Request By:
Mark Hebert
520 W. Chestnut Street
Louisville, KY 40202Rande Swan
Regional Airport Authority
P.O. Box 9129
Louisville, KY 40209-0129T. Kennedy Helm, III
Stites & Harbison
Providian Tower
400 W. Market Street, Ste. 1800
Louisville, KY 40202-2918Donald Cox
Lynch, Cox, Gilman & Mahan, P.S.C.
400 West Market Street, Ste. 2200
Louisville, KY 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Louisville and Jefferson County Regional Airport Authority violated the Open Records Act in denying WHAS-11 reporter Mark Hebert's October 3 and October 13 requests to inspect various records maintained by the RAA. For the reasons that follow, we find that the federal statutes and regulations upon which the RAA relies are applicable to it by virtue of the fact that it holds an operating certificate issued by the FAA, that those statutes and regulations are incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(k), and that those statutes and regulations require the RAA to maintain the confidentiality of the records sought.
In a letter addressed to Regional Airport Authority's Public Relations Officer Rande Swann, and dated October 3, Mr. Hebert requested access to:
. The names and annual salaries of all airport police officers employed since January 1, 1999;
. The resumes and applications of those officers;
. All internal affairs charges, suspensions, reprimands or other disciplinary actions against any officers including, but not limited to, David Looney.
On October 8, Ms. Swann denied Mr. Hebert's request. She explained:
Under KRS 61.878(1)(k), Kentucky's Open Records Act excludes from its general disclosure obligation "[a]ll public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law or regulation. " The Authority is required to comply with federal regulations concerning airport security including, but not limited to, 14 C.F.R. Part 191 and 14 C.F.R. Part 107. Included in those regulations are requirements regarding maintaining the confidentiality of employee records.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hebert submitted a request to inspect "all incident reports taken by the Airport Police Department since January 1, 1999." Relying on KRS 61.878(1)(k) and 14 C.F.R. 191 and 107, Ms. Swann again denied his request. She maintained:
Included in those regulations are requirements for maintaining the confidentiality of investigations. Under 14 C.F.R. Part 191.1, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration has exclusive authority over the release of certain security sensitive information, including information described in 14 C.F.R. 191.7(h):
See also 14 C.F.R. 191.3:
And 14 C.F.R. 107.3 2 Security program.
This appeal followed.
Mr. Hebert challenges the Airport Authority's reliance on regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration, observing:
1) Airport Police Officers are not federal employees, they are Regional Airport Authority employees. The FAA has no jurisdiction over the personnel files of public employees who are employed by an agency which was set up by state statute (Regional Airport Authority).
2) The names, resumes, applications, disciplinary records and salaries of Airport Police Officers have nothing to do with security.
3) Airport Police Officers are trained and certified by the state of Kentucky. If the FAA has jurisdiction, why aren't the officers trained and certified by the federal government?
4) Airport police aren't in charge of security, the airlines are. The police department's main job is taking incident and theft reports and making arrests.
With reference to his request for incident reports, Mr. Hebert notes that "these are the same reports kept by every other police agency in Kentucky," and regularly made available for public inspection. Further, he notes, the Airport Authority permitted him to inspect incident reports in 1999, and another television reporter to inspect the reports in 2000. He asserts that the Airport Authority's denial is inconsistent with "the precedents . . . already set."
On December 4, 2001, this office employed the authority granted it under KRS 61.880(2)(c) by requesting additional documentation from the RAA to substantiate its denial of Mr. Hebert's requests. Specifically, we asked the RAA to indicate by operation of what specific statutes or regulations the federal laws upon which it relies are made applicable to it. Further, we asked that the RAA indicate whether it is an "airport operator" within the meaning of 14 C.F.R. 107.1 prescribing airport security rules governing the operation of airports regularly serving the scheduled passenger operations of a certificate holder, whether it holds an airport operating certificate from the FAA, and if so, that it furnish us with a copy.
In a letter dated December 14, 2001, Donald L. Cox responded to our inquiry on behalf of the RAA. He advised:
The FAA regulates the RAA as an "airport operator" within 14 C.F.R. 107 through issuing it an operating certificate under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44706. A copy of the operating certificate for Standiford Field is enclosed.
It was his position that the Administrator of the FAA exercises exclusive authority to prohibit the disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security activities under 49 U.S.C. § 40119(b), including records maintained in the personnel files of airport police officers per 14 C.F.R. 107.209 and incident reports generated by airport police officers per 14 C.F.R. 191.7(h).
Having reviewed Mr. Cox's response, we conclude that the RAA met its statutory burden of proof 3 in denying Mr. Hebert's request in toto . As noted, the federal statutes and regulations 4 upon which it relies are applicable to the RAA, and those laws vest exclusive authority in the Administrator of the FAA to restrict access to information obtained or developed in carrying out security activities and security sensitive information.
49 U.S.C. § 40119(b) authorizes the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to:
prescribe regulations prohibiting disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security or research and development activities under section 44501(a) or (c), 44502(a)(1) or (3), (b), or (c), 44504, 44505, 44507, 44508, 44511, 44512, 44513, 44901, 44903(a), (b), (c), or (e), 44905, 44912, 44935, 44936, or 44938(a) or (b) of this title if the Administrator decides disclosing the information would --
Based on this enabling legislation, a highly complex scheme of federal regulation has been enacted that includes the regulations upon which the RAA chiefly relies, 14 C.F.R. 191.3(b), 14 C.F.R. 191.7, and 14 C.F.R. 107. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, these regulations underwent substantial revision, reflecting a heightened awareness of vulnerabilities in our aviation system. As the RAA clearly establishes in its response to our December 4 inquiry, it is an airport operator within the meaning of 14 C.F.R. 107 and a holder of airport operating certificate issued by the FAA. It is therefore subject to FAA regulation, and Mr. Hebert's arguments to the contrary fail. Whatever its practices were in the past, the RAA must adhere to the broad restrictions imposed by the FAA on access to information obtained in carrying out security activities and security sensitive information, including personnel files of airport police officers and the incident reports they generate, and we must defer to the FAA and the RAA in their interpretation of the applicable federal law.
It is therefore the opinion of this office that the RAA has established that the regulation relied upon, 14 C.F.R. 191.3(b), mandates nondisclosure of airport police officers' names, annual salaries, resumes, and applications, along with records reflecting disciplinary actions against the officers. Further, it is our opinion that the RAA has established that the cited federal statutes and regulations, specifically, 14 C.F.R. 191.7(h), 14 C.F.R. 191.3, and 14 C.F.R. 107.101, preclude public access to incident reports generated by airport police officers. Accordingly, we affirm the RAA's denial of Mr. Hebert's requests and find that its actions were consistent with the Open Records Act, incorporating by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(k) the federal laws upon which it relies.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceedings.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 This provision is one of many that was recodified in November 2001, and now appears at 14 C.F.R. 107.209(k)(4).
2 Now 14 C.F.R. 107.101(c)(1).
3 KRS 61.880(2)(c) states that "the burden of proof in sustaining the action shall rest with the agency."
4 As noted, these statutes and regulations are incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(k), authorizing public agencies to withhold:
All public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law or regulation;