Order Code IB10121
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Reauthorization of the
Federal Aviation Administration
Updated June 11, 2003
Bartholomew Elias, John Fischer, and Robert Kirk
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
State of the Aviation Industry
Competition and Delay Issues
Reagan National Airport Slots
War Risk Insurance
Improving Air Service to Isolated Communities
Airport and Airway Trust Fund (Aviation Trust Fund) Issues
Airport Development
Reauthorization Proposals and Issues
Increasing Capacity and Reducing Congestion: National Capacity Projects
Apportionment and Eligibility Changes: Relief and Support to Small Airports
Discretionary Fund Changes
Airport Noise Issues
Passenger Facility Charge Issues
Privatization
Airport Security Project Eligibility
Runway Safety Areas
Environmental Streamlining
Airway Facilities Improvements and Air Traffic Modernization
Cost Sharing for Air Traffic Modernization Projects
Wake Vortex Advisory System
Ground-Based Precision Navigation Aids
Gulf of Mexico
Enhancing the Safety and Security of the Aviation System
Security Enhancements at Airports
FAA Oversight of Operators and Maintenance Facilities
Aviation Maintenance Training and Manuals
Flight Attendant Certification
Cabin Air Quality
Investing in the Future of Aviation
Coordination of Research and Development Efforts
Aviation and Aerospace Education
Identified Research Programs
FAA Organizational Issues
Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Air Traffic Control Privatization
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10121
06-11-03
Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration
SUMMARY
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Invest-
mitigation, aviation safety, and air traffic
ment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
control privatization.
(FAIR21 or AIR21; P.L. 106-181), which
currently provides authorization for the Fed-
On May 1, 2003, the Senate Committee
eral Aviation Administration (FAA) and
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
related aviation programs, expires at the end
convened a mark-up session to review the
of FY2003. Consequently, the 108th Congress
Senate proposal for FAA reauthorization, the
has been engaged in the process of drafting
Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision
and debating legislation to reauthorize the
Act (AIR-V, S. 824). The Committee ordered
FAA and related aviation programs for future
S. 824 to be reported to the full Senate, with
years.
amendments. On May 2, 2003, S. 824 was
reported in the Senate (Calendar No. 83). The
A number of issues have risen to promin-
bill proposes a three-year reauthorization for
ence in the reauthorization debate. The condi-
FY2004-FY2006 totaling $43.5 billion.
tion of the airline industry, while not directly
addressed in the bills, has had an impact on
On May 15, 2003, H.R. 2115, Flight
the debate because the aviation industry's
100–Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act,
recessionary environment has constrained the
was introduced in the House of Representa-
trust fund revenues that support most of the
tives following a May 14, 2003 Aviation
FAA budget. Increasing capacity and reducing
Subcommittee mark-up meeting on the draft
future congestion and delay are issues that are
bill. On May 21, 2003, the House Transporta-
addressed in both airport development propos-
tion and Infrastructure Committee convened a
als as well as proposals concerning air traffic
mark-up session on H.R. 2115, and ordered
modernization. "Environmental streamlining"
the bill reported with amendments. H.R. 2115
is also a major element of the reauthorization
would reauthorize the FAA’s operations,
debate, involving proposals to expedite
facilities and equipment, and airport planning
environmental reviews potentially affecting
components for four years at funding levels
the completion of airport capacity capital
slightly higher than those proposed in the
projects. Funding security enhancements at
Senate bill. H.R. 2271, containing details of
airports without depleting the Airport and
the FAA research, engineering, and develop-
Airway Trust Fund of funds needed to support
ment function, was introduced on May 22,
the national system’s other needs has become
2003. It is expected that the House Space and
a significant issue in the debate. Subsidizing
Aeronautics Subcommittee will hold a mark-
air service to isolated communities is a peren-
up session to review this legislation in the near
nial issue in FAA reauthorization as are other
future.
issues such as federal aid for airport noise
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10121
06-11-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On May 1, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
convened a mark-up session to review the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act
(AIR-V, S. 824). The committee ordered S. 824 to be reported in the full Senate, with
amendments. On May 2, 2003, S. 824 was reported in the Senate (Calendar No. 83).
On May 15, 2003, H.R. 2115, Flight 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act,
was introduced in the House of Representatives following a May 14, 2003 Aviation
Subcommittee mark-up meeting on the draft bill. On May 21, 2003, the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee convened a mark-up session on the bill, and
ordered the bill reported with amendments. On May 22, 2003, H.R. 2271, the Second
Century of Flight Act, was introduced in the House.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21 or AIR21; P.L. 106-181), which currently provides authorization for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and related aviation programs, expires at the end of fiscal
year 2003. Consequently, the 108th Congress has been engaged in the process of drafting and
debating legislation to reauthorize the FAA and related aviation programs for future years.
The Senate proposal for FAA reauthorization, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization
Vision Act (AIR-V, S. 824), has been reported in the Senate and proposes a three-year
reauthorization for FY2004-FY2006 totaling $43.5 billion. The House proposal, H.R. 2115,
dubbed Flight-100 in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of powered flight, would
reauthorize the agency’s operations, facilities and equipment, and airport planning budgets
for four years at funding levels slightly higher than those proposed in the Senate bill, totaling
$58.2 billion over 4 years. H.R. 2271, the Second Century of Flight Act proposes a three-
year funding plan for FAA’s research, engineering, and development at levels identical to the
Senate bill.
Both the Senate and House bills provide for slight increases in funding across all
program areas over the next three and four years respectively. By comparison, the
Administration’s four-year proposal, also called Flight-100, proposes flat funding for airport
development that is held fixed at $3.4 billion per year, minor increases for other programs
and significantly reduced funding for Research, Engineering, and Development. A summary
of the proposed funding authorizations in the House, Senate, and Administration bills is
provided in Table 1.
This issue brief discusses major elements of the proposed legislation and significant
issues that may be considered during debate over FAA reauthorization, including the
economic outlook for the aviation industry and its impact on aviation program funds;
initiatives to promote and ensure air service for isolated communities; funding for airport
development; initiatives to improve aviation safety and security; initiatives to promote
aviation and aerospace research and technology; and FAA organizational issues.
CRS-1

---

IB10121
06-11-03
Table 1. Reauthorization Funding Levels by Program ($ Billion).
Program
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
Airport Improvement Program
Senate:
3.400
3.500
3.600
--
(AIP)
House:
3.400
3.600
3.800
4.000
Admin:
3.400
3.400
3.400
3.400
Facilities and Equipment
Senate:
2.916
2.971
3.030
--
(F&E)
House:
2.938
2.993
3.053
3.110
Admin:
2.916
2.971
3.031
3.098
FAA Operations and
Senate:
7.591
7.732
7.889
--
Maintenance (O&M)
House:
7.591
7.732
7.889
8.064
Admin:
7.591
7.732
7.889
8.064
Research, Engineering, and
Senate:
0.289
0.304
0.317
--
Development (RE&D)
House*:
0.289
0.304
0.317
--
Admin:
0.100
0.102
0.104
0.107
TOTAL
Senate:
14.196
14.507
14.836
--
House**:
13.929
14.325
14.742
15.174
Admin:
14.007
14.205
14.423
14.669
*House RE&D provisions introduced in H.R. 2271.
**House totals do not include RE&D provisions in H.R. 2271.
State of the Aviation Industry
Reauthorization of the FAA is occurring against the backdrop of the effects of the war
in Iraq, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and lingering concerns about terrorism
dating back to September 11. All facets of the aviation industry are operating in a
recessionary environment, even though the official recession as defined by the Treasury has
ended. According to the FAA's Aerospace Forecasts for Fiscal Years 2003 - 2014 (issued
March 2003), any recovery in the demand for aviation services was "stalled" even before the
Iraq war started. There was an expectation, now realized, that the demand for aviation
services would decrease if a war took place. In the first quarter of 2003, United Airlines
alone had losses of $1.3 billion and most other U.S. air carriers, with the notable exceptions
of Southwest and some other newly emergent air carriers, lost equally impressive sums. The
economic pain of the current situation is not limited to the airlines, but extends across the
broad spectrum of aviation industry activities.
Reauthorization is not normally viewed as a vehicle for addressing the overall financial
health of the aviation industry. During consideration of AIR21, the focus was on making
sure that there would be enough air traffic control and airport capacity to facilitate the rapid
growth occurring in all sectors of the industry at that time. This imperative was particularly
important to the authors of AIR21, who raised funding for many FAA programs, but
especially the airport improvement program (AIP).
Although aviation growth is currently "stalled" it is believed that this situation is
temporary. The same FAA forecast mentioned above expected that industry growth would
resume later this year, albeit at lower levels then those experienced at the end of the 1990s.
CRS-2

---

IB10121
06-11-03
It is hoped, barring further destabilizing incidents, that this industry will return to its
historical growth patterns. When growth does recur many of the same concerns about
overtaxed infrastructure will return.
Competition and Delay Issues. The Senate bill addresses a number of long-
standing concerns about competition and delay in the overall aviation system and at key
airports. A provision of the Senate bill allows the Secretary of Transportation to call for
meetings between the FAA and airlines if it is deemed necessary to consider flight
reductions/rescheduling at an airport. These meetings are to be held using procedures
developed by the Secretary. At the moment, specific airport flight delays are not an issue,
but prior to September 11 these issues arose at a number of congested airports including, for
example, New York LaGuardia and Chicago O'Hare. Without this process a meeting
between airlines to discuss schedules would run afoul of antitrust concerns.
The House bill also has provisions that allow for scheduling meetings during "capacity
reduction events." The House plan creates a demonstration or pilot program that allows
"collaborative decision making" at three airports during congested periods, in the interest of
improving efficiency. There are a number of conditions that must be met for a scheduling
meeting to take place and the Secretary of Transportation can offer limited immunity from
antitrust law. The program is to run for two years, but can be extended for an additional two
years and expanded to include up to seven additional airports.
Two other provisions of the Senate bill are aimed at ensuring that all airlines have
reasonable access to gates and other facilities at airports. First, the bill calls for a DOT study
of competition and access at hub airports. The second provision requires that hub airports
denying airline requests for facilities must notify the Secretary as why the request was denied
and also identify when they expect to be able to fulfill the airline request. These provisions
while seemingly straight forward, potentially raise issues about DOT intrusion into the
business decisions of local airport operators and are likely to be controversial as a result.
There are no similar provisions in the House bill.
Reagan National Airport Slots. There are four slot-controlled airports in the
United States. In only one instance, Reagan National Airport, are the slots determined by
federal statute. Reagan National has long operated with limited slots (takeoffs and landings)
and with a perimeter rule that limits flights beyond 1,250 miles. These rules were originally
put in place to move long haul flights to the then underutilized Dulles International Airport,
and legislation that created the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority in the mid-1980s
reaffirmed them in federal statute. These rules have always been controversial. Many
Washington area residents support the existing slot system and object to additional flights
for noise and other environmental reasons. Some residents of states outside the perimeter
have been opposed to these rules, protesting their lack of access to the area's most convenient
airport.
AIR21 broke the perimeter barrier for the first time, by allowing a limited number of
additional slots for service beyond the perimeter. An amendment to the Senate bill in
Committee, would further increase the number of daily round-trip slots available for beyond-
the-perimeter locations from 6 to 12. This amendment was the most controversial of the
issues considered in Committee. It now appears that this provision has been withdrawn from
the bill and will not appear in the version of the bill to be considered during Senate floor
CRS-3

---

IB10121
06-11-03
debate. There is still a possibility that proponents of beyond slots will try to reintroduce
these provisions during floor debate. The House increases the number of slots at National
adding 9 new daily-round trips (18 slots) outside the perimeter and 6 round-trips within the
perimeter (12 slots). The provision is expected to be controversial in the House.
War Risk Insurance. Immediately following the events of September 11th private
market insurance firms stopped offering terrorism coverage as part of their offerings to the
airline industry. This was partially a response to the potentially large costs engendered by
claims resulting from the terrorist actions and partially a concern that the announced "war
on terrorism" might make this an even more risky insurance product in the years ahead.
Although air carriers have traditionally provided at least some degree of insurance self
coverage, they have always been reliant on the larger insurance and reinsurance markets to
provide catastrophic coverage. And they must carry coverage in order to satisfy operating
certificate requirements (all airlines must have an operating certificate issued by DOT), lien
holders, and other interested parties.
Federally offered war risk insurance has been a feature of federal aviation policy since
the cold war era. It is considered an important element in the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet
(CRAF) program that makes civilian aircraft available to the military in times of national
emergency. In light of the lack of a private market for terrorism insurance at what is
considered a reasonable price, Congress has offered the airline industry extended coverage
under the war risk program. This coverage has been extended several times, most recently
by the emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for FY2003 (P.L. 108-11) which
provides coverage until the end of 2004. Reauthorization proposed in the Senate bill would
extend this coverage until the end of 2007, thereby giving U.S. air carriers an extended
period of certainty on the availability of coverage. An amendment adopted in Committee
would extend war risk insurance to aircraft manufacturers for the first time. Eligibility would
be at the discretion of the Secretary and could only apply for loss or damage claims of over
$50 million. The House bill also extends war risk insurance to the end of 2007 for the
domestic market. However, for international flights the House proposes to make federal war
risk insurance availability permanent.

Improving Air Service to Isolated Communities. The Essential Air Service
(EAS) program and the Small Community Air Service Development (SCASD) Pilot Program
were designed to address the difficulties in obtaining and maintaining air service in small,
isolated communities where access to the national air transportation system is limited. Both
the House and the Senate bills seek to reauthorize these programs and restructure the EAS
program. Additionally the House proposes to establish a National Commission on Small
Community Air Service. A related Committee approved amendment to the House bill would
allow operators of aircraft with 10 or fewer seats to sell individual seats at negotiated prices
to promote alternative air service in small communities.
The Essential Air Service Program. EAS provides subsidies directly to air
carriers for providing service between selected small communities and hub airports. The
program was originally established in 1978 as part of airline deregulation to ensure a
minimum level of air service at smaller communities that may otherwise lose service because
of economic factors. At present, 125 communities in the United States and its territories
participate in the EAS program and this number is expected to increase given that current
financial conditions may prompt air carriers to discontinue service without subsidies.
CRS-4

---

IB10121
06-11-03
However, the effectiveness of the current EAS program has been questioned as total
passenger traffic among EAS communities has declined 20% since 1995.
The Senate seeks to authorize a funding level of $113 million per year for EAS, which
would maintain the program at its currently funded level. The House bill on the other hand
would authorize funding levels for EAS using any available and otherwise unobligated funds
plus $65 million in additional funds for each fiscal year. The House bill also contains a
provision to phase in a local government contribution to the EAS program for those eligible
communities located less than 170 miles from a large or medium hub or less than 75 miles
from a small hub airport. The phased-in community share would start at 2.5% in 2005 and
would increase by an additional 2.5% each year, topping out at 10% in 2008.
Both the House and Senate bills propose several modifications to the program intended
to increase program flexibility and transportation options to link EAS communities to the
national aviation network. The Senate plan includes a marketing incentive program that can
provide EAS communities with grants of up to $50,000 for implementing marketing plans
to increase ridership. Communities must be willing to match 25% of the grant with non-
Federal funds, but the proposal includes incentives to offset these costs, dropping the non-
Federal share to 10% the following year if the community realizes a 25 percent gain in
ridership, and to zero if the community achieves a 50 percent increase in ridership. The
Senate bill would authorize $12 million each year for fiscal years 2004-2007 to fund this
initiative and limits administrative costs to $200,000 per year. The Senate bill also includes
a proposed community flexibility plan allowing EAS communities to opt out of the program
for a 10-year period in exchange for a grant equivalent to 2 years of EAS subsidies, and an
equipment change option that would permit up to 10 communities to propose using smaller
equipment, possibly with more frequent flights, so long as doing so does not compromise
flight safety. The Senate bill also proposes to allow communities or consortia of
communities to share the costs of providing a level of air service beyond that provided by
basic EAS, and seeks to implement a pilot program that would require designated EAS
communities within 100 miles of a hub airport to assume 10 percent of the community’s
EAS subsidy costs over a 3-year period. The House bill similarly contains provisions for a
community and regional choice program as an alternate to EAS. The House bill provides for
a community and regional choice program that would establish an alternative to EAS in
which eligible communities are funded directly and can then use the funds toward a variety
of air transportation options that are not available under the traditional EAS program. Under
the House plan, eligible communities can use funds received to provide subsidies to an air
carrier or an on-demand air taxi service; for scheduled or on-demand surface transportation
linking the community with another airport; to purchase aircraft or fractional ownership in
aircraft; or to pay for other transportation options approved by the DOT. Under the
community and regional choice program, multiple communities can join together to combine
resources for providing transportation throughout a given region.

Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program. Both the House
and Senate bills contain provisions to reauthorize the Small Community Air Service
Development (SCASD) Pilot Program. The program was established under AIR 21 to
develop solutions for improving air carrier service to communities that are experiencing
insufficient access to the national air transportation system. The funding provides direct
grants to selected communities for implementing strategies to improve the availability and
pricing of air service. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has cautioned that it is still too
CRS-5

---

IB10121
06-11-03
early to assess the long term impact of this program and has noted that many of the programs
receiving grants appear similar to prior programs tried by communities using state, local, and
private funds and may not be sustainable beyond the period of subsidized funding. The
Senate bill would authorize $27.5 million per year for the program, whereas the House bill
would authorize $35 million per year. The House bill also seeks to remove the per state limit
on grants and adds wording to give preference to communities that can use grant monies in
the year they are received.
Airport and Airway Trust Fund (Aviation Trust Fund) Issues
The airport and airway trust fund, also known as the aviation trust fund, provides all
funding for three of the FAA's four major programs; the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP), Facilities and Equipment (F&E), and Research, Engineering, and Development
(RE&D). It also provides significant funding for the Operations and Maintenance Program
(O&M). O&M, however, as a result of long standing agreements, also receives funding from
U.S. Treasury General Funds. The split between trust fund and general fund monies on
O&M has always been somewhat controversial and could again become an issue in this
reauthorization cycle.
The poor economic condition of the aviation industry is having a negative effect on trust
fund revenues. Trust fund revenues more than doubled between FY1990 ($4.9 billion) and
FY2000 ($10.7 billion). The trend, however, changed dramatically in the new century. In
FY2001, revenues fell slightly to $10.2 billion. In FY2002 they dropped slightly again to
$10.1 billion. Predictions made prior to the Iraq War, which now might be optimistic,
foresaw a slight increase in FY2003 to $10.2 billion, followed by a recovery in more typical
growth to an FY2004 level of $11.1 billion. Because aviation spending has remained
constant, as required by AIR21, there has been a steady decline in the uncommited balance
in the trust fund, which stood at $4.8 billion at the end of FY2002.
AIR21 created a budgetary regime for aviation programs that was closely linked to the
availability of funds in the trust fund. In simple terms, appropriators were required to fully
fund AIP and F&E at authorized levels, and must further account for all trust fund revenues
prior to determining the general fund share that would be provided for O&M in a fiscal year.
This is a part of the so-called funding "guarantee" that is designed to insure that all trust fund
income is spent on aviation and not other transportation activities. Both the House and
Senate bills continue this process.
The Senate, House, and Administration reauthorization proposals call for only modest
growth in the FAA budget (just over $14.0 billion in FY2004). Further, growth is limited
over the next two years (Senate) or three years (Administration). The House, however,
provides somewhat more funding over four years, primarily for the AIP program. The
Administration, however, is calling for a fixed contribution of 79% a year from the trust fund
for O&M spending. According to testimony by the FAA their bill would leave the trust fund
with an unexpended balance of $1.1 billion at the end of FY2007. This indicates that the
Administration intends to spend down the unexpended balance as a primary vehicle for
funding their bill. The Senate and House bills, by sticking with the AIR21 guarantee system,
are likely dependant on a larger general fund contribution for O&M spending, which would
in turn keep the trust fund's unexpended balance at a higher level. Because CBO has not yet
scored either bill, it is not possible to say exactly what the outcome of the bill is for the trust
CRS-6

---

IB10121
06-11-03
fund. At some point, a greatly reduced unexpended balance could impact the overall ability
of the trust fund to support aviation programs and could potentially raise issues of fiduciary
responsibility.
Airport Development
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants for airport
development and planning. AIP funding is usually limited to capital improvements related
to aircraft operations. Commercial revenue producing portions of airports and airport
terminals are improvements that generally are not eligible for AIP funding. AIP money
cannot be used for airport operational expenses or bond repayments. AIP funds are
distributed either as formula grants or as discretionary grants. Under AIR21, roughly
two-thirds of AIP funding was distributed by formula and the remaining third as
discretionary grants. Small airports are much more dependent on AIP grants than large and
medium hub airports. These airports can more easily generate revenue from user fees and
have historically had the financial wherewithal to successfully access the bond market.
The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program provides a source of non-federal funds
intended to complement AIP spending. The PFC is a local tax imposed, with federal
approval, by an airport on each boarding passenger. PFC funds can be used for a broader
range of projects than AIP grants and are more likely to be used for "ground side" projects.
PFCs can also be used for bond repayments (a more detailed description of airport funding
can be found in CRS Issue Brief IB10026).
Reauthorization Proposals and Issues. Both the House and Senate bills include
provisions that would impact the AIP program's long standing priorities and objectives.
Although the bills include a number of similar provisions their core proposals are focused
on different goals. As shown in the earlier table, both bills provide modest increases in AIP
funding. Much of the Senate bill’s legislative attention is directed toward facilitating
capacity enhancing projects, especially toward the major airports included in the FAA's 2001
Airport Capacity Benchmark study. The House bill redirects some funds from large airports
to smaller airports and cargo airports. The bill attempts to address a broad range of concerns
about the operation of the AIP program and make perfecting rather than major changes.
Increasing Capacity and Reducing Congestion: National Capacity
Projects. Although the post-September 11 decline in air passenger traffic has relieved
airport congestion, most observers believe that without capacity improvements at certain
major airports the congestion problems will recur as the U.S. economy improves. To address
this the Senate bill has a number of capacity enhancing provisions.
The bill calls for DOT to identify, from the FAA's Airport Capacity Benchmark Report
2001, airports experiencing delays that significantly affect the national transportation system.
DOT is to direct any of these airports that is not engaged in a runway expansion process to
establish a delay reduction task force to conduct a capacity enhancement study and submit,
within 9 months, recommendations for capacity enhancement at the airport. If runway
expansion or reconstruction is recommended then DOT and the airport have five years to
complete the planning and environmental review process. Airports that decline to undertake
the recommended expansions would be ineligible for AIP planning and expansion funds and
no PFCs would be approved for five years for the airport. The Secretary of Transportation,
CRS-7

---

IB10121
06-11-03
at the request of an airport or for airports listed in the Benchmarks study, may designate a
project as a "national capacity project," if the project would significantly enhance the
capacity of the national air transportation system. The House bill does not have specifically
comparable provisions.
Apportionment and Eligibility Changes: Relief and Support to Small
Airports. Both the Senate and House bills include provisions that protect small airports
from having their apportionments reduced in FY2004 because of reduced traffic levels. The
Senate bill also would raise the federal share to 95% at all national system airports smaller
than medium-hub. Both bills have provisions that change program apportionments and
broaden eligibility requirements.
Discretionary Fund Changes. The Senate bill, AIR-V, would increase the
discretionary set aside for noise compatibility projects from 34% to 35%. Eligibility would
be expanded to include noise mitigation projects approved in an environmental record of
decision for projects designated as national capacity projects. The House bill does not
increase the discretionary set aside, but does include expanded eligibility provisions for noise
mitigation projects. The House also details a number of new considerations that the FAA
must follow in awarding discretionary grants.
Airport Noise Issues. Airport noise policy is linked to airport development because
airport noise is a major factor in local resistance to airport capacity projects. All three bills
have provisions effecting the availability of AIP grants for state and local governments land
use compatibility plans. Both the House and Senate bills have provisions requiring
notification of purchasers that a property near an airport is located within the noise contours
of the airport.
The Senate provision, mentioned earlier, raising the noise AIP set-aside to 35%,
includes language to make noise mitigation projects, approved in an environmental record
of decision for a project designated as a national capacity project, eligible for AIP noise
mitigation funding. This appears to provide, under certain conditions, for AIP funding of
projects at airports that have not submitted a noise compatibility plan, as is now required.
Passenger Facility Charge Issues. The Senate bill includes provisions to
streamline PFC public notice requirements as well as ending the "significant contribution"
project requirement on large and medium hub airports that wish to impose PFCs at the $4
and $4.50 level. The requirement of notice and consultation of air carriers at applicant
airports is limited to carriers that have no less than 1% of the boardings at the airport or
25,000 boardings at the airport. The bill would also establish a pilot program to test
alternative procedures for authorizing small airports to impose PFCs. The House bill has
similar provisions, but is silent on the significant contribution requirement.
Privatization. The House bill would amend the Airport Privatization Pilot Program,
dropping, for small and non-hub airports, the requirement that 65% of airlines at an airport
approve of the privatization. Air carrier nonapproval would have to be filed within 60 days
or approval would be granted.
Airport Security Project Eligibility. The Senate bill would end the AIP eligibility
for the cost of installing explosive detection systems at airports. These costs are to be paid
CRS-8

---

IB10121
06-11-03
for from a proposed Aviation Security Capital Fund (see "Security Enhancements at
Airports", below). The House bill allows nonhub and nonprimary airports to use AIP funds
for post September 11 security costs.
Runway Safety Areas. The House bill contains a provision that would make runway
improvement grant approvals contingent on assurances that the sponsor will, to the
maximum extent possible, improve the runway’s safety area to meet FAA standards for
passenger airports. However, the bill also contains a provision that would prohibit the FAA
from reducing an airport’s runway length or declaring a runway less than the actual pavement
length to meet runway safety area criteria for passenger airports. Reducing runway length
would limit access by larger aircraft at certain airports and may limit future expansion of air
service. The NTSB recently recommended that runways at passenger airports be upgraded
immediately to meet FAA’s runway safety area criteria following the March 5, 2000 mishap
at Burbank, CA, where a Southwest Boeing 737 overran the runway.
Environmental Streamlining. The House and the Senate both include provisions
that can be described as proposals to accelerate the completion of major airport safety and
capacity projects by streamlining the environmental review process.
The Senate bill would require DOT to implement an "expedited coordinated
environmental review process" for national capacity projects. Federal agencies with
jurisdiction over environmental reviews would accord such reviews of national capacity
projects the highest possible priority. The bill defines the conditions that must be met under
alternatives analysis for an alternative for a congested airport to be considered "reasonable"
under the bill. DOT would be required to provide Congress with a list of current and
proposed categorical exclusions from the National Environmental Protection Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq) environmental review and environmental impact statements requirements.
AIR-V would also begin a Pilot Program for Environmental Review at National Capacity
Projects. It would provide for the hiring of full-time environmental specialists from outside
of government to help facilitate the coordination of environmental review.
The House bill includes the most extensive environmental streamlining provisions.
Title II of the bill provides detailed information on how environmental reviews are to be
conducted to reduce the amount of time and number of reviews required for new airport
project approval. The bill makes DOT the lead agency in the approval process and limits the
scope of potential alternatives analysis than could be considered during the review process.
Amongst many other changes, it allows the FAA to accept funds from project sponsors in
order to hire additional personnel to accommodate the review process.
Airway Facilities Improvements and Air Traffic Modernization
Airway Facilities consist of elements that comprise the infrastructure of the national
airspace system and include navigational aids, communications equipment, radar equipment,
weather equipment, air traffic management systems, and so on. Funding for the acquisition,
operation, and maintenance of airway facilities is derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and comprises about 20% of FAA’s spending. FAA programs to improve the
accessibility, capacity, and safety of the national airspace system have been the subject of
Congressional scrutiny and frequent criticism over the past 20 years as the result of numerous
cost overruns, schedule delays, and failures to meet program objectives. While current
CRS-9

---

IB10121
06-11-03
economic conditions have decreased the demand on the aviation system, FAA faces a critical
challenge in the next 5 to 10 years to enhance the performance of the national airspace
system to meet anticipated growth in demand. An amendment to the House bill would
authorize $200 million for exploring new, innovative procurement techniques for
modernizing air traffic control systems.
Cost Sharing for Air Traffic Modernization Projects. The Senate bill contains
provisions to foster nonfederal investment in critical air traffic control facilities and
equipment, such as airport navigation capabilities, weather sensing, runway lighting, and air
traffic control towers, by providing permanent authorization to carry out up to 10 cost-
sharing air traffic modernization projects each fiscal year. Under the plan, cost-sharing
arrangements between the FAA and non-federal sponsors such as an airport, an air carrier,
or a joint venture between an airport and one or more air carriers, can be made to fund
airport-specific air traffic facilities and equipment. This concept was demonstrated in a
three-year pilot program, enacted as part of AIR21, that funded 10 air traffic modernization
projects where sufficient federal funds were unavailable. However, under the program
proposed in the Senate bill federal funds for a project would be limited to the lesser of one-
third of the total program cost or $5 million, as compared to a $15 million cap in the pilot
program. The proposed changes will allow more flexibility in the composition of non-
federal project sponsors, allowing airlines to participate without establishing a partnership
with an airport. However, the current economic status of the airlines makes it unlikely that
they will provide a significant near-term source of nonfederal funding for air traffic
modernization projects. Also, the smaller cap on federal funds may mean that smaller scale
projects may be undertaken in the future. This program is most likely to benefit those
airports that derive larger revenues from PFCs and commercial activity and, consequently,
are capable of funding larger scale air traffic modernization projects with more limited
federal funding.
Wake Vortex Advisory System. The House bill authorizes $20 million per year
of facilities and equipment expenses for FY2004-FY2007 to demonstrate the operational
benefits of a wake vortex advisory system. The Senate bill, as well as H.R. 2271, on the
other hand, direct the National Research Council to conduct an assessment of FAA’s wake
turbulence research program. Wake vortices produced by heavy jet aircraft have been
identified as factors in a small number of aircraft accidents, and the contribution of a wake
turbulence encounter in the November 2001 crash of American Airlines flight 587 at JFK
airport, the second deadliest in U.S. history, is still under investigation. Current air traffic
procedures specify separation standards for aircraft departing behind large and heavy jets to
allow their wake vortices to dissipate. Some view these standards as overly conservative and
argue that accurate wake vortex prediction capabilities could allow for decreased separation
thereby increasing airport capacity in many weather conditions. Others argue that the limited
capability of available technology and the complexities of wake vortex propagation make it
difficult to predict wake turbulence or use such predictions to reduce arrival and departure
spacing without compromising safety.
Ground-Based Precision Navigation Aids. Both the House and Senate bills
contain provisions for the installation, operation, and maintenance of ground-based precision
navigational aids at mountain airports. The House bill specifically targets implementing
navigational aids at these airports that can also provide curved and segmented guidance for
noise abatement purposes. However, even with funding for precision navigation systems,
CRS-10

---

IB10121
06-11-03
currently available ground-based navigational aids are not always viable options at these
airports due to terrain constraints on approach procedures. Accessibility to many of these
mountain airports has improved significantly over recent years and continues to improve
through the use of satellite-based navigation using the Global Positioning System (GPS).
However, this system is not yet capable of providing the needed precision for vertical
guidance. Consequently, the FAA has proposed a plan to develop approach procedures with
vertical guidance that will likely rely on a combination of satellite-based, ground-based, and
on-board navigational sources. Programs to increase precision navigational capabilities at
airports may need to provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate these anticipated changes
in precision approach procedures.
Gulf of Mexico. The House and Senate bills contain provisions for improving air
traffic services in the Gulf of Mexico. These provision will most directly benefit helicopter
operations that support the large offshore oil industry, but may also benefit smaller aircraft
operating below 18,000 feet over the gulf.
Enhancing the Safety and Security of the Aviation System
Security Enhancements at Airports. With the passage of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71) following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, the aviation security function was significantly expanded and passed
from the FAA to the newly formed Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Nonetheless, airport security projects, such as expanding and modifying passenger
checkpoints and installing explosive detection systems for checked baggage, have had a
significant impact on AIP funds allocated to airports. The Senate bill contains a provision
to establish an Aviation Security Capital Fund funded by aviation security fees to relieve
some of the demand on AIP funds from airport security projects. The Senate bill also
instructs the Department of Homeland Security to study the effectiveness of the aviation
security systems and redeploy aviation security assets based on the findings of this study.
An amendment to the House bill would require that airports and air carriers be reimbursed
for certain direct and indirect costs, such as the loss of retail space to security checkpoints,
associated with airport passenger screening.
Several airports, especially many of the large hub airports, currently face significant
challenges in funding projects to relocate explosive detection systems for checked baggage
temporarily housed in ticketing and check-in areas and develop in-line systems that
incorporate these machines into baggage handling facilities. Some estimate that the
systemwide costs to complete installations of in-line baggage screening systems may be as
high as $3 billion. The Senate bill seeks to establish an Aviation Security Capital Fund
within the Department of Transportation budget derived from passenger and air carrier
security service fees. The Senate bill also proposes to authorize funding levels of $500
million per year for FY2004 through FY2007 for the fund with: 40% to be made available
to large hub airports; 20% to medium hub airports; 15% to small hubs; and the remaining
25% to be distributed at the Secretary of Transportation’s discretion. Under this plan, hub
airports would have to pay for 25% and non-hubs would have to pay for 10% of a security
project’s costs using nonfederal funds. Federal funds will be apportioned to airports using
a formula based on the percentage of enplanements that each airport experiences within its
respective category. However, the aviation security fees designated to fund this program do
not cover even the current operating budget for aviation security. The FY2004 President’s
CRS-11

---

IB10121
06-11-03
budget indicates estimated receipts of $2.488 billion from aviation security fees that are now
identified as offsetting collections for the Transportation Security Administration’s proposed
$4.812 billion budge. Of the TSA's overall budget, $4.217 billion is designated for aviation
security. The roles and responsibilities of FAA and TSA regarding aviation security projects
at airports and funding sources for these projects may require further clarification.
FAA Oversight of Operators and Maintenance Facilities. U.S. air carriers are
increasingly outsourcing maintenance to third-party repair stations. Outsourced maintenance
accounted for 47% of air carriers’ total maintenance costs in 2001. However, FAA
inspections of domestic repair stations are only required once annually and oversight of many
repair stations located in foreign countries is delegated to inspectors from those foreign
countries. FAA is currently revising the regulations governing the 5,200 FAA-certified repair
stations, about 600 of which are located in foreign countries, to improve bookkeeping,
training, and quality control at these maintenance facilities. FAA currently employs 628
aviation inspectors to oversee these repair stations, however some in Congress have been
concerned over these staffing levels and the degree of FAA oversight at repair stations,
particularly at the 2,800 repair stations that perform maintenance on the air carrier fleet. The
Senate bill contains provisions that would require the FAA to develop an action plan for
providing adequate oversight of repair stations and ensure that repair stations in foreign
countries are subject to the same level of oversight and quality control as domestic repair
stations.
Oversight of operations and maintenance practices at 10 of the largest passenger air
carriers in the United States is currently conducted under the Air Transportation Oversight
System (ATOS). As compared to more traditional inspection methods that rely heavily on
individual inspector expertise and focus on regulatory compliance issues, ATOS is a data-
driven program that relies on risk assessments and analysis to focus inspection activities on
particular areas where safety deficiencies might be expected at a specific air carrier. While
the program’s objectives and principals are generally viewed as a positive change for aviation
safety, reviews of the program have revealed that its effective implementation has been
hindered by a lack of standardization; a lack of adequate tools to help inspectors track safety
deficiencies and corrective actions; insufficient training; and inefficient allocation of human
resources. The Senate bill contains provisions for FAA to develop an action plan to correct
existing problems with the ATOS system and extend the program to oversight at more than
100 smaller air carriers in addition to the major passenger air carriers currently in the
program. These provisions would require the FAA to develop inspection checklists for FAA
inspectors and safety analysts; provide training in systems safety, risk analysis, and auditing
to FAA safety inspectors; ensure that inspectors are physically located where they are most
needed; and establish a strong central leadership for ATOS that will ensure that the system
is consistently implemented and expanded. Given current implementation difficulties with
the ATOS program, further expansion and refinement of the system may present significant
challenges.
Another concern is that FAA maintenance and operations inspectors may lack the
continuing training needed to keep up with current technologies. The House bill contains
a provision directing the Comptroller General to study the training of FAA aviation safety
inspectors, expressing a sense that FAA inspectors should get the most up-to-date initial and
recurrent training on job-related aviation technologies. Congress has also expressed concern
over the adequacy of FAA’s inspector workforce, particularly their ability to adequately
CRS-12

---

IB10121
06-11-03
oversee the aviation industry, and the increased use of designees to carry out inspection
duties. The House bill directs the National Academy of Sciences to study the staffing
methods FAA employs for determining its air safety inspector workforce and suggest
improved methods for assessing inspector staffing needs.
Aviation Maintenance Training and Manuals. The House bill contains a
provision directing the FAA to ensure that training standards and certification of aviation
mechanics are updated to more accurately reflect current technology and maintenance
practices. A recent GAO report found that the current FAA-developed aviation maintenance
curriculum is significantly outdated and is not adequate for training mechanics to work on
the advanced technology and materials commonly found in modern commercial aircraft. The
report recommended that FAA review and revise the curriculum. Another provision of the
House bill would require aircraft manufacturers to provide all necessary maintenance
manuals and related information to owners, operators, and repair stations at no more that
what it costs to prepare and distribute these documents.
Flight Attendant Certification. At present, federal regulations specify that cabin
crew are required on passenger flights using aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats. These
regulations identify training requirements; required duties; duty time and rest regulations;
airline drug testing program participation; and airline and FAA oversight, for flight
attendants. However, the FAA does not currently certify flight attendants or establish
specific training program and proficiency requirements for credentialing cabin crew. Both
the House and Senate bills contain provisions that would mandate the certification of flight
attendants. The objective of these measures is to develop industry harmonization regarding
flight attendant training and procedures. Opponents have argued that this provision could
result in a proliferation of unnecessary regulations governing the certification of flight
attendants that will increase the training and regulatory burden on airlines without a clear
benefit to aviation safety, while proponents point out that certification is required for other
airline safety-critical personnel besides pilots, such as aircraft dispatchers, and would
improve airline safety by establishing industrywide training and proficiency standards.
Cabin Air Quality. Both of the House bills and the Senate bill contain provisions
directing the FAA to conduct a research program on airliner cabin air quality. The provision
in the H.R. 2115 specifically directs FAA to assess ozone levels, pesticide exposure, and
other contaminants to which passengers and crew are exposed on a representative number
of aircraft and flights.
Investing in the Future of Aviation
Much of the direction for FAA’s Research, Engineering, and Development (RD&E)
funding and initiatives for investing in aerospace and aviation safety research and technology
development contained in the Senate bill was adopted from the Second Century of Flight Act
(S. 788). The Senate bill identifies several initiatives to address future needs and challenges
in: aviation system safety and security; aviation system capabilities; aircraft noise, emissions,
and fuel consumption; and efforts to maintain leadership and progress in aviation and
aeronautics. H.R. 2271, also referred to as the Second Century of Flight Act, proposes the
same funding levels as the Senate bill and contains similar language regarding identified
research, engineering and development projects and initiatives. In addition to the initiatives
proposed in H.R. 2271, H.R. 2115 proposes to establish a multi-agency task force to develop
CRS-13

---

IB10121
06-11-03
an integrated plan for airspace modernization and a task force to assess ways to improve
technology transfer from military aircraft to civilian aircraft.
Coordination of Research and Development Efforts. Both the Senate bill and
H.R. 2271 propose to establish within DOT an Office of Aerospace and Aviation Liaison,
with an annual budget of $2 million for FY2004 and FY2005, to coordinate aviation and
aeronautics research programs in an effort to develop more effective and directed research
programs by coordinating goals, priorities, and research activities across the Federal
government and with the aviation industry to facilitate technology transfer. The legislation
also proposes to establish a National Air Traffic Management Development Office within
FAA to develop a next generation air traffic management system plan for the United States
with input from government and private sector stakeholders representing commercial
aviation, general aviation, and the space industry. Both bills would authorize $300 million
over a six-year period from FY2004 through FY2010 for this function.
Aviation and Aerospace Education. The Senate bill and H.R. 2271 also contain
provisions for an initiative that would provide NASA and FAA-sponsored merit-based
grants, loans, and internship programs for higher education in fields related to aerospace and
aviation safety. The Senate bill provides for such sums as may be necessary for NASA and
FAA to establish and administer the program in FY2004 and requires the agencies to jointly
determine whether such a program should be extended for additional years, while H.R. 2271
proposes funding levels of $5 million in 2004 and $7 million in 2005 but stipulates that at
least 50% of the costs be derived from nonfederal sources. Both bills also provide for a
scholarship for service program. A separate provision in the Senate bill would authorize
such sums as may be necessary to carry out and expand the Air Traffic Control Collegiate
Training Initiative.
Identified Research Programs. In addition to those already mentioned, both the
Senate bill and H.R. 2271 identify airfield pavements and pavement standards as a research
area to be addressed by the FAA. The legislation also directs FAA to establish a center for
excellence in advanced materials, such as composites, for transport category aircraft. Both
bills propose to authorize $500,000 for FY2004 to develop the center. Finally, the legislation
directs FAA to conduct a study to assess ways to reduce aircraft noise and emissions and
increase aircraft fuel efficiency to foster long term environmental improvements.
FAA Organizational Issues
Chief Operating Officer (COO). This position was created by AIR21. The COO
was supposed to allow the FAA to hire someone with experience operating high technology
integrated systems like air traffic control. The COO position, however, has never been filled,
which is a controversy in itself. Several candidates have apparently turned down the position
based on what many considered to be a very difficult job at a pay scale far below what might
be offered for a similar position in private industry. As defined in AIR21 there was a
concern that the job might sound more like a chief executive officer (CEO) position than a
COO position. This would have potentially caused concern about the relationship between
the COO and the FAA Administrator who by statute functions as the Agency's CEO.
Legislation proposed by the House and by the Senate would seek to clarify this relationship
and does so in their respective bills. The proposals are intended to make the COO position
CRS-14

---

IB10121
06-11-03
itself more desirable and make it more likely that this position will be filled in the near
future.
Air Traffic Control Privatization. The House bill includes a provision that
prohibits privatization of the ATC system. There is no comparable provision in the Senate
bill. Privatization has often been discussed as a possible way to increase the efficiency of
the ATC system while at the same time reducing its cost. The idea has been discussed in
many contexts during the last decade, but never acted upon by Congress. Recent action by
the Bush Administration, removing ATC from its definition of inherently governmental
functions, was viewed by some as a precursor to a privatization proposal, though no such
proposal has been made.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 2115 (Young)
Flight 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. Amends Title 49, United States
Code, to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other
purposes. Introduced May 21, 2003.
H.R. 2271 (Tiahrt)
Second Century of Flight Act. To enable the United States to maintain its leadership
in aeronautics and aviation. Introduced May 22, 2003.
S. 824 (McCain)
Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act. Amends Federal transportation law
to authorize appropriations for FY2004 through 2006 for the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), including the Airport Improvement Program and the Airway
Facilities Improvement Program. Introduced April 8, 2003.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
January 9, 2003: The Future of the Airline Industry. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Technology
February 11, 2003: FAA Reauthorization, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Technology.
February 12, 2003:Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Aviation
Programs: Introduction. House Aviation Subcommittee.
February 25, 2003: Airport Improvement Program and Other Airport Financing Issues.
Senate Aviation Subcommittee.
March 5, 2003: FAA Reauthorization - Airport Financing. Senate Aviation Subcommittee
March 6, 2003: Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Aviation
Programs: Airports. House Aviation Subcommittee.
March 11, 2003: FAA Reauthorization - Air Service to Small Communities. Senate Aviation
Subcommittee
March 12, 2003: Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Aviation
Programs: Commercial Aviation. House Aviation Subcommittee.
CRS-15

---

IB10121
06-11-03
March 27, 2003: Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Aviation
Programs: Testimony From the FAA Administrator and Witnesses Representing FAA
Employees. House Aviation Subcommittee.
April 9, 2003: Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Aviation
Programs: General Aviation. House Aviation Subcommittee.
April 10, 2003: FAA Reauthorization. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Technology
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 108th Congress.
CRS Issue Brief IB10026. Airport Improvement Program.
CRS Report RS21321. Aviation Taxes and Fees: Major Issues.
CRS Report RS20914. Aviation Congestion: Proposed Non-Air Traffic Control Remedies.
CRS-16

---