House Report 107-568 - NATIONAL AVIATION CAPACITY EXPANSION ACT OF 2002

[House Report 107-568]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-568

======================================================================

NATIONAL AVIATION CAPACITY EXPANSION ACT OF 2002

_______

July 12, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 3479]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 3479) to expand aviation capacity
in the Chicago area, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Aviation Capacity Expansion
Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) O'Hare International Airport consistently ranks as the
Nation's first or second busiest airport with nearly 34,000,000
annual passengers enplanements, almost all of whom travel in
inter-state or foreign commerce. The Federal Aviation
Administration's most recent data, compiled in the Airport
Capacity Benchmark Report 2001, projects demand at O'Hare to
grow by 18 percent over the next decade. O'Hare handles
72,100,000 passengers annually, compared with 64,600,000 at
London Heathrow International Airport, Europe's busiest
airport, and 36,700,000 at Kimpo International Airport, Korea's
busiest airport, 7,400,000 at Narita International Airport,
Japan's busiest airport, 23,700,000 at Kingsford-Smith
International Airport, Australia's busiest airport, and
6,200,000 at Ezeiza International Airport, Argentina's busiest
airport, as well as South America's busiest airport.
(2) The Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2001 ranks O'Hare
as the third most delayed airport in the United States.
Overall, slightly more than 6 percent of all flights at O'Hare
are delayed significantly (more than 15 minutes). On good
weather days, scheduled traffic is at or above capacity for
3\1/2\ hours of the day with about 2 percent of flights at
O'Hare delayed significantly. In adverse weather, capacity is
lower and scheduled traffic exceeds capacity for 8 hours of the
day, with about 12 percent of the flights delayed.
(3) The city of Chicago, Illinois, which owns and operates
O'Hare, has been unable to pursue projects to increase the
operating capability of O'Hare runways and thereby reduce
delays because the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois
have been unable for more than 20 years to agree on a plan for
runway reconfiguration and development. State law states that
such projects at O'Hare require State approval.
(4) On December 5, 2001, the Governor of Illinois and the
Mayor of Chicago reached an agreement to allow the city to go
forward with a proposed capacity enhancement project for O'Hare
which involves redesign of the airport's runway configuration.
(5) In furtherance of such agreement, the city, with approval
of the State, applied for and received a master-planning grant
from the Federal Aviation Administration for the capacity
enhancement project.
(6) The agreement between the city and the State is not
binding on future Governors of Illinois.
(7) Future Governors of Illinois could stop the O'Hare
capacity enhancement project by refusing to issue a certificate
required for such project under the Illinois Aeronautics Act,
or by refusing to submit airport improvement grant requests for
the project, or by improperly administering the State
implementation plan process under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.) to prevent construction and operation of the
project.
(8) The city of Chicago is unwilling to continue to go
forward with the project without assurance that future
Governors of Illinois will not be able to stop the project,
thereby endangering the value of the investment of city and
Federal resources in the project.
(9) Because of the importance of O'Hare to the national air
transportation system and the growing congestion at the airport
and because of the expenditure of Federal funds for a master-
planning grant for expansion of capacity at O'Hare, it is
important to the national air transportation system, interstate
commerce, and the efficient expenditure of Federal funds, that
the city of Chicago's proposals to the Federal Aviation
Administration have an opportunity to be considered for Federal
approval and possible funding, that the city's requests for
changes to the State implementation plan to allow such projects
not be denied arbitrarily, and that, if the Federal Aviation
Administration approves the project and funding for a portion
of its cost, the city can implement and use the project.
(10) Any application submitted by the city of Chicago for
expansion of O'Hare should be evaluated by the Federal Aviation
Administration and other Federal agencies under all applicable
Federal laws and regulations and should be approved only if the
application meets all requirements imposed by such laws and
regulations.
(11) As part of the agreement between the city and the State
allowing the city to submit an application for improvement of
O'Hare, there has been an agreement for the continued operation
of Merrill C. Meigs Field by the city, and it has also been
agreed that, if the city does not follow the agreement on Meigs
Field, Federal airport improvement program funds should be
withheld from the city for O'Hare.
(12) To facilitate implementation of the agreement allowing
the city to submit an application for O'Hare, it is desirable
to require by law that Federal airport improvement program
funds for O'Hare be administered to require continued operation
of Merrill C. Meigs Field by the city, as proposed in the
agreement.
(13) To facilitate implementation of the agreement allowing
the city to submit an application for O'Hare, it is desirable
to enact into law provisions of the agreement relating to noise
and public roadway access. These provisions are not
inconsistent with Federal law.
(14) If the Federal Aviation Administration approves an
airport layout plan for O'Hare directly related to the
agreement reached on December 5, 2001, such approvals will
constitute an action of the United States under Federal law and
will be an important first step in the process by which the
Government could decide that these plans should receive Federal
assistance under chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code,
relating to airport development.
(15) The agreement between the State of Illinois and the city
of Chicago includes agreement that the construction of an
airport in Peotone, Illinois, would be proposed by the State to
the Federal Aviation Administration. Like the O'Hare expansion
proposal, the Peotone proposal should receive full
consideration by the Federal Aviation Administration under
standard procedures for approving and funding an airport
improvement project, including all applicable safety, utility
and efficiency, and environmental review.
(16) Gary/Chicago Airport in Gary, Indiana, and the Greater
Rockford Airport, Illinois, may alleviate congestion and
provide additional capacity in the greater Chicago metropolitan
region. Like the O'Hare airport expansion proposal, expansion
efforts by Gary/Chicago and Greater Rockford airports should
receive full consideration by the Federal Aviation
Administration under standard procedures for approving and
funding an airport capacity improvement project, including all
applicable safety, utility and efficiency, and environmental
reviews.

SEC. 3. STATE, CITY, AND FAA AUTHORITY.

(a) Prohibition.--In furtherance of the purpose of this Act to
achieve significant air transportation benefits for interstate and
foreign commerce, if the Federal Aviation Administration makes, or at
any time after December 5, 2001 has made, a grant to the city of
Chicago, Illinois, with the approval of the State of Illinois for
planning or construction of runway improvements at O'Hare International
Airport, the State of Illinois, and any instrumentality or political
subdivision of the State, are prohibited from exercising authority
under sections 38.01, 47, and 48 of the Illinois Aeronautics Act (620
ILCS 5/) to prevent, or have the effect of preventing--
(1) further consideration by the Federal Aviation
Administration of an O'Hare airport layout plan directly
related to the agreement reached by the State and the city on
December 5, 2001, with respect to O'Hare;
(2) construction of projects approved by the Administration
in such O'Hare airport layout plan; or
(3) application by the city of Chicago for Federal airport
improvement program funding for projects approved by the
Administration and shown on such O'Hare airport layout plan.
(b) Applications for Federal Funding.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the city of Chicago is authorized to submit directly
to the Federal Aviation Administration without the approval of the
State of Illinois, applications for Federal airport improvement program
funding for planning and construction of a project shown on an O'Hare
airport layout plan directly related to the agreement reached on
December 5, 2001, and to accept, receive, and disburse such funds
without the approval of the State of Illinois.
(c) Limitation.--If the Federal Aviation Administration determines
that an O'Hare airport layout plan directly related to the agreement
reached on December 5, 2001, will not be approved by the
Administration, subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall expire
and be of no further effect on the date of such determination.
(d) Western Public Roadway Access.--As provided in the December 5,
2001, agreement referred to in subsection (a), the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall not consider an airport layout
plan submitted by the city of Chicago that includes the runway redesign
plan, unless the airport layout plan includes public roadway access
through the existing western boundary of O'Hare to passenger terminal
and parking facilities located inside the boundary of O'Hare and
reasonably accessible to such western access. Approval of western
public roadway access shall be subject to the condition that the cost
of construction be paid for from airport revenues consistent with
Administration revenue use requirements.
(e) Noise Mitigation.--As provided in the December 5, 2001, agreement
referred to in subsection (a), the following apply:
(1) Approval by the Administrator of an airport layout plan
that includes the runway redesign plan shall require the city
of Chicago to offer acoustical treatment of all single-family
houses and schools located within the 65 DNL noise contour for
each construction phase of the runway redesign plan, subject to
Administration guidelines and specifications of general
applicability. The Administrator may not approve the runway
redesign plan unless the city provides the Administrator with
information sufficient to demonstrate that the acoustical
treatment required by this paragraph is feasible.
(2)(A) Approval by the Administrator of an airport layout
plan that includes the runway redesign plan shall be subject to
the condition that noise impact of aircraft operations at
O'Hare in the calendar year immediately following the year in
which the first new runway is first used and in each calendar
year thereafter will be less than the noise impact in calendar
year 2000.
(B) The Administrator shall make the determination described
in subparagraph (A)--
(i) using, to the extent practicable, the procedures
specified in part 150 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations;
(ii) using the same method for calendar year 2000 and
for each forecast year; and
(iii) by determining noise impact solely in terms of
the aggregate number of square miles and the aggregate
number of single-family houses and schools exposed to
65 or greater decibels using the DNL metric, including
only single-family houses and schools in existence on
the last day of calendar year 2000. The Administrator
shall make such determination based on information
provided by the city of Chicago, which shall be
independently verified by the Administrator.
(C) The conditions described in this subsection shall be
enforceable exclusively through the submission and approval of
a noise compatibility plan under part 150 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations. The noise compatibility plan submitted by
the city of Chicago shall provide for compliance with this
subsection. The Administrator shall approve measures sufficient
for compliance with this subsection in accordance with
procedures under such part 150. The United States shall have no
financial responsibility or liability if operations at O'Hare
in any year do not satisfy the conditions in this subsection.
(f) Report to Congress.--If the runway redesign plan described in
this section has not received all Federal, State, and local permits and
approvals necessary to begin construction by December 31, 2004, the
Administrator shall submit a status report to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives
within 120 days of such date identifying each permit and approval
necessary for the project and the status of each such action.
(g) Judicial Review.-- An order issued by the Administrator, in whole
or in part, under this section shall be deemed to be an order issued
under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, and shall
be reviewed in accordance with the procedure in section 46110 of such
title.
(h) Definition.--In this section, the terms ``airport layout plan
directly related to the agreement reached on December 5, 2001'' and
``such airport layout plan'' mean a plan that shows--
(1) 6 parallel runways at O'Hare oriented in the east-west
direction with the capability for 4 simultaneous independent
visual aircraft arrivals in both directions, and all associated
taxiways, navigational facilities, and other related
facilities; and
(2) closure of existing runways 14L-32R, 14R-32L and 18-36 at
O'Hare.

SEC. 4. CLEAN AIR ACT.

(a) Implementation Plan.--An implementation plan shall be prepared by
the State of Illinois under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
in accordance with the State's customary practices for accounting for
and regulating emissions associated with activity at commercial service
airports. The State shall not deviate from its customary practices
under the Clean Air Act for the purpose of interfering with the
construction of a runway pursuant to the redesign plan or the south
surburban airport. At the request of the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, determine that the foregoing condition
has been satisfied before approving an implementation plan. Nothing in
this section shall be construed to affect the obligations of the State
under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)).
(b) Limitation on Approval.--The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall not approve the runway redesign plan
unless the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
determines that the construction and operation will include, to the
maximum extent feasible, the best management practices then reasonably
available to and used by operators of commercial service airports to
mitigate emissions regulated under the implementation plan.

SEC. 5. MERRILL C. MEIGS FIELD.

The State of Illinois and the city of Chicago, Illinois, have agreed
to the following:
(1) Until January 1, 2026, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall withhold all Federal airport
grant funds respecting O'Hare International Airport, other than
grants involving national security and safety, unless the
Administrator is reasonably satisfied that the following
conditions have been met:
(A) Merrill C. Meigs Field in Chicago either is being
operated by the city of Chicago as an airport or has
been closed by the Administration for reasons beyond
the city's control.
(B) The city of Chicago is providing, at its own
expense, all off-airport roads and other access,
services, equipment, and other personal property that
the city provided in connection with the operation of
Meigs Field on and prior to December 1, 2001.
(C) The city of Chicago is operating Meigs Field, at
its own expense, at all times as a public airport in
good condition and repair open to all users capable of
utilizing the airport and is maintaining the airport
for such public operations at least from 6:00 A.M. to
10:00 P.M. 7 days a week whenever weather conditions
permit.
(D) The city of Chicago is providing or causing its
agents or independent contractors to provide all
services (including police and fire protection
services) provided or offered at Meigs Field on or
immediately prior to December 1, 2001, including tie-
down, terminal, refueling, and repair services, at
rates that reflect actual costs of providing such goods
and services.
(2) If Meigs Field is closed by the Administration for
reasons beyond the city of Chicago's control, the conditions
described in subparagraphs (B) through (D) of paragraph (1)
shall not apply.
(3) After January 1, 2006, the Administrator shall not
withhold Federal airport grant funds to the extent the
Administrator determines that withholding of such funds would
create an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
(4) The Administrator shall not enforce the conditions listed
in paragraph (1) if the State of Illinois enacts a law on or
after January 1, 2006, authorizing the closure of Meigs Field.
(5) Net operating losses resulting from operation of Meigs
Field, to the extent consistent with law, are expected to be
paid by the 2 air carriers at O'Hare International Airport that
paid the highest amount of airport fees and charges at O'Hare
International Airport for the preceding calendar year.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the city of Chicago
may use airport revenues generated at O'Hare International
Airport to fund the operation of Meigs Field.

SEC. 6. APPLICATION WITH EXISTING LAW.

Nothing in this Act shall give any priority to or affect availability
or amounts of funds under chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code,
to pay the costs of O'Hare International Airport, improvements shown on
an airport layout plan directly related to the agreement reached by the
State of Illinois and the city of Chicago, Illinois, on December 5,
2001.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON QUIET AIRCRAFT TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.

It is the sense of the Congress that the Office of Environment and
Energy of the Federal Aviation Administration should be funded to carry
out noise mitigation programming and quiet aircraft technology research
and development at a level of $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and
$47,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 3479, the ``National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act
of 2002'' codifies the agreement reached by the State of
Illinois and the city of Chicago regarding capacity enhancement
projects at Chicago O'Hare International Airport and at
regional reliever airports.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Chicago O'Hare International Airport (O'Hare) is one of the
world's busiest airports and one of the nation's most delayed.
The events of September 11th have resulted in a brief reprieve
from the congestion, delays, and capacity issues that have
burdened the aviation system in the past. However, as the
economy improves and travelers resume their normal habits,
O'Hare will eventually return to its pre-September 11th
gridlock. This is unacceptable given the critical role O'Hare
plays in the national air transportation system. When flights
are delayed or grounded at O'Hare, the results are felt
throughout the national system.
O'Hare is crucial not only to the national air
transportation system, but also to interstate and international
commerce. It is the only airport in the country that supports
domestic hub operations for two major airlines. Over 70 million
people a year use the airport. That equates to an average of
close to 192,000 passengers each day. One way to address
national aviation capacity issues is to solve the gridlock
found at O'Hare.
For years, State and local governmental officials were
unable to come to an agreement on how to address the aviation
capacity issues in the greater-Chicago region. However, at the
end of the 2001, the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of
Chicago reached an agreement on how to enhance aviation
capacity in the region. But, the agreement is not binding on
future administrations. Therefore, before committing to the
more than six billion dollar capacity enhancement project at
O'Hare, the city sought assurances that the agreement would not
be abandoned by the State in the future. H.R. 3479 provides
these assurances.
H.R. 3479 codifies the agreement reached by local and State
leaders regarding capacity enhancement projects at O'Hare and
at regional reliever airports. The bill provides that the
agreed-to enhancement projects will be given full consideration
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). With this
legislation, O'Hare and other regional aviation capacity
enhancement projects can be pursued without the risk of
investing Federal and local dollars in projects that could be
halted, left incomplete, delayed, or significantly altered in
the future. As airport operators, the State of Illinois and the
city of Chicago are participants in interstate commerce and are
subject to congressional regulatory authority.
Therefore, should the FAA choose to fund, through customary
FAA procedures, the O'Hare capacity enhancement project, then
H.R. 3479 preempts state law. Under H.R. 3479, the State would
be prohibited from using its authority under state law to
prevent FAA consideration and funding of the project. The State
would likewise be prohibited from preventing construction of
the project by the city of Chicago. The bill authorizes the
city of Chicago to seek Federal funding directly from the FAA
without approval of the State of Illinois, and the city can
directly accept, receive and disburse awarded Federal money as
well.
This bill ensures that state law will not prevent the
Federal government from spending Federal funds the way the
Federal government intends they be spent. Therefore, H.R. 3479
specifically and directly ties the preemption of state law to
Federal funding of the O'Hare capacity enhancement project. The
preemption law would expire immediately upon a decision by the
FAA not to fund construction of the O'Hare capacity enhancement
project. At that point, the bill would have no further affect
on state law.
As a condition of FAA approval of any airport layout plan,
H.R. 3479 provides that there must be western public roadway
access and noise mitigation by the city of Chicago. The noise
mitigation agreed to by the city includes noise insulation
treatment for all single-family homes and schools within the 65
DNL noise contour. The FAA will oversee the noise mitigation
efforts by the city following Part 150, noise compatibility
procedures.
The legislation also requires that the State of Illinois
not alter its customary practices under the Clean Air Act for
accounting for and regulating emissions at commercial airports.
This provision is designed to prevent the state from utilizing
the Clean Air Act to interfere with the construction of a
runway at either O'Hare or the south suburban airport. The bill
does not affect or alter the state's obligations under the
Clean Air Act, rather it ensures that the state will not
deviate from its customary practices.
Under the bill, unless the FAA closes Merrill C. Meigs
Field (Meigs Field), the city of Chicago must operate the
airport until January 1, 2026, under certain prescribed
conditions. The FAA is to enforce these conditions by partial
withholding of Federal airport grant funding. However, the bill
also provides that Meigs Field could be closed anytime after
January 2006, with the State's concurrence. Therefore, the city
of Chicago must continue operating Meigs Field unless the FAA
or the State of Illinois closes it. H.R. 3479 ties continued
operation of Meigs Field to FAA airport grant funds for O'Hare
barring certain conditions out of the city's control.

SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1.--Short title

This Act may be cited as the ``National Aviation Capacity
Expansion Act of 2002''.

Sec. 2.--Findings

Paragraph (1) finds that O'Hare International Airport is
one of the world's busiest airports with forecasted increase in
demand of 18 percent over the next ten years.
Paragraph (2) finds that O'Hare ranks as the third most
delayed airport in the United States.
Paragraph (3) finds that the city of Chicago, the owner and
operator of the airport, and the State of Illinois had been
unable to reach agreement on a plan for runway reconfiguration
and development for more than 20 years.
Paragraph (4) finds that the Governor of Illinois and the
Mayor of Chicago reached an agreement on December 5, 2001 to
allow the city to go ahead with a proposed capacity enhancement
project at O'Hare.
Paragraph (5) finds that the city, with the State's
approval, applied for and received a master-planning grant from
the FAA for the capacity enhancement project.
Paragraph (6) finds that the agreement between the city and
State is not binding on future Governors of Illinois.
Paragraph (7) finds that future governors could stop the
capacity enhancement project at O'Hare.
Paragraph (8) finds that the city is unwilling to go
forward with the project without assurances that future
governors will not stop the project.
Paragraph (9) finds that O'Hare is critical to the national
air transportation system and interstate commerce and that it
is important that the capacity enhancement project be given
full consideration by the FAA.
Paragraph (10) finds that the capacity enhancement project
should be evaluated under all applicable laws and should be
approved only if all requirements have been met.
Paragraph (11) finds that the agreement includes the
continued operation of Merrill C. Meigs Field by the city.
Paragraph (12) finds that to aid in the implementation of
the agreement, it is desirable to condition Federal funding for
O'Hare on the city's continued operation of Meigs Field.
Paragraph (13) finds that to facilitate the agreement,
provisions of the agreement dealing with noise and public
access should be enacted into law.
Paragraph (14) finds that if the FAA approves an airport
layout plan for O'Hare based directly on the December 2001
agreement that action will constitute an action of the United
States under Federal law.
Paragraph (15) finds that the agreement contains an
agreement that the State of Illinois will propose construction
of an airport in Peotone, Illinois and that the FAA should give
full consideration to such a proposal by the State under
standard procedures.
Paragraph (16) finds that expansion projects at Gary
Airport and the Greater Rockford Airport should be given full
consideration by the FAA under standard procedures as those
airports may ease congestion and provide additional capacity
for the region.

Sec. 3.--State, city, and FAA authority

Subsection (a) provides that if the FAA approves Federal
funding for planning or construction of runway improvements at
O'Hare, with the approval of the State, then the State is
prohibited from exercising its authority under State law to
prevent (1) consideration by the FAA of an O'Hare layout plan,
(2) construction of projects in an approved plan, or (3)
application by the city for Federal airport improvement funding
for projects on the approved plan.
Subsection (b) permits the city of Chicago to apply for
airport improvement funding for O'Hare capacity enhancement
projects directly to the FAA without prior approval of the
State of Illinois and to accept, receive, and disburse any
granted Federal funds without the State's approval.
Subsection (c) provides that the provisions of subsections
(a) and (b) expire if the O'Hare airport layout plan directly
related to the agreement between the city and State is not
approved by the FAA.
Subsection (d) prohibits the FAA from considering an O'Hare
airport layout plan for runway redesign without public roadway
access through the existing western boundary of the airport.
Paragraph (e)(1) requires the city of Chicago to include
noise mitigation for single-family houses and schools within
the 65 DNL noise contour for each construction phase covered by
an airport layout plan submitted to the FAA. It also prohibits
the FAA from approving a runway redesign plan that does not
demonstrate the feasibility of the noise mitigation required by
this paragraph.
Paragraph (e)(2)(A) provides that as a condition of
approval of an airport layout plan that includes runway
redesign, the noise impact of aircraft operations at O'Hare for
the year following the first year of new runway use, and each
calendar year thereafter, must be less than the noise impact in
calendar year 2000.
Paragraph (e)(2)(B) directs the FAA to evaluate the airport
layout plan (i) using the procedures set forth in part 150 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; (ii) using the same
methodology for 2000 and each year thereafter; and (iii) by
determining the noise impact for the aggregate square miles and
aggregate single-family houses and schools existing on the last
day of 2000.
Paragraph (e)(2)(C) provides that the noise mitigation
requirements agreed to by the city of Chicago shall be
enforceable through the Part 150 noise compatibility plan
program and that Part 150 procedures shall be followed by the
FAA. It also provides that the United States is not liable or
financially responsible if the noise conditions at O'Hare do
not satisfy the conditions of this section.
Subsection (f) requires the FAA to submit a Report to
Congress if the runway redesign plan referred to in this
section has not received all Federal, state and local permits
and approvals required so that construction can begin by
December 31, 2004.
Subsection (g) provides for appellate judicial review of
any order issued by the FAA under this section.
Subsection (h) sets forth the definitions for this section.

Sec. 4.--Clean Air Act

Subsection (a) requires the State of Illinois to prepare an
implementation plan following its customary practices for
considering air emissions for commercial airports. The State
may not deviate from its customary practices in an effort to
prevent the construction of runways at O'Hare or the south
suburban airport. The subsection further provides that the FAA
and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall consult and
determine whether the State has followed its customary
practices before approving the State Implementation Plan. All
obligations under the Clean Air Act are unaffected by this
section.
Subsection (b) requires the FAA to ensure the construction
and operation of the runway will include the best management
practices available and feasible prior to approving the runway
redesign plan.

Sec. 5.--Merrill C. Meigs Field

Section 5 codifies the agreement reached by the city of
Chicago and the State of Illinois regarding the operation of
Merrill C. Meigs Field (Meigs Field).
Subsection (1) directs the FAA to withhold Federal funding
for O'Hare, except for grants involving national security and
safety, unless all the following conditions are reasonably
satisfied:
(A) Meigs Field is operated by the City or closed by the
FAA.
(B) The city is providing, at its own expense, all off-
airport roads, access, services, equipment, and personal
property that the city provided on or prior to December 1,
2001.
(C) The city is operating Meigs Field, at its own expense,
as a public airport for operations at least from 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m., seven days a week as weather permits.
(D) The city is providing all services provided or offered
at Meigs Field on or immediately prior to December 31, 2001.
Subsection (2) provides that if the FAA closes Meigs Field,
the conditions set forth in subsections (1)(B)-(D) no longer
apply.
Subsection (3) states that after January 1, 2006, the FAA
shall not withhold Federal funds if the FAA determines that it
would create an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
Subsection (4) provides that if on or after January 1, 2006
the State of Illinois by law authorizes the closure of Meigs
Field, then the FAA shall not enforce the conditions set forth
in Subsection (1).
Subsection (5) provides that the two air carriers at O'Hare
paying the highest airport fees in the preceding year are
expected to pay any net operating losses resulting from the
operation of Meigs Field. The subsection also allows the city
to use airport revenues generated at O'Hare to fund Meigs
Field.

Sec. 6.--Application with existing law

Section 6 provides that the legislation does not give any
priority to or affect the availability or amounts of Federal
funding to pay for improvements at O'Hare agreed to by the city
of Chicago and the State of Illinois in December 2001.

Sec. 7.--Sense of Congress on quiet aircraft technology research and
development

Section 7 states that it is the sense of Congress that the
FAA should be funded to research and develop noise mitigation
programming and quiet aircraft technology for fiscal years 2004
and 2005.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

H.R. 3479 was introduced by Aviation Subcommittee Ranking
Member William Lipinski, Mr. Costello, Mr. Davis of Illinois,
Mr. Rush, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Evans, Mr. Blagojevich, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Rahall,
Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Filner, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Baird, Mr. Wu, Mr. Borski, Mr. Clement, Mr.
Barcia, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Shimkus, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr.
Pascrell, Mr. Holden, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Honda, Mr. Kirk, Mr.
Nadler, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Sandlin, Mr.
Carson of Oklahoma, Mr. Horn, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Engel, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Sawyer, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Dicks,
Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, Mr. LaFalce,
Mr. Duncan, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Towns, Mr. Hinojosa,
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr.
Capuano, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Meehan, Ms. Velazquez,
Mr. Mica, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Lampson,
Mr. Pastor, and Mr. Serrano. It was referred to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure. An Aviation Subcommittee
hearing was held on H.R. 3479 on March 6, 2002. A full
committee mark-up was held on June 26, 2002, where the bill, as
amended, was approved unanimously by voice vote. The
Subcommittee on Aviation was discharged on June 26, 2002. The
amended legislation was ordered reported to the House
unanimously by voice vote.

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no rollcall votes during consideration of the bill.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.

COST OF LEGISLATION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included below.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to
allow full Federal Aviation Administration consideration of the
airport capacity enhancement plan proposed for O'Hare to assist
in addressing the capacity needs of the national aviation
system and aid interstate commerce.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R.
3479 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 10, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3479, the National
Aviation Capacity Expansion Act of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel
Milberg.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

H.R. 3479--National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act of 2002

Summary: On December 5, 2001, the mayor of Chicago and the
governor of Illinois entered into an agreement to expand runway
capacity at O'Hare International Airport. For projects included
in this agreement, H.R. 3479 would allow the city of Chicago to
apply for grants directly to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) without the approval of the state of
Illinois, and the bill would prohibit the state from preventing
the city's use of FAA grants. H.R. 3479 also would authorize
the appropriation of $84 million to FAA for research on noise
mitigation and quiet aircraft technology.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts for FAA
research, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3479 would cost
$84 million over the 2004-2007 period. CBO estimates that the
provisions related to O'Hare International Airport would have
no significant impact on federal spending. H.R. 3479 would not
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply.
H.R. 3479 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates that
the costs for state, local, or tribal governments would not
exceed the threshold established in that act ($58 million in
2002, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no
new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 3479 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400
(transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization level....................................... 0 0 37 47 0 0
Estimated outlays......................................... 0 0 20 38 20 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
3479 will be enacted this year and that the authorized amounts
will be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Estimated
outlays are based on information from the Federal Aviation
Administration and historical spending patterns of similar
programs.
CBO estimates that the provisions related to O'Hare
International Airport would have no significant impact on
federal spending. The bill could affect which projects the FAA
chooses to support, but based on information from the agency,
CBO estimates that H.R. 3479 would have no effect on total
spending for such projects.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
The bill would preempt the state of Illinois' authority to
regulate certain activities of the owner of O'Hare
International Airport. Specifically, the bill would preempt the
state's authority to control or regulate the city of Chicago as
it applies for federal grant funds to pay for the airport
expansion. In addition, the state would be prohibited from
using the Clean Air Act to interfere with runway construction
at O'Hare or development of another airport south of Chicago.
These preemptions would be intergovernmental mandates as
defined in UMRA.
In implementing the runway redesign plan at O'Hare, the
city of Chicago would have to expand its current noise
mitigation program for single-family homes and schools around
the airport. Because the bill would increase the existing
requirement, the noise mitigation provision would be an
intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA.
Based on information from the FAA and the city of Chicago,
CBO estimates that the preemptions of state authority and the
requirements placed on the city would not impose significant
costs. Thus, the costs of the bill's mandates would not exceed
the threshold established by UMRA ($58 million in 2002,
adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On May 7, 2002, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 2039, the National Aviation Capacity
Expansion Act of 2002, as ordered reported by the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on April 18,
2002. S. 2039 is very similar to H.R. 3479, but the Senate bill
would not authorize the appropriation of funds for research on
noise mitigation and quiet aircraft technology. For this
reason, CBO estimated that implementing S. 2039 would have no
significant impact on federal spending.
Estimated prepared by: Federal costs: Rachel Milberg;
impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Greg Waring;
impact on the private sector: Jean Talarico.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or
joint resolution of a public character shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1994
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local or
tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 3479 preempts state
law, but does not preempt local or tribal law. Sections 3(a)
and (b) of the bill preempt Sections 38.01, 47, and 48 of the
Illinois Aeronautics Act. However, H.R. 3479 specifically and
directly ties the preemption of state law to Federal funding of
the O'Hare capacity enhancement project. This ensures that
state law will not prevent the Federal government from spending
Federal funds the way the Federal government intends they be
spent. The preemption law would expire immediately upon a
decision by the FAA not to fund construction of the O'Hare
capacity enhancement project.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. (Public Law
104-1).

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE THE BILL, AS REPORTED

The legislation makes no changes in existing law.

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has had under consideration H.R. 3479 the
National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act. In that bill there is
a provision which falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Science. Specifically, that provision is a sense of Congress
amendment which would ask the Federal Aviation Administration
expend monies for research and development for noise mitigation
programs.
By waiving consideration of H.R. 3479 the Committee on
Science does not waive any of its jurisdictional rights and
prerogatives.
I ask that you would support our request for conferees on
H.R. 3479 or similar legislation if a conference should be
convened with the Senate. I also ask that our exchange of
letters be included in your committee's report and also in the
Congressional Record.
I look forward to working with you on this and other
important pieces of legislation.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman.
------

House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2002.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 12,
2002, regarding H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity
Expansion Act, and for your willingness to waive consideration
of provisions in the bill that fall within your Committee's
jurisdiction under House Rules.
I agree that your waiving consideration of relevant
provisions of H.R. 3479 does not waive your Committee's
jurisdiction over the bill. I also acknowledge your right to
seek conferees on any provisions that are under your
Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on
H.R. 3479 or similar legislation, and will support your request
for conferees on such provisions.
Your letter and this response will be included in the
Congressional Record during consideration on the House Floor.
Thank you for your cooperation in moving this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.