Lawmakers challenge legality of LASP
By Tom Norton
General Aviation News
3/16/2009

The Transportation Security Administration’s Large Aircraft Security
Program (LASP) is not suited to general aviation aircraft and should not go
forward without industry input, said the chairman of the House Committee on
Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over the TSA. Leaders of the
House aviation subcommittee told the TSA on March 10 that they are not
convinced that the proposed Large Aircraft Security Program is necessary.
The TSA, itself, currently is analyzing more than 4,800 comments received
on its LASP proposal.

In a March 2 letter to the TSA, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi
called for the agency to delay implementation of the program and engage in
discussion with Congress and aviation industry stakeholders. Several
critical elements in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the
LASP “appear to be problematic, unfeasible, or overly burdensome to
industry,” Thompson wrote. “The Committee is also concerned that the
formulation of the NPRM was not based on a threat and risk methodology
process tailored to the general aviation environment.”

“Chairman Thompson understands the negative impact the LASP would have on
general aviation,” said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president for
government affairs. “We hope the TSA will stop its plans for the program
and address the grave concerns being expressed by the Committee on Homeland
Security and so many others who have spoken out against LASP.”

At roughly the same time, nearly two dozen House Republicans warned TSA of
“possible legal challenges or congressional obstacles” if the LASP is not
overhauled, and many critics have called for a government/industry task
force to rewrite the rules. “The proposal fails to recognize the inherent
differences that exist between private and commercial aviation,” said AOPA
President Craig Fuller, urging the TSA to work with industry
representatives to “fill the sizeable information gaps.”

A few days later, during a March 10 roundtable discussion that included
AOPA, leaders of the House aviation subcommittee told the TSA that the LASP
proposal goes too far, by attempting to impose airline-style security
regulations on general aviation aircraft. Others in attendance commented
that the TSA has far more urgent concerns than general aviation, while
still others said the TSA has failed to convince them that GA represents a
terrorist threat.

TSA Assistant Administrator John Sammon told the group that general
aviation is not regulated today, and that’s why airspace restrictions must
be in place. He said that TSA doesn’t know who is in the airplane or what
they are carrying. However, general aviation is regulated in a variety of
ways and pilot identities are no secret, he was told. “The government knows
exactly who I am and what I fly,” AOPA President Craig Fuller told Sammon.
“They know where I live, and I have to get a medical every two years.”

“We had a very productive roundtable and a wide-ranging discussion,” said
Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), chairman of the aviation subcommittee. “I
believe this proposed rule is a solution in search of a problem and we will
be monitoring it very closely. If the rule is formalized in its current
state, we will seek legislative action.”

Following the meeting, Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) told listeners that GA
passengers also are known to pilots, and that general aviation, and the
entire country could be seriously hurt by the proposal. “There is no doubt
in my mind that the Large Aircraft Security Program as proposed by TSA
would have devastating consequences for the GA community. This proposal is
shortsighted and does not take into account the many uses of GA operations
across the country,” Boswell said. “The pilot-in-command knows who is on
the airplane and by no means would take anyone who may be inappropriate.
This is a totally different situation from a pilot-in-command on a
commercial flight, who may have several hundred passengers on board.

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) put it even more strongly. “One of the reasons
I ran for public office was that I have always fought against stupid rules.
This is a prime example of a stupid rule,” Ehlers said. “Simply put, the
threat does not warrant this level of regulation. One might remember that
the TSA issued a similarly stupid rule a few years ago which required all
passengers flying into and out of Regan National Airport in Washington,
D.C., to sit in their seats 30 minutes prior to landing and 30 minutes
after takeoff. I was able to lead the charge in Congress to get that
useless rule overturned-it passed the House of Representatives by unanimous
applause. Hopefully, the TSA will scrap this proposed rule and Congress
will not have to once again get involved.”

Fuller also brought up the AOPA Airport Watch program, through which
possible terrorist activities can be reported directly to appropriate law
enforcement agencies. He pointed out that the small number of calls to that
hotline indicates that GA is not a threat. In fact, he said, some of the
calls have come from concerned pilots over what turned out to be news media
crews attempting to breach security.

Responding, Sammon said that the rule is still a proposal and the agency is
going through a process to get the right answer. He promised a series of
industry working groups to determine minimum weight, prohibited items, and
who should be screened against a watch list, none of which seemed very
comforting to most roundtable participants.

The LASP proposal, as it stands, would require crewmember criminal record
checks, matching of passenger manifests against TSA watch lists,
third-party audits of each aircraft operator, observance of a long list of
prohibited items, including most common tools, and new airport security
measures.

Meanwhile, the TSA said it is categorizing those 4,800 public comments by
topic before responding, but its officials admit the feedback has been
overwhelmingly negative.