Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

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.