§ 44903. Air transportation security

Pub. L. 115–254, div. K, title I, § 1961, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3600, provided that: “(a) Threat Assessment.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 2018], the Administrator [of the Transportation Security Administration], in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall complete a detailed threat assessment to identify any safety or security risks associated with unauthorized access to the flight decks on commercial aircraft and any appropriate measures that should be taken based on the risks. “(b) RTCA Report.—The Administrator, in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall disseminate RTCA Document (DO–329) Aircraft Secondary Barriers and Alternative Flight Deck Security Procedure to aviation stakeholders, including air carriers and flight crew, to convey effective methods and best practices to protect the flight deck.”

Aviation Cybersecurity

Pub. L. 115–254, div. B, title V, § 509, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3355, provided that: “(a) In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 2018], the Administrator [of the Federal Aviation Administration] shall initiate a review of the comprehensive and strategic framework of principles and policies (referred to in this section as the ‘framework’) developed pursuant to section 2111 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 [Pub. L. 114–190] (49 U.S.C. 44903 note) [set out below]. “(b) Contents.—In undertaking the review under subsection (a), the Administrator shall—“(1) assess the degree to which the framework identifies and addresses known cybersecurity risks associated with the aviation system; “(2) review existing short- and long-term objectives for addressing cybersecurity risks to the national airspace system; and “(3) assess the [Federal Aviation] Administration’s level of engagement and coordination with aviation stakeholders and other appropriate agencies, organizations, or groups with which the Administration consults to carry out the framework. “(c) Updates.—Upon completion of the review under subsection (a), the Administrator shall modify the framework, as appropriate, to address any deficiencies identified by the review. “(d) Report to Congress.—Not later than 180 days after initiating the review required by subsection (a), the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress [Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives] a report on the results of the review, including a description of any modifications made to the framework.”

Pub. L. 114–190, title II, § 2111, July 15, 2016, 130 Stat. 625, provided that: “(a) Comprehensive and Strategic Aviation Framework.—“(1) In general.—Not later than 240 days after the date of enactment of this Act [July 15, 2016], the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall facilitate and support the development of a comprehensive and strategic framework of principles and policies to reduce cybersecurity risks to the national airspace system, civil aviation, and agency information systems using a total systems approach that takes into consideration the interactions and interdependence of different components of aircraft systems and the national airspace system. “(2) Scope.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Administrator shall—“(A) identify and address the cybersecurity risks associated with—“(i) the modernization of the national airspace system; “(ii) the automation of aircraft, equipment, and technology; and “(iii) aircraft systems, including by— “(I) directing the Aircraft Systems Information Security Protection Working Group—“(aa) to assess cybersecurity risks to aircraft systems; “(bb) to review the extent to which existing rulemaking, policy, and guidance to promote safety also promote aircraft systems information security protection; and “(cc) to provide appropriate recommendations to the Administrator if separate or additional rulemaking, policy, or guidance is needed to address cybersecurity risks to aircraft systems; and “(II) identifying and addressing—“(aa) cybersecurity risks associated with in-flight entertainment systems; and “(bb) whether in-flight entertainment systems can and should be isolated and separate, such as through an air gap, under existing rulemaking, policy, and guidance; “(B) clarify cybersecurity roles and responsibilities of offices and employees of the Federal Aviation Administration, as the roles and responsibilities relate to cybersecurity at the Federal Aviation Administration; “(C) identify and implement objectives and actions to reduce cybersecurity risks to air traffic control information systems, including actions to improve implementation of information security standards, such as those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; “(D) support voluntary efforts by industry, RTCA, Inc., and other standards-setting organizations to develop and identify consensus standards and best practices relating to guidance on aviation systems information security protection, consistent, to the extent appropriate, with the cybersecurity risk management activities described in section 2(e) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(e)); “(E) establish guidelines for the voluntary exchange of information between and among aviation stakeholders pertaining to aviation-related cybersecurity incidents, threats, and vulnerabilities; “(F) identify short- and long-term objectives and actions that can be taken in response to cybersecurity risks to the national airspace system; and “(G) identify research and development activities to inform actions in response to cybersecurity risks. “(3) Implementation requirements.—In carrying out the activities under this subsection, the Administrator shall—“(A) coordinate with aviation stakeholders, including, at a minimum, representatives of industry, airlines, manufacturers, airports, RTCA, Inc., and unions; “(B) consult with the heads of relevant agencies and with international regulatory authorities; “(C) if determined appropriate, convene an expert panel or working group to identify and address cybersecurity risks; and “(D) evaluate, on a periodic basis, the effectiveness of the principles established under this subsection. “(b) Update on Cybersecurity Implementation Progress.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [July 15, 2016], the Administrator shall provide to the appropriate committees of Congress [Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives] an update on progress made toward the implementation of this section. “(c) Cybersecurity Threat Model.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall implement the open recommendation issued in 2015 by the Government Accountability Office to assess and research the potential cost and timetable of developing and maintaining an agencywide threat model, which shall be updated regularly, to strengthen the cybersecurity of agency systems across the Federal Aviation Administration. The Administrator shall brief the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the status, results, and composition of the threat model. “(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology Information Security Standards.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, after consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall transmit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on—“(1) a cybersecurity standards plan to improve implementation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s latest revisions to information security guidance for Federal Aviation Administration information and Federal Aviation Administration information systems within set timeframes; and “(2) an explanation of why any such revisions are not incorporated in the plan or are not incorporated within set timeframes. “(e) Cybersecurity Research and Development.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with other agencies as appropriate, shall establish a cybersecurity research and development plan for the national airspace system, including—“(1) any proposal for research and development cooperation with international partners; “(2) an evaluation and determination of research and development needs to determine any cybersecurity risks of cabin communications and cabin information technology systems on board in the passenger domain; and “(3) objectives, proposed tasks, milestones, and a 5-year budgetary profile.”

Airport Security

Pub. L. 114–50, Sept. 24, 2015, 129 Stat. 490, provided that: “SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.“This Act may be cited as the ‘Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act of 2015’. “SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.“In this Act:“(1) Assistant secretary.—The term ‘Assistant Secretary’ means the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security) of the Department of Homeland Security. “(2) Administration.—The term ‘Administration’ means the Transportation Security Administration. “SEC. 3. SECURITY INCIDENT RESPONSE AT AIRPORTS.“(a) In General.—The Assistant Secretary shall, in consultation with other Federal agencies as appropriate, conduct outreach to all airports in the United States at which the Administration performs, or oversees the implementation and performance of, security measures, and provide technical assistance as necessary, to verify such airports have in place individualized working plans for responding to security incidents inside the perimeter of the airport, including active shooters, acts of terrorism, and incidents that target passenger-screening checkpoints. “(b) Types of Plans.—Such plans may include, but may not be limited to, the following:“(1) A strategy for evacuating and providing care to persons inside the perimeter of the airport, with consideration given to the needs of persons with disabilities. “(2) A plan for establishing a unified command, including identification of staging areas for non-airport-specific law enforcement and fire response. “(3) A schedule for regular testing of communications equipment used to receive emergency calls. “(4) An evaluation of how emergency calls placed by persons inside the perimeter of the airport will reach airport police in an expeditious manner. “(5) A practiced method and plan to communicate with travelers and all other persons inside the perimeter of the airport. “(6) To the extent practicable, a projected maximum timeframe for law enforcement response to active shooters, acts of terrorism, and incidents that target passenger security-screening checkpoints. “(7) A schedule of joint exercises and training to be conducted by the airport, the Administration, other stakeholders such as airport and airline tenants, and any relevant law enforcement, airport police, fire, and medical personnel. “(8) A schedule for producing after-action joint exercise reports to identify and determine how to improve security incident response capabilities. “(9) A strategy, where feasible, for providing airport law enforcement with access to airport security video surveillance systems at category X airports where those systems were purchased and installed using Administration funds. “(c) Report to Congress.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 24, 2015], the Assistant Secretary shall report to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the findings from its outreach to airports under subsection (a), including an analysis of the level of preparedness such airports have to respond to security incidents, including active shooters, acts of terrorism, and incidents that target passenger-screening checkpoints. “SEC. 4. DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON BEST PRACTICES.“The Assistant Secretary shall—“(1) identify best practices that exist across airports for security incident planning, management, and training; and “(2) establish a mechanism through which to share such best practices with other airport operators nationwide. “SEC. 5. CERTIFICATION.“Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 24, 2015], and annually thereafter, the Assistant Secretary shall certify in writing to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate that all screening personnel have participated in practical training exercises for active shooter scenarios. “SEC. 6. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.“Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act [Sept. 24, 2015], the Assistant Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate an analysis of how the Administration can use cost savings achieved through efficiencies to increase over the next 5 fiscal years the funding available for checkpoint screening law enforcement support reimbursable agreements. “SEC. 7. SECURITY INCIDENT RESPONSE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.“(a) In General.—The Assistant Secretary shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, and other relevant agencies, conduct outreach to all passenger transportation agencies and providers with high-risk facilities, as identified by the Assistant Secretary, to verify such agencies and providers have in place plans to respond to active shooters, acts of terrorism, or other security-related incidents that target passengers. “(b) Types of Plans.—As applicable, such plans may include, but may not be limited to, the following:“(1) A strategy for evacuating and providing care to individuals, with consideration given to the needs of persons with disabilities. “(2) A plan for establishing a unified command. “(3) A plan for frontline employees to receive active shooter training. “(4) A schedule for regular testing of communications equipment used to receive emergency calls. “(5) An evaluation of how emergency calls placed by individuals using the transportation system will reach police in an expeditious manner. “(6) A practiced method and plan to communicate with individuals using the transportation system. “(c) Report to Congress.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 24, 2015], the Assistant Secretary shall report to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the findings from its outreach to the agencies and providers under subsection (a), including an analysis of the level of preparedness such transportation systems have to respond to security incidents. “(d) Dissemination of Best Practices.—The Assistant Secretary shall identify best practices for security incident planning, management, and training and establish a mechanism through which to share such practices with passenger transportation agencies nationwide. “SEC. 8. NO ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.“No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act, and this Act shall be carried out using amounts otherwise available for such purpose. “SEC. 9. INTEROPERABILITY REVIEW.“(a) In General.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 24, 2015], the Assistant Secretary shall, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, conduct a review of the interoperable communications capabilities of the law enforcement, fire, and medical personnel responsible for responding to a security incident, including active shooter events, acts of terrorism, and incidents that target passenger-screening checkpoints, at all airports in the United States at which the Administration performs, or oversees the implementation and performance of, security measures. “(b) Report.—Not later than 30 days after the completion of the review, the Assistant Secretary shall report the findings of the review to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.”

Cabin Flight Crew Participation in Known Crewmember Pilot Program

Pub. L. 113–6, div. D, title II, Mar. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 349, provided in part: “That the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall, within 270 days of the date of enactment of this Act [Mar. 26, 2013], establish procedures allowing members of cabin flight crews of air carriers to participate in the Known Crewmember pilot program, unless the Administrator determines that meeting the requirement within this timeline is not practicable and informs the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives of the basis for that determination and the new timeline for implementing the requirement”.

Strategic Plan To Test and Implement Advanced Passenger Prescreening System

Pub. L. 110–53, title XVI, § 1605, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 481, provided that: “(a) In General.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 3, 2007], the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a plan that—“(1) describes the system to be utilized by the Department of Homeland Security to assume the performance of comparing passenger information, as defined by the Administrator, to the automatic selectee and no-fly lists, utilizing appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Federal Government; “(2) provides a projected timeline for each phase of testing and implementation of the system; “(3) explains how the system will be integrated with the prescreening system for passengers on international flights; and “(4) describes how the system complies with section 552a of title 5, United States Code. “(b) GAO Assessment.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that—“(1) describes the progress made by the Transportation Security Administration in implementing the secure flight passenger pre-screening program; “(2) describes the effectiveness of the current appeals process for passengers wrongly assigned to the no-fly and terrorist watch lists; “(3) describes the Transportation Security Administration’s plan to protect private passenger information and progress made in integrating the system with the pre-screening program for international flights operated by United States Customs and Border Protection; “(4) provides a realistic determination of when the system will be completed; and “(5) includes any other relevant observations or recommendations the Comptroller General deems appropriate.”

Pilot Project To Test Different Technologies at Airport Exit Lanes

Pub. L. 110–53, title XVI, § 1613, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 485, provided that: “(a) In General.—The Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration shall conduct a pilot program at not more than 2 airports to identify technologies to improve security at airport exit lanes. “(b) Program Components.—In conducting the pilot program under this section, the Administrator shall—“(1) utilize different technologies that protect the integrity of the airport exit lanes from unauthorized entry; “(2) work with airport officials to deploy such technologies in multiple configurations at a selected airport or airports at which some of the exits are not colocated with a screening checkpoint; and “(3) ensure the level of security is at or above the level of existing security at the airport or airports where the pilot program is conducted. “(c) Reports.—“(1) Initial briefing.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 3, 2007], the Administrator shall conduct a briefing to the congressional committees set forth in paragraph (3) that describes—“(A) the airport or airports selected to participate in the pilot program; “(B) the technologies to be tested; “(C) the potential savings from implementing the technologies at selected airport exits; “(D) the types of configurations expected to be deployed at such airports; and “(E) the expected financial contribution from each airport. “(2) Final report.—Not later than 18 months after the technologies are deployed at the airports participating in the pilot program, the Administrator shall submit a final report to the congressional committees set forth in paragraph (3) that describes—“(A) the changes in security procedures and technologies deployed; “(B) the estimated cost savings at the airport or airports that participated in the pilot program; and “(C) the efficacy and staffing benefits of the pilot program and its applicability to other airports in the United States. “(3) Congressional committees.—The reports required under this subsection shall be submitted to—“(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; “(B) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; “(C) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; “(D) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives; and “(E) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. “(d) Use of Existing Funds.—This section shall be executed using existing funds.”

Security Credentials for Airline Crews

Pub. L. 110–53, title XVI, § 1614, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 486, provided that: “(a) Report.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 3, 2007], the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, after consultation with airline, airport, and flight crew representatives, shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the status of the Administration’s efforts to institute a sterile area access system or method that will enhance security by properly identifying authorized airline flight deck and cabin crew members at screening checkpoints and granting them expedited access through screening checkpoints. The Administrator shall include in the report recommendations on the feasibility of implementing the system for the domestic aviation industry beginning 1 year after the date on which the report is submitted. “(b) Beginning Implementation.—The Administrator shall begin implementation of the system or method referred to in subsection (a) not later than 1 year after the date on which the Administrator submits the report under subsection (a).”

CAPPS2

Pub. L. 108–176, title VI, § 607, Dec. 12, 2003, 117 Stat. 2568, provided that: “(a) In General.—The Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security shall not implement, on other than a test basis, the computer assisted passenger prescreening system (commonly known as and in this section referred to as ‘CAPPS2’) until the Under Secretary provides to Congress a certification that—“(1) a procedure is established enabling airline passengers, who are delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight because CAPPS2 determined that they might pose a security threat, to appeal such determination and correct information contained in CAPPS2; “(2) the error rate of the Government and private data bases that will be used to both establish identity and assign a risk level to a passenger under CAPPS2 will not produce a large number of false positives that will result in a significant number of passengers being mistaken as a security threat; “(3) the Under Secretary has demonstrated the efficacy and accuracy of all search tools in CAPPS2 and has demonstrated that CAPPS2 can make an accurate predictive assessment of those passengers who would constitute a security threat; “(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security has established an internal oversight board to oversee and monitor the manner in which CAPPS2 is being implemented; “(5) the Under Secretary has built in sufficient operational safeguards to reduce the opportunities for abuse; “(6) substantial security measures are in place to protect CAPPS2 from unauthorized access by hackers or other intruders; “(7) the Under Secretary has adopted policies establishing effective oversight of the use and operation of the system; and “(8) there are no specific privacy concerns with the technological architecture of the system. “(b) GAO Report.—Not later than 90 days after the date on which certification is provided under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate that assesses the impact of CAPPS2 on the issues listed in subsection (a) and on privacy and civil liberties. The report shall include any recommendations for practices, procedures, regulations, or legislation to eliminate or minimize adverse effect of CAPPS2 on privacy, discrimination, and other civil liberties.”

Reimbursement of Air Carriers for Certain Screening and Related Activities

Pub. L. 108–176, title VIII, § 821, Dec. 12, 2003, 117 Stat. 2594, provided that: “The Secretary of Homeland Security, subject to the availability of funds (other than amounts in the Aviation Trust Fund) provided for this purpose, shall reimburse air carriers and airports for— “(1) the screening of catering supplies; and “(2) checking documents at security checkpoints.”

Improved Flight Deck Integrity Measures

Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 104, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 605, provided that: “(a) In General.—As soon as possible after the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 19, 2001], the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall—“(1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code)—“(A) prohibiting access to the flight deck of aircraft engaged in passenger air transportation or intrastate air transportation that are required to have a door between the passenger and pilot compartments under title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, except to authorized persons; “(B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in a bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger compartment; “(C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to permit access and egress by authorized persons; and “(D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight deck door by any member of the flight crew who is not assigned to the flight deck; and “(2) take such other action, including modification of safety and security procedures and flight deck redesign, as may be necessary to ensure the safety and security of the aircraft. “(b) Implementation of Other Methods.—As soon as possible after such date of enactment [Nov. 19, 2001], the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may develop and implement methods—“(1) to use video monitors or other devices to alert pilots in the flight deck to activity in the cabin, except that the use of such monitors or devices shall be subject to nondisclosure requirements applicable to cockpit video recordings under section 1114(c) [of title 49]; “(2) to ensure continuous operation of an aircraft transponder in the event of an emergency; and “(3) to revise the procedures by which cabin crews of aircraft can notify flight deck crews of security breaches and other emergencies, including providing for the installation of switches or other devices or methods in an aircraft cabin to enable flight crews to discreetly notify the pilots in the case of a security breach occurring in the cabin. “(c) Commuter Aircraft.—The Administrator shall investigate means of securing the flight deck of scheduled passenger aircraft operating in air transportation or intrastate air transportation that do not have a rigid fixed door with a lock between the passenger compartment and the flight deck and issue such an order as the Administrator deems appropriate to ensure the inaccessibility, to the greatest extent feasible, of the flight deck while the aircraft is so operating, taking into consideration such aircraft operating in regions where there is minimal threat to aviation security or national security.”

Small and Medium Airports

Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 106(b), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 609, provided that: “(1) Technical support and financial assistance.—The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security [now Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration] shall develop a plan to—“(A) provide technical support to airports, each of which had less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements in the United States for the most recent calendar year for which data is available, to enhance security operations; and “(B) provide financial assistance to those airports to defray the costs of enhancing security. “(2) Removal of certain restrictions.—“(A) Certification by operator.—If the operator of an airport described in paragraph (1), after consultation with the appropriate State and local law enforcement authorities, determines that safeguards are in place to sufficiently protect public safety, and so certifies in writing to the Under Secretary, then any security rule, order, or other directive restricting the parking of passenger vehicles shall not apply at that airport after the applicable time period specified in subparagraph (B), unless the Under Secretary, taking into account individual airport circumstances, notifies the airport operator that the safeguards in place do not adequately respond to specific security risks and that the restriction must be continued in order to ensure public safety. “(B) Countermand period.—The time period within which the Secretary may notify an airport operator, after receiving a certification under subparagraph (A), that a restriction must be continued in order to ensure public safety at the airport is—“(i) 15 days for a nonhub airport (as defined in section 41714(h) of title 49, United States Code); “(ii) 30 days for a small hub airport (as defined in such section); “(iii) 60 days for a medium hub airport (as defined in such section); and “(iv) 120 days for an airport that had at least 1 percent of the total annual enplanements in the United States for the most recent calendar year for which data is available.”

Airport Security Awareness Programs

Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 106(e), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 610, provided that: “The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security [now Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration] shall require scheduled passenger air carriers, and airports in the United States described in section 44903(c) [of title 49] to develop security awareness programs for airport employees, ground crews, gate, ticket, and curbside agents of the air carriers, and other individuals employed at such airports.”

Airline Computer Reservation Systems

Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 117, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 624, provided that: “In order to ensure that all airline computer reservation systems maintained by United States air carriers are secure from unauthorized access by persons seeking information on reservations, passenger manifests, or other nonpublic information, the Secretary of Transportation shall require all such air carriers to utilize to the maximum extent practicable the best technology available to secure their computer reservation system against such unauthorized access.”

Authorization of Funds for Reimbursement of Airports for Security Mandates

Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 121, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 630, provided that: “(a) Airport Security.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 a total of $1,500,000,000 to reimburse airport operators, on-airport parking lots, and vendors of on-airfield direct services to air carriers for direct costs incurred by such operators to comply with new, additional, or revised security requirements imposed on such operators by the Federal Aviation Administration or Transportation Security Administration on or after September 11, 2001. Such sums shall remain available until expended. “(b) Documentation of Costs; Audit.—The Secretary may not reimburse an airport operator, on-airport parking lot, or vendor of on-airfield direct services to air carriers under this section for any cost for which the airport operator, on-airport parking lot, or vendor of on-airfield direct services does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary, using sworn financial statements or other appropriate data, that—“(1) the cost is eligible for reimbursement under subsection (a); and “(2) the cost was incurred by the airport operator, on-airport parking lot, or vendor of on-airfield direct services to air carriers. The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation and the Comptroller General of the United States may audit such statements and may request any other information necessary to conduct such an audit. “(c) Claim Procedure.—Within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 19, 2001], the Secretary, after consultation with airport operators, on-airport parking lots, and vendors of on-airfield direct services to air carriers, shall publish in the Federal Register the procedures for filing claims for reimbursement under this section of eligible costs incurred by airport operators.”

Flight Deck Security

Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 128, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 633, which authorized the pilot of a passenger aircraft to carry a firearm into the cockpit if approved by the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security and the air carrier, if the firearm is approved by the Under Secretary, and if the pilot has received proper training, was repealed by Pub. L. 107–296, title XIV, § 1402(b)(2), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2305.

Charter Air Carriers

Pub. L. 107–71, title I, § 132(a), Nov. 19, 2001, 115 Stat. 635, which provided that within 90 days after Nov. 19, 2001, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security was to implement an aviation security program for charter air carriers with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more, was repealed by Pub. L. 108–176, title VI, § 606(b), Dec. 12, 2003, 117 Stat. 2568.

Physical Security for ATC Facilities

Pub. L. 106–528, § 5, Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2521, provided that: “(a) In General.—In order to ensure physical security at Federal Aviation Administration staffed facilities that house air traffic control systems, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall act immediately to—“(1) correct physical security weaknesses at air traffic control facilities so the facilities can be granted physical security accreditation not later than April 30, 2004; and “(2) ensure that follow-up inspections are conducted, deficiencies are promptly corrected, and accreditation is kept current for all air traffic control facilities. “(b) Reports.—Not later than April 30, 2001, and annually thereafter through April 30, 2004, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the progress being made in improving the physical security of air traffic control facilities, including the percentage of such facilities that have been granted physical security accreditation.”

Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement Officers

Pub. L. 106–181, title V, § 512, Apr. 5, 2000, 114 Stat. 142, provided that: “(a) Definitions.—In this section, the following definitions apply:“(1) Aircraft.—The term ‘aircraft’ has the meaning given that term in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code. “(2) Air transportation.—The term ‘air transportation’ has the meaning given that term in such section. “(3) Program.—The term ‘program’ means the program established under subsection (b)(1)(A). “(b) Establishment of a Program To Deputize Local Law Enforcement Officers.—“(1) In general.—The Attorney General may—“(A) establish a program under which the Attorney General may deputize State and local law enforcement officers having jurisdiction over airports and airport authorities as Deputy United States Marshals for the limited purpose of enforcing Federal laws that regulate security on board aircraft, including laws relating to violent, abusive, or disruptive behavior by passengers in air transportation; and “(B) encourage the participation of law enforcement officers of State and local governments in the program. “(2) Consultation.—In establishing the program, the Attorney General shall consult with appropriate officials of—“(A) the United States Government (including the Administrator [of the Federal Aviation Administration] or a designated representative of the Administrator); and “(B) State and local governments in any geographic area in which the program may operate. “(3) Training and background of law enforcement officers.—“(A) In general.—Under the program, to qualify to serve as a Deputy United States Marshal under the program, a State or local law enforcement officer shall—“(i) meet the minimum background and training requirements for a law enforcement officer under part 107 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (or equivalent requirements established by the Attorney General); and “(ii) receive approval to participate in the program from the State or local law enforcement agency that is the employer of that law enforcement officer. “(B) Training not federal responsibility.—The United States Government shall not be responsible for providing to a State or local law enforcement officer the training required to meet the training requirements under subparagraph (A)(i). Nothing in this subsection may be construed to grant any such law enforcement officer the right to attend any institution of the United States Government established to provide training to law enforcement officers of the United States Government. “(c) Powers and Status of Deputized Law Enforcement Officers.—“(1) In general.—Subject to paragraph (2), a State or local law enforcement officer that is deputized as a Deputy United States Marshal under the program may arrest and apprehend an individual suspected of violating any Federal law described in subsection (b)(1)(A), including any individual who violates a provision subject to a civil penalty under section 46301 of title 49, United States Code, or section 46302, 46303, 46318, 46504, 46505, or 46507 of that title, or who commits an act described in section 46506 of that title. “(2) Limitation.—The powers granted to a State or local law enforcement officer deputized under the program shall be limited to enforcing Federal laws relating to security on board aircraft in flight. “(3) Status.—A State or local law enforcement officer that is deputized as a Deputy United States Marshal under the program shall not—“(A) be considered to be an employee of the United States Government; or “(B) receive compensation from the United States Government by reason of service as a Deputy United States Marshal under the program. “(d) Statutory Construction.—Nothing in this section may be construed to—“(1) grant a State or local law enforcement officer that is deputized under the program the power to enforce any Federal law that is not described in subsection (c); or “(2) limit the authority that a State or local law enforcement officer may otherwise exercise in the officer’s capacity under any other applicable State or Federal law. “(e) Regulations.—The Attorney General may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section. “(f) Notification of Congress.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 5, 2000], the Attorney General shall notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on whether or not the Attorney General intends to establish the program authorized by this section.”

Development of Aviation Security Liaison Agreement

Pub. L. 104–264, title III, § 309, Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3253, which related to an interagency agreement providing for the establishment of an aviation security liaison at existing appropriate Federal agencies’ field offices in or near cities served by a designated high-risk airport, was repealed by Pub. L. 118–63, title II, § 218(g), May 16, 2024, 138 Stat. 1056.

Definitions of Terms in Pub. L. 107–71

For definitions of terms used in sections 104, 106(b), (e), 117, 121, 128, and 132(a) of Pub. L. 107–71, set out above, see section 133 of Pub. L. 107–71, set out as a note under section 40102 of this title.