• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Aviation Security State Legislation in 2002

November 2002

By Reed Morris, NCSL Transportation Program

States face a variety of complex homeland security issues ranging from protecting critical infrastructure to responding to biological threats.¹ Following the tragic events of September 2001, airport security became an immediate national concern. While many aviation policy decision are made at the federal level, a great number of policy issues related to airports and air fields are decided at the local level.²

On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) establishing the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) within the Department of Transportation. The Act also requires that airport security screening to be under the guidance of the TSA. However, the newly federalized airport security could fall back under local control. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act contains provisions that would allow airports to opt out of the federal screening after two years with approval by the TSA and hire private companies that will meet or exceed the federal security guidelines contained in the act. § 44920.

Despite the federalization of airport security personnel, the day to day control of airports by state or local governing bodies remains largely unaffected. Tightening state and local regulations of airport safety in the areas not covered by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations has drawn the attention of state legislators nationwide. In responding to heightened aviation safety concerns, several states introduced legislation addressing a variety of aviation security issues.

In the wake of news reports that several September 11 terrorists obtained pilot training in the United States, several states have considered legislation that would tighten regulations on flight training schools. Beginning as early as October 2001, the Florida Legislature began considering several bills related to flight schools, including legislation that would require criminal background checks and expanding the definition of "school" to bring flight schools within state regulation and licensure requirements. The California Legislature also acted in late 2001, adopting a resolution that asked Congress to direct the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt regulations requiring fingerprints and background checks of domestic flight training candidates.

In 2002, Michigan passed two bills that require criminal background checks on applicants at flight training schools. Michigan Senate Bills 934 and 1006, both signed into law in May 2002, require that flight schools obtain fingerprints and request criminal background checks through the Michigan Department of State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the background checks reveal a felony conviction within the previous seven years the enrollment of the student becomes void. Other state legislatures have, or are still considering tightening regulations on domestic flight schools. The New York Assembly passed legislation that would require criminal background checks for persons attending flight schools. Oklahoma considered legislation that would make it unlawful to instruct non-United States citizens in airplane flight skills.

Airport Security Regulations

Another way state legislatures are addressing aviation security in 2002 is through criminal laws. Thus far, at least five states--California, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts and Michigan--have made changes to their criminal laws in an effort to tighten security in or around airports. California approved a law that establishes the misdemeanor offense of refusing to leave a posted area within a airport and establishes the misdemeanor offense of possession a weapon, a replica of a weapon or ammunition in "sterile" airport areas. Sterile areas are areas where passengers have access to boarding airplanes, or generally, the areas beyond accessibility without security screening. A new Idaho law establishes the misdemeanor offense of entering a sterile area while possessing a weapon, and entering an airplane while possessing a weapon is a felony. Iowa enacted legislation that creates an aggravated misdemeanor for unauthorized computer access to operational data of a public airport. Indiana, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania also considered amending criminal laws relating to airport security in 2002.

Airport Personnel and Law Enforcement

Regulating airport personnel and employees of businesses that are within sterile areas has been a focus of several state legislatures in the 2001-2002 sessions. In August 2002, New Jersey enacted a law that prohibits persons convicted of certain state and federal crimes within the past ten years from working in airport sterile areas. Under the new law, future or current employees with criminal background checks showing a conviction of a criminal offense carrying a maximum sentence greater than one year in prison are ineligible for employment in the sterile areas if such conviction occurred within the past 10 years.

California and Oklahoma also considered legislation that requires background checks of certain airport employees. Legislation introduced in California would require public safety background checks of airport ground transportation employees. Oklahoma considered a bill that would have required all airport employees to undergo criminal background checks. Tennessee considered a bill that would require airport security personnel to be registered with the commissioner of commerce and also would require personnel that carry weapons to meet all requirements of armed registrants established by the commissioner.

In 2002, several states considered legislation related to the authority of airport peace officers. The Ohio General Assembly considered a bill that would have added special airport police officers to the definition of "police officer" allowing those officers to attend training schools of the Police Officer Training Commission. The Kentucky Legislature considered a bill that would add airport safety and security officers to the definition of "police officer," allowing those officers to make arrests without a warrant in certain instances where probable cause exists. California, Georgia, Kentucky, New York and Rhode Island also considered legislation related to airport peace officers' authority.

Conclusion

While the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Agency govern several areas of aviation security, state and local decisions affect a great number of aviation security policies. Flight training schools, airport security regulations and regulating airport personal and police officers are just some of the areas in which state have tightened airport security since September 2001. Appropriations and shifting the governing structure of airport security policy decisions are other ways legislatures have brought greater focus to security in the states' airports and airfields. State legislatures play a crucial role in protecting the nation's citizenry and infrastructure. In the area of aviation security, the states are responding to homeland security concerns as they have in many other areas important to homeland security.

Notes

1. See Office of Homeland Security, State and Local Actions for Homeland Security, (Washington, D.C.: July 2002).
2. For background information on state aviation policy issues see the following NCSL publications: "The State Role in American Aviation Policy" by James B. Reed and Janet B. Goehring, Transportation Series No. 9 (October 1998).

   Transportation Reviews page

Visitor counts for this page.