To amend sections 4561.01, 4561.021, 4561.05, 4561.06, 4561.08, 4561.09, 4561.11, 4561.12, 4561.14, 4561.15, 4561.31, 4561.32, 4561.33, 4561.34, 4561.341, 4561.35, 4561.36, 4561.37, 4561.38, 4561.39, 4561.99, 4563.01, 4563.03, 4563.031, 4563.032, 4563.04, 4563.05, 4563.06, 4563.07, 4563.08, 4563.09, 4563.10, 4563.11, 4563.12, 4563.13, 4563.16, 4563.18, 4563.20, 4563.21, and 4906.10; to enact section 4561.40; and to repeal section 4561.30 of the Revised Code to make changes to the laws regarding navigable airspace and to name this act the Airspace Protection Act.
SB446, titled the Airspace Protection Act, revises Ohio law governing aviation, airport zoning, and protection of navigable airspace. The bill updates definitions in the aviation code to reflect modern terms and facilities, including heliports, vertiports, spaceports, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and it reorganizes the Department of Transportation’s Office of Aviation authority over airport planning, safety rules, inspections, investigations, and coordination with federal aviation standards. It also clarifies that the department may provide technical assistance to government agencies and private entities on FAA Part 77 airspace review processes and may act as the state’s representative in aviation-related matters.
A major feature of the bill is a new permitting framework for structures and natural growth that may penetrate protected airspace around airports. It requires permits for certain construction or substantial changes, ties state review more closely to FAA Form 7460-1 and FAA hazard determinations, and allows the department to grant permits with waivers from obstruction standards in some cases. The bill also gives airport sponsors a formal role in objecting to FAA no-hazard determinations, and it creates a new section shielding the Department of Transportation and the Office of Aviation from liability for damages caused by obstructions in several circumstances, including when a structure was built without a permit or under a power siting board certificate or airport zoning permit.
The bill also strengthens and harmonizes airport zoning rules under Chapter 4563. It requires local airport zoning boards to adopt minimum regulations based on the state’s obstruction standards, preserves the rule that safety controls prevail over conflicting local zoning, and maintains permit and variance procedures for airport hazard areas. In addition, the bill amends the power siting board statute so that major utility facilities must comply with the airspace standards adopted under section 4561.32, and it requires consultation with the Office of Aviation when evaluating whether a utility project would obstruct air navigation.
Overall, the bill appears to reflect a pro-safety, pro-aviation-management approach, with its text emphasizing that safety is paramount in permit decisions and that state standards should align with federal aviation rules. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests support for clearer statewide control over airspace obstructions and coordination with FAA processes. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the expanded state oversight of local land use and utility siting, the new liability protections for the state aviation agencies, and the extent to which airport sponsors and state officials can influence or override projects that the FAA has found to be no hazard.
SB446 would substantially revise Chapters 4561 and 4563 of the Revised Code, modernizing Ohio’s aviation statutes and creating a new section on liability for airspace obstructions. It would expand the Department of Transportation’s authority over airport operations, airspace hazard review, and permit decisions, while also requiring local airport zoning boards and the power siting board to conform to state airspace obstruction standards. The bill would affect airport sponsors, local governments, utility developers, property owners, and anyone proposing structures or natural growth that could intrude into protected navigable airspace.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is framed as a safety and modernization bill, with repeated emphasis on protecting aircraft operations and aligning state law with FAA standards. The overall tone is regulatory and protective rather than permissive, suggesting likely support from aviation safety interests and possible concern from land-use, development, and utility stakeholders.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s expanded state control over airspace-related land use decisions, the requirement that local airport zoning boards adopt state minimum standards, and the new process giving airport sponsors a formal role in responding to FAA no-hazard findings. Developers, property owners, and utility companies may object to added permitting burdens, delays, or the possibility of state denial even when the FAA has not found a hazard. Another possible point of dispute is the liability shield for the Department of Transportation and Office of Aviation, which limits damages claims in several obstruction-related scenarios.