-01, 1542-21-01,

1544-21 -02, reprinted in S.A. 13-26; Emergency Amendment

1546-21-01, reprinted in S.A. 27-31 (collectively, “Mask

Directives”). The Mask Directives instruct airport operators,

domestic aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, and surface

transportation operators to require passengers and employees

to wear a mask “covering the nose and mouth” “at all

times” while in transportation hubs and on conveyances. See,

e.g., Security Directive No. 1542-21-01 at 2, reprinted in

S.A. 19. Children under two, people with disabilities who

cannot wear a mask, or workers for whom a mask would

create a risk to workplace health or safety are exempt from

the mandate. See, e.g., id. at 3, reprinted in S.A. 20. In

addition, the Mask Directives provide exceptions to the mask

requirement for “eating, drinking, or taking oral medications

for brief periods,” “for identity verification purposes,” or

“while communicating with a person who is deaf or hard of

hearing.” See, e.g., id. at 2-3, reprinted in S.A. 19-20.

Airport and aircraft operators are required to notify

passengers of the mask requirements and ask them to put

on a mask if they are not wearing one. See, e.g., id. at 2,

reprinted in S.A. 19. Passengers who refuse to comply must

be denied boarding, removed from the aircraft or airport, and

reported to TSA. See, e.g., id. at 2, 4, reprinted in S.A. 19,

21; Security Directive No. 1544-21-02 at 2, 4, reprinted in

S.A. 23, 25. These passengers may face penalties of between

$500 to $1,000 for first-time offenders and $1,000 to $3,000

for second-time offenders. See TSA, Penalty for Refusal to

Wear a Face Mask, https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/penaltymask (last visited Nov. 14, 2021).

In a separate action, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (“CDC”) issued its own order that also requires

passengers and employees to wear face masks in and on

the transportation system. See Requirement for Persons To

Wear Masks While on Conveyances and at Transportation

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 {2021)

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

Hubs, 86 Fed. Reg. 8025, 8029 (Feb. 3.2021) (“CDC Order”)

reprinted *482 **29 in S.A. 11. The CDC Order and

TSA Mask Directives overlap in some respects, but there are

differences. For example, while they both permit removing

masks for “brief periods” to eat or drink, TSA's directives

additionally specify that masks must be worn “between bites

and sips” of food and drink. See, e g., id. at 8027; Security

Directive No. 1544-21-02 at 3, reprinted in S.A. 24. The TSA

Mask Directives also require operators to report incidents

of noncompliance to TSA and carry the potential for civil

penalties. See, e.g., Security Directive No. 1544-21-02 at 2,

4, reprinted in S.A. 23, 25.

On February 26, 2021, Corbett filed a timely petition for

review of the TSA Mask Directives pursuant to 49 IJ.S.C.

§ 46110(a). Section 46110(a) permits any person with “a

substantial interest in an order” issued by TSA “with respect

to security duties and powers ... [to] apply for review of the

order by filing a petition for review in the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the

court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which

the person resides or has its principal place of business.”

49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). The reviewing court has “exclusive

jurisdiction to affirm, amend, modify, or set aside any part of

the order.” Id. § 46110(c).

Petitioner Jonathan Corbett is a frequent flyer who has

“flown several hundred thousands of miles in the past decade,

including at least a dozen flights during the ‘pandemic period’

of the last 12 months.” Corbett Affirmation, Br. of Pet'r, Ex.

A, at 1. Corbett “intend[s] to continue this rate of travel” and

has “a currently-booked flight in the near future.” Id.\ Br. of

Pet'r 7. As a result of his frequent travel, Corbett says that

he is subject to the TSA Mask Directives “dozens of times

annually.” Br. of Pet'r 7. Corbett further alleges that, “[b]ut

for” the TSA Mask Directives, “[he] would wear a mask at

fewer times.” Corbett Affirmation 1.

Directives expired May 11, 2021, but they have since been

extended multiple times. See Resp'ts’ 28(j) Letter (Aug.

30, 2021). The current Mask Directives that are under

review here are in effect through January 18, 2022. See

Security Directive Nos. 1542-21 -01B, 1544-21-02B, and

1582/84-21-0IB; Emergency Amendment No. 1546-21-0I B,

reprinted in Attach, to Resp'ts’ 28(j) Letter (Aug. 30, 2021).

Corbett urges the court to hold that the Mask Directives are

ultra vires, i.e., beyond the scope of TSA's lawful authority,

and enjoin TSA from enforcing them. Br. of Pet'r 18-19;

see Fla. Health Sets. Ctr., Inc. v. Secy of Health & Hum.

Sen’s., 830 F.3d 515, 522 (D.C. Cir. 20.16) (holding that

“[t]o challenge agency action on the ground that it is ultra

vires, [the complaining party] must show a ‘patent violation

of agency authority.’ ” (quoting Indep. Cosmetic MJfs. &

Distribs. Inc. v. US. Dep't of Health. Bduc. & Welfare. 574

F.2d 553, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1978))).

On the same day when he filed his petition for review,

Corbett filed an emergency motion for stay pending review

of the directives. Emergency Mot. for Stay Pending Review

10-11. This court denied the *483 **30 motion for stay on

March 26, 2021. Order (Mar. 26, 2021).

Corbett’s petition challenges only the actions of TSA, not

the CDC. In addition, one of the directives that is referenced

in Corbett's petition for review applies only to masking

on surface transportation services such as buses and trains.

See Security Directive No. 1582/84-21-01, reprinted in S.A.

13-17. However, this directive is not challenged in Corbett's

briefs. Therefore, we will limit our review of Petitioner's

claims to TSA's mask requirements in airports and on

airplanes.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standing

The essence of Corbett's petition for review is that TSA has

no statutory authority to address the threat that the COVID-19

global pandemic poses to the nation's transportation systems.

The petition for review challenges the three security directives

and one emergency amendment issued by TSA on January

31, 2021, with an effective date of February 1, 2021. Br. of

Resp'ts 3; see Security Directive No. 1542-21-01, reprinted

in S.A. 18-21; Security Directive No. 1544-21-02, reprinted

in S.A. 22-26; Security Directive No. 1582/84-21-01,

reprinted in S.A. 13-17; and Emergency Amendment No.

1546-21-01, reprinted in S.A. 27-31. The initial Mask

In order to challenge a disputed government regulation,

a petitioner must satisfy “the irreducible constitutional

minimum of standing.” Lujan r. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 IJ.S.

555, 560, 11.2 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Corbett

clearly does. As we explained in Bonacci v. TSA, 909 F.3d

1155 (D.C. Cir. 2018):

To establish standing to seek review of [a TSA] action, a

petitioner bears the burden of proof “to show a ‘substantial

probability’ that it has been injured, that the defendant

caused its injury, and that the court could redress that

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 (2021)

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

injury.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 899 (D.C. Cir.

2002) (quoting Am. Petroleum fust. v. EPA, 216 F.3d 50, 63

(D.C. Cir. 2000) (per curiam)).

“The Supreme Court has stated,” however, that “ ‘there

is ordinarily little question’ that a regulated individual or

entity has standing to challenge an allegedly illegal statute

or rule under which it is regulated.” State Nat’I Bank of Big

Spring v. Lew, 795 F.3d 48, 53 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting

Lilian v. Defy, of Wildlife. 504 U.S. 555, 561-62 [142 S.Ct.

2130. 119 L.Ed.2d 351] (1992)). A “petitioner's standing

to seek review of administrative action is [usually] selfevident ... if the complainant is ‘an object of the action (or

forgone action) at issue....’ ” Sierra Club, 292 F.3d at 899-900 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 [112 S.Ct. 2130]); see

also Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA, 786 F.3d 34, 43

(D.C. Cir. 2015) (explaining “regulated entities’ standing

to challenge the rules that govern them is normally not an

issue”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Bonacci, 909 F.3d at 1J 59-60.

As a directly regulated party, Corbett plainly has standing

to pursue his claims in this case. The Government does not

deny that, absent a permissible regulation compelling him to

do so, Corbett has every right to choose whether and when

to wear a face mask in an airport - just as he can choose

what clothing to wear in an airport. Each time Corbett flies,

he is forced to comply with the TSA directives to wear a

mask almost continuously. Because he is the target of the TSA

regulations, he faces the threat of enforcement and ensuing

penalties should he fail to comply. Corbett has made clear

that, were it not for the TSA regulations, he would not wear

a mask in accordance with the TSA requirements. Reply Br.

of Pet'r 6. (Petitioner “would engage in conduct prohibited by

the order but for the order.”). In addition, Corbett's injury

is not “conjectural” or “hypothetical”: he is a frequent flyer

and he currently has future travel booked where he will again

face compelled compliance with the Mask Directives under

the credible threat of enforcement. See Br. of Pet'r 7; Lujan.

504 U.S. at 560. 563-64. 112 S.Ct. 2130.

Like the pilot in Bonacci, who had standing to challenge

TSA screening procedures that he was subject to, it is

undisputed that Corbett is regularly subject to *484 **31

the challenged TSA Mask Directives. See Bonacci, 909 F.3d

at 1160. Corbett does not allege “unlawful regulation or lack

of regulation of someone else,” in which case “much more

[would be] needed” to establish standing. Lujan, 504 U.S.

at 562. 112 S.Ct. 2130 (emphasis in original). Rather, he is

within the regulated class of persons covered by the disputed

directives, and those directives are plainly ripe for review.

The Mask Directives are “directed at [Petitioner] in particular;

[they] require[ ] [him] to make significant changes in [his]

everyday [travel] practices; [and] if [he] fail[s] to observe the

[TSA]’s rule [he is] quite clearly exposed to the imposition

of... sanctions."Abbott Lab'ys v. Gardner, 387U.S. 136, 154,

87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). His claims are ripe

for review because “[e]ither [Corbett] must comply with [the

Mask Directives] ... or [he] must follow [his] present course

and risk prosecution.” Id. at 152, 87 S.Ct. 1507 (citation

omitted).

Moreover, because Corbett is directly regulated by the

agency's Mask Directives, he is not pursuing a “generalized

grievance” that would undercut his standing. The Supreme

Court has made' it clear that “it does not matter how many

persons have been injured by [a] challenged action, [so long

as] the party bringing suit ... show[s] that the action injures

him in a concrete and personal way.” Massachusetts v. EPA,

549 U.S. 497. 517. 127 S.Ct. 1438. 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007).

Corbett has himself been denied the ability to choose whether

and when to wear a mask in transit.

TSA contends that the Mask Directives have not caused

Petitioner's injury because “[t]he obligation to wear a mask

in transportation hubs and on conveyances originates” not

with TSA, but with the CDC Order or local law. Br. of

Resp’ts 27. This argument borders on frivolous. TSA issued

its own mandate that it claims it is authorized to do under

its own statutory authority. However slight the differences

may be, its Mask Directives are not a one-for-one fit with

the CDC Order as far as scope, see Motion for Stay Pending

Review 3, 4, n.3, and they indisputably carry new and

distinct penalties. Merely because other agencies have similar

regulations does not preclude Corbett from challenging the

TSA Mask Directives. See Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland

Sec., 669 F.3d. 983. 993 (9th Cir. 2012) (A challenger is “not

required to solve all roadblocks simultaneously and is entitled

to tackle one roadblock at a time.”). Setting aside the TSA

Mask Mandates would provide Petitioner clear relief and thus

there is an injury that the court can redress.

In sum, as an “object of the action ... at issue,” there is “little

question” that the TSA directives “ha[ve] caused [Corbett]

injury, and that a judgment preventing ... the action will

redress it.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 900 (D.C. Cir.

2002) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62, 112 S.Ct. 2130).

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 (2021)

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

B. Standard of Review

Our review of Petitioner's claim is governed by Chevron

US..4. Inc. v. Naniral Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467

U.S. 837. 104 S.Ct. 2778. 8! L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Under

Chevron step one, we must first decide “whether Congress

has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id. at

842. 104 S.Ct. 2778; see also Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v.

United States, 579 U.S. 162,171, 136 S.Ct. 1969,195 L.Ed.2d

334 (2016) (“[W]e begin with the language of the statute.

If the ... language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme

is coherent and consistent ... [t]he inquiry ceases.” (second

alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted)). If the statutory provisions *485 **32 in question

are “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,”

we then assess the matter pursuant to Chevron step two to

determine whether the agency's interpretation “is based on

a permissible construction of the statute.” 467 U.S. at 843,

104 S.Ct. 2778. “A precondition to deference under Chevron

is a congressional delegation of administrative authority.”

Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett. 494 U.S. 638, 649, 110 S.Ct.

1384, 108 L.Ed.2d 585 (1990) (citing Bowen v. Georgetown

Univ. Hasp., 488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d

493 (1988)). However, Chevron directs courts to accept an

agency's reasonable resolution of an ambiguity in a statute

that the agency administers. And because a “new application

of a broad statutory term” can always “be reframed” as an

expansion of agency authority, “the question in every case

is, simply, whether the statutory text forecloses the agency's

assertion of authority, or not.” City of Arlington v. FCC, 5 69

U.S. 290. 300-01. 133 S.Ct. 1863. 185 L,Ed.2d 941 (2013)

(citing EDWARDS & ELLIOTT, FEDERAL STANDARDS

OF REVIEW 146 (2007)).

Two very important considerations come into play in our

review of TSA's actions in this case. First, it is clear from

the terms of the Act that “Congress has entrusted TSA with

broad authority over ‘civil aviation security.’ ” Arnerijet Int'l,

Inc. v. Pistole, 753 F.3d 1343, 1350 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citing

49 U.S.C. §§ 114(d)(1), (f)(10), (/)(.!), 44901(f)); Bonacci v.

TSA, 909 F.3d 1155, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The agency's

authority to enforce its “safety and security obligations” is not

rigidly cabined. Olivares v. TSA, 819 F.3d 454,462 (D.C. Cir.

2016) (citing SW)«r/)a/; Air Freight, hie. v. TSA, 716 F.3d679,

683 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). Second, the directives at issue are the

product of “expert agency judgments,” id., regarding TSA's

assessments of possible “threats to transportation,” 49 U.S.C.

§ 114(f)(2). Therefore, it is not the court's role to second-guess

TSA's judgments in carrying out its statutory mandate. See

Jifry v FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1180 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

C. The Limits of Petitioner's Challenge to TSA's

Regulatory Authority

It is noteworthy that Petitioner does not contend that TSA's

determinations regarding the seriousness of the threats posed

by COVID-19 are unreasonable. Nor does he contend

that TSA's enforcement of its directives somehow runs

afoul of the arbitrary-and-capricious standard under the

Administrative Procedure Act. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n

of the U.S.. Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S.

29, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). “Normally, an

agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency

has [1] relied on factors which Congress has not intended it

to consider, [2] entirely failed to consider an important aspect

of the problem, [3] offered an explanation for its decision that

runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or [4] is so

implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view

or the product of agency expertise.” Id. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856.

Petitioner has not advanced any such claims.

Therefore, any such challenges to the legality of the Mask

Directives as they might be applied in any particular case

are not before the court. Petitioner's only claim in this case

is that TSA has no authority whatsoever to issue the Mask

Directives. And any claims by Petitioner that TSA might act

unreasonably in enforcing the Mask Directives are not ripe

for review. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300.

118 S.Ct. 1257, 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (1998) (“A claim is not ripe

for adjudication if it rests upon ‘contingent future events that

may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’

” (quoting *486 **33 Thomas v. Union Carbide. Agric.

Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568. 580-81, 105 S.Ct. 3325, 87L.Ed.2d

409(1985))).

D. TSA’s Regulatory Authority

Petitioner does not question TSA's authority to ensure

transportation and civil aviation security. Br. of Pet'r 11.

His principal contention is that the term “security,” as used

by Congress in the Aviation and Transportation Security

Act, was meant only to reference preventing “an act of

criminal violence, aircraft piracy, and the introduction of

an unauthorized weapon, explosive, or incendiary [onto]

an aircraft.” Id. at 13 (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 1542.101(a)

(1)). Petitioner argues that directives aimed at preventing or

mitigating the effects of COVID-19 involve only matters of

public health, i'.e., matters related to “safety,” not “security.”

Id. at 12; Reply Br. of Pet'r 7-8. He maintains that TSA cannot

regulate to contain COVID-19 because doing so falls outside

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 (2021)

455 U.SApp?D.C725

‘

“

the agency's limited mandate to secure the transportation

system against violent attack.

This extraordinarily narrow view of the Act does not

withstand scrutiny. Petitioner contends that “security” entails

only protection against intentional attack, while “safety” is

protection against natural or accidental causes. Reply Br.

of Pet'r 7. This framing is belied by the text of the Act,

which uses the terms in concert. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. §§

44903(b)(3)(A), (e), (h)(3), (h)(4)(C), 44901(h), 44902(b),

44905(b), 46111(a). The Act certainly does not limit TSA's

authority to “security” concerns. For example, in defining

TSA's duties and powers, the Act states that TSA shall “work

in conjunction with the ... Federal Aviation Administration

with respect to any actions or activities that may affect

aviation safety or air carrier operations.” Id. § 114(f)(13).

To the extent there is any difference in the words, TSA has

established that COVID-19 qualifies as a threat to both safety

and security.

Furthermore, in describing its general functions, Congress

gave TSA “broad authority to assess potential risks to aviation

and national security” and respond to those risks. Olivares u

TSA, 819 F.3d 454, 466 (D.C. Cir. 2016); 49 U.S.C. § 114(f)

(2) (stating that TSA shall “assess threats to transportation”),

(3) (stating that TSA shall “develop policies, strategies, and

plans for dealing with threats to transportation security”). In

addition, Congress conferred upon the agency an expansive

power to act in relation to the transportation system during

a national emergency. 49 U.S.C. § 114(g). In light of the

language of the Act, it cannot seriously be doubted that

Congress’ delegations of authority to TSA authorize the Mask

Directives issued to contain the spread of the COVID-19

virus.

The simple point here is that “Congress created the [TSA]

to assess and manage threats against air travel.” Air IS is.

Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper. 571 U.S. 237, 241, 134 S.Ct.

852, 187 L..Ed.2d 744 (2014). Decisions from this court

have consistently confirmed that TSA has “broad statutory

authority to protect civil aviation security.” Bonacci v. TSA.

909 F.3d 1155, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added).

Fulfilling this mandate requires, at its core, that TSA identify

“threats to transportation” and take the appropriate steps

to respond to those threats. 49 U.S.C. § 114(f)(2), (3).

Threats may include “security” issues, narrowly defined, and/

or “safety and security,” more broadly construed. Olivares.

819 F.3d at 462 (explaining that TSA is charged to address

issues concerning “safety and security”).

In crafting the Act, Congress knew how to circumscribe

TSA's authority in plain terms if that was the intent of the

legislature. City of Arlington. 569 U.S. at 296. 133 S.Ct.

1863. However, as indicated above, Congress instead used

capacious *487 **34 terms to define TSA’s authority.

Rather than restricting TSA to preventing violent attack,

as Petitioner contends, Congress selected broad language

in its mandate to the agency. The Act also emphasizes

TSA's ongoing duty to perform “research and development

activities” in relation to civil aviation security and safety and

“order[s] air carriers to modify training programs ... to reflect

new or different security threats.” 49 U.S.C. §§ 44918(a)(7),

114(d)(1), (f)(8).

If there is any ambiguity in this expansive grant of authority

to TSA, there is “a presumption that Congress ... desired

the agency (rather than the courts) to possess whatever

degree of discretion the ambiguity allows.” Smiley v. Citibank

(S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 740-41, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 135

L.Ed.2d 25 (1996). The questions regarding what constitutes

“threats to transportation” and “threats to transportation

security,” 49 U.S.C. § 114(f)(2), (3), are subject to TSA's

reasonable interpretation. TSA determined that COVID-19

poses a serious threat to the security and safety of the

transportation system and that the Mask Directives would

help to curtail the spread of the virus and mitigate its

adverse effects. TSA's actions adhered to the decisions of the

President, the CDC, and the Acting Secretary of Homeland

Security regarding appropriate national policies to address

the COVID-19 threats. See, e.g., Security Directive No.

1542-21-01, at 1, reprinted in S.A. 18. The only question for

this court is whether TSA’s action was “within the bounds of

reasonable interpretation.” City ofArlington, 569 U.S. at 296,

133 S.Ct. 1863. There is no doubt that it was.

1. The Mask Directives Are a Reasonable and Permissible

Response to the Threats Posed by COVID-19

In issuing the Mask Directives, TSA relied on CDC findings

that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 is particularly

high in transportation hubs and on conveyances. See, e.g.,

Security Directive No. 1542-21-01, at 1, reprinted in S.A. 18.

The CDC has established that the virus spreads “very easily”

through inhalation of or contact with “respiratory droplets

produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.”

86 Fed. Reg. 8025, 8028 (Feb. 3, 2021), reprinted in S.A.

10. “Travel[ ] on multi-person conveyances increases” the

risk of spread “by bringing persons in close contact with

others, often for prolonged periods, and exposing them to

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 (2021)

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

frequently touched surfaces.” Id. at 8029. In these settings,

“[sjocial distancing may be difficult if not impossible.”

Id. The spread of COVID-19 in the transportation system,

the CDC has concluded, can aggravate the outbreak in the

general population, put passengers and workers at risk, and

threaten the “essential” movement of medical providers, the

workforce, and goods like food and medicine. Id.

As TSA asserts, COVID-19 poses a threat to the operational

viability of the transportation system and thus transportation

security and safety. Br. of Resp'ts 37-38. Transmission of

COVID-19 to transportation workers - from TSA agents to

airline crew and airport personnel - imperils transportation

services. The uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 among

passengers and these workers can lead to cuts in service

that threaten the essential movement of people and goods,

and, consequently, our national supply chains, the economy,

and national security. TSA has a clear mandate to secure

the transportation system against threats that endanger

that system's very ability to function. Therefore, TSA is

authorized to “develop policies, strategies, and plans for

dealing with” COVID-19 to the extent it threatens to disrupt

the transportation system. *488 **35 49 U.S.C. § 114(f)

(3). Because the Mask Directives seek to contain this threat,

they are in line with the agency's core mission.

In addition, TSA has reasonably determined that COVID-19

is a threat to transportation security and safety because

it endangers the lives of large numbers of passengers,

transportation workers, and the greater public. Br. of Resp'ts

2, 7-8, 22-23, 36-37. COVID-19 specifically spreads at high

rates on transportation, posing a direct and serious risk to

many passengers’ and workers’ lives. Moreover, uncontrolled

spread of the highly contagious disease in the transportation

system threatens the nation's ongoing efforts to contain the

pandemic. For these reasons, we find it “self-evident that

the [Mask Directives] are related to the TSA's ... goals of

improving the safety of air travel.”.Jifry v. F2M,370F.3d 1174.

1180 (D.C. Cir. 2004). This is not to say that TS A can regulate

anything that causes illness or death. However, the scale of

death wrought by COVID-19, its established adverse effects

on our nation's economy, its specific tendency to spread at

high rates in transportation areas, and its threats to persons

employed to operate transportation services (as well as to

people who use those services), make it a clear threat to

transportation security and safety.

Finally, in issuing the Mask Directives, TSA relied on the

CDC's finding that appropriately worn masks reduce the

transmission ofCOVlD-19. 86Fed.Reg. at 8028-29;see, e.g.,

Security Directive No. 1542-21-01, at 1, reprinted in S.A.

18. In the crowded, tight quarters of airports and aircrafts,

face masks “reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets” and

“reduc[e] inhalation of these droplets.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 8028.

The cumulative effect of universal masking, the CDC has

found, can “prevent the need for lockdowns” and “protect...

workers who frequently come into close contact with other

people (e.g., at transportation hubs).” Id. at 8029. Again,

Petitioner does not contest these facts.

Given the threat posed by COVID-19 to the security and

safety of the transportation system, it is entirely within TSA's

authority to require that masks be worn to contain that

threat. To the extent such requirements are an imposition on

passengers, as Petitioner suggests, we decline to second-guess

TSA's judgment. Br. of Pet'r 6-7; Corbett Affirmation, Ex.

A, at 1-2; see Jifry, 370 F.3d at 1180. “It is TSA's job—not...

ours—to strike a balance between convenience and security.”

Suburban Air Freight, Inc. v. TSA, 716 F.3d 679, 683 (D.C.

Cir. 2013).

Congress’ choice of “broad language” in the Act “reflects

an intentional effort to confer the flexibility necessary” for

TSA to address yet unknown threats to transportation security

and safety as they arise. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S.

497, 532, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 I ..Ed 2d 248 (2007). Petitioner

contends that the history of the Act, along with TSA's lack of

prior regulation aimed at addressing a threat to public health,

indicate that the Mask Directives are outside the scope of

TSA's authority. Br. of Pet'r 12-15. We disagree.

The Supreme Court has been quite clear in saying that, in

applying Chevron, “the question in every case is, simply,

whether the statutory text forecloses the agency's assertion

of authority, or not.” City of Arlington, 569 U.S. at: 301,

133 S.Ct. 1863. Thus, “[w]hen Congress delegates broad

authority to an agency to achieve a particular objective,

agency action pursuant to that delegated authority may

extend beyond the specific manifestations of the problem that

prompted Congress to legislate in the first place.” Cablevision

Sys. Corp. v. FCC, 649 F.3d 695, 707 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

When creating TSA, “although Congress may not have

foreseen *489 **36 the [threat to transportation posed by

COVID-19], [section 114(f)]’s expansive language suggests

that it intended to give the [TSA] sufficient flexibility ... [to]

pursue the statute's objectives as [threats to transportation]

evolve[d].” Id (internal quotations omitted).

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 (2021)

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

Petitioner's invocation of Alabama Association of Realtors

i’. Department of Health and Human Services, - 11.S.

... -..., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 210 L.Ed.2d 856 (2021) (“Alabama

Realtors”) (per curiam) in support of his position is

unpersuasive. See Pet'r’s 28(j) Letter (Sept. 14, 2021).

There, the Supreme Court found that the CDC lacked the

authority to “impose[ ] a nationwide moratorium on evictions

in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to

implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination.”

Alabama Realtors, HIS. Ci. at 2486. It rejected the CDC's

contention that the provision allowed it to act as “necessary”

to stop the spread of disease. Id. at 2488-89. The first

sentence of the statutory provision at issue in Alabama

Realtors gives the CDC broad powers to stop the spread

of disease, while “the second sentence informs the grant of

authority by illustrating the kinds of measures that could

be necessary: inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation,

pest extermination and destruction of contaminated animals

and articles.” Id. at 2488 (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 264(a)). The

eviction moratorium was “markedly different” from those

direct actions targeting disease Congress had listed in the

provision. Id. And allowing the CDC to promulgate whatever

measures it deemed “necessary,” the Court opined, “would

give the CDC a breathtaking amount of authority” such that

“[i]t is hard to see what measures this interpretation would

place outside the CDC's reach.” ]d.

Petitioner likens Alabama Realtors to this case, arguing that

the broad grants of authority in 49 U.S.C. § 114(f) and

(g) are constrained by the statute's discussion elsewhere of

passenger screening, baggage inspections, access control to

secure areas, and the like. Pet'r’s 28(j) Letter, at 2 (Sept.

14, 2021). Petitioner contends that TSA's powers would

be “essentially unlimited” if it were allowed to promulgate

regulations on public health, “as virtually any regulation

can be framed as ‘for your safety.’ ” Id. This is a specious

argument.

Petitioner's argument fails for at least two reasons. First,

as discussed above, the Mask Directives are in service of

both transportation “security” and “safety” and cannot be

construed as solely public health regulations. Second, the

grant of authority to the CDC in A labama Realtors was found

in a single provision, 42 U.S.C. § 264(a), that was controlled

and defined by reference to the types of action Congress listed

in that very provision. 141 S. Ct. at 2488. Petitioner turns the

holding in Alabama Realtors on its head by asking this court

to apply limiting constructions to provisions plainly granting

TSA broad authority to act by drawing on entirely separate

provisions that appear throughout 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449. See

Br. ofPet'r 11-13. There is no viable canon of construction that

endorses this interpretive approach. See Helicopter Ass'it Int'l,

Inc. v. FA A, 722 F.3d 430, 435 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding that

specific statutory provisions amplifying the FAA's regulatory

authority merely indicated that Congress intended to address

the matters subject to regulation in several different ways, not

to limit the statute's broad grant of authority).

Moreover, contrary to Petitioner's suggestion, TSA will not

be at liberty to regulate in any way it deems “necessary” if

this court rejects his facial challenge to the Mask Directives.

Congress defined the outer bounds of what TSA can do

through its careful selection of terms in the Act. *490 **37

The fact that TSA has the power to regulate to contain the

threat COVID-19 does not, as Petitioner asserts, give it the

power to regulate “warning label requirements for the purpose

of preventing cancer” or set speed limits into and out of

the airport. Br. ofPet'r 12-13, 18. The examples cited by

Petitioner are frivolous because, unlike COVID-19, these

matters do not plausibly pose a threat to the security and safety

of transportation systems.

“[T]he Mask Directives at issue were designed as part

of a government-wide collaborative effort to implement

and support enforcement of the CDC's Order in order to

counteract the spread of a contagious and life-threatening

illness on the nation's planes, trains, buses, and transit

systems.” Br. of Resp'ts 22-23. The Mask Directives are well

within TSA's delegated authority, limited, and reasonably

designed to address the “threats to transportation” posed by

COVID-19. See 49 U.S.C. § 114(f)(2). Therefore, we will not

second-guess TSA's expert judgment in adopting the Mask

Directives.

2. TSA Had Additional Delegated Authority to Adopt

the Mask Directives Pursuant to its National Emergency

Powers

TSA had additional delegated authority to adopt the Mask

Directives once the Secretary of Homeland Security declared

a national emergency. 49 U.S.C. § 114(g). Section 114(g)

of the Act expressly grants TSA expansive powers and

responsibilities “during a national emergency.” Id. This

includes the authority to “coordinate and oversee the

transportation-related responsibilities of other departments

and agencies” and to “carry out such other duties, and

exercise such other powers, relating to transportation during

a national emergency as the Secretary of Homeland Security

shall prescribe.” 49 U.S.C. § 114(g)(1)(B), (D). The Mask

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 (2021)

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

Directives were properly promulgated pursuant to TSA's

section 114(g) powers.

351 (1992). I will stop at the first prong as his challenge

should end there.

In the Department of Homeland Security's emergency

determination, the Acting Secretary concluded that the

COVID-19 pandemic constituted a national emergency,

invoked section 114(g), and directed TSA “to take actions

consistent with the authorities in ... sections I06(m) and

114(f), (g), (1), and (m) to implement the Executive Order

to promote safety in and secure the transportation system”

against the emergency posed by COVID-19. 86 Fed. Reg.

8217, 8218 (Feb. 4, 2021). The Acting Secretaiy further

specified that TSA should “support[ ] the CDC in the

enforcement of any orders or other requirements necessary

to protect the transportation system ... from COVID-19.”

Id. at 8218-19. These directions from the Acting Secretary

expressly authorized TSA to issue the challenged Mask

Directives, regardless of whether it already had the power to

do so.

As my colleagues note, Maj. Op. 481-82, the CDC mandate

and the TSA mandate provide that masks need not be worn for

“brief periods” while eating and drinking. See 86 Fed. Reg.

8025.8027 (Feb. 3,2021); Security Directive No. 1542-21-01

at 3. The TSA mandate adds that “the mask must be worn

between bites and sips.” Security Directive No. 1542-21-01

at 3. Corbett hangs his injury hat on this added language,

fearing that sometime in the future a TSA agent may “swoop

in to make sure that he [does] not hesitate for too long in

replacing his mask after each bite” and asserting that but for

the TSA mask mandate, he “would wear a mask at fewer

times.” But unlike his mask, Corbett's precariously hung hat

III. CONCLUSION

We hold that the Mask Directives are reasonable and

permissible regulations adopted by TSA to promote safety

and security in the transportation system against threats posed

by COVID-19. We therefore reject Petitioner's claim that

TSA's Mask Directives are ultra vires, defer to the agency's

interpretation of the Act, and deny the petition for review.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

On the merits, this petition for review is a slam dunk loser.

Of course the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),

charged with “develop[ing] policies, strategies, and plans for

dealing with threats to transportation security,” can require

individuals in airports and on airplanes to *491 **38 wear

the partial face masks we are all familiar with as a result of

the coronavirus scourge. 49 U.S.C. § 114(f)(3). But I believe

Corbett is so lacking in standing to sue that I would dispose

of his petition without reaching the merits.

The three prongs of Article III standing are almost

catechismal and Corbett most likely fails all three. He has

(1) no cognizable injury that is (2) caused by the TSA's mask

mandate and (3) redressable by this court. See Lujan v. Defs. of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119L.Ed.2d

falls.1 It is anyone's guess whether Corbett faces “injury”

based on any difference between the CDC's mandated “brief

periods”—which, significantly, Corbett does not challenge

and would follow—and the TSA's mandated “between bites

and sips.” See Chamber of Com. ofU.S. v. EPA, 642 F.3d

192, 200 (D.C. Cir, 2011) (“[A]ny petitioner alleging only

future injuries confronts a significantly more rigorous burden

to establish standing.”) (quoting United Tramp. Union v. ICC,

891 F.2d 908,913 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). Corbett's allegation that

he faces a bona fide threat of future enforcement in his pre

enforcement challenge, see Babbitt v. United Farm Workers

Naff Union, 442 U.S. 289,298-99.99 S.Q. 2301,60 L.Ed.2d

895 (1979) (allowing for pre-enforcement standing as long as

“there exists a credible threat of prosecution”), is even more

fatuous in view of his total failure to allege past enforcement

against him or anyone else, see Mnthana v. Pompeo, 985

F.3d 893, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“Preenforcement review is

not a vehicle to settle questions of statutory interpretation

unconnected with matters of constitutional right.”), petition

for cert, filed, No. 21-489 (June 16, 2021).

De minimis non curat lex, the “venerable maxim” that ensures

the law does not concern itself with trifles, *492 **39

ms. Dep'i of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S.

214, 231, .112 S.Q. 2447, 120 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992), resolves

Corbett's annoying waste of judicial resources; as a lawyer

and thus an officer of the court, he should know better. ■ I

respectfully dissent.

All Citations

19 F.4th 478, 455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration, 19 F.4th 478 (2021)

455 U.S.App.D.C. 25

—

Footnotes

Because Corbett brings a facial challenge, Maj. Op. 485-86, he must show “that the [TSA mandate] injures

him in a concrete and particular way,” see Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167

L.Ed.2d 248 (2007). Although Corbett alleges he is a “frequent flyer,” Br. of Pet'r at 7, it is far from clear

when or if he will travel again and thus make himself a specific “object of the [mandate]" any more than the

millions of members of the general public who fly, see Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct.

2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Just as a taxpayer cannot mount a challenge so general that his standing is

only as a member of the public, see Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 127 S.Ct.

2553, 168 L.Ed.2d 424 (2007), Corbett's generalized injury is likewise insufficient to invoke our jurisdiction,

see Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633, 58 S.Ct. 1,82 L.Ed. 493 (1937) (“[T]o invoke the judicial power... [an

individual] must show that he ... is immediately in danger of... a direct injury ... and it is not sufficient that he

has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.”).

I note that his website is “https://professional-troublemaker.com/.”

End of Document

.Page m

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION

talo«a and transferred uader tills Act, with the Ad

ministration (to tbs extent site salt involves tew;felons traRsferm) fcp the Administration under this

Act) substituted for the Office,

M{3) RfiaiAKBED, OASBS,~-ir the eouri in & so a de

scribed In. paragraph (11 remands a ease to the Admin

istration* subsequent proceeding's related to fetich ease

Sli,all proceed Iti accordance with applicable law and

regulations as in effect at the time of su.ch subse

quent proceedings.

’He) Com'SiiUAmsi or Actions Aqaikst Officers.—No

suit, notion, or other proceeding: commenced by or

against: any officer in his official capacity a* an officer

of tile Office shall abate by reason of the enactments of

this Act. No cause of action by or against the Office, or

by or against any officer thereof in bfe official capac

ity, shall abate by .reason of .the enactment' of this Act.

*'® Exercise of adtroiutihs.—Except as otherwise

provided by tow, an officer or-employee of taw Adminis

tration may. for. purposes of performing a function

ttanaterred by this Act or the amendments made by

tbio Act*.exercise all authorities under any other provi

sion of law that ware available with respect to the per

formance of Wis t function to the official responsible for

bi» performance of the■ function immediately before the

effective .date of the transfer of the- ftmcttoa coder this

Act or the amendments made by this Act.

“(g) RsrKflmiCEA,—Any reference to the Office in any

Federal law, Executive -order, rule, regulation, or dele

gation of authority, or any document of or pertaining

to the Offing or ajj -officer or employee of the -Office Is

deemed- to refer to tbo AdwlotstJra.ttob .or a member or

employee ofthe Admlnletration. as appropriated'

$.1X4, Transportation Security Administration

(a) In General,—The Transportation Security

Administration shall be an administration, of

the Department of Homeland Security.

•(b). Leadership.—

(1> Head op transportation SECmurr ad. Ministration,—

(A) ApPoltfMENT,—The head -of the Admin

istration shall be the Administrator of the

Transportation Security Administration (re

ferred to in this section as the •*Adminis

trator”). The Administrator shall be ap

pointed by the President;, by and with the

advice and consent of the Senate,

CBS QUAX-iri gatton s,—The Administrator

must—

(11 be a citizen of the United States; and

(ii) .have experience tn a- field directly re

lated-to transportation or-secujrity.

(CS Term.—Effective with respect to any

individual appointment by the President, by

and with, the advice and consent of the Sen

ate, after the date of enactment of the TSA

Modernization Act, the term of office of an

individual appointed as the Administrator

shall be 5 years. The term of office of an In

dividual serving as the Administrator on the

date of enactment of the TSA Modernization

Act shall be 5 years beginning on. the date

that the Administrator began serving.

(2) Deputy administrator.—

(A) AFi’oraTMENT.—1There is established in

the Transportation Security Administration,

a Deputy Administrator, who shall assist the

Administrator in the management of the

Transportation Security Administration.

The Deputy Administrator shall be ap

pointed by the President.

(B) 'Vacancy.—The .Deputy Administrator

shall be Acting Administrator timing the ab-

16a

1114

eence or incapacity of the Administrator or

during a vacancy in the office of Adminis

trator.

(O) QUAbinoATioNS.—The Deputy Administeator must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States: and

(ii) have experience in a field directly re

lated to transportation or security,

(3) CHIEF COUNSEL.:—

(A) Appointment.-—There Is established in

the Transportation Security Administration,

a Chief Counsel, who shall advise the Admin

istrator and other senior officials on all

legal matters relating to the responsibil

ities, functions, anil management of the

Transportation "Security Administration..

(B) Qualifications.—Tho Chief Counsel

.mast be a citizen of the United States,

Bonds.—The Administrator may not own stock

in or bonds of a. transportation or security en

terprise or an enterprise that makes equipment

that could be used for security purposes.

(d) Functions,—The Administrator -shall be reBponsihte for security in all modes of transpor

tation , including—

(1) carrying out chapter 449, relating to civil

aviation security, and related research and. de

velopment activities;, and

(3) security responsibilities over other modes

of transportation that are exercised by the De

portment of Transportation,

(e) Sorebnino Operations.—The Adminis

trator shall...

(1) be responsible for clay-to-day Federal se

curity screening operations for passenger air

transportation and intrastate air transpor

tation. under sections 4490.1. and 44935;

(2) develop standards for the hiring dad re

tention of security screening personnel;(3) train and best security Bcreenlng per

sonnel; and

(4) be responsible for hiring: slid training per

sonnel to provide security screening at all air

ports Jo the United States where screening is

required under section 44901, in consultation

with the Secretary - of Transportation, and the

heads of other appropriate Federal agencies

and departments.

(f> ApoiTTONAi, Duties and POWERS.—In addi

tion to carrying out the functions specified in.

subsections (d) and (e), the Administrator

shall—

U) receive, asses®, and distribute intel

ligence information; related to transportation

security;

(2) assess threats to transportation;

(3) develop .policies, stra tegies, and plans for

dealing with threats to transportation secu

rity:

(4) make other plans related to transport

tation security, including- coordinating coun

termeasures- with appropriate departments,

agencies, and instrumentalities of the United

States Government;

(6) serve as the primary liaison for transpor

tation. security to- the intelligence and law en

forcement communities:

(6) on a day-to-day basis, manage and pro

vide operational guidance to the -field security

1124

TITLE ^-TRANSPORTATION

resources of the Administration. including.Federal Security Managers as provided by sec

ts on 44933:

CTJ- enforce security-related regulations and

■requirements;

(8) identify and undertake research and de

velopment activities necessary to enhance

transportation security;

(ft) inspect, maintain, and test security fa.ClUties, equipment,-and systems;

(10) ensure the adequacy of security meas

ures for the, transportation of carg-o;

(11) oversee the imidementatlon, and ensure

the adequacy, of security measures at airports,

and other transportation facilities;

(12) require background checks for airportsecurity screening personnel, individuals with

access to secure areas of airports, and other

transportation security personnel;

(13) work in conjunction with the Adminis

trator of the Federal. .Aviation Administration

With, -respect to any actions or activities that,

may affect aviation safety or air carrier oper

ations.:

{’Ml work with' the International Civil Avia

tion Organization and appropriate aeronautic

authorities of foreign governments under sec

tion 4490? to address security concerns on pas

senger flights by foreign air carriers in foreign,

air transportation;

(15) establish and maintain a National De

ployment, Office as required under section

44948 of this title; and

0.6) carry out, such other duties, and exercise

such other powers, relating to transportation,

security as the Administrator considers appro

priate, to the extent authorized by law.

<g) NaTKMAL EM'EEGENC? RESPONSIBILITIES;..-

Cl.) IB GENERAL.--Subject to the direction and

control of the Secretary of Homeland Secu

rity. the Administrator, during & national

emergency, shall have the following respon

sibilities:

(A) To coordinate domestic transpor

tation, including aviation, rail, and other

surface transportation, and maritime trans

portation (Including port security).

(B) To cooMlnate laid oversee the trans

portation-related responsibilities of other

departments and agencies of the Federal

Government other than the Department of

Defense and the military departments.

CO To coordinate and provide notice to

Other departments and agencies of the Fed

eral Government, and appropriate agencies

of. Slate and local governments, includingdepartments and agencies for transpor

tation, .law enforcement, and border control,

about threats to transportation.

(D) To carry out such other duties, and ex

ercise sack other powers, relating to trans

portation during a, national emergency as

the Secretary of Homeland Security shall

prescribe,

(2) AoraoRrrr of other departments and

aoexcibs.—The authority of the Adminis

trator under this subsection shall not super

sede the authority of any other department or

agency of the. Federal Government under law

with respect to transportation or transpor

17a

Page 58

tation-related matters, Whether or not duringa national emergency,

(3) Cffi,SirM.STA,i>roBg..-: -Th8' Secretary of Home

land Security sh«%ll prescribe the cir

cumstances constituting a national emergency

for purpose? of this subsection.

CM Management of sseqraTY information.—

In consultation with -the Transportation Secu

rity Oversight Board, the Administrator shall-..

(.1) enter into memoranda of understanding

with Federal agencies or other entities to

share or otherwise oross-oixeck as necessary

data, on: Individuals identified on. Federal agen

cy databases who may pose a risk to transpor

tation or national security;

(2) establish procedures for notifying the Ad

ministrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis

tration., appropriate State and local law en

forcement officials, and .airport or airline se

curity officers of the identity of individuals

known to pose, or suspected of posing, .a risk

of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline

or-passenger safety;

(3) in consultation with other appropriate.

Federal agencies and air carriers., establish

policies anti procedures requiring air carriers—

(A) to use information from, -government

agencies to identify individuals on passenger

lists who may be a threat to civil aviation or

national security; and

(B;> if speh an Individual is identified, no

tify appropriate I aw enforcement, agencies,

prevent the individual from boarding an air

craft, or take-other appropriate action with

respect to that individual; and

(4) consider requiring passenger air carriers

to share passenger fiats with appropriate Fed

eral agencies for the purpose of identifying 'in

dividuals who may pose a threat to aviation

safety or national security .

(i) View or NTSB. -In taking any action under

this section that could affect safety, the Admin

istrator shall gi'va great weight to the timely

views of l;he National Transportation Safety

-Bosrei.

(j) AcqcrsmoNS.—

(1) IN general.-..The Administrator is au

thorized—

(A) to acquire (by purchase, lease, con

demnation. or otherwise) such real property,

or any interest therein, within and outside

the continental United States, as toe Ad

ministrator -eonsid era necessary;

(B) to acquire (by purchase, lease, con

demnation, or otherwise) and to construct,

repair, operate, and maintain Such personal

property (including office space and pat

ents), or-any interest therein. within arid

outside toe continental United States, as toe

Administrator considers necessary;

sonal. property and to provide by contract or

otherwise for necessary facilities for the

welfare of Its employees and to acquire,,

maintain, and operate equipment for these

facilities;

(D) to acquire services, including such per

sonal services as toe Secretary of, Homeland

Security determines necessary, and to ac

quire (by purchase, lease, condemnation* or

Page 69

TITLE i9—TRANSPOUTATION

otherwise) and to construct, repair, operate,

and maintain, research and testing sites and

facilities; and

<E) in cooperation with, the Administrator

of the Federal Aviation Administration, to

utilize the research and development facili

ties of the Federal Aviation Administration.

(2) Title.—Title to any property or interest

therein acquired pursuant, to this subsection

shall be held by the Government of the United

States,

(k) Transfers, of Funds,---The Administrator

is authorized to accept transfers of unobligated

balances and unexpended balances of funds ap

propriated to other Federal agencies (as such

term is defined In. fiCGtion 551(1) of title 6) bo

carry out functions assigned by law to the Ad

ministrator.

U) Beciulations.—

fi) In general .—The Administrator is au

thorized to issue, rescind, ana revise such reg

ulations as are necessary to carry out the

functions of the Administration,

(2) Emergency procedures^™

(A) IN GENERAL.—-Notwithstanding any

other provision of law or executive order (in

cluding an executive order requiring a costbenefit, analysis), if the Administra tor deter

mines that a regulation or security directive

must be issued immediately in order to pro

tect transportation security, the Adminis

trator shall issue the regulation or security

directive without providing notice Of an op

portunity for comment and without prior ap

proval of the Secretary,

(B) Review by transportation security

oversight board,—Any regulation or secu

rity directive issued under this paragraph

shall be subject to review by the Transpor

tation Security Oversight Board established

under section 115. Any .regulation or security

. directive issued; under this paragraph shall

remain effective for a period not to exceed 90

days unless ratified or disapproved by the

Board or rescinded by the Administrator.

(3) Factors to consider,—In determining

whether to issue., rescind, or revise a regula

tion under this section, the Administrator

shail( consider, as 'a- factor in the final deter

mination, whether the costs of the regulation

arc excessive in relation to the enhancement

of security the regulation will provide. The

Administrator may waive requirements for on

analysis that estimates "tile number of lives

that will be saved by the regulation, and. the

monetary value of such lives if the Adminis

trator determines that it is not feasible bo

make such an estimate,'

f4) Airworthiness objections by faa

(A) IN OBNGRALi—-The Administrator shall

not take an aviation .security action under

this title ,lf the Administrator of the Fedora.)

Aviation Administration notifies the Admin

istrator that the action could adversely af

reet the airworthiness of an aircraft.

(B) Review ,bY secretary:—Notwith

standing subparagraph (A), the Adminis

trator may take such an action, after receiv

ing a notification concerning the action

from the Administrator of the Federal Avia

18a

1114

tion Administration under subparagraph (A),

if the Secretary of Transportation subse

quently approves the action.

(m) .PERSONNEL AND SERVICES: COOPERATION BY

ADMINISTRATOR.—

(1) Authority of administrator.—Ip car

rying out the functions of the Administration.'

the Administrator shall have the same author

ity as is provided to the Administrator of the

Federal Aviation Administration under sub

sections 0) and fm) of section 106,

(2) AUTHORITY OF AGENCY HEADS.—The headof a Federal agency shall have the same au

thority to provide services, supplies, equip

ment, personnel, and facilities to the Adminis

trator as the head has to provide sendees", sup

plies, equipment, personnel, and facilities to

the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad

ministration under section 106(m).

On) Personnel management System,—

(1) In general.-—The peisonneS management

system established by the Administrator of

the Federal Aviation Administration under

section 40122 shall apply to employees of the

Transportation Security Administration, or,

subject to the requirements of such section,

the Administrator may make such modifica

tions to the personnel management system

with respect to such employees as the Admin

istrator considers appropriate, such as adopt

ing aspects of other personnel systems of the

Department of Homeland Securi ty.

(2) Meritorious executive or distinguished

executive rank awarbs.—Notwithstanding

section 40122(g)f2) of this title, the applicable

sections of title 5 shall apply to the Transpor

tation Security Administration personnel

management system, except that—

(A) for purposes of applying such provi

sions to the personnel management system—

fi) the term "agency'’ means the Depart

ment of Homeland Security;

fii) the term "senior executive'’ means a

Transportation Security Administration

executive serving on a Transportation Securi ty Execut i ve Send ce appoi u tm en t;

Oil) the term “career appointee" means

a Transportation Security Administration

executive serving on a career Transpor

tation Security Executive Service appoint

ment; and

(iv) The5 term "senior career employee”

means a Transportation Security Adminis

tration employee covered by the Transpor

tation Security Administration Core Com

pensation System at the L or.M: pay hand;

(B) receipt by a career appointee or a sen

ior career employee of the rank, of Meri

torious Executive or Meritorious Senior Brofessional entitles the individual to a lumjF

sum payment of an amount, equal to 20 per

cent of annual, basic pay, willoh shall be in

addition to the basic pay paid under the ap

plicable Transportation Security Adminis-.

tration pay system; and

ior career employee of the rank of Distin

guished Executive or Distiiiguishefl Senior’

1 So In original, Pmsably Hhmilii not l» capitalised,

HI4

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION

Professional entitles the individual to a

lump-sum payment of an amount, equal Co 35

percent of eantial basic pay. which shall be

in addition to the basic pay paid under the

applicable Transportation Security Adminis

tration pay system.

(3) Definition of applicable sections or

title s.—In fchjs subsection, the term ‘'applica

ble sections of titles'* means—

(A) subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section

4507 of title 5; and

(B) subsections (b) and (cl of section 4507a

of title 5.

(o) Authority of Inspector General.—The

Transportation Security Administration shall

be subject to the Inspector General Act of 1978 16

U.S.C. App.) and other laws relating’ to the au

thority of the Inspector General of the Depart

ment. of Homeland Security.

(p) Law Enforcement powers.—

(.1) IN general.—The Administrator may

designate an employee of the Transportation

Security Administration or other Federal

agency to serve as a law enforcement officer.

(2) Powers.—While engaged in official duties

of the Administration as required to fulfill the

responsibilities under this section, a law en

forcement officer' designated under paragraph.

(15 may—

(A) carry a firearm;

(B) make an arrest without a warrant for

any offense against the United States com

mitted in the presence of the officer, or for

any felony cognizable under the laws of the

United States if the officer has probable

cause to believe that the person to be ar

rested has committed or is committing the

felony; and

<C) seek and execute warrants for arrest or

seizure of evidence issued under the author

ity of the United States upon probable cause

that a violation has been committed.

(3) GUIDELINES ON EXERCISP, OF AUTHORITY.—

Tile authority provided by this subsection

shall, be exercised In accordance with guide

lines prescribed by the Administrator, in con

sultation with the Attorney General of the

United States, and shall include adherence to

the Attorney General's policy on use of deadly

force?,

(4) Revocation oa suspension of author

ity.—The powers authorized by this subsection

may be rescinded or suspended should the At

torney General determine that the Adminis

trator has nob complied, with the guidelines

prescribed in paragraph (3) and. conveys the de

termination in writing to the Secretary of

Homeland Security and the Administrator.

(q) Authority to Exempt.—The Adminis

trator may grant; an exemption from a regula

tion prescribed in carrying out this section if

the Administrator determines that the exemp

tion is in the public interest.

(r.) Nondisclosure of security activities.—

Cl) IN general.-< Notwithstanding section 552

of title 5, the Administrator shall prescribe

regulations prohibiting the disclosure of infor

mation obtained or developed in carrying out

security under authori ty of the Aviation and

19a

Page 60

Transportation Security Act (Public Law

107-7]) .or under chapter 449 of this title If the

Administrator decides that disclosing the in

formation would™

(A) be an unwarranted invasion of personal,

privacy;

(B) reveal a trade secret or privileged or

confidential commercial or financial infor

mation; or

portation,

(2) Availability of information to concress.—Paragraph (1) does not authorize in

formation to be withheld from a committee of

Congress authorized to have the information.

(3) Limitation on transfe'eabtuty of du

ties.—Except as otherwise provided by law,

the Administrator may not transfer a. duty or

power under this subsection to another depart

ment, agency, or instrumentality of the

United States,

(4) Limitations.—Nothing in this subsection,

or any other provision of law, shall be con

strued to authorize the designation of infor

mation as sensitive security information (as

defined in section 1520.5 of title 49. Code of

Federal Regulations)—

(A) to conceal a violation of law, ineffi

ciency. or administrative error;

(B) to prevent embarrassment to a person,

organization, or agency;

(D) to prevent or delay the release of infor

mation that; does not require protection in

the interest of transportation security, in

cluding basic scientific research information

nor, clearly related to transportation secu

rity.

(s) Transportation security Strategic

Planning.—

(1) IN General,—The Secretary of Homeland.

Security shall develop, prepare, implement,

and update, as needed—

(A) a National Strategy for Transportation

Security; arid

(B) transportation modal security plans

addressing security risks, including threats,

vulnerabilities, ami consequences, for avia

tion. railroad, ferry, highway, maritime,

pipeline, public transportation, over-theroad. bus, and, other transportation infra

structure assets.

(2) ROLE OF SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION.—

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall

work jointly with the Secretary of Transpor

tation in developing, revising, and updating

the documents required by paragraph (1).

(3) Contents of national strategy for

transportation

SECURITY .—The National

Strategy for Transportation Security Shall in

clude the following;

(A) An Identification and evaluation, of the

transportation assets in the United States

that. In the interests of national security

and commerce, must be protected from, at

tack or disruption by terrorist or other hos

tile forces,, including modal security plans

for aviation, bridge and tunnel, commuter

rail and ferry, highway, maritime, pipeline,

rail, mass transit', over-iJie-road bus, and

Page G1

TITLE 49-^RANSPORTATION

other public transportation infrastructure

assets that could be at risk of such an at*

tack or disrupt,Ion.

(B) The development of risk-based prior

ities, based on risk assessments conducted

or received by the Secretary of Homeland

Security (including assessments conducted

under the Implementing Recommendations

of the Oil Commission Act of 2007) across all

transportation modes and realistic deadlines

for addressing security needs associated

with those assets referred to in subpara

graph (A).

cost-effective means of defending those as

sets against threats to their security ,

CD) A forward-looking strategic plan that

sets forth the agreed upon roles and missions

of Federal* State, regional, local, and tribal

authorities and establishes mechanisms for

encouraging Cooperation, and participation

by private sector entities, including non

profit employee labor organizations, in the

implementation of such plan,

(E) A comprehensive delineation of preven

tion, response, and recovery responsibilities

and'issues regarding, threatened and exe

cuted acts of terrorism, within the United

States and threatened and executed acts of

terrorism outside the United States to the

extent such acts affect United States trans

portation systems,

(F> A prioritization of research end devel

opment objectives that support transpor

tation security needs, giving a higher pri

ority to research and. development directed

toward protecting vital transportation as

sets. Transportation security research and

development projects shall be based, to the

extent practicable, on such prioritization.

Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be

construed to require the termination of any

.research or development project initiated by

the Secretory of Homeland Security or the

Secretary of Transportation before the date

of enactment of the Implementing Rec

ommendations of the Ml Commission Act of

3007,

(G) A 3- and Midyear budget for Federal

transportation security programs that will

.achieve the priorities of the National, Strat

egy for Transportation Security,

CH) Methods for linking the individual

transportation modal security plans and the

.programs contained therein, and a plan for

addressing the security needs of infcermoda!

transportation,

(1) Transportation modal security plans

described in paragraph

Including oper

ational recovery plans to expedite, to the

maximum extent practicable, the return to

operation of an adversely affected transpor

tation system following a major terrorist at

tack on that system or other Incident. These

plans shall be coordinated with the resump

tion of trade protocols required under sec

tion 202 of the SAFE Port Act (G U.S.C, 942}

and the National. Maritime Transportation

Securi ty Plan required under section 70.103(a)

of title 40,

(4) Submission op plans.—

20a

§314

(A) In general.-—The Secretary of Home

land Security shall submit the National

Strategy for Transportation Security, In

cluding the transportation modal security

plans and any revisions to the National.

Strategy for Transportation Security and

the transportation modal security plans, to

appropriate congressional committees nor,

less frequently than April 1 of each evennumbered year.

(B) PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORT. ~

(I) REQUIREMENT FOR. REPORT.—®a«h.

year, in conjunction with the submission

of the budget to Congress under section

UOfifa) of title 31. United States Code, the

Secretary of Homeland Security Ahall sub

mit to the appropriate congressional com

mittees an assessment of the progress

made, on implementing the National Strat

egy for Transportation Security, including

the transportation modal security plans.

(II) Content.—Each progress report sub

mitted under this subparagraph shall in

clude, at a .minimum, the following:

(I) Recommendations toy improving

and implementing the National Strategy

for Transportation Security and the

transportation modal and intormodal se

curity plans that the Secretary of Home

land Security, in consultation with the

Secretary of Transportation, considers

appropriate.

(If) An accounting of all grants for

transportation security , including grants

and contracts for research and develop

ment, awarded by the Secretary of

Homeland Security in tbs most recent

fiscal year and a description of how such

grants accomplished the goals of the Na

tional Strategy tor Transportation Secu

rity.

(HI) An accounting of all—

(aa) funds requested in the 'Presi

dent’s budget submitted pursuant to

section 1105 of title 31 for the most re

cent fiscal year for transportation se

curity, by mode’

(bb) personnel working on transpor

tation security by mode, Including the

number of contractors; and

(cc) Information on the turnover in

the previous year among senior staff of

the Department of Homeland Security,

including- component agencies, work

ing on transportation security issues.

Such information shall Include the

number of employees who have perma

nently loft the office, agency, or area

in which they worked, and. the amount

of time that they worked for the De

partment of Homeland Security,

(iii) Written explanation of transpor

tation SBOimrFY ACTIVITIES NOT DED®eatbu nr tub national strategy for

transportation securitv.—At the end of

each fiscal year, the Secretary of Home

land Security shall submit to the appro

priate congressional committees a. written

explanation of any Federal, transportation

security activity that is inconsistent with

the National Strategy for Transportation.

81:14

TTTLB 48—TRANSPORTATION

Security, including the amount of funds to

be expended for the activity find the num

ber of personnel involved.

i'C) Classified MATERIAL.—Any part of the

National Strategy for Transportation Seem

rity or the transportation modal security

plans that involve information, that is prop

erly classified under criteria established: py

.Bxeoutive order shall be submitted to the

appropriate congressional committees sepa

rately in a- classified format.

CD) Appropriate congressional commit

tees defined...-In this subsection, the term

“appropriate congressJona 1 committees"'

means the Committee on Transportation,

and Infrastructure and the Committee on

Homeland Security of the House of .Rep

resentatives and the Commit,toe on Com

merce. Science, and Transportation, the

Committee on Homeland Security and Gov

ernmental Affairs, and the Committee on

Banking. Housing, and Urban Affairs of the

Senate.

(8) priority Status.—

(A) In general.—The National Strategy

for Transportation Security shat! be the

governing document for Federal transpor

tation security efforts.

(B) Other plans and reports.—The Na

tional Strategy for Transportation Security

Shall include, as an in tegral part or as am ap

pendix—(i) the current National Maritime Trans

portation Security Plan under section

70103 of title 46a

(ii) the report required by section 44938

Of this title:

(ill) transportation modal security plans

required under this section;

(lv> the transportation sector specific

plan required under Homeland SecurityPresidential Directive-7; and

tv) any other transportation security

plan or report that the Secretary of Home

land Security determines appropriate for

inclusion.

{«) Coordination.—to carrying oat the re

sponsibilities under this section, the Secretary

of Homeland Security, in coordination with,

the Secretary of Transportation, shall consult.,

as appropriate, with Federal. State, and local

agencies, tribal governments, private sector

entities (including nonprofit employee labor

organizations), institutions of higher learning,

and other entities.

(?) Plan distribution....The Secretary of

Homeland Security shall make available and

appropriately publicize an unclassified version

of the National Strategy for Transportation

Security. Including Its component transpor

tation modal security plans, to Federal, State,

regional, local and. tribal authorities, trans

portation system owners or operators, private

sector stakeholders, Including nonprofit em

ployee labor organizations representing transportation employees, institutions of higher

learning, and other appropriate entitles.

ft) transportation SEOtmrry information

Sharing Plan—-

21a

Page 62:

(i) definitions.—In this subsection,’

(A) Appropriate congressional commit

tees,—The term "appropriate congressional

committees" has the .meaning given that

term in. Subsection (sXIKB!),

CB) Plan,-—The term “Plan” means the

Transportation Security Information Shar

ing Plan, -established under paragraph <2).

(G.) Public and private stakeholders,—

The term "‘public and private stakeholders’*

means Federal, State, and local agencies,

tribal governments, and appropriate private

entities, including, nonprofit employee labor

organizations representing transportation,

employees.

(D) Transportation security informa

tion.-—The term “transportation security in

formation.'’ means informal,(on relating to

the risks to transportation modes, including

aviation, public transportation, railroad,

ferry, highway, maritime, pipeline, and overthe-road baa transportation, and may in

clude, specific and general intelligence prod

ucts^-as appropriate.

(2) Establishment of flan.—The Secretary

of Homeland Security, in consultation with

the program manager of the information shar

ing environment established under section 1016

of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Pre

vention Act of 2004 (6 U'.S.C. 486), the Sec

retary of Transportation, and public and pri

vate stakeholders, shall establish a Transpor

tation Security Information Sharing Plan, la

establishing the Plan, the Secretary of Home

land Security shall gather input on the devel

opment of the Plan from private and public

stakeholders and the program manager of the

Information sharing environment established

under section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform

and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.8.C.

48@),

(3) Purpose of plan.—The Plan shall pro

mote sharing of transportation security Infor

mation between the Department of Homeland

Security and public and private stakeholders.

(4) Content of plan.—The Plan, shall in

clude—

(A) a description of how intelligence ana

lysts within the .Department of Homeland

Security will coordinate their activities

within, the Department and with other Fed

eral, State, and local agencies, and tribal

governments, including coordination with

existing modal information sharing centersand the center described in section 1410 of

the Implementing: Recommendations of the

9fil Commission Aot of 2007;

(B> the establishment of a point of con

tact, which, may be a single point, of contact

within the Department, of Homeland Secu

rity, for each mode of transportation for the

sharing of transportation security infonmaMob. with public and private stakeholders.

.Including an explanation and justification to

the appropriate congressional committees If

the point of contact established pursuant to

this subparagraph differs from the agency

within the Department of Homeland Secu

rity that has the -primary authority, or has

been delegated such authority by Was Sec

retary- of Homeland Security, to regulate the

security of that transportation, mode;

Pag-e 63

TITLE 49-“~TRANSPOBTATI0N

(0) a reasonable deadline by which the

Plan wilt be implemented; and

CD) a description of resource needs for ful

filling the Plan,

(8) Coordination with information shar

ing,..-The Plan shall be...

(A) implemented. in coordination, as appro

priate, with Che program manager for the in

formation sharing environment established

under section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform

and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ifl

U.S.C. 485); ami

(B) ■consistent with the establishment of

the information sharing- environment and

any policies, guidelines, procedures. Instruc

tions, or standards established by the President1 or the program manager for the imple

mentation and management of the informa

tion sharing environment.

(6) Annual report on flan,--The Secretary

of Homeland Security shall annually submit;

to the- appropriate congressional committees a

report containing the Plan.

(7) Security clearances.-—The Secretary of

Homeland Security shall, to the greatest, ex

tent practicable, take steps to expedite the se

curity clearances needed for designated public

and private stakeholders to receive and obtain

Recess to classified information distributed

under this section, as appropriate,

(8) Classification of material.—The -Sec

retary of-.Homeland- Security, to -the greatest

extent practicable, shall provides designated

public and private stakeholders with transpor

tation security information in on unclassified

format,

(a) Enforcement of iteatiX.AT-ioss and Orders

OF THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.—

fl) .application of sub section.-—

(A) In general,—This subsection applies

to the enforcement of regulations pre

scribed, and orders issued, by the Secretary

of Homeland Security under a provision of

chapter 701 of title 46 and under a provision

of this -title other than a provision of chap

ter 449 (in tails subsection referred to as an

“applicable provision of this title''),

<B) Violations of chapter i-Mi,—The pen

alties for violations of regulations pre

scribed and orders Issued by the Secretary of

Homeland Security or the Administrator

under chapter 449 of this title are provided

under chapter 463 of this title.

tions.—

U) Paragraphs (2) through (o) do not

apply to violations of regulations pre

scribed, and orders issued, by the Sec

retary of Homeland Security under a pro

vision of this title—

(D involving the transportation of ■per

sonnel dr Shipments of materials by con

tractors where the Department of De

fense has assumed control, and responsi

bility;

(IT) by a member of the armed forces of

the United States when performing offi

cial duties;' or

(III) by a civilian employee of the De

partment of Defense when performing of

ficial duties.

22a

1114.

(ii) Violations described In subolause (I).

(ID, or (III) of clause (1) shall bo subject; to

penalties as determined by the • Secretary

of .Defense or the Secretary of Defense's

designee,

(2) CrViL PENALTY,—

(A) in general.—A person is liable to the

United States Government fop a civil pen

alty of not more than $10,000 for a violation,

of a regulation prescribed, or order issued,

by the Secretary of ’Homeland -Security

under aa, applicable provision of this title,

(B) Repeat violations.-..A 'separate viola

tion occurs under this paragraph for eachday the violation continues.

(3) ADMINISTKATIVE IMPOSITION OF CIVIL *BN-

Ai/msa,—

CA) In general.----The Secretary of Home

land Security may impose a civil penalty lor

a violation of a regulation prescribed, Or

order issued, under an applicable provision

of this title. The Secretary shall give writ

ten notice of the finding of a Violation and

the penalty.

(B) Scope op civil action.—In a civil ac

tion. to collect a civil penalty imposed by the

Secretary of Homeland Security under this

subsection, a court may not re-examine

issues of liability or the amount of the pen

alty.

the United States shall have exclusive juris

diction of civil actions-to collect a aivilpen

alty imposed by the. Secretary of Homeland

Security under this subsection .if—

(15 the amount in controversy its- more

than—

(1) $400,000, if the violation, was com

mitted by a person other than an Indi

vidual or small, business concern; or

OI) S50.OQO if the violation «&« com

mitted by an individual or -small busi

ness concern;

(ii) the action is iu-.rero or another ac

tion in ram based on the same violation

has been brought; or

Ciii) another action .has been brought for

an injunction based on the same violation,

CD) Maximum penaltvt.—-The maximum

civil penalty the Secretary of Homeland. Se

curity administratively may impose under

this paragraph is—

(i) $100,000, if the. violation was com

mitted by b person other than an Indi

vidual or small business concern; or

(ii) $50,000, if the violation was com

mitted by an individual or small, business

concern.

(E) Notice and opportunity- to request

hearing.—Before Imposing a, penalty under

this section the Secretary of Homeland Se

curity shall provide to the person against,

whom the penalty is to be imposed—

(i) written, notice of the proposed pen

alty; and

Ciii the opportunity to request a hearing

on. the proposed penalty, if the Secretary

of Homeland Security receives the request

not later than 80 days after the date, on

which the person receives notice.

§114

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION

(4) COMPROMISE AND SETOFF.

(A) The Secretary .of Homeland Security

may compromise the amount of a civil penaltylmposod under this suhaocfion,

(B) The Government may deduct; the

amount of a civil penalty imposed or com

promised under this subsection from

amounts it owes the person liable for the

penalty.

(5) INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEKNGS,—Chap

ter 481 shall apply to investigations and pro

ceedings brought under this subsection to the

same extent that It applies to investigations

and proceedings brought with respect to avia

tion ..security duties designated to be carried

out by the Secretary ol Homeland Security.

(6) Definitions.—In this subsection:

(.A) .Person.—The term "person” does not

include—

(i) the United States Postal Service; or

ftl) the Department of Defense.

(B) SMALL: BUSINESS CONCERN.—-The term

"small business conceal” has the meaninggiven that term in section 3 of the Small

.Business Act (15 U.S.G. 832),

(?) Enforcement transparency,—

(A) IN G-BfvgRju:,....The Secretary of Home

land Security shall—

(1) provide an annual summary to the

public of all enforcement actions taken by

the Secretary under this subsection;'and

til) include in. each such, summary the

docket number of each enforcement ac

tion, the type of’alleged, violation, the pen

alty or penalties proposed, and the final

assessment amount of each penalty.

(B) Electronic availability...Each sum

mary under this paragraph shall, be made

available to the public by electronic! means.

ing in this subsection shall be construed to

require disclosure of information or records

that, are exempt from disclosure under sec

tions 552 or 552a of title 5.

(V) AOTBORtaATtON OF .Appropriations,—There

are- atfthorised to he appropriated to the Trans

portation Security Administration for salaries,

operations, and maintenance of the Administra

tion—

CD §7.1549.247,000 for fiscal year 2019;

m 57,888,491000 for fiscal year 2020; and

(3) 57.0,17,936,000 for fiscal year 332.1.

ivf) LKAPEBSHHP and OBOANSATION.—

(1) In oeneral.-'-Foi1 each of the areas de

scribed in paragraph (2), the Administrator of

the Transportation Security Administration

shall appoint at least 1 individual who shall —

CA) report directly to the Administrator or

the Administrator’s designated direct re

port; and

(S) he responsible and accountable for that

area.

(2) Areas oescribbd....-Use areas, described in

this paragraph.are as follo ws;

(A) Aviation security operations and (min

is®-, including risk-based, adaptive secu

rity—

23a

Page 64

fi> focused on airport checkpoint said

hag-gage screening operations;

(11) workforce training- and development

programs; and

(ill) ensuring compliance with aviation,

security law, including regulations, and

other specialized programs designed to se

cure air transportation..

(8) Surface transportation security oper

ations and. training, including risk-based,

adaptive security—

ft} focused on accomplishing Security

systems assessments:

ft}) reviewing and priori.tiring- projects

for appropriated surface transportation se

curity grants;

(jii.) operator compliance with, surfacetransportation security law, including reg

ulations, and voluntary industry stand

ards; and

(i.v) workforce training- and development

programs, amt other specialized programs

designed to secure surface. Transportation,

and planning, including the development, in

terpretation, promotion, and oversight of a

unified effort regarding risk-baaed, risk-re

ducing security policies and plans {includingstrategic planning for future contingencies

and. security challenges) between govern

ment and transportation stakeholders. In

cluding airports, domestic and international,

airlines, general aviation, air cargo, mass

transit and passenger raiL freight rail", -pipe

line. highway ana motor carriers, and mari

time.

CD) International strategy end operations,

including agency efforts to work with inter

national partners to secure the glphal trans

portation network,

(E) Trusted and registered traveler pro

grams, Including- the management and mar

keting of the agency’s trusted traveler ini

tiatives, including the PreOheck. Program,

and coordination with trusted traveler pro

grams of other Department of Homeland Se

curity agencies and the private sector.

(F) Technology acquisition and deploy

ment, including the oversight, development,

testing, evaluation, acquisition, deployment,

and maintenance of security technology and

other acquisition programs.

(G) Inspection and compliance, Including

the integrity, efficiency and effectiveness of

the agency’s workforce, operations, and pro

grams through objective audits, covert test-,

tag, inspections, criminal investigations,

and regulatory compliance.

(11) Civil rights, liberties, and traveler en

gagement, .including ensuring that -agency

employees and the traveling public are

treated in a fair and lawful manner con

sistent -with. 'Federal laws and regulations

protecting privacy and prohibiting discrimi

nation and reprisal.

(I) (Legislative and public affairs, taoludtag

communication- and engagement with inter

nal and external audiences in a timely, accu

rate, and transparent manner, and develop

ment and implementation of strategies with-

.Page 6S

TITLE 49—-TRANSPORTATION

In. tile agency to achieve congressional ap

proval or authorization -of agency programs

and policies.

(3) notification.—The Administrator shall

submit to the appropriate committees of Con

gress—

(A) mat later than. 180 days after the date

of enactmen t of the THA Modernization Act,

a list of the names of the individuals ap

pointed under paragraph CL); and

(B) an update of the list not later than 6

days after any new individual is appointed

under paragraph (1).

’{>:) TRANSPORTATION SSCCKBry PRBPAREOSJJRSSBmn,™

0.) In GENERAL-—-Not later than two years

after the hate of the enactment of this sub

section, the Secretary of Homeland Security,

acting through the Administrator, in coordi

nation with the Chief'Medical Officer of the

Department of Homeland Security, and in con

sultation with the partners identified under

paragraphs iSXAJCQ through (3){A)(iv), shall

develop a transportation security prepared

ness plan to address the event of a- commu

nicable disease outbreak:. The Secretary, act

ing through the Administrator, shall ensure

such plan, aligns with relevant Federal plans

anti strategies for communicable disease out

breaks.

(2) Considerations.—hi developing- the plan

required under paragraph £15. the Secretary,

acting through fife Administrator, shall con

sider. each of the following:

(A) The findings of the survey required

under section 8411 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2022.

(B) The findings of the analysis required

under section G414 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

(O) The plan required under section 6«5 of

the National Defense Authorisation Ao.t for

.Fiscal Year 2022.

(D) All .relevant reports and recommenda

tions regarding the Administration’s re

sponse to the dbVTB-19 pandemic, including

any reports and recommendations Issued by

the Comptroller 'General and the Inspector

General of the Department: of Homeland .Se

curity.

(B) Lessons learned, from federal inter

agency efforts during the COV1D-49 pan

demic.

(8) Contents, of plan.—-The plan developed,

under paragraph (!) shall.include each, of the

following:

(A) Plans for communicating and collabo

rating in. the event of a communicable dis

ease outbreak with the following partners:

(i) Appropriate Federal departments and

agencies, including the Department of

Health aw! Human Services, the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, the

Department of Transportation, the Depart

ment of Labor, and appropriate inter

agency task forces.

dl) The-workforce-of the Administration,

including through the labor 'organization

certified as the exclusive representative of

full- and part-time non-supervisory Ad-

248

f 114

ministration personnel carrying out

screening functions under section 449di of

this title.

(ill) international partners, including’

the International Civil Aviation Organiza

tion and foreign governments, airports,

and air carriers.

(lv) Public and private stakeholders, as

such term is defined under subsection

t.t'KD(C).

(y) The traveling public.

(B) Plans for protecting the safety of the

Transportation. Security Administration

workforce, including—

(i) reducing- the .risk of coitonunicabie

disease transmission at screening checkpoints and ■within the .Administration’s

workforce related to the Administration's

transportation security operations and

mission;

Oi) ensuring the safety and hygiene of

screening

checkpoints

aad

other

workstations;

Oil) supporting equitable and appro

priate access to relevant vaccines,', pre

scriptions, and other medical oare; and

(xv) tracking rates of employee illness,

recovery, and death.

that- may Warrant- the Integration of addi

tional actions in the aviation Screening sys

tem :tn response to the communicable dis

ease outbreak and a range of potential .roles

and responsibilities that align with such

conditions.

(B) Contingency plans for temporarily ad

justing checkpoint operations to provide for

passenger and employee safety while main

taining security during the communicable

disease outbreak.

(E) Provisions setting forth criteria for es

tablishing an interagency task force or

other standing engagement platform with

other appropriate Federal departments and

agencies, including the Department of

Health and. Homan Services and -the Depart

ment of Transportation,, to address euqh

communicable disease outbreak.

(F) A. description of scenarios In which the

Administrator should consider •exercising

authorities provided under subsection ,{g>

and for what purposes,

(0) Considerations for assessing the appro

priateness of issuing security directives and

emergency amendment® to regulated .parties

in various modes of transportation, includ

ing surface transportation, and plans for en

suring compliance with such measures,

fH) A description, of any potential obsta

cles, including funding constraints and limi

tations to authorities, that could restrict

the ability of the Administration, to respond

appropriately to a communicable diseaseoutbreak.

(4) BissjBMitfA'raoN.—Upon development of

the plan required under -paragraph (1), the Ad

ministrator shall disseminate the plan to the

partners identified wider paragraph (8)(A) ami

to the Committee on Homeland Security of

the House of .Representatives and the Com-

$114

TITLE 19—TRANSPORTATION

miltee on Homeland Security and Govern

mental Affairs and 'the Committee on Com

merce. Science, and Transportation of the

Senate.

(a) Review of FLAN.—Not later than two

years after the date on which the plan is dis

seminated under paragraph <4), and biennially

thereafter, the Secretory, acting through the

Administrator and In coordination with the

Chief Medical Officer of the .Department of

Homeland Security, shall review the plan and,

after consultation with the partners identified

under paragraphs (3)(A)(i) through (3XA)(iv),

update the plan as appropriate.

(Added Pub. L. 107-71, title I. §10Mr)« Nov. .19,

2001, 115 Stott 697; amended .Pub. L. 107-286. title

XVI, §l601(t». title XVII. $1707. Nov. 25. 2002. 116

Stott 2312. 2318; Pub. L. 308-7. div. 1. title ID.

§ 351(d). Feb.. 20, 2003. 117 Slat, 420: Pub. L.

108-458. title IV, §4001(a). Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Sfcat.

8710; Pub, L. 110-63, title XJJ. §§3202. 1.208(a), title

XTM. § 1302(a), title XV. § 1603(a), Aug. 3. 2007. .121

Stab. 381. 383. 390, 425; Pub. L. 110-161, div, 35.

title V, §668(a). .Dec. 26. 2007, 121 Stat. 2092; Pub.

,L. 111-83. title V, §563.(0X1), Oct. 28, 2009. 123

Stat. 2182: Pub. L. .114-301. §.2(dl. Deo. 16. 2016.. 130

Stat. 1514; Pub. L. 116-251. div. K. title 1. §§1903.

1904(a). (b)(1), .1905. 1909. 1988(c}. Oct. 5, 2018, 132

Stat, 3543, 3544. 3546. 3549, 3623; Pub, L. 117-81.

div. F, title LXlV, §6412fa). Dec. 27. 2021, 135

Stot, 2409.)

Editorial Notes

11BFB1U5NOK8 tN TrcXT

The date of enactment of'tiro TSA Modernization Act.

refereed to In suhseos. (h)(1)(G) and (w)t3)(A). 4a the date

of enactment of title I of div. K of Pub. I.». 116-254,

which was approved Oct, 6, 2018.

The- Inspector General Act of 1978, referred so in subeec. (o). is Pub. L. 95-452, Oot. 12, 1978, 92 Stat, 1101.

which is.set out in the Appendix to Title 5. Government

Organization and Employees.

The Aviation and Transportation Seaurity Act, re

ferred to inenbsec. (TNI), is Tub. L. 107-71, Nov. 19. 2001,

115 Stat. 597. For complete classification of tills Act to

the Code, see Short Title of 2001 Amendment, note set

out under section 101. of this title and Tallies.

Die Implementing Recommendations of the 8/il Com

mission Act of 2007, referred to in subseo. (s)(3)(8), Is

Pub. I.,. 110-68, Aug. 3. 2007, 121. Stat. 266. Section 1410 of

tha Act is eiaRStlled to section 1.139 of Title 6. Domestic

Security. For complete classification of this Act to the

Code, see Short Title of 2007 Amendment note set out

under section im. of Title 6 and Tables.

The date of enactment of the Implementing Rec

ommendations of the 8/11 Commission Act of 2007. re

ferred to in subsoil. (s)(3)(F), 1b the date of enactment of

Pub. L. 110-63, which was approved Aug. 3. 2907.

The date of tha enactment of this subsection, referred

to la subsea. i>)(li, is the date of enactment of Pub. L,

117-81, whiob was approved Dec. 27, 2021.

Section 6413 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2022. referred to tu subset*. (xX2)( At

is Section 6411 of div. F of Pub. L. 117-81. Dec. 27, 2021,

185 Stat. 2409, which la not classified to the Code,

Section 6414 of the National Defense Authorisation

Act.for Fiscal. Year 2022, referred to in subsee. (x)(2)(l3i.

is Section 0414 of div, F Of Pub. Tj. 11,7-81, Dec. 27, 2021,

135 Stat, 241.2, which is not classified to the Oode.

Section 6415 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2022, refereed to in setose. (xXSbt.C),

is Section 6415 of Pub. D. 117-81, which Is sec out as a,

note under section 44901 of this title.

AMENDMENTS

2921—SubSGtt. (x). Pub. L. 117-81 added subsee. fx).

25a

Page 86

2018-Pub. L. .US-254, §1504(6X81, substituted "Admin

istrator'' for ''Under Secretary" wherever appearing-to

su.bsecs, (c) to (n), (p), (q), and (r),

Subsoc, (ap Pub. E. 115-254. §1804(it)Cl3, substituted.

“.Department of Homeland Security" for “Department

of Transportation'*.

Subsec. (b). Pub. u 116-254, §i9<M(a)(2>, amended suhseo. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, text read «• fol

lows:

•'(l) appointment.—The head of the Administration,

shall be the Under Sourettai- of Transportation for Se

curity. The under Storetory shall be. appointed by the

President, by anti with, the ndvlce and consent of the

Senate,

“(2) QuAcrpiGATioNS.—The Under Secretary must—

"(A) be a citizen of the United Staten; and

“(B) have experience in a field directly related, to

transportation, or security.

“(3) Term.—-The terra of office of an individual ap

pointed act the Under Secretary shall he 5 years."'

Subrec. (0(15), (16). Pub. li. 115-254, § 1988(e), added

par. (15) and redesignated former par, (15) as (1C).

Subsee. (g)(1). Pub. L. 1HW8S4, §1304{b)aKA)(i)U), sub

stituted “Subject to the, direction end control of the

Secretary of Homeland. Security” for “Subject to the

direction and control of the Secretary* in .Introductory

provisions.

Subsea*. (gXlXD). <8). (J)ai(D). Pub. b. 115-254..

fU.904(bXlXAiU)ri3), an, (B>, Inserted "of Homeland Se

curity" after “Secretary'1.

Subsec, (k). Pub. h. 115-251. §l904(h)c3)(O). substituted

“functions assigned*" for “functions transferred, on or

after the date of enactment of the Aviation and Trans

portation Security Act.*".

Subaeo, ((.iUKfli, Pub. b. U5-.264, §lfl04(b)U)(D). Sub

stituted “Administrator of the Federal. Aviation. Ad

ministration under subparagraph (A)" for “Adminis

trator under subparagraph (A)1',

Subgeo. (n). Pub. I,. 116-854. §1909, inserted par. fl)

designation and. heading- before "The personnel man

agement. system”, added 'pars. (2) and (3), and realignedmargins.

Pub. I„ 3.15-254. S3904(W(1X«), substituted “Depart

ment, of Homoland Security' for "Department of

Transportation'',

Stibseo. (o). Pub. L. 115-264, §1904(hKl)(.F), substituted

“Department of Homeland Security for “Department

of Transportation".

Subsec. (p)14). Pub. U. 1.15-254. § 1944(b)(1)(G). sub

stituted “Secretary of Homeland Security" for “Sec

retary of Transportation".

SdbSBC. (a)(3)(B). Pil.ii. t. .115-254. §1.904(b)(l)(HXD. in

serted closing parenthesis after "Act of 2007".

Subgeo. (s)(4). Pub. L. 115-254. §i904(b)tlKliKUX1), Sttbstttutod “Submission of nlons** for “Submiasiona of

plan* to uongress!’ .id .heading.

Subseo.

115-254,

Pub.

<8l(4)(A).

§lP04(bjUi(H)(ii)(lV)(bb), which directed amendment of

subpar, (A) by substituting "The" for “Alter December

31, 2015, the", was executed, by making the substitution

for “After Deohmber 31. 2005, the" to reflect Die prob

able in tent of Congress.

Pub. U. 115-254, jjl804(b)(l)(H){ii)(rVHa,a), substituted

“lu general'" for “Subsequent versions'* in heeding.

Pub. I,. 115-254, §i9a4(b)(l)(H)(UKJ.ll, (HI), redesdgna ted subpar, (B) as (A) and struck out former .subpar.

(A). Prior to amendment, text of subpar. (A) road as fol

lows; “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall sub

mit the National strategy for Transportation Security,

including the transportation modal security plans, do

ve,loped under this subsection to tbs appropriate con

gressional committees not later than April 1, 2045,"

Subseo. (B)(4)(B). Pub. D. 115 254. U904(b,Kl)<H)(iI)(inj.

redesignated. subpar. <G> u* (B.i, .Former subpar. .(il) redesigna ted (A).

Subside.

(s)H)(B)(ii)(i:tI)(cc).

Pub. b.

115-254.

§1904(b)(l)(H)(UK'V), substituted “for the Department of

Homeland Security*4 for "for the Department”.

Subaeo. 00(4X0 to (E), Pub. L,

115-254,

§lS04fb)(l)(H)(il)(lII), redesignated sobpara. (D) and (E)

Page BT

TITLE 40—TRAN 5 POSTATION

as (CJ wad CD), respectively, Former sattpar. (0> redestg-.

anted (B).

Subsea. it), PmD, ft, H5-254, § J.8S4(ft)U)([.’, redesignated

■•subsec. (u)as-(t).

Subaee. (fclUKD),.(E). Pub, ft, 115-2S4, -SloMrtOUXJXl).

redesignated snhpar. ® a* CD) and street; out former

subp'at. CD). Prior to amendment, teat of subpar. CD.)

read a* fellows: “The term ' Secrete i:y‘ means the Smre fairy of Homeland Security.’'

StlteseOv ft)(2). Pub. ft, nS.25-1, §'l804(bXlX*r>'(ii), in

setted "of Homeland. SeOisf'ifcy” after “PJaji, the Sec

retary”,

Sttbsee. ft){4)CB). PttO, ft. 115-28*. §lS04<bXl>MXlli), In

serted "of Ho.rnei.anfl Security” after "agency within

the Department” and after’■Secretary1'.

Subsea. (tlCS). Pub. .ft, 115-251 S.iSW(b)(l){J!iiy),

amended par, (6) generally. Prior to amendment, text

real as follows:

“(A.) IN eiafiJRAift—Not later than ISO days after the

date of enciotment of this subsection, and annually

thereafter, the Secretory shell submit to Use appro

priate congressional committees, a report- containing

the 'Plan.

“(B) Annual KBPOiif..—Not. later than 1 yew after the

date of enactment- of -this subsection. the Secretary

shall submit to the appropriate congressional, committees a report on updates, to and the implementation of

the Plan.-”

Stthaec. (t){7>, (R), Pub, ft, 115-ZG4. §lP01(bKl)W»te}, in■■■

sertad “of Homeland Security" after ’‘Secretary”.

Sutsao. Cu). Pub. ft, 1.15-254, §lSOOTt)(lKD,. redesig

nated subeeo, (v) as fu). Formal' Sbbseo,. fu.) redesignated

(USuhaee. {'tiXl)(B.). Pub. ft. 115-254, §i90KbX!KKX.iXl)(

inserted “or. the, Administrator” after “Secretary of

Homeland Security”,

Sttbaetf.

ft.

tuXiXCKU).

Pub.

116-284',

§1S04{»(lJCK)(i}(n). substituted ‘'SaerEtary of Defense’s

designee” for ‘'Secretary’s designee*’.

Subset), fi.iXS)tB) to (8), (4)(&). (5). Pub, ft, 115-25-1,

gl804(b)<lXK)(i)(ni), (si),.

inserted: ”n£ Homeland

Security'’ after “Secretary” wbdraver appearing.

Subsets, (U)(7)(A). Pnb, L. 115-254, §l904(bXlXKXiv;®,

sabaBtatod “The Seeretaryof Homeland SceurUy” for

"Hot later than December- 31, 2008. and annually there

after, the Secretary” in Introductory provisions.

Subsea. (aXlKDj. Pub. ft. 115-284, § 1804(b)(iXK)iiv)Cn')t

riteuefcovtls subpar. CD), Text; read as follows: "Not'later

than MO days after tha onaotroent of kbe Implementing

Recommendations of the 9/11 Conuniwjion Act of .8007,

the Secretary shall provide a report, to the public de

scribing the enforcement process established under this

subsection.’*

Subsec'. 'Vh Pub. ft. 116-264, $1864«MlXO. redesig

nated subsec. (wi as (v>. ’Former subaeo.. <v) 'redesignafed (hi.

Subset), (w). Pub. ft, 115-264, §1106,- uliffca subSec. (w).

Former subsec. (w) redesignated (v).

Pub, ft. 115-234, rises, amended subsea. (w> generally.

.Prior to amendment, subsec, (wj tainted to authoriza

tion Of -appropriatione for railroad, over-the-road bits

and- trucking, anil batardous material and pipeline se

curity .for fiscal years 2003 through 20] i.

2fB6-SubaeO. <uKlXA), Pdb. ft. 114-301. 82(0X1), sbhr

sUtirted “subsection <s)(4)(.E)” for "subsection ft)”.

Subseo. fuM") to (9). Pub. ft. 134-801. §2«1X?,>, (3). redesignated pars, (8) and {9} as (7) and. (8),- respectively,

and struck out former prat (7) which related to surveys

and reports..

2009—Subsets. (0(4), Pub. St. 113.-83 added, par. (4).

$007—Subset*, to) to (s). Pub, ft. 110-161. redesignated

subeeos. (p) to fs) as' (o) to <r), respectively, and struck

out former subsec. (a). Text of termer subseo. Col read

as fallows: "The acquisition management system estab

lished by the Administrator of the Federal .Aviation

Administration under section 40110 shall apply to ae~

qalsltloiss of equipment, supplies, and materials by the

Ti'a-nsportation Security Administration, or, subject to

the requirements of sueh seolilon, the Under Sec*etary

may maXe such modiflcatiotis to tile acquisition man

26a

§114

agement system with respect to such Acquisitions of

equipment, supplies, arid, materials -as the Under Sec

retary cphaidate appropriate, such as sdopwug- aspects

of other acquisition managemMit; systoms of the (De

partment of Transportation.’’

Subseo, (t),-,pub, ft, 110-161 redesignated subeeo, ft) as

(eh

Subsec.

Pub. ft. 110-83, §.1202(h>. amenaea.

subpar. (Bi geaemtly. Prior so amendment, sttbpai-. CSV

read as follows; "tmnspoKatioo modal eeourity plans.<»•

Snhfiao. rt)(3)tB). PH.S, .L, 110-53, jjl202C0)(l>, insiil’KA

”, baaed on risk-assessments conducted or reoeivad-hy

the Secretai-y of -Homeland Security (ia/iltiding assessmente conducted under the implementing. Ban-ommendaHons of the 9/11 Commission Aet of 8007" after

* "ri.sk-hftssrt. prlorittes”,

SubsTO, (C)(3)(D), Drib. ft. 110-58, S 1202(b)(2), Sub

stituted '’local, and tribal” for “aua local” and “co

operation and participation, by .private sector entities,

including- .nonprofit employee labor organizations.” for

“private scoter cooperation and participation”.

Subsec. MOKE). Pnh. ft. 11048, § 3202(b)(8), snbntltmted “pravmitlon. cesponas, and recovery” for "resporise and recovery” and'inserted “slid Hwestenod and.

executed acts Of terrorism outside the 'Uaitca States to

tfe« extent such ante dfeot Caited States tmispdhtfttiaa aystema” before period, at end.

Subset’,.. (t)(3)(F), Fab. ft. no-68, §1202(8X1). inserted

at, and: "Transportation security research anti develop

ment projects Shall-he based, to the extent practicable,

on. such prioritisation. Nothing in the preceding sentenoo sh«UJ be construed to require the termination of

any mearoh or development project initiated by the

Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of

Transportation before the date of-Rnactmeut Of the Im

plementing fittcomihendahlons .of the fell Oommlsaion

Act of S007.”

Subaac. (t)(8XG) so (1), Pub, ft. 11048,- §.I202(b)(.S).

added ®ubp#i's. (6) to (IS.

Stttoec, (fefiXGlfi). Pub, ft. ii.(!-58, ll203{BXl)fA), in

serted ”, including the transportation modii security'

plans” before period at end.

Subsec. fi){4KC)(ii), (iii). Pub. ft. 11.0-53, |1202(o)(O(B).

added els,, (ill and till) and. struck out former <fl. (i.t),

Texi; of fcr.Rier; oft (iii read -as follows: “Each progress

report: -under tliis subparagraph shall include, at a min

imum, recommendations- JTnr improving and -imple

menting the National Strategy for 'Transportation, Se

curity and the transportation .modal security plans

that the Secretary, -In consultation with the Secretary

of Transportation, considers appropriate.”

Subteo. (f)(4)(E). Pub. ft. 11648, § 1208(c)(2), RtMflcl sobpar. (E) .and struck- oiit former subpftr. -(B). Test, of

former suhpar. (E) reati as follows: “In this subsection,

the term 'appropriate co'ngressional committees* means

the Committee on Transportshlon and lhfrastruoture

and the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the

House of Representatives and the dommittso on com

merce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the

'* Subsec. (t)(SXB)(iv), (v). Pub. ft. 110-S3, §1202(0), added

cl. (iv> and .redesignated former el. (IV) as (V).

Subseo. (t)(6). (7). Pub. X„ 110-63. §1202(0), added -paiw.

(6)and ("I.

Subsec. tai. Pub. ft. .11.043, §1208(8), added subsec, (u).

Subseo. (yi. Pub, ft. .no-53, §1302(tt>, added atfbaec.,(v),

Subsec, (w,1. Pub, ft. 110 -53, § 1503(a), added subset’,■ (y?),

'209-1...Subseo. (tv, Pub. ft, 108-468added subseo, Ct'l

2008~Sul»ec. (qXl)., Pub. ft, .106-7 Inserted “or'other

Federal aaency” after ‘'Transportation Security Ad

ministration”.

2002—Subset'.,. (7)(21(B). -Pub. ft. 107498, §1707, inserted:

•Tor a period not to exceed 90 days'- after 'Waptivs”

and ’'ratified or” before "fiisftpproved’'.

Subsec. (s). Pub, ft, 107490. flSOllh). added subsec. («),.

Slatelory- .Notes mid Relu-tod Subsidiaries

(SSAFOB Of NAME

Pab. ft, 1154S4, dlv. K. title I, 1.1994, Oct:. 5,- 20.18, 182

Stat, 3846, provided that: “Ttefercnces- relating per the

5114

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION

Under Secretary of Transportation for Security in stat

utes. Executive orders, ruiee, regulations, directives, or

delegations of authority that precede tJie effective data

of Mils Act, [meaning me date of enactment of. Pub. L.

115-254, Oct. 6, 2018] shall be deemed to refer. as appro

priate. to the Administrator Of the Transportation Se

curity .Admin istrasion.''

UlfPECTIVE DATE OP 2007 AMBlTOMaW

Pub, L. 110 -161. div, E. title V, §56B(b), Deo. 26, 2007,

421 Stall, 2092, provided that! "The amendment made by

subsection fa) [amending: this section] shall taka affect

180 de.vs after the date of enactment of this Act [Dae,

26. 2007],

Effective Dai* of 200-1 amendment

Pub. It. 103-468, title TV, §1082. Deo. 17 , 2004. 118 Stat.

3732. provided that; "This title [enacting section 1192a

of this title, amending this section, sections 44803.

44904, 44909, 11917, 44923, 46301 to 46303, and 1R301 of this

title, and sections -70102 and 70103 of Title 18, Shipping,

and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections!

41703. 44901, 44813, 44917, 14923, 44028. and 44935 of this

title, section 2751 of Title 22, Foreign Rein.!,ions and

Intercourse, and section 70101 of Title 16] shall take af

fect: on the dale of enactment of this Ant [Dan. 17,

2004].*’

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2002 AMENDMENT

Amendment by Pub, :L. 107-296 effective 80 days a Oar

Nov. 25, 2002, see section 1 Of Pub. L. 107-296. set out a«

an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6. Do

mestic Security.

Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and li

abilities of the Transportation Security Administra

tion of tho Department of Transportation, including

the functions of the Secretory of Transportation, and

of tile Under .Secretary of Transportation tor Security,

relating; thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Secu

rity, and tor treatment of related references, see sec

tions 203(2), 551 id), 858(4), (aid 587 Of Title 6. Domestic

Security, and the Department of Homeland Security

Reorganisation Fle.n of November 26, 2U02, as modified.

Bet put at- a note under section 542 of Title 8.

AKTlTOltmTJQN OP TRANSPORTATION security

ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL DETAILS

Pub. It. 117-81, dirt F, title LXfV, §6413. Deo. 27, 2021.

135 Stat. 2412, provided that:

”(a) CoORWNAi'tCiN.—Pursuant to sections lQ8(m) and

IMisn) of title 49. United -States Code, the Adminis

trator of the Transportation Security Administration

may provide Transportation Security Administration

personnel, who are not engaged In front line transpor

tation security efforts, to other components of the De

partment aod. other Federal agencies to Improve co

ordination with such components and Bgenoios to pre

pare tor, protect against, and respond to public health

threats to the transportation security system of the

United -states.

"(b) Briefing.--Not. Inter- than. 180 days after the (Sate

of the enactment of this Act [Dec, 27, 2021], the Admin

istrator shall brief the appropriate congressional oommittees regarding efforts to improve coordination with

other components of the Department of Homeland Se

curity and other Federal agencies to prepare for, pro

tect; against, and respond to public health throats to

tho transportation security system of tho United

States.’'

Aviation SEccmirv

Pub. Zt. 1.17-81. div. F, title DXI.V, *6423(b). Dec. 27.

2021,135 Suit. 2428. provide that:

■‘(l) In general.—Not later than 60 days after the

date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 27. 2021], the Ad

ministrator of the Transportation Security Adminis-

27a

Page 68

(ration shall develop and implement guidelines with re

spect to domestic and Jest point of departure airports

to—

“(A) ensure the inclusion, as appropriate, of air car

riers, domestic airport operators, and other transpor

tation security stakeholders in the development and.

implementation of security directives and emergency

amendments;

’'f B; document input provided by air carriers, do

mestic airport operators, and other transportation

security stakeholders during the security directive

and emergency amendment, development, and imple

mentation processes:

“(G) define a process, including timeframes, and

with the inclusion of feedback from air can-jars, do

mestic airport operators, and other transportation

security stakeholders, for cancelling or Incorporating

security directives and emergency amendments into

security programs;

"(D) conduct engagement with roreign partners t»

the implementation, of security directives and emer

gency amendments, tis appropriate. Including rec

ognition If existing security .measures at a last point

of departure airport are found to provide commensu

rate security as Intended by potential new security

directives and emergency amendments; and

"(E) ensure that new security directives and emer

gency amendments are focused on defined security

outcomes.

"(2) BhIbkinO to couoHt;ss.—:NQt la ter thorn 90 days

after the date of the enactment of this Act ['Deo. 27,

2021], the Administrator of the Transportation SecurityAdministration shall brief the Committee on Homeland

Security of the House of Representatives and the Com

mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of

the Senate on the guidelines described iti paragraph (1).

“(3) Decisions "not simmer to .nnirci Ai:. bkvirw.—Vofcwtt.hsiMid.hig nay other provision of law, any action of

tho Administrator of the Transportation Seaucity Ad

ministration under paragraph Uj Is not subject to Judi

cial review.”

Emergency TSA Employee Leave fun»

Pub. L. 117-2, title VH. §7104.. Mar, 11. 2021, 135 Star,.

MO, provided that:

"(a) Establishment; Appropriation.—There is-estab

lished in tho Transportation Security Admlnlstration,

(in this section referred to as the 'Administration') the

Emergency TSA Employee Leave Fuad (in this section,

referred to as tho ’Fund’), to he administered by the

Administrator of the Administration, for the purpose?

set forth in, subsection (b). Tn addition to amounts oth

erwise available, there is appropriated for fiscal, .year

2921, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise

appropriated. $13,000,000, which, shall he deposited into

the Fund and remain available through September 30.

2022.

“flit Purpose.—Amounts In the Fund shall ho avail

able to the Administration, for the use of paid leave

under this section by any employee of the Administra

tion who is unable to work because the employee—

“(D Is subject to a- Federal, State, or local quar

antine or isolation order related to COVH5-19;

“(2) -has been advised by a health care provider to

self-uuarantlue due so concerns related to COVID-19;

“(3) is caring for an Individual who is subject to

such cm order or hoe, been so advised;

•*(4) is experiencing symptoms of GOVtD-19 and

Seeking o. medical diagnosis;

“(5) is caring for a son or daughter of suoh em

ployee if the school or piaoe of care of the son or

daughter has been closed, if the school of such son or

daughter requires or makes optional a virtual learn

ing Instruction model or requites or makes optional

a, hybrid of in-parson and virtual learning instruction,

models, or the child earn provider of such son or

daughter (a unavailable, duo to CQVXD-19 pre

cautions;

”{6> is experiencing any other subs tan tinny similar

condition;

Page 69

TITLE 0&-TB.A.N SPORTATIQN

•'(?)'is earing fov a. family member with a mental or

physical disability or who is 55 years of age or older

and fncapablB qf eelf-oare, withou t regard to whether

another' individual other than the employee Ib avail■able to care for such family member, If the place of

owe for Booh femlly member la. closed or the direct

care provider Is anamliable due to COvrD-lB: or

**(8> -t» obtaining Immunization related to COTOMO

or is recovering from any injury, disability, illness,

or condition related to such Immunization.

‘‘(cl LIMITATIONS.—

“UJ Period m Availability.—Paid leave, under tbia

section may only be provided to and used by an em

ployee Of tile Administration during the porloil begin

ning on the date of enactment of this section [Mar.

11. 2021] and ending or, September 30, 2021.

‘■(2) Total nouns; amount.—Paid leave under this

section—

'•(A) shall be provided to an employee of the Ad

ministration, in an amount not to exceed ffiO hours

of paid leave for each full-time employee, and In

the case of a part-time employee, employee on r,.n

uncommon tour of duty, or employee with a sea

sonal work schedule. In an amount not to exceed

the proportional: equivalent of Win hours to the extent amounts Jn the Toad remain available for re

imbursement;

“(B) shall be paid at the name hourly rate as

Other leave payments: and

“(0) may not he provided to an employee if the

leave woisia result in payments greeter than $2,800

in aggregate for any biweekly pay period for a fulltime employee, or a proportionally equivalent bi

weekly limit for,a (part-time employee.

'■fSJ RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEAVE.—Paid leave

under-this section—

*%A) is in addition to any other leave provided to

d» employee of the Administration: and

"(Bi may not he used hymn employed .of the. Admlnletrntion concurrently with any other paid

leave.

“(/i) CAI.C0LAT1ON OP ftETIREMENT BENEFIT.—Any

paid leave provided to an employee of the Adminis

tration under this section, shall reduce the total serv

ice used to calculate any Federal civilian retirement

benefit.,"

.DEEMED REFERENCES TO CHAPTERS 609 AND 511 OF

TITLE 51

General references to ''tills title" deemed to refer

also to aha,more ,5i)S and 5U of Title 51, National and

Gommercini Space Programs, eee sootion 4(d)(.8) of Pub.

L, 311-314, ftet out as a, note unde!' suction 103 of tills

title,

-Transmittals to Congnhss

Tub. L, 116-254, div. K, title I. §1910, Oct, 5, 201(1, 132

Slot, 3550, provided that: “With regard to each report,

legislative proposal, or other communication of the J5»ecuttve Branoh related to the TSA and required to be

submitted to Congress or the appropriate committees

of Congress, the AdmlnlAtmtO!' shall transmit such,

communication dirdotiy- to the appropriate commlttree

of Congress.'1

[For definllions of terms used iti section lom of Pub.

L. 116-254, set out above, see section 1902 of Pub. L.

118,354, set out, m a, Definitions of Terms In Title 1 of

.Div, K of Pub. L. 115-354 npte under section 301 of this

title.)

third Rartv testing and verwtgation op

Screening- Technology

Pub, L. 116-254, div. K. title I. §.1931, Oct, 5. 2018, 132

Btao. 3550, provided that:

“(a) Bf General.—.la carrying ottb the responsibilities

under section 314(0(9) (probably means section 114(0(3)

of Title ,10. Halted States Code), the Administrator

shall develop and Implement, not, later than .1 year

after the date of enactment of this Act £Oct, 5, £018), a

28a

61.14

program to enable a. vsndor of related, security screen

ing technology to obtain testing and verifjpa'tion, In

cluding as an alternative to the TSA's test and evalua

tion process, by rii appropriate third party, of such

technology before procurement or deployment.

“tb) Detection Testing.—

"(l) In general,—The third party testing and.

verification urogram authorized under Subsection (a)

shall Include detection testing to evaluate the per

formance of the security screening .technology sys

tem regarding the probability of detection, the prob

ability of false alarm, and such other indicators that

the system is able to meet the TSA's mission needs.

"(2) Results.—The results of she third party detec

tion testing under paragraph (1) shall, he considered

final if the results are approved, by the Administra

tion In accordance with approval standard.:! developed

by the Administrator.

“(3) Coordination' with final testing.-To i(ha ex

tent practicable, but without compromising tha in

tegrity of the TSA. test; and evaluation process, the

Administrator Shull coordinate the third'parcy'deteftfcloo tearing under paragraph (1) with any subsequent,

final Federal Government testing.

“(4) International standards,—To the extent

practicable and. permissible under law and consid

ering the national security interests of the Uhl ted.

States, the Administrator shall-"(A) share, detection, testing information and.

standards ■with appropriate lotomattonal partners;

and

"(B) coordinate with tlia appropriate Inter

national partners to align TSA testing and: evalua

tion with relevant International standards to nlaxlrnlao the capability to detect explosives .and other

threats..

"'(c) Operational Testing,—

"(13 IN GENERAL,—Subject to paragraph (2), the

third party testing and verification, program authoriced under subsection (a) aboil Include, operational

testing.

“(2) Limitation.—'Third party operational testing

under paragraph (3.) may not exceed 1 year.

“(d) Alternative,—Third party testing under sub

section (a) shall replaco as an Alternative, at the dis

cretion. of the Administrator, the testing at the TSA

Systems integration Facility, Including testing for—

“(l) health end safety factors:

“(2) operator interface:

;!!3) human factors;

"(4) environmental factors;

“(5) throughput,:

•'(6) reliability, maintainability, and availability

factors; and

“17,1 interoperability.

"(e) Testing and VtaimcATioN Framework.—

"(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall—

“(A) establish a framework for the third party

testing and for verifying a security technology is

operationally effective and able to meet the TBA's

mission needs before it may enter or re-enter, as

applicable, the operational context nt,an airport or

other transported on feci 11 ty;

“(B) use phased lmplemenfcatt.no to allow ilie TSA

and the third party to establish best practices; and

“(C) oversee Um third party -testing.and evalua

tion framework.

“(2) Recommendations.—The. Administrator shall

request ABAC'S Security Technology Subcommittee.

In consultation, with raprosentatlvea of the security

manufacture!* industry, to develop and submit to the

Administrator reeommend&tion* for tha third party

testing and verification framework.

•Ht) Field testing.—The .Administrator ohall

prioritize the field testing and evaluation, including by

third parties;, of security technology and. equipment nfi

airports and on alto at aecurity teoh oology manufactureru whenever possible as an alternative to the TSA

Systems integration Facility.

“(g) Appropriate Third Parties.—

5114

TITLE <19—TRAN SPORTATION

“(11 CiOTZENSlai? KEWlBEMENT.—A« appropriate

third, party tinder subsection. (a) shall be—

“(A.) If an individual.' a citizen of tile United

States: oc

•‘(B) if an entity, owned and controlled by a cit

izen of the United {States.

"(2) Waiver.—The Administrator may waive the re

quirement under paragraph U)(B) if the entity js a

United States subsidiary of a parent company that

ho* implemented a foreign, ownership, control, or in

fluence mitigation plan that hte been approved by

the Defense Security Service [now Dofeose. Counter*

intelligence and Security Agenoyj of the Department

of Defense before applying to provide third party

testing. Tho Administrator may reject any appliedUob. to provide third party testing under subsection

(a) submitted by u/i entity that. requires ti, waiver

under this paragraph..

“(3) CONtuere OS nWERBST.—The Administrator

shall ensure; to tho extent possible, that- an entity

providing third party testing under this section does

not have a contractus!. business, or other pecuniary

interest (exclusive of any such testing) in—

'•(A) the security screening, technology subject to

such testing; or

"(B) the vendor of such technology.

••(h) GAO ESVH3W.—

“(1) IK GENERAL.—fcot later than 2 years after the

date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 6,2018), the Comp

troller Genera) of the United States shall submit to

the appropriate committees of Congress a study on

the third party testing program developed under this

section [.]

“!2) REVIEW.—Tha study under paragraph (j) g)la]}

insiude a review of the following:

‘•(A) -Any efficiencies or gains in effectiveness

achieved in TS.A operations, including technology

acquisition or careening operations, as » result of

such program.

"(B) Tlie degree to which the TSA conducts time

ly and regular Oversight, of the appropriate tith'd

parties engaged !u such testing.

“(C) The effect of such program on the following:

••flj The introduction of innovative detection

technologies in to security screening operat ions.

"(11) The availability of testing for technologies

developed by small to medium sized businesses,

"(D) Any vulnerabilities associated wit* such

program, including with inspect to tho following:

“fi! National security.

*'•01) Any conflicts of Interest between tho ap

propriate third parties engaged in such testing

and the entities providing such technologies to be

tested,

“(Hi) Waste, fraud, and abuse.''

[For flnfiniUons of terms used in section lSll of Pub.

1>. 115-254, set out above, see section 1902 of Pub. I...

115-2M, set oat, ns a; Definitions of Terms in Title 1 of

Div, X of Pub. L, 115-254 note under section 3.01 of this

title.!

Transportation Seouritv administration systems

Integration packuty

Pub. h. 115-251, div. K, title 1, $1012. Oct. 5, 2018. 132

Star.. 3552, provided that:

“(a) IK General.—The Administrator shall continue

to operate the Transportation Security Administration

Systems Integration Facility (referred to In this sec

tion as the. ‘TSTlf ) for the purposes of testing and eval

uating advanced. transportation security screening

technologies related to the mission of tho TSA.

“(b) ItEeUiREMENTS.-The TSIF Shall—

"U) evaluate the technologies described in subsectlon fa) to enhance the security of transportation

system* through screening and threat mitigation and

detection;

'*(2) tost the technologies described In subsection

(it) to support identified mission needs pf the. TSA and

to meet requirements for acquisitions and procure

ment;:

29a

'Page 70

"(3) to the extent- practicable, provide original

equipment mopofecttirera with test plans to nHnimite requirement interpretation disputes and adhere

to provided teat plans;

“(4) collaborate with other -mimical laboratories

and feci Utica for purposes of augmenting the capa

bilities of. the TSIF:

•‘(5) deliver advanced transportation security

screening technologies that enhance the overall secu

rity of domestic transportation systems: And

"(6) to the Extent practicable, provide funding and.

promote efforts to enable participation by a small

business concern (os the term, .is described under -sec

tion 3 of the Small Business Act illi U.S.C. 632)) that—

“(A) has *n advanced technology or capability:

but

-'(B) does not have adequate resouroes to partici

pate in. testing aud. evaluation processes.

•*{« STAl-TlNO and Resource ALLOCATION.—-The Ad

ministrator shall ensure .adequate staffing, and resource

alloca tions for the TSIF in n. manner that—

“(1) prevents unnecessary delays in the testing and

evaluation of advanced transportation security

screening technologies for acquisitions and procure*

menu determinations:

"(2) ensures the issuance of final paperwork certifi

cation no later than 15 days after the date such test

ing and evaluation has concluded: and

“(S) ensures collaboration with technology statteholdera to close capabilities gaps tn transportation

security.

•‘(d) Deadline. •‘(.1.) IN GENERAL,—The Administrator shall notify

the appropriate committees of Congress if testing and.

evaluation by the TSIF of an advanced transpor

tation security screening technology under thie sec

tion exceeds 1.8(1 days shorn the delivery date.

“(2) Notification.—The notification under para

graph (ll dhall include—

"(A) initinnation. relating to tire delivery date;

“(B) a justification. for why the testing and eval

uation process has exceeded 181) days; and.

"(C) (he estimated, date for completion, of such

testing and evaluation.

"(3) Definition op delivery date.—In this sub

section. the term ‘delivery date' means the data that

the owner of an advanced transportation security

screening technology—

'•(A)'alter installation, delivers the technology to

the TSA for testing and evaluation; and

“(B) submits to the. Administrator, in such form

and manner as the Administra tor .prescribes, a

.signed notification of the delivery described in sub

paragraph (A).

:Wi Retesting and Evaluation.—Advanced trans

portation security screening technology that firths test

ing and evaluation by the TSIF may be retested and.

evaluated at tho discretion Of the Administrator.

"if) Rule op Construction—Nothing in this section

may be construed to affect the authority or responsi

bility of an officer of the Deportment, or an officer of

any Other Federal deportment or agency, with respect

to research, development, testing, and evaluation of

technologies, including such authorities or -responsibil

ities of the Undersecretary [probably should be “Under

Secretary") for Science end Technology of the Depart

ment and Assistant Secretary of the Countering Weap

ons of Mass Destruction Office of the Department.*.*

[For definitions of terms used in. section 1912 of Pub.

I,. 115-254, sat out, above, sea section .1902 of Pub. D.

115-254, set out as a Dofinitlons of Terms in Title 1 of

Div. K of Pub. .1... 115-254 note under eectton 10) of this

title.]

Public ansa SEciiim-y working Group

Pub. I.i. 115-254. lily. K, Uric I. SI931, Oct, 5*2018, .192

Slat. 8569, provided that:

“(a) OEPiNmoNS.—In this section;

"(i) Public and private stakeholders.—The term

‘public and private stakeholders' has the meaning

Page 71.

TITLE SIS—THANSPORTA'HQN

fives. SUe term in sect,torn IM{s)Ci)(0) of title 49,

United States Cade,

"(8) SUBPAGE TRAKRPOUTA'MON ASSET.—Tile term

•surface.transportation asset' iaeluttes—•

‘’(Affabilities, equipment, or systems tts'ad to previd a teansPortatl on services by—

••(!} a tw,ttifctr»»P»rtaM,oa agency {as the term

■1st defined to section Xi02 of. the implementing

Itecommeadattons of the 9>] 1 Cormnisaion Act of

200" (8 0 .8.0. tiai)):

*‘(J.i) a railroad carrier (as the. tarn. is defined in

section 20102 of title 48. United States Cisde); [or]

!‘(1U) an owner or operator of—

“(I) an entity offering' scheduled, fixed-route

transportation services by over-the road' bus (as

tee term la defined In section 16UJ of toe "DupleEicartng B,ocominendat.io.ns of the Til CommisSlog Act of 2007 (B 0.8.0,1151)); or

“(MV » bus terminal! or

“(B) other tranaportaCloB facilities, equipment,

or systems. «e de wmlnerl by the Secretary.

■ "(b) Praiuc Area Siioimii’y Working group.—

"(1) Wtmssm croup.—iThe Administrator, In co»

oedittAUoa with, the National Protection and Pro

gram* Directorate; shall establish a working group to

promote collaborative engagement, between the TSA

and public and private stakeholders to develop nonWMittg reno'mmenaation# ibr enhoaolar security Its

public area* of transportation facilities (including fa

cilities. that, are surface transportation assets), .In*

eluding recommendations regarding the following;"(A) iafihxnaUon sharing and. toteroper&Ma iwro.mtsalailitoR capabilities among the TSA and pomsc,

and. private stakeholder with respect, to terrorist

os: other threats.

“(S> Coordinatsd. Incident, response .prooedui'es.

“(D) The prevention of. terrorise attacks and'other

incidents through strategic planning, security

training, exercises' and drills, tew enforcement pa

trols, worker vetting, awl suspicion* activity re

porting.

“(D) Inlrast'iTOCfurt protection through affective

construction design harriers and Installation of ad

vanced surveillance and other security tech

nology*.

“(2) A.KfJUM, RKPORT,*-

“(A) In genera!,.—Not later than l year after the

date the working group is established under para

graph (IV tibe Administrator shall submit to the ap

propriate committee of Congress [probably should

he "appropriate -oomml tfeees of Congress",] a. report,

covering the 1’2-nionto period preceding the date of

the report, on—

“(D tec orgaatesfcloa at the working group;

“(if) the activities of the working group;

•'(Hi) the participation of the USA. anil public

and private stakeholder* In the activities of the

working'group; land]

“fir) the findings at tee working'group, .iaejusl.iftg. any recommendations,

■‘(B) Pusuoaiton,—The Admlntetrator may pub

lish- a public version of such report that describes

the .activities of the working group and such related

matters as would be Informative to ttu* public, oonPiSteht with section S52(b) of title 5, DPI ted States

Code.

“(3! SONAPFLlCABitm- OF FAOA.—The Federal Advi

sory Committee 'Act (5 G.S.C. App.) shall not apply to

the working group established under subsection fa)

'(probably should- bo ‘‘paragraph (tvj or any sub

committee thereof.

“(a) matncai a*8u$*a»cb*~

oBNERAtj.—The secretary shall—

“i’Ai inform pwarns sad operators of surface

transportation assets about; the availability of

technical assistance, including- vulnerability 'assess

ment tools and oyberseewity gukieitnes, to help

protect- and enhance the resilience of public areas

of such assets: and

“(B) upon request., and subject to the availability

.of appropriation), provide such technical assistance

30a

§114

to owners and operators of surface transportation

.assets,

■•(2) Bust pkactioes,—Not later than l year utter

the- date of enaounent of tola Act lOot. 5, 2018], and

periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall publish

on the Department website Had widely disseminate.aa appropriate, earreat bast practices for protecting

ami enhancing the resilience -of public areas of trans

portation facilities (Including facilities that.-tire sur

face transportation assets), including, associate)

frameworks or templates ter Implementa tion,

“(d) REVIBW.—

“(1) In oekmual.—Not later than 1 year H,fter the

date of ofltatmsiit of this -Act. the AdminiatratorshaU-~

“(A) review of [sic], regiilattoas, dlrecld.ves, poli

cies, and prpoednree tempi by the Administrator

regarding tee transportation of a flreaim. and am

munition; and

•‘(B) submit to tee. appropriate committees of

Camfttm » report -on the findings of tee reriewunder subparagraph (A), including, as approjjrioie,

information on Any plans to modify any regulation.,

directive, policy, of procedure based on tee’review,

••{2) CQHSUT'iwrtox,—rln preparing the report under

paragraph O), the Admlnietratorshali consultwltb—

“<A> ASAC:

■!{B) tee SarfacB TransportsftUon Shhartty Advi

sory Commit,tee nutter section 404 rtf the- .Homeland.

Security ACS'of 2002 Jfi U.S.C. 204]: and

"(C) upproprl».te, imhiife atui private stakehoMfifs.”

[For iJeftriitlcijs of tmtmh need in auction isai of Bab.

li, 11A254, set out above, see section 1992 of Pub. If.

116-254. set out as a Definitions of Terms in Title J of

Div. K of Pub. %. .11.S-2&4 note Ofider.•section l.ftl, of tljis

title)

PiiBLic Area best epactkes

Pub. U 115-254, dte. K, title I, §1.932, Oct. S, 2918, 188

Stas. 3571, provided .that,::

“(a) In Gsn’BRaii.—The Administrate? shall, in ac

cordance wlte. law and aa received or developed, peri

odically submit information, on any best practices de

veloped by tee T8A or approprtate mnspcrtAidon

stakeholder* related to protecting tee public dpaces of

transportation infrustructime (Tom emerging threats,

to the following:

"(11 Federai Security Directors at nlfportt.

“(2) Appropriate security .directors for ether mods®

of transporteMon.

“(S) Other appropriate tmjssportatSon securlliy

stakeholders.

'•(h) inh*rma*hos sbakujo,—The Admlnistratcr shell,

in. accoKlEsnec with, law—

“(i) in coordination with the Office of the .Director

of National TneolligAnca -and. .industry, partners. Imple

ment improvements to the Air Domain totelhgenoe

end Analysts Center to encourage Inoresaea partici

pation from stakeholders and onhanee gavernremm

and induetry seonrity .Information sharing on tmnsportetion

secnidty

tereatg,

iachidirtg

cyberaeourity threat, awafenesa:

•'(2) expand, and improve the city and Airport,

Threat Assessment or similar program i® public and

private stakeholders to capture, quantify, .crniunu-'

nlcate, and apply applicable tnfcelligenoe to inform

transportattun tnfrastrncturo mitigation, measures,

such as—

‘•iA) quantifying levels of risk by airport .that can

be used to determine risk-baaed eecurity mitigation

.Ai'eaadies.ateacb location;'and

“(B) detemining random -and surge employes lit.—

RpeotSon oparatJops based’ on ..changing levels of

risk;

“(3) continue to disseminate' TKihspoftatioji Intel

ligence gtotes. tear-lines, and related Jp’teUlgende

prbdnote to appropriate transportation Escority

stakeholders on A regular basis; and

“(4) continue to conduct both regular ronttne and

threat-specific classified briefings between febo TSA

TITLE “59—TRANSPORTATION

and appropriate trsasportetlon. wetor stakeholders

M. an individual or group basis to provide gnttw in

formation sharing between public and private sectors.

"(ffi Mass Notification.—-The Administrator shall

encourage security stakeholders to utilize mass notifi

cation systems, including the Integrated Public Alert

Warning System of the Federal Emergency Manage

ment Agency and social media platforms, to dissemi

nate information to transportation community em

ployees, travelers, and the general public, as appro

priate,

“(d) -Public awareness programs.—'The Secretary,

in coordination with the Administrator, shall expand

public programs of the Department of Homeland Secu

rity and. the TSA tha t increase security threat aware

ness, education, and training to Include transportation

network public area employees, including airport, end

transportation vendors, local hotels, cab and limousine

companies, rldesharing companies, cleaning companies,

gm? elation, attendants, cargo operators, and general

a viation members/’

0?or definitions of terms used In section 3932 of Fu.b.

h. .115-254, set cut Above, see section 1802 of Pub, L.

.115-254. set out as a Definitions of Terms in Title I of

Dig, K of Pub. L. 115-254 note under section 103 of this

title,]

SURFACE TfiAXSTOftTATiOS SfiOtlHlTY ASSESSMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF RISK-BASED STRATEGY

Put). L-. 135 -854. div. K, title. I, §3664,. Oct. 5. 2018, 132

Stat. 3fi04. provided tlmt:

“(a) SBCCTRITX ASSESSMENT.—

“(ll In general.—Hot later than ! year after the

•date of enactment of tin# Act [Oct. 5, 2018), the Ad

ministrator shall complete an assessment of the

vulnerabilities of and risks, to surface transportation

systems.

*'<2) considerations.—fti conducting the security

assessment under paragtA-Ph 0). the Administrator

shall, at a minimum—

“(Aj consider appropria te intelligence:

“(B). consider security branches and attacks at do

mestic. slid international surface transportation fh~

ciltliss;

“(C) consider the vulnerabilities and risks associ

ated with specific modes of surface transportation:

"(D) evaluate the vetting and security training

of--

“(i) employees in surface transportation: and

“(ii) Other individuals with access to sensitive

or secure areas of surface transportation net

works; and.

"(E) consider inpu t from—

“(1) representatives of different modes of sur

fs ce transportation;

“(ii) representatives of crltiaal 'inftastruoture

entitles:

“(ill) the Transportation Systems Sector Co

ordinating Council; and

“(iv) the heads of other relevant Federal deport

ments or agencies.

“(b) BlSK-BASf® StlllFACB TRANSrOPTATlON SlCCtmiTY

STRATEGY. —

“(li IN GENERAL.—Not later than .100 days-after the

date the security assessment under subsection (st) la

complete, the Administrator shall use the results of

the ftBsosamwiv“(A) to develop and implement a cross-ou tttng.

risk-based surlhce transportation .security- strategy

that, includes—

“(1) all surface transportation modes:

"(ii) a mitigating strategy that aligns with

each, vulnerability and risk identified in. sub

section (a):

“(Hi) a panning process to inform resource slloOation;

“(iv) priorities, milestones, and performance

metrics to measnre the effectiveness of the riskbased .surface transportation security strategy:

and

31a

Page 72

"tv) processes for sharing relevant and, timely

toteUlgehce threat Information witSb appropriatestakeholders;

"(B) to develop a management oversight strategy

that—

“(1) identifies the parties responsible for the im

plementation, management, and oversight of the

risk-based snra.ee transportation security strat

egy. «nd'

“(if) includes a plan for implementing the idgfchkaod surface crahspOrt-atlon security' strategy;

and

••(CD to modify the rMk-based budget and resource

allocatlonSj in acoordnnoe with section ISfififc) [set

out m a note baiowj, for the Trn.nsporto.tioh Sscuri ty A dm taietratlo n.

•‘(21 COORtUNAtBD atpjioach.—In developing and im

plementing the risk-based surface transportation se

curity strategy under paragraph (11, -the Adminis

trator sball coordinate with the heads of other rel

evant Federal departments or agencies, and stake

holders-, ah appropriate—“(A) to evaluate existing surface transportation,

security programs, policies, and initiatives, loflluding the explosives detection canine teams, for conristoncy with Clio risk-based security strategy and.

to the extent practicable, avoid any unnecessary

duplication of effort:

■‘(B) to determine the extent to which stake

holder security programs, policies, and initiatives

address the vulnerabilities and daks to surface

transportation systems identified to eohseotlon (a);

and

"(O) subject to subparagraph (B), to mitigate each,

vulnerability Add risk to surface transportation,

systems identified in subsection (a).

“(c) Report,.—

“(1) IN. GENERAL.—Not later than lBll day® After the

date the security assessment- 'under subsection (a) it

complete, the Administrator shall submit, to the ap

propriate committees of Congress and the inspector

General of the Department & report that—

•'■(A) describes the process used to complete the

securl ty. assessment;

“(B) describes the process used to develop the

risk-based security strategy;

“(C) describes the risk-based security strategy:

“(D) include;', the management oversight htratog.v:

“(E) Includes-—

“(11 the findings of the security assessment;

“fill a description of the actions recommended

or taken by the, Administrator to mitigate the

vulnerabilities and risks identified In subsection

(a), including interagency coordination;

“(Hi) any recomaiendAbtdps for improving tbo

approach

coordinated

mitigating

'vulnerabilities and risks to surface transpor

tation systems; and

"Civ) any recommended changes to the National

Infrastructure Protection Plan, the modal annoses to such plan, or relevant surface transpor

tation security programs, pollutes., or Initiatives;

ana

“(F) way contain a -classified annex,

“(2) Protections.—In preparing the report;, the Ad

ministrator shall, take appropriate actions to safe

guard information described by section 562(1)1 of title

a. United States Code, or protected from disclosure by

any other law of tha Doited States.

“(d) UPDATES.—Not less frequently than semiannu

ally, the Administrator shall report to or brief the ap

committees

propriate

congress

the

vulnerabilities of and. .risks to surface transportation,

systems and how those vulnerabilities nnd risks afloat

r,lia risk-based Security strategy,'-'

(For definitions of terms' used in section 1964 nf Prtb.

,b. 135-25

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.