U.S. Department of Homeland Security Freedom of Information Act Branch 601 South 12th Street Arlington, VA 20598

3600.1 FOIA Case: 2015-TSLI-00004 Old Cases: 2013-TSFO-00239 TSA13-0494 October 30, 2015 Sai 4023 Kennett Pike, #54514 Wilmington, DE 19807 Dear Sai: This is the third interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, request to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) dated March 18, 2013, in which you requested the following information: 1. All TSA policy and/or procedures documents which are not already included in the TSA’s “Electronic Reading Room” including all Management Directives, Standard Operating Procedures, Operations Directives, Security Directives, Emergency Amendments, Information Circulars, Memoranda, Handbooks, Letters, Bulletins, and Guidance ever issued, including both old current versions, particularly including but not limited to: a. the TSA’s Screening Management Standard Operating Procedures; b. TSA Management Directive 100.4, “Transportation Security Searches”; c. the TSA Handbook to TSA MD 1100.75-3, the “Table of Offenses and Penalties”, etc.; d. EA 1546-01-17A, 1546-11-05, 129-01-05, etc.; e. SD 107*, SD 108*, (e.g. SD 108-01-06, 108-01-3D, 108-01-051, 108-01-03F, 108-01-03G, 108-01-03H, 108-01-09B, etc.), SD 1544*, (e.g. SD 1544-01-21B, 1544-01-20A, etc.), etc.; and f. security programs, including Model Security Program, Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program, Domestic Security Integration Program, Twelve Five Standard Security Program, Air Carrier International Security Procedure, etc.; 2. the TSA’s policies regarding screening procedures, both now and at any point in the past, including: a. the TSA’s policy regarding any kind of pat-down, including the limits and requirements for conducting such pat-downs, and rights that passengers can assert during them;

b. the TSA’s policy regarding the use of electronic strip search machines (such as backscatter x-ray or millimeter wave machines) as primary screening devices; c. the TSA’s policy regarding informing the public of their right to refuse electronic strip search, and regarding TSA agents deliberately blocking walkthrough metal detectors (WTMDs) or otherwise giving the impression to travelers that WTMDs are not a permissible screening method or that electronic strip search is mandatory; d. the TSA’s “selectee” policy, including its policy for choosing which passengers are subject to increased screening, pat-downs, electronic strip search, or any other screening method other than walking through a metal detector or putting one’s bags through an x-ray machine; e. the TSA’s policy regarding manual search of bags that have been screened by xray, including the limits of any such search and what events may justify such search; and f. the TSA’s policy regarding any kind of search not strictly limited to the search for weapons or explosives, including: i. any demand for identification at any point during a screening process, and whether such demand can be refused by travelers wishing to travel without identification; ii. any search of travelers’ documents; and iii. any search by TSA agents motivated by law enforcement purposes, such as a search for illegal substances that are not weapons or explosives (such as drugs), large amounts of cash, multiple forms of identification, etc.; 3. the TSA’s policies regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities, both now and at any point in the past, including: a. all documents having to do with the screening or confiscation of liquids, medical or otherwise; b. legal justification for confiscating or prohibiting liquids that are not declared as medical, but would be permissible if they were, and could be adequately screened using available technology (e.g. x-ray scanners and explosive trace detection machines); c. legal justification for requiring nonmedical liquids to be carried in 3 ounce containers, including specific information about what threats might arise from larger liquid containers; d. legal justification for permitting a traveler to carry e.g. a quart of liquid separated into 3 ounce containers together with an empty quart-sized container, but not a quartsized container of liquid; e. a list or description of what kinds of liquids can or cannot be definitively determined to be hazardous vs nonhazardous by extant screening technology (x-ray, ETD, LCS); f. the TSA’s policy regarding whether the TSA considers water, juice, ginger ale, or similar liquids to be permissible medical liquids that may be carried in any quantity; g. the TSA’s policy regarding whether the TSA permits any TSA agent to require passengers to provide a prescription for declared medical liquids such as juice; h. the TSA’s policy regarding passengers who refuse to provide any information about their medical condition whatsoever (including e.g. a description of their medical condition; an explanation for why a liquid is medically necessary for them; a doctor’s note or prescription; etc.) but declare an item as medical;

i. the TSA’s policy regarding providing assistance to passengers with communication related disabilities, specifically including deafness, mutism, or limited knowledge of English; and j. the TSA’s policy regarding access to communication aids, such as hearing aids, pen & paper, computers, phones, documents, interpreters/translators, etc., during all parts of a checkpoint search; 4. the TSA’s policies regarding the enforcement of its policies when TSA personnel (at any level from a bottom ranking Transportation Security Officer through to an airport's Federal Security Director) refuse to comply with TSA policy in a way that infringes on the rights of travelers, including: a. measures taken by the TSA to proactively prevent such actions; b. what is done if such actions are reported, and what kind of reporting is required to trigger such corrective response; and c. what recourse or resources travelers have to correct TSA agents on the ground who refuse to comply with TSA policy; 5. the TSA’s policies regarding cooperation with local airports and police, including: a. its standard “air transportation security agreement” (or “ASP”); and b. its policies and standard agreements regarding conducting, storage, or access to video surveillance of TSA checkpoints; 6. the TSA’s policies regarding when checkpoint video may be released, which encompasses its previous releases, e.g. those on youtube.com/tsa dated Oct 18, 2009 and Nov 17, 2010, specifically including all internal and external correspondence relating to the decision to release those two sets of videos; 7. the TSA’s policies regarding “no fly”, “selectee”, and any similar lists; 8. legal justification for TSA’s public claims that passengers may not revoke consent to administrative search once they have entered a screening area, and that the TSA can fine or detain passengers who revoke consent, elect not to fly, and leave the screening area; 9. all Behavior Detection Officer training materials, and any studies investigating their efficacy; and 10. a reasonably structured and sorted index providing a complete listing, for all responsive documents (whether or not they are exempt or SSI), of: a. document title; b. content summary; c. document identifier; d. issue date; e. revocation/supersession date (if no longer in force); f. superseding document identifier (if not obvious from context, e.g. a simple sequence like 1080103G, 1080103H, 1080103I, etc.); g. degree of provision (complete, redacted, withheld); h. hyperlink to the document file (for documents provided or available online at least in part); and i. reason for complete exemption (for documents withheld in their entirety).

On March 25, 2013, we informed you that your request was too broad in scope and did not specifically identify the records you were seeking. Further, we asked you to resubmit your request with a reasonable description of the records you were seeking and informed you that your request would not be processed until we received further clarification from you. Although you have failed to further clarify your request by reasonably identifying the records that you seek, TSA, in its own discretion, is processing your request to the extent records can be reasonably identified. On July 30, 2015, TSA sent you an interim release reflecting the processing of 1,827 pages of responsive material of which 1,428 pages were released to you. On August 20, 2015, TSA sent you a second interim release reflecting the processing of 1,395 pages of responsive material of which 1,294 pages were released to you. TSA advised you that we would continue to process this request. Three hundred and fifty-one additional pages have been located and processed for release to you. TSA has reviewed these materials and 22 pages are being withheld in full pursuant to FOIA Exemption (b)(5). The remaining 329 pages are being released to you with portions of some of the pages withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption (b)(3). A more complete explanation of these exemptions is provided below. The FOIA Branch had anticipated completing the processing of this request by October 31, 2015; however, a limited number of additional records are still being processed at this time. We will continue to process those records and will provide an additional release determination to you when processing is completed. With respect to Request 1(f), TSA located an additional 307 pages responsive to your request and is releasing these pages with partial withholdings pursuant to Exemption (b)(3). With respect to Request 3(a), TSA located an additional 35 pages responsive to your request and is releasing 13 of these pages with partial withholdings pursuant to Exemption (b)(3). The remaining 22 pages have been withheld in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (b)(5). These 22 pages that have been withheld in their entirety are also exempt from disclosure in part pursuant to Exemption (b)(3). With respect to Request 5(b), TSA located an additional nine responsive pages and is releasing these pages in full. Exemption (b)(3) This information reveals Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and is exempt from disclosure under Exemption (b)(3), which permits the withholding of records specifically exempted from disclosure by another Federal statute. Section 114(r) of title 49, United States Code, exempts from disclosure SSI that “would be detrimental to the security of transportation” if disclosed. The TSA regulations implementing Section 114(r) are found in 49 C.F.R. Part 1520. Exemption (b)(5) Exemption (b)(5) protects from disclosure those inter- or intra-agency documents that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context. The three most frequently invoked privileges are the deliberative process privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the attorney-client privilege. Of those, we have determined that some of the information in the documents you have requested is appropriately withheld under the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege protects the communications between an attorney and his/her client relating to a matter for which the client has

sought legal advice, as well as facts divulged by the client to his/her attorney and any opinions given by the attorney based on these facts. Fees TSA is waiving any fees associated with the processing of this request. Administrative Appeal Because TSA’s response to this request is currently the subject of litigation, the administrative appeal rights normally associated with a FOIA request response are not being provided. In an effort to maintain a more robust/efficient process to streamline reporting requirements, TSA, through the Department of Homeland Security, converted to a new FOIA tracking system in October 2013. This modification has resulted in the inability to continue tracking requests with the tracking number assigned by the old system, and changed our naming convention. We are referencing both old and new tracking numbers in our response. I apologize for any confusion this may cause and appreciate your understanding. If you have any questions pertaining to your request, please contact the FOIA Office at 1-866-3642872 or locally at 571-227-2300. Sincerely,

Regina McCoy FOIA Officer Enclosures

2015-10-30 Interim response letter 3.pdf

b. its policies and standard agreements regarding conducting, storage, ... h. hyperlink to the document file (for documents provided or available online at least.

67KB Sizes 1 Downloads 259 Views

Recommend Documents

Copy of Response to HTTPS Letter
Jun 26, 2009 - on for their Gmail account. ... account. Ultimately, we feel it's important to keep in mind that HTTPS is ... Software Engineer, Security and Privacy.

Data Response, Smith Letter 07.24.14.pdf
Data Response, Smith Letter 07.24.14.pdf. Data Response, Smith Letter 07.24.14.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu. Displaying Data Response ...

Interim Dividend_2560
Aug 10, 2017 - 8-Aug-17 25-Aug-17. KCE. 1.10. 1.3% 18-Aug-17. 8-Sep-17. CPNCG. 0.24. 1.8% 10-Aug-17 30-Aug-17. PPP. 0.08. 1.7% 18-Aug-17. 1-Sep-17.

Oberstar correspondence - response to I-35W bridge letter
Jan 28, 2008 - I have reviewed my remarks from the press conference on January 15,. 2008, concerning the interim recommendation the NTSB issued regarding the Minneapolis,. Minnesota, I-35W bridge collapse. Specifically, I reviewed my comments, highli

EPA Response to PADEP 022417 Letter Signed.pdf
EPA Response to PADEP 022417 Letter Signed.pdf. EPA Response to PADEP 022417 Letter Signed.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu.

ISLAND EDUCATION REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE INTERIM ...
ISLAND EDUCATION REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE INTERIM REPORT.pdf. ISLAND EDUCATION REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE INTERIM REPORT.pdf.

RH INTERIM ORDER.PDF
M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep.by its Chairman cum Managing Director,. corporate office, Barakumba Road, Statesman House, New Delhi-110 001 . 3.

Legislative Interim Meetings - Utah Legislature
Nov 15, 2017 - and commissioned public art projects; and. • continued efforts to collaborate, encourage civic education, .... regarding the University of Utah's Heritage 1K project. The. University of Utah concurred with the .... create a framework

Legislative Interim Meetings - Utah Legislature
Nov 15, 2017 - students through STEM classroom grants;. • rural development efforts ..... treatment plant discharge into Utah Lake. Water Metering. Received a ...

RH INTERIM ORDER.PDF
M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep.by its Chairman cum Managing Director,. corporate office, Barakumba Road, Statesman House, New Delhi-110 001 . 3. The Director (HR), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,. Janpath, New Delhi. 4. Th

Veterans Health Administration Interim Report.pdf
May 28, 2014 ... is not complete, we have substantiated that significant delays in access to care negatively ... care. As required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, each of the reports listed ... Veterans Health Administration Interim Report.pdf.

first interim report -
category may be alienated, and for the lodging of objections by any member of the public, to any selection stating grounds of such ...... number 97 of 1991, the registrar is empowered to lodge a caveat on property purchased in a bid to secure the pay

7-9-2016 Interim Superintendent.pdf
Jul 9, 2016 - ... 610 Alta Vista, Santa Fe, NM 87505 Telephone (505) 467-2000 www.sfps.info ... systems, increased teacher quality, data quality, health and ...

20160319-0_B738_A6-FDN_(Interim).pdf
with 2.4.12 of the Rules of Investigation of Accident and Incidents Involving Civil Aircraft in. the Russian Federation as well as 7.4 of ICAO Annex 13. The report ...

Appointment of Interim Dean.pdf
Sacramento, CA 95819. [email protected]. Page 1 of 1. Appointment of Interim Dean.pdf. Appointment of Interim Dean.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In.

Interim Management Statement - November 2013 - WHSmith PLC
Nov 14, 2013 - Total Group sales in the first 10 weeks of the financial year were down 3% with ... continues to be uncertain, we remain a resilient business and.

Interim Management Statement - November 2013 - WHSmith PLC
Nov 14, 2013 - margin has increased in line with our plan and our store opening plan ... climate continues to be uncertain, we remain a resilient business and.

Second Interim Presentation - PDF.pdf
provided to all students without additional funding under LCFF. formula. Page 4 of 25. Second Interim Presentation - PDF.pdf. Second Interim Presentation ...

Interim report January–June 2018 - Cision
Jun 30, 2018 - Vattenfall's investment report for 2018 highlights a ..... 400 277. 409 132. Equity and liabilities. Equity. Attributable to owner of the Parent ...

Final Letter to FHWA - MUTCD RFC Response 2-2-16.pdf
Page 1 of 2. February 2, 2016. By Electronic Submission. U.S. Department of Transportation. Dockets Management Facility, Room W12-140. 1200 New Jersey ...

letter
Dec 9, 2002 - by neural-crest cells for proper development of neural-crest-derived structures. Neverthe- less, our data indicate a genetic requirement.

Cirrus Aircraft Response Letter 3-28-11-1.pdf
Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. Cirrus Aircraft Response Letter 3-28-11-1.pdf. Cirrus Aircraft Response Letter 3-28-11-1.pdf. Open. Extract.

Interim standards -Public Comment Form.pdf
Interim standards -Public Comment Form.pdf. Interim standards -Public Comment Form.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu. Displaying Interim ...