99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–11 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

SECURING AIRCRAFT COCKPITS AGAINST LASERS ACT 

OF 2011 

FEBRUARY 11, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 386] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 386) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 3 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 3 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 3 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 4 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 4 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 4 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 5 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 386, the ‘‘Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 

2011,’’ amends title 18 of the United States Code to provide for the 

imposition of criminal penalties for any individual who knowingly 

aims a laser pointer at an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:32 Feb 12, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR011P1.XXX HR011P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

diction of the United States, or its flight path, a practice that creates a serious threat to public safety and aviation security, especially during the critical stages of take-off and landing. The penalties include fines and imprisonment of up to 5 years. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

A laser, when aimed at an aircraft, can create a visual distraction or cause discomfort or even damage to a pilot’s eyes. H.R. 386 

addresses the high number of incidents involving lasers being 

pointed at aircraft while in flight. Many of these incidents are occurring during the take-off and landing portion of a flight, when 

the pilots need to be most alert. The Federal Aviation Administration has reported that pilots have had to relinquish control of their 

aircraft to their copilot. In the case of law enforcement aircraft, 

there are reports that responses to crime scenes by airborne police 

units were terminated due to laser interference. More than 2,800 

laser incidents involving aircraft were reported in 2010. 

Some perpetrators have been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 32, relating to the destruction of aircraft. However, this provision requires 

the government to prove willful interference and intent to endanger 

the pilots. While this burden may be easily established when a person attempts to detonate a bomb onboard an aircraft or attempts 

to overtake a member of the flight crew, it is difficult to establish 

this same type of intent for a laser incident, even if the effect is 

actually to endanger the pilots. 

This bill recognizes the obvious and inherent danger of aiming a 

laser at an aircraft under any circumstance, as long as the offender 

knowingly aims the laser at the aircraft. The penalty under section 

32, 20 years, coupled with having to prove specific intent to interfere with, disable, or endanger the pilots, seems to be a factor in 

multiple declinations of prosecution under the current statute. 

The problem of lasers being shined into cockpits is so prevalent 

in some areas of the country that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Air Marshal 

Service, as well as State and local law enforcement, have established a Laser Strike Working Group to address the problem. 

On January 19, 2011, the Air Line Pilots Association International, representing 53,000 pilots flying for 38 airlines in the 

United States and Canada, sent a letter of support of this legislation. This letter stated in part: ‘‘The inappropriate use of widely 

available laser pointers against airborne flight crews represents a 

genuine and growing safety and security concern. At a minimum, 

the laser illumination of a cockpit creates a flight crew distraction 

and in more serious cases can result in eye damage and temporary 

incapacitation.’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

In the 111th Congress, the House approved identical legislation 

(H.R. 5810) by voice vote on July 27, 2010. An identical bill was 

introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 1615). A subcommittee 

hearing was held on May 1, 2007, and the Judiciary Committee 

marked up the bill on May 2, 2007. The bill passed the House by 

a voice vote on May 22, 2007. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

HEARINGS

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 386. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On January 26, 2011, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 386 favorably reported without amendment, by 

voice vote, a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there were 

no recorded votes during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

386. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 386, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, February 2, 2011. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, CHAIRMAN, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 386, the ‘‘Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

H.R. 386—Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 386 would have no significant cost to the Federal Government. The legislation could affect direct spending and revenues, so pay-as-you-go procedures 

apply, but we estimate that any such effects would not be significant. 

H.R. 386 would establish a new Federal crime for aiming the 

beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft or at the aircraft’s flight 

path. Thus, the government might be able to pursue cases against 

violators that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. However, 

CBO expects that H.R. 386 would apply to a relatively small number of offenders, so any increase in costs for law enforcement, court 

proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant. Any 

such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 386 could be 

subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government might collect additional amounts if the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later 

spent. CBO estimates that any additional revenues and direct 

spending would not be significant because of the small number of 

cases likely to be affected. 

H.R. 386 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 386 is intended 

to punish and deter the practice of knowingly aiming laser beams 

at aircraft. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

The Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article 

I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 386 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title. Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill 

as ‘Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011.’ 

Sec. 2. Prohibition against Aiming A Laser Pointer At An Aircraft. Section 2 makes it a crime to knowingly aim the beam of a 

laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

United States or at the flight path of such aircraft. An individual 

convicted of this crime is subject to criminal fines or imprisonment 

up to 5 years. This provision does not apply to: (1) individuals conducting research and development or flight test operations for an 

aircraft manufacturer or the Federal Aviation Administration; (2) 

Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security personnel conducting research, development, operations, testing or 

training; or (3) an individual using a laser emergency signaling device to send a distress signal. 

Section 2 authorizes the Attorney General, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Transportation, to provide by regulation, after 

public notice and comment, additional exceptions to this provision 

as necessary and appropriate. The Attorney General must give 

written notice of any such proposed regulations to the House and 

Senate Committees on the Judiciary as well as other specified committees. 

Sec.3. Compliance with PAYGO. Sets the determination of the 

budgetary effects of the Act for compliance with the Statutory PayAs-You-Go Act of 2010. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 2—AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES 

Sec. 

31. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft 

(a) Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at 

the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or 

imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. 

(b) As used in this section, the term ‘‘laser pointer’’ means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object. 

(c) This section does not prohibit aiming a beam of a laser pointer 

at an aircraft, or the flight path of such an aircraft, by— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

(1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research and 

development or flight test operations conducted by an aircraft 

manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration, or any 

other person authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration 

to conduct such research and development or flight test operations; 

(2) members or elements of the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security acting in an official capacity 

for the purpose of research, development, operations, testing or 

training; or 

(3) by an individual using a laser emergency signaling device 

to send an emergency distress signal. 

(d) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Transportation, may provide by regulation, after public notice and 

comment, such additional exceptions to this section, as may be necessary and appropriate. The Attorney General shall provide written 

notification of any proposed regulations under this section to the 

Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House, and the 

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the Senate 

not less than 90 days before such regulations become final. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS