Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Reauthorization: An Overview
of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress
Bart Elias, Coordinator
Specialist in Aviation Policy
August 9, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41798
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Summary
Reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs has been an issue of
considerable interest during the first session of the 112th Congress. The previous FAA
authorization, Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereinafter
referred to as “Vision 100”) expired at the end of FY2007. Attempts to enact a successor law
failed in the 110th and 111th Congresses. As a result, aviation trust fund revenue collections and
aviation program authority continued under a series of short-term extensions. Most recently,
following a two-week lapse in aviation trust fund revenue collections and expenditure authority,
the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV (P.L. 112-27) was enacted on August 5,
2011 extending FAA authorization through September 16, 2011.
The House and Senate have passed separate versions of multiyear FAA reauthorization legislation
(see S. 223 and H.R. 658), and the Senate has requested a conference to resolve the differences
between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. Whereas the Senate bill only covers FY2010
and FY2011, the House bill would authorize FAA programs through FY2014. For FY2011, the
only year the two bills overlap, the House-passed total authorization level for FAA is $2,082
million less than that specified by the Senate. Moreover, the House-passed bill calls for further
reductions in authorized FAA funding for FY2012 through FY2014. While these levels reflect
broader government-wide efforts to reduce deficit spending, they could pose considerable
challenges to ongoing air traffic modernization efforts, and affect FAA’s ability to address its
future needs for controllers and technical specialists to operate and maintain the nation’s air
traffic system. The Senate bill proposes an increase in jet fuel tax for general aviation and a new
jet fuel surcharge for fractionally owned aircraft, while the House bill does not include any
changes to existing aviation taxes and fees. Neither bill includes proposals to increase the cap on
passenger facility charges, and the House bill does not include the controversial provision passed
by the House in the 111th Congress to bring non-aviation employees of express carriers under the
National Labor Relations Act instead of the Railway Labor Act.
Key issues addressed in the FAA reauthorization bills include provisions intended to improve the
management of and accelerate progress on the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen); address FAA workforce and facility consolidation issues; improve the safety of air
ambulance operations; improve runway safety; increase oversight of air carriers and foreign
repair stations; integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system; and address aircraft
and airport noise and emissions. While there are many similarities in language between the
House-passed and Senate-passed bills, particularly with respect to major issues affecting FAA,
several important differences remain to be reconciled. Provisions that may be of particular
interest during this process include
• significant differences in authorized funding levels and aviation fuel taxes
between House and Senate versions;
• a labor provision in the House bill that would overturn recent regulations that
make it easier for certain employees covered under the Railway Labor Act to
unionize;
• provisions regarding the allocation of takeoff and departure slots at Reagan
National Airport; and
• provisions in the House bill to end the Essential Air Service (EAS) program,
which subsidizes air carrier service to small and isolated communities.
Congressional Research Service

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Contents
Legislative Status............................................................................................................................. 1
FAA Budget and Aviation System Finance...................................................................................... 3
Proposed Funding Authorizations ............................................................................................. 3
Aviation System Finance........................................................................................................... 5
Spending Guarantee Mechanisms ............................................................................................. 6
Airport Financing............................................................................................................................. 7
AIP Funding .............................................................................................................................. 7
Formula Funding (Entitlements) ............................................................................................... 7
Primary Airport Entitlements .............................................................................................. 7
Virtual Primary Airports...................................................................................................... 8
Study of Primary Airport Apportionment Based on Enplanement Ratio ............................ 8
State Block Grant Program.................................................................................................. 8
Puerto Rico Minimum Guarantee ....................................................................................... 9
United States Territory Minimum Guarantee ...................................................................... 9
Discretionary Funds................................................................................................................... 9
Minimum Discretionary Fund............................................................................................. 9
Noise Set-aside.................................................................................................................... 9
Military Airport Program (MAP) ........................................................................................ 9
AIP Project Eligibility Changes............................................................................................... 10
AIP Grant Assurances.............................................................................................................. 10
Federal Share........................................................................................................................... 11
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs).......................................................................................... 12
Increasing the PFC Cap..................................................................................................... 12
Project Eligibility .............................................................................................................. 12
Competition Plans ............................................................................................................. 13
Passenger Facility Charge Pilot Program.......................................................................... 13
PFC Grant Streamlining and Revenue Diversion Provisions............................................ 13
Other Airport-Related Provisions ............................................................................................ 13
Airport Privatization.......................................................................................................... 14
Pilot Program for Redevelopment of Airport Properties................................................... 14
Land Use and Conveyance Provisions in the Senate Bill.................................................. 14
Priority Review of Cold Weather State Construction Projects.......................................... 15
Noise Monitoring of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign............ 15
Solid Waste Recycling Plans ............................................................................................. 15
Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program ....................................................... 15
Training Program for Certification of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises..................... 16
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.................................................................... 16
FAA Management and Organizational Issues................................................................................ 16
Air Traffic Controller and Technical Workforce...................................................................... 16
Facility Consolidation ............................................................................................................. 17
FAA Personnel Management System ...................................................................................... 18
NextGen Air Transportation System Modernization ..................................................................... 21
Aviation Safety .............................................................................................................................. 23
Runway Safety......................................................................................................................... 24
Safety of Air Ambulance Operations....................................................................................... 24
Congressional Research Service

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Maintenance Providers and Repair Stations ............................................................................ 25
Air Carrier Oversight............................................................................................................... 26
Unmanned Aircraft Systems.................................................................................................... 28
Pilot Fatigue............................................................................................................................. 29
Miscellaneous Safety-Related Provisions ............................................................................... 30
Airline Industry Issues................................................................................................................... 30
Industry Labor Issues .............................................................................................................. 30
Washington Reagan National Airport Slot Controls................................................................ 31
Essential Air Service Program................................................................................................. 32
Airline Passenger Rights Issues............................................................................................... 33
DOT Regulatory Action on Airline Passenger Rights....................................................... 33
Airline and Airport “Emergency Contingency Plans” for Tarmac Delays ........................ 34
Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection .................................................. 35
Monthly Air Carrier Reports on Customer Service and Flight Delay History .................. 35
Expansion of DOT Airline Consumer Complaint Investigations...................................... 35
Consumer Complaint Hotline Telephone Number ............................................................ 36
Musical Instruments .......................................................................................................... 36
Disclosure of the Operating Air Carrier Name for Each Flight Segment.......................... 36
Disclosure of Passenger Fees ............................................................................................ 36
Notification Requirements in Regard to Passenger Taxes and Fees.................................. 37
Denied Boarding Compensation ....................................................................................... 37
Delayed Baggage Compensation....................................................................................... 37
Study of European Union Rules for Passenger Rights...................................................... 38
Insecticide Use on Passenger Aircraft ............................................................................... 38
Prohibitions Against Cell Phone or Other Voice Communication Devices....................... 38
Smoking Prohibition ......................................................................................................... 38
Study of Air Quality in Aircraft Cabins............................................................................. 38
Seat Dimension Disclosure to Facilitate Use of Child Safety Seats ................................. 39
Environmental and Energy Issues.................................................................................................. 39
Environmental-Related Research Programs and Funding....................................................... 40
Grants and Procedural Changes to Assist with Environmental Compliance ........................... 42
Requirements to Address Aircraft and Airport Air Emissions and Noise................................ 43
The Air Tour Management Program........................................................................................ 44

Tables
Table 1. Federal Aviation Administration Extension Acts Since September 2007 .......................... 1
Table 2. Proposed Reauthorization Funding Levels for FAA Accounts .......................................... 4
Table 3. Aviation Taxes and Fees..................................................................................................... 5

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 46
Key CRS Policy Staff and Areas of Expertise ............................................................................... 47

Congressional Research Service

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Legislative Status
The last enacted multi-year FAA reauthorization measure, Vision 100—Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereinafter referred to as “Vision 100”) expired at the end of
FY2007. While various versions of a new multi-year FAA reauthorization were separately passed
by the House and the Senate during the 110th and 111th Congresses, no agreement on a long-term
FAA reauthorization has yet been reached. Since September 2007, federal aviation programs and
aviation trust fund revenue collections have continued under a series of short term extensions (see
Table 1). So far, there have been 21 extensions.
Controversy over provisions in the fourth extension bill offered during the 112th Congress led to a
two-week partial shutdown of the FAA. Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part III (P.L.
112-21), enacted on June 29, 2011, extended authorizations until July 22, 2011. On July 22, 2011,
the House passed the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV (H.R. 2553) which
would have extended authorization through September 16, 2011. The bill also included reforms to
the Essential Air Service (EAS) program that would have modified community eligibility criteria
for subsidized air carrier service.
Objections over the EAS provisions in the extension bill and over the Railway Labor Act
provision in the House-passed multiyear FAA reauthorization bill (H.R. 658) led to a stalemate in
the Senate regarding the measure. As a consequence, FAA authority to collect aviation trust fund
revenues and expend money in the trust fund expired on July 22, 2011.
In response to the lapse in program expenditure and revenue collection authority, FAA halted
work on a number of construction projects at airports and air traffic control facilities and
furloughed almost 4,000 employees effective July 23, 2011. On August 5, 2011, the Senate
reached an agreement and passed H.R. 2553 without amendment by unanimous consent. The
measure was signed by the President later that day thus ending the partial shutdown of the FAA
and the lapse in aviation trust fund revenue collection authority, including passenger ticket taxes,
that had lasted almost two weeks.
Table 1. Federal Aviation Administration Extension Acts Since September 2007
Public Law
Title of Legislation
Length of FAA Extension
H.J.Res. 52
Enacted: 9/29/2007
P.L. 110-92
Joint Resolution
Expired: 11/16/2007
Continuing Appropriations for FY2008
H.R. 3222
Enacted: 11/13/2007
P.L. 110-116
Continuing Appropriations for Department of Defense for
Expired: 12/14/2007
Fiscal Year ending Sept. 30, 2008
H.J.Res. 69
Enacted: 12/14/2007
P.L. 110-149
Joint Resolution
Expired: 12/21/2007
Continuing Appropriations for FY2008
H.J.Res. 72
Enacted: 12/21/2007
P.L. 110-149
Continuing Appropriations for FY2008
Expired: 12/31/2007

Congressional Research Service
1

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

H.R. 2764
Enacted: 12/26/2007
P.L. 110-161
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
Expired: 2/29/2008
H.R. 5270
Enacted: 2/28/2008
P.L. 110-190
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008
Expired: 6/30/2008
H.R. 6327
Enacted: 6/30/2008
P.L. 110-253
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2008
Expired: 9/30/2008
H.R. 6984
Enacted: 9/30/2008
P.L. 110-330
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2008,
Expired: 3/31/2009
Part II
H.R. 1512
Enacted: 3/30/2009
P.L. 111-12
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2009
Expired: 9/30/2009
H.R. 3607
Enacted: 10/1/2009
P.L. 111-69
Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Expired: 12/31/2009
Act
H.R. 4217
Enacted: 12/16/2009
P.L. 111-116
Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Expired: 3/31/2010
Act, Part II
H.R. 4957
Enacted: 3/31/2010
P.L. 111-153
The Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010
Expired: 4/30/2010
H.R. 5147
Enacted: 4/30/2010
P.L. 111-161
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010
Expired: 7/3/2010
H.R. 5611
Enacted: 7/2/2010
P.L. 111-197
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part II
Expired: 8/1/2010
H.R. 5900
Enacted: 8/1/2010
P.L. 111-216
Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
Expired: 9/30/2010
Extension Act of 2010
H.R. 6190
Enacted 9/30/2010
P.L. 111-249
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III
Expired 12/31/2010
H.R. 6473
Enacted 12/22/2010
P.L. 111-329
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part IV
Expired 3/31/2011
H.R. 1079
Enacted 3/31/2011
P.L. 112-7
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011
Expired 5/31/2011
H.R. 1893
Enacted 5/31/2011
P.L. 112-16
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part II
Expired 6/30/2011
H.R. 2279
Enacted 6/29/2011
P.L. 112-21
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part III
Expired 7/22/2011
H.R. 2553
Enacted 8/5/2011
P.L. 112-27
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV
Expires 9/16/2011
Source: CRS analysis of Legislative Information System (LIS) bill summary and status information.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

On February 17, 2011, the Senate passed the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety
Improvement Act (S. 223), which would authorize FAA programs through FY2011. On April 1,
2011, the House passed the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 658), which
would provide funding and revenue collection authorizations for FY2011 through FY2014. On
April 7, the Senate inserted the text of S. 223 as an amendment in lieu of the House-passed
language. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 658 by unanimous consent and has requested a
conference to resolve the differences. This report discusses the major provisions in the Senate and
House FAA Reauthorization bills. It is organized into seven major program areas:
• FAA budget and aviation system finance;
• airport financing;
• FAA management and organizational issues;
• NextGen air transportation system modernization;
• aviation safety;
• airline industry issues; and
• environmental and energy issues.
In several cases, provisions that appear in unrelated sections of proposed legislation have been
rearranged in this report in order to discuss related items in an issue-driven or programmatic
context. This report does not go into detail regarding the specific policy issues behind these
legislative proposals.
FAA Budget and Aviation System Finance
Amid broader concerns over federal deficit reduction, wide differences in proposed funding levels
exist between House-passed and Senate-passed FAA reauthorization legislation.
Proposed Funding Authorizations
FAA reauthorization legislation reflects larger bicameral and partisan divisions regarding federal
budget reduction approaches. The Senate bill only encompasses the previous fiscal year (FY
2010) and the current fiscal year (FY2011). It would increase total authorized funding levels for
the FAA by just under $500 million from FY2010 to FY2011 (see Table 2). In comparison to
appropriated amounts for FY2010, the Senate-passed bill’s proposed authorization levels are
considerably greater for all accounts except Operations and Maintenance (O&M).
In contrast, House-passed H.R. 658 seeks considerable budget reductions compared to FY2010
appropriated amounts for all FAA accounts. Authorized totals for FY2011 would be $548 million
below FY2010 enacted levels. For FY2011, the only year in which the House and Senate bills
overlap, the House-passed bill specifies a total authorization level approximately $2 billion below
the Senate-passed amount. Moreover, the House-passed bill calls for further reductions to all FAA
accounts, setting flat funding levels for FY2012 through FY2014. These would reduce FAA’s
annual budget by about $1 billion compared to FY2010 enacted levels. These cuts are consistent
with broader House budget initiatives but could prove challenging for the FAA to implement.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

If significant cuts in authorized funding levels for FAA accounts are enacted, particular budget
challenges may include maintaining adequate staffing levels for O&M, a function that is highly
labor intensive, and keeping NextGen modernization efforts on schedule. Schedule slips in
NextGen implementation may be of particular concern as these could have the unintended effect
of costing FAA and aviation system users more in the long run if implementation delays translate
to cost overruns and/or postpone implementation of cost-saving technologies. This could hinder
efforts to improve air traffic system performance and reduce flight delays and cancellations.
Table 2. Proposed Reauthorization Funding Levels for FAA Accounts
($ in millions)
Account
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
FAA Operations and Maintenance (O&M)





Senate-Passed
9,336
9,620
—
—
—
House-Passed
—
9,403
9,168
9,168
9,168
Enacted
—
—
—
—
—
Appropriated
9,350
—
—
—
—
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)





Senate-Passed
4,000
4,100
—
—
—
House-Passed
—
3,176
3,000
3,000
3,000
Enacted
—
—
—
—
—
Appropriated
3,515
—
—
—
—
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)





Senate-Passed
3,500
3,600
—
—
—
House-Passed
—
2,700
2,600
2,600
2,600
Enacted
—
—
—
—
—
Appropriated
2,936
—
—
—
—
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D)





Senate-Passed
200
206
—
—
—
House-Passed
—
165
147
147
147
Enacted
—
—
—
—
—
Appropriated
191
—
—
—
—
Totals





Senate-Passed
17,036
17,526
—
—
—
House-Passed
—
15,444
14,915
14,915
14,915
Enacted
—
—
—
—
—
Appropriated
15,992
—
—
—
—
Source: CRS analysis of S. 223, H.R. 658, and P.L. 111-8 (FY2010 Appropriations).
Note: Table does not reflect enacted authorization amounts specified in short term extension acts.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Aviation System Finance
The aviation system has historically been funded in part by a designated trust fund, the airport
and airways trust fund (AATF), and in part through budget authority received from the Treasury
general fund. The general fund share of FAA appropriations has historically varied widely,
ranging from a low of 0% in FY2000 to a high of 37% in FY1998. The general fund share tends
to follow a cyclical trend, largely stemming from reduced trust fund revenues during economic
slowdowns. It had hovered around 20% over the past 10 years, but has recently increased. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the general fund share will peak at 33% of the
FAA budget total in FY2011 before following a continuing downward trend over the next 10
years. These projections are based on steady increases to the FAA budget and do not reflect
possible cost cutting measures as called for in H.R. 658. Reduced funding authority would likely
accelerate the reduction in general fund share over the authorization period. CBO projects annual
trust fund balances of about $10 billion and the health of the trust fund has not been raised as a
particular concern in the FAA reauthorization debate.
Aviation trust fund revenues are derived from various sources, primarily taxes imposed on airline
passengers, air cargo shipments, and aviation fuels, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Aviation Taxes and Fees
House-
Senate-
Tax or Fee
Existing Rate
Passed
Passed
Passenger Ticket Tax (domestic)
7.5%
No change
No change
Flight Segment Tax (domestic)
$3.70
No change
No change
Cargo Waybill Tax
6.25%
No change
No change
Frequent Flyer Tax
7.5%
No change
No change
General Aviation Gasolinea
19.3 cents/gallon
No change
No change
General Aviation Jet Fuela (Kerosene)
21.8 cents/gal on
No change
35.9
cents/gal on
Commercial Jet Fuela (Kerosene)
4.3 cents/gallon
No change
No change
International Departure/Arrivals Tax (indexed to CPI)
$16.30
No change
No change
(prorated Alaska/Hawaii to/from mainland United States)
(Alaska/Hawaii
= $8.20)
Fractional Ownership Surtax on general aviation jet fuel
NA
NA
14.1
cents/gal on
Source: Compiled by CRS from existing statutes and proposed legislation.
a. Does not include 0.1 cents/gal on for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) trust fund.
Whereas the House-passed bill does not propose any changes to the exiting aviation tax and fee
structure, the Senate-passed bills call for a 14.1 cents per gallon increase in general aviation jet
fuel taxes and a new 14.1 cents per gallon surcharge on general aviation jet fuel purchased for
fractionally-owned aircraft.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Spending Guarantee Mechanisms
Since the 1971 creation of the user-supported airport and airway trust fund there has been
disagreement over the appropriate use of the trust fund’s revenues. This led, beginning in 1976, to
the enactment of a series of legislative mechanisms designed to ensure that federal capital
spending for U.S. airports and airways (i.e., AIP and F&E) would be funded at their fully
authorized levels.
The current mechanism dates back to 2000 and includes two spending guarantees. One makes it
out-of-order in the House or Senate to consider legislation that fails to use all aviation trust fund
receipts and interest annually. The second makes it out-of-order to consider any bill that provides
any funding for RE&D or O&M if it fails to fully fund AIP and F&E at their authorized levels.
These guarantees have been incorporated into the FAA extension bills, keeping them in effect.
The House-passed bill (Section 104) would amend the airport and airway trust fund guarantee
that requires that the total amounts made available from the trust fund be equal to the level of
receipts plus interest for the year. Under the House-passed bill, for FY2011, the amounts made
available would equal 90% of the estimated level of receipts plus interest on the fund for the
fiscal year. For FY2012 and each fiscal year thereafter, the guaranteed level would equal the sum
of 90% of the estimated receipts plus interest for each respective year, plus the difference between
the actual receipts and total amounts made available for obligation from two years before (i.e.,
FY2010 for FY2012, etc). The bill would retain the point-of-order enforcement mechanisms.
This change would have a number of possible implications. First, the change could lessen the
demands on trust fund revenues for the first year of the reauthorization, perhaps allowing a
modest accumulation in the unexpended balance of the trust fund during that year. Second, it
would reduce the likelihood that overly optimistic revenue projections could lead to spending at
rates that exceed the actual revenues accruing to the trust fund, at least in the first year of the bill.
Finally, by limiting trust fund spending, the change could, in the minds of some, increase the
likelihood that the general fund contribution percentage for the FAA budget would be set at a
higher level.
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 105) would extend the existing guarantees through 2011. For fiscal
years 2012 and 2013, Section 809 of the bill amends 26 U.S.C. 9502(d) to restrict the amount
made available for each fiscal year to 90% of the receipts of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
plus interest credited for the respective year as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury. This
would appear to provide for a building up of the unexpended balance in the trust fund. It could
also be seen as making it less likely that the entire FAA budget could be funded from the trust
fund in FY2012 or FY1013.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Airport Financing
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants for airport development. AIP
funding is usually limited to capital improvements related to aircraft operations. Commercial
revenue-producing portions of airports and airport terminals are generally not eligible for AIP
funding. AIP money cannot usually be used for airport operational expenses or bond repayments.
AIP funds are distributed either as formula grants or as discretionary grants.1
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.
The AIP and PFC programs are the sources of funds for airport capital development that have the
most federal involvement. Other sources are bonds, state and local grants, and airport revenue.
AIP Funding
The AIP authorization for FY2007, the final year of funding under Vision 100, was $3.7 billion.
The authorization levels under the extension acts were:$3.657 billion for 2008, $3.9 billion for
FY2009, and $3.515 billion for FY2010. For FY2011, the partial year extensions are based on the
assumption of a full-year authorization of $3.7 billion.
The amounts actually made available (the obligation limitation) through the appropriations
process has been held at roughly $3.5 billion annually since FY2006. The House-passed bill
(Section 101) would reduce AIP’s authorization to $3.18 billion for FY2011 and to $3.0 billion
annually for FY2012-FY2014. Section 104 of the Senate-passed bill would authorize AIP as
follows: $4.0 billion for FY2010; $4.1 billion for FY2011.
Formula Funding (Entitlements)
The AIP program provides formula apportionments (referred to as entitlements) and discretionary
grants to airports in the national system. Each year the apportioning formulas are satisfied first
and the remainder of the year’s authorization is available for discretionary grants. Consequently,
the discretionary funds would bear the brunt of lower authorizations and benefit most from
authorization increases. Neither the House- nor Senate-passed bill makes major changes in the
structure or operation of the AIP entitlement formulas.
Primary Airport Entitlements
The House-passed bill does not include provisions altering the primary airport formulas.
However, since the amounts authorized for AIP would be reduced with no adjustment of the

1 For a detailed description of the AIP program, see CRS Report R40608, Airport Improvement Program (AIP):
Reauthorization Issues for Congress, by Robert S. Kirk.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

apportionment formulas, funding for discretionary grants would be curtailed. The Senate-passed
bill does not include provisions altering primary airport formulas.
Virtual Primary Airports
A special rule enacted after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks allowed some airports
(referred to as virtual primary airports) whose annual passenger boardings fell below the required
minimum passenger levels needed to maintain their primary airport status to continue receiving
their annual primary airport entitlements (generally $1 million vs. the GA entitlement, which is
generally $150,000). Some have argued that airports that have lost their primary airport status due
to the economic recession that began in 2007 should receive similar treatment.
The House-passed bill (Sec. 145) would allow airports that had more than 10,000 passenger
boardings and scheduled passenger aircraft service in calendar year 2007, but in either or both
years 2009 or 2010 had fewer than 10,000 boardings, to receive the amount apportioned to the
airport sponsors in FY2007 for the years FY2011 and FY2012.
The Senate-passed bill (see Sec. 208(i)) includes a special rule for airports whose enplanements
fell, during 2008 or 2009, below the 10,000 threshold needed to qualify for primary airport
entitlements, but had met the threshold during 2007. If these airports’ enplanements for 2010 or
2011 decrease below 10,000 the Secretary of Transportation may make apportionments to these
airports based on the amount the airports received for FY2009 (2008 and 2009 entitlements were
based on 2007 enplanement data). During markup an additional provision was added for FY2008-
FY2011 for airports with fewer than an average of 10,000 enplanements in 2004-2006.
As of this writing, CRS has been unable to determine the number of airports that would be
eligible under the Section 208(i) for virtual primary entitlements. However, the difference for an
airport between primary and GA entitlement funding is usually $850,000, so the provisions could
have a significant impact on entitlement spending as well as the amount left over for discretionary
grants once all the required entitlement distributions are satisfied.
Study of Primary Airport Apportionment Based on Enplanement Ratio
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 223) directs the FAA to complete a study on the feasibility and
advisability of basing primary airport apportionments on the ratio of each airport’s enplanements
to the national total of enplanements. The current apportionment system is based on dollar
amounts for each enplaned passenger that vary by airport size categories. Under the current
system the smaller airport categories receive larger amounts per enplaned passenger. The House-
passed bill does not include a similar provision
State Block Grant Program
The House-passed bill (Section 502) would amend the state block grant program by specifying
that federal environmental requirements would apply to the program. The proposal specifies that
any federal agency that grants approval (i.e., permit or license) to a state must consult with that
state during the approval process. Further, the federal agency would be required to use any state-
prepared environmental analysis associated with that approval. Section 209 of the Senate-passed
bill includes similar language to that in the House bill. It also includes a pilot program for up to
three additional states that is consistent with the existing program.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Puerto Rico Minimum Guarantee
The House bill (Section 143) reaffirms that airports in Puerto Rico are to receive apportionments
according to 49 U.S.C. 47114, as do National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
airports within the United States. The provision also ensures that airports in Puerto Rico may
apply for project grants from the AIP discretionary fund. The Senate-passed bill does not address
this issue.
United States Territory Minimum Guarantee
Section 217 of the Senate-passed bill would provide the Secretary of Transportation authority to
raise the Territories’ share of the total of primary and general aviation apportionments to 1.5%, if
the total amounts flowing to the Territories through the normal apportionment process fall below
that percentage. The House bill includes no provision regarding a United States Territory
Minimum Guarantee.
Discretionary Funds
The discretionary fund includes the AIP funding that is not distributed under the apportioned
entitlements as well as the forgone PFC revenues that are not directed to the small airport fund.
Related PFC changes are discussed later in this report.
Minimum Discretionary Fund
49 U.S.C. 47115 requires that a minimum amount ($148 million plus any outstanding pre-January
1, 1997, letters of intent) remain available for the discretionary fund after all apportionments and
set-asides are satisfied. If less money remains, the apportionments are reduced pro rata to provide
funds to bring the discretionary funding up to the required level. Because AIP has been funded
since FY2001 at sufficiently high levels, the minimum discretionary fund provision has not
recently been a factor in AIP funding.
While the House-passed bill does not address this issue, Section 208(k) of the Senate-passed bill
sets the minimum amount to be credited to the discretionary fund at $520 million per year and
drops the letter of intent language.
Noise Set-aside
Section 208 (h) of the Senate-passed bill would provide for a flat $300 million annual
discretionary set-aside for AIP noise program costs in place of the current 35% discretionary set-
aside, while the House-passed bill does not address the noise set-aside.
Military Airport Program (MAP)
Section 147 of the House-passed bill adds consideration of whether or not a grant to the airport
would be critical to the safety of commercial, military, or general aviation in trans-oceanic flights
to MAP program selection considerations. The bill would raise the allowable number of general
aviation airports that may be designated under MAP from one to three. Sections 212 and 220 of
the Senate-passed bill would make changes similar to the House bill.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

AIP Project Eligibility Changes
The House-passed bill makes a number of definitional and other changes that would impact AIP
project eligibility. The bill includes provisions regarding eligibility of “revenue producing
aeronautical support facilities” at nonprimary airports and the lowering of the passenger aircraft
size required to meet the eligibility requirements for purchasing firefighting and rescue
equipment. Glycol recovery vehicles would be made eligible. Terminal development is redefined
to include development of an airport passenger terminal building, including gates and access
roads and walkways servicing exclusively airport traffic that leads directly to or from the airport
passenger terminal building. It also includes a provision regarding the construction of mobile
refueler parking and clarifying definitions of general aviation airport and terminal development.
The bill includes a provision regarding the relocation of airport-owned facilities. Under the bill,
repaying borrowed money for terminal development under 49 U.S.C. 47119(a) is clarified as
“airport development” and made eligible under certain circumstances. Projects to provide air
conditioning, heating, or electric power from terminal facilities to parked aircraft to reduce energy
use and “harmful emissions” would be eligible. Airport planning would be redefined to include
“developing an environmental management system.” The cost of environmental review of airport-
proposed environmentally beneficial aircraft flight procedures would also be AIP eligible.
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 205) strikes 49 U.S.C. 47110 (d), “Terminal Development Costs,”
and replaces it with a subsection that makes the relocation of airport-owned facilities allowable as
an airport development project under certain conditions. Section 205 also appears to attempt to
broaden the allowability of the use of non-primary entitlement funds for “facilities, as defined by
Section 47102.” Section 47102, however, does not appear to specifically define the term. Section
211 allows an airport operator to use AIP funds for the environmental review for
environmentally-beneficial (mostly noise-related) aircraft flight procedures. Section 215 would
make glycol (de-icing fluid) recovery vehicles eligible for AIP grants.
During markup of the bill by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, an
amendment was agreed to allow bird-detecting radar systems to be an eligible part of AIP project
costs under certain conditions. Accordingly, the provision was added to Section 205.
Section 222 of the Senate-passed bill would add, as an airport improvement policy under 49
U.S.C. 47101, that the AIP should be administered to improve the efficiency of airport buildings
built or improved in airport projects, including measures designed to meet one or more of the
criteria for being a high-performance green building.
AIP Grant Assurances
The House-passed bill (Sec. 136) would make two changes to AIP grant assurances under 49
U.S.C. 47107. It allows for the use of AIP entitlement funds to replace or move a facility at an
airport if the cause of the need was beyond the owner’s control, such as a new design standard
that made the present facility deemed a safety hazard.
The second proposed change deals with the disposition of profits made from the sale of land that
was originally acquired for a noise compatibility purpose but is no longer needed for that purpose.
Current law requires that the federal share of the proceeds, proportional to the federal share of the
original land acquisition cost, be deposited in the trust fund. The proposed change would allow
the proceeds to be reinvested in another project for, in preferential order: (1) an approved noise
Congressional Research Service
10

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

compatibility project at the airport; (2) an environmentally related project at the airport; (3)
another eligible AIP project at the airport; (4) transfer to another airport for a noise compatibility
project; or (5) payment to the trust fund.
Section 136 (d) of the House-passed bill eliminates the sunset provision for the “competition
disclosure requirement,” under 49 Section 47107 (s). Additionally, Section 815 prescribes the
conditions under which a general aviation airport can use revenue from mineral extraction on the
airport’s property for transportation infrastructure projects beyond the normal AIP range of
eligible projects, without violating revenue diversion restrictions.
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 203) includes the first two provisions of the House bill, described
above. The bill does not eliminate the competition disclosure requirement sunset provision. The
provision includes two changes not contained in the House bill. The first allows the proceeds
from disposing of land that was or will be acquired for an airport purpose (other than for a noise
compatibility purpose) to be reinvested at the same airport or transferred to another airport
prescribed by the Secretary of DOT (i.e., instead of being deposited in the fund). The second
change clarifies that the leasing of land purchased with AIP funds for noise mitigation purposes
shall not be considered disposal of the land under the assurance on acquiring land (49 U.S.C.
47107 (2). Section 224, as does Section 815 of the House bill, prescribes the conditions under
which a general aviation airport can use revenue from mineral extraction on the airport’s property
for transportation infrastructure projects beyond the normal AIP range of eligible projects,
without violating revenue diversion restrictions.
Federal Share
Under current law, the federal government share for AIP projects is as follows:
• 75% for large and medium hub airports (80% for noise compatibility projects);
• 95% for other airports;2
• “not more than” 95% for airport projects in states participating in the state block
grant program; and
• 70% for projects funded from the discretionary fund at airports receiving
exemptions under 49 U.S.C. Section 47134, the pilot program for private
ownership of airports.
The House-passed bill (Sec. 138) would provide a special rule to allow airports recently classified
as medium hubs (which would drop their federal share to 75%) to retain their eligibility for an up
to 90% federal share for a two year transition period.
The bill also includes a special rule for “Economically Depressed Communities.” The rule would
maintain the 95% federal share for projects at airports that are receiving subsidized service under
the Essential Air Service (EAS) program that meet one or more of the criteria established in 42
U.S.C. 3161(a) as determined by the Secretary of Commerce. 42 U.S.C. 3161(a) sets forth three
criteria for eligibility: (1) the area has a per capita income of 80% or less of the national average;

2 The temporary increase in share to 95% was established to provide relief to operators of small airports after the 9/11
terrorist attacks. The increase was to end on September 30, 2007, but has been continued under extension legislation. If
the eventual multi-year reauthorization does not include a provision maintaining the 95% share, it will revert to 90%.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

(2) the area has an unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which data
are available, at least 1 percentage point greater than the national average unemployment rate;
and (3) the area is an area that the Secretary of Commerce determines has experienced or is about
to experience a special need arising from actual or threatened severe unemployment or economic
adjustment resulting from severe short-term or long-term changes in economic conditions. Given
the variety of eligibility criteria and the rural location of EAS airports it is likely that many EAS
airports could retain their 95% federal share under the House bill. Non-EAS airports (smaller than
medium hub) would revert to 90% federal share under the bill. Should the repeal of the EAS
program be enacted, as has been proposed under Section 407 of the bill, the impact of the special
rule would be limited to EAS airports in Alaska and Hawaii.
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 207) would provide for a 95% federal share for airports smaller than
medium hub for the years FY2008, FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011. Block grant airports would
also be provided with a 95% federal share. Section 204 would provide a special rule to allow
airports recently classified as medium hubs (which would drop their federal share to 75%) to
retain their eligibility for an up to 95% federal share for a two-year transition period.
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)
Key PFC issues include the cap on the amount airports can assess for a PFC and eligibility of
airport projects for PFC funds. Additional issues include the contents of airport competition plans
submitted to the FAA, streamlining of the PFC review process, and actions to address cases of
PFC revenue diversion.
Increasing the PFC Cap
Neither the House- nor Senate-passed bill includes an increase in the PFC cap. However, the
House-passed bill includes a provision (Section 116) requiring a study of the impacts on airports
of accommodating connecting passengers. The study is to include a recommendation as to
whether different levels of PFCs should be imposed on connecting passengers rather than
originating passengers. Some have argued that the PFC structure favors large hub airports’ PFC
revenues because the costs to an airport of serving a connecting passenger are less than those of
serving an originating passenger. The Senate-passed bill includes a provision to establish a pilot
program that would eliminate the statutory ceiling on PFCs. This is discussed in further detail
below.
Project Eligibility
The House-passed bill (Sec. 112) proposes a pilot program that would permit the use of PFC
funds for eligible intermodal ground access projects at five airports. The projects do not have to
be on property owned or controlled by the sponsoring airport. The PFC project cost share would
be limited to the projected ratio of airport-bound passengers to the total number of passengers
using the ground access facility.
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 201) includes language that would make major changes to 49 U.S.C.
Section 40117(d), which sets certain “limitations on approving applications.” The bill would
restrict the limitations to intermodal ground access projects, thereby freeing PFC applications for
other types of projects from the limitations. The bill then also eliminates some of the current law
limitations that would otherwise still apply to ground access projects. Among the limitations
Congressional Research Service
12

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

eliminated for all PFC applications is the requirement that the Secretary of DOT find that the
project will meet at least one of the goals to preserve or enhance capacity, safety, or security of
the national air transportation system; reduce noise from an airport; or provide an opportunity for
enhanced competition between or among air carriers and foreign air carriers. In addition, the bill
would eliminate the precondition that for an airport to impose a fee above $3 the Secretary must
find that the airport has made adequate provision for financing the airside needs of the airport,
including runways, taxiways, aprons, and aircraft gates.
Competition Plans
Under current law no AIP or PFC project funding may be approved for a large or medium hub
airport unless the airport has submitted a written competition plan to the FAA. The House-passed
bill would drop “patterns of air service,” and “airfare levels” compared to other large airports as
information required in the competition plans. The Senate bill is silent on the competition plan
requirement.
Passenger Facility Charge Pilot Program
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 202) would establish a pilot program at up to six airports that would
allow them to collect a PFC with no statutory ceiling on the fee. The fee, however, must be
collected by the airport from the passenger. Under current law the PFCs are collected for the
airports by the airlines during the ticketing process. Additionally, GAO would be required to
conduct a study of alternative means of collecting PFCs. The House-passed bill does not include a
provision to establish a PFC pilot program.
PFC Grant Streamlining and Revenue Diversion Provisions
Section 201 of the Senate-passed bill includes an extensive provision to streamline the PFC
review and approval process. Instead of seeking approval on a project-by-project basis, for
existing projects an airport would be required to submit to air carriers at the airport and to the
FAA, and make available to the public, an annual PFC status report setting forth the airport’s PFC
revenues, spending, PFC funded projects, the next year’s projected revenues, and a description of
the consultation and public notice process. Once the status report is submitted no further action is
required and implementation could continue. For new projects, the airport would have to provide
for a notice and comment period for carriers operating at the airport and a public notice and
comment period before filing the PFC status report. Once the report is filed, the airport could
begin collecting the new PFC. Stakeholders could, however, file objections, and if the FAA agrees
with an objection, the FAA could terminate the airport’s authority to collect PFC revenues for the
project. The proposal also provides that DOT may investigate whether a PFC is excessive or
whether PFC revenue is being diverted to non-allowable uses. In the case of an airport found to
have diverted revenue, the airport may not propose collection or use of a PFC unless DOT
determines that the airport has taken corrective action to address the violation. The House bill
does not include a provision similar to the Senate bill.
Other Airport-Related Provisions
Other airport-related issues addressed in FAA reauthorization legislation include airport
privatization; the redevelopment of airport properties and conveyances of airport lands; airport
Congressional Research Service
13

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

construction in cold-weather states; noise monitoring in New York, New Jersey, and the
Philadelphia metropolitan area; solid waste recycling initiatives; measures to facilitate
opportunities for disadvantaged small businesses at airports; and the eligibility of metropolitan
Washington, DC airports for AIP and PFC grants.
Airport Privatization
The Airport Privatization Pilot Program allows the FAA to exempt five airports from federal
requirements relating to the use of airport revenue. The requirement that airport revenue be
expended for aviation purposes is seen as a major inhibitor of airport privatization. Since the
program was enacted in 1996 (Section 149 of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996,
P.L. 104-264), only one airport has been privatized, Stewart International Airport (New York).
However, Stewart International has since been purchased by the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey and is again owned by a public entity. Efforts to privatize Chicago Midway were
suspended after investors failed to obtain adequate financing, but these efforts could be revived
should the financial environment improve. Supporters of privatization have argued that the
current pilot program gives airlines effective veto power over privatization transactions. Current
law requires that the airport sponsor may only recover from the sale or lease the amount that may
be approved by at least 65% of the air carriers serving the airport; and by air carriers that account
for 65% of the total landed weight at the airport for the year.
The House-passed bill (Sec. 158) would increase the number of airports allowed to participate in
the Airport Privatization Pilot Program from five to ten. In the case of primary airports, the
secretary of transportation must consult with each air carrier (domestic and foreign) serving the
airport prior to approving an airport’s participation in the program. In the case of a nonprimary
airport, the Secretary must consult with 65% of the owners of aircraft based at the airport prior to
approval. The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Pilot Program for Redevelopment of Airport Properties
Section 712 of the Senate-passed bill requires that within a year of enactment FAA is to establish
a trial program at up to four public-use airports that have approved noise compatibility programs
under 49 U.S.C. 47102. Under this trial program, the FAA may make grants from the
discretionary noise set-aside funds under 49 U.S.C. 47117(e) or PFCs to support joint planning,
engineering, and environmental permitting to facilitate the assembly and redevelopment of real
property purchased with noise mitigation funds made available under the AIP or PFC programs.
The trial program is to encourage compatible land uses and generate economic benefits to both
the airport operator and the affected local jurisdiction. The House-passed bill does not include this
provision.
Land Use and Conveyance Provisions in the Senate Bill
Section 218 of the Senate-passed bill, in regard to Merrill Field Airport in Anchorage, AK,
releases, without monetary consideration, the municipality of Anchorage, AK, from all
restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, encumbrance, or conveyance of specified land
in the municipality. It also releases Anchorage from repayment of any outstanding grant
obligations owed to FAA, for land subsequently conveyed for use by the state of Alaska for the
construction or reconstruction of a federally subsidized highway project.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Section 219 of the Senate-passed bill releases the city of St. George, UT, from the terms and
conditions of an August 28, 1973, deed of conveyance of land from the United States to the city.
Any of the land sold by the city is to be for fair market value, and the proceeds are to be used for
the development or improvement of a replacement public airport.
Section 728 requires the conveyance of certain federal land to Clark County, NV, for the Southern
Nevada Supplemental Airport. The conveyed land is to be used for the development of flood
mitigation infrastructure at the airport.
Section 434 would allow the development of land within the Las Vegas McCarran International
Airport Environs Overlay District that falls outside the 65 decibel day-night average noise
exposure map profile, to be used for transient lodging, including hotels; auditoriums; concert
halls; and sports arenas. Additionally, Section 736 conveys federal land to the city of Mesquite,
NV.
Priority Review of Cold Weather State Construction Projects
The House-passed bill (Sec. 155) would require FAA to schedule, to the maximum extent
practicable, the review of projects in cold weather states as early as possible. Cold weather states
are states in which the weather typically prevents major construction projects from being carried
out before May 1. Section 724 of the Senate-passed bill is similar to the House provision.
Noise Monitoring of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace
Redesign
Section 218 of the House-passed bill would require the Administrator of FAA, in conjunction
with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Philadelphia International Airport,
to monitor the noise impacts of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area
Airspace Redesign. One year after completion of the redesign, the Administrator is to submit to
Congress a report on the findings.
Section 726 of the Senate-passed bill would require FAA, in conjunction with the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey and the Philadelphia International Airport, to monitor the noise
impacts of the airspace redesign and report to Congress not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment and every 180 days thereafter until completion.
Solid Waste Recycling Plans
The House-passed bill (Sec. 134) requires that for any airport with a master plan to receive AIP
funding, the plan must address the feasibility of solid waste recycling and minimizing the
generation of solid waste at the airport. The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 714) includes language
similar to the provision in House bill.
Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 715) would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a
program to eliminate barriers to small business participation in airport-related contracts and
concessions by prohibiting excessive, unreasonable, or discriminatory bonding requirement for
Congressional Research Service
15

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

any project funded under AIP or using passenger facility charge revenues under 49 U.S.C. Section
40117. Under the provision, the Secretary of Transportation must issue a final rule establishing
the program one year after the date of enactment Also, not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment, the Secretary shall issue final regulations to adjust the personal net worth cap used in
determining whether an individual is economically disadvantaged, to correct for the impact of
inflation since the cap was set at $750,000 in 1989. Thereafter, annually on June 30, the Secretary
shall adjust the cap to account for changes in the Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers
for the previous 12 months.
The House-passed version of the bill dropped the Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Program, now in the Senate-passed bill. The House-passed bill does require in Section 822, that
the DOT Inspector General submit a report to Congress on the number of new small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals that
participated in the programs and activities to be funded by this act.
Training Program for Certification of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
The House-passed bill (Sec. 141) would require that, within a year of enactment, the Secretary of
Transportation establish a training program for officials or agents of airport sponsors that are
responsible for certifying that the airport owner or operator will meet its minority set-aside goal
or who are responsible for determining whether or not a small business qualifies as being owned
and controlled by socially or economically disadvantaged individuals.
Section 715 of the Senate-passed bill includes a similar provision. The Senate provision also
authorizes such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provision and requires that the
Secretary of DOT submit a report on the program within two years. It also would require, within
180 days of enactment, DOT to raise the person net worth cap used in determining whether an
individual is economically disadvantaged for qualification purposes to reflect the impact of
inflation on the $750,000 cap since 1989.
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
The House-passed bill (Sec. 151) would repeal 49 U.S.C. § 49108, which prevents the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority from applying for AIP or PFC grants after October
1, 2008. Similarly, Section 718 of the Senate-passed bill would also repeal 49 U.S.C. § 49108.
FAA Management and Organizational Issues
Air Traffic Controller and Technical Workforce
Amid growing numbers of retiring controllers and the pending shift toward integrating NextGen
technologies in the air traffic control environment, there is considerable policy interest in the
staffing of air traffic facilities and the training of air traffic controllers and systems specialists to
operate new NextGen systems. The mix of fully certified controllers and developmental
controllers (i.e., controllers still completing on-the-job training to obtain full certification) has
become a growing issue. More recently, late-night controller work schedules and staffing levels,
particular at airport towers, have drawn media attention.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

The House bill would require the National Academy of Sciences to carry out a study examining
human factors, traffic activity, and air traffic control technology and to make recommendations on
staffing standards for air traffic controllers. The bill also would require FAA to study the
adequacy of training programs for air traffic controllers examining current training and required
competencies as well as available training approaches and required competencies for NextGen
operations. The House bill would also require FAA to complete a study of frontline manager
staffing at air traffic control facilities.
The House-passed bill would also require a study looking at alternative training approaches for
new controllers hired through the Collegiate Training Initiative (CTI), which provides
undergraduate training designed to prepare students for a career as an air traffic controller. The
bill also includes a provision authorizing FAA to place holders of control tower operator (CTO)
certificates in FAA facilities, with the same compensation and benefits as developmental air
traffic controllers, provided they meet all other applicable qualification requirements for given air
traffic control specialist positions. This could make it easier for some CTI graduates, non-FAA
controllers, and former military controllers to transition to air traffic controller positions at FAA.
Under the provision, FAA could recover travel costs associated with certificating air traffic
control specialists from institutions that provide the training.
The Senate bill would require a National Academy of Science study of the methods used for
determining staffing levels for air traffic controllers, system specialists, and engineers. The Senate
language also directs FAA to carry out a comprehensive review and evaluation of the FAA
Academy, where newly hired controllers undergo initial training. The provision also directs the
FAA to examine facility training of developmental controllers, who have graduated from the
academy but are not yet fully qualified and certified to control air traffic on their own. The
measure would require FAA to establish standards for the number of developmental controllers
that can be accommodated at each FAA facility based on the available number of on-the-job
instructors, the number and availability of classrooms and simulators, training requirements, and
current levels of controllers already in training. The bill would also require a GAO study of FAA’s
program of training for airway transportation systems specialists that maintain ATC technology
infrastructure. The report would examine current training curricula, training needs for
maintaining proficiency in the latest technology, distribution and cost of in-house and vendor
training, and recommendations for cost effective approaches for providing up-to-date training on
the latest technologies. A provision of the bill would also require FAA to carry out a study of
front-line manager staffing at air traffic facilities, taking into account factors such as facility type,
traffic complexity, controller proficiency, and training requirements.
Facility Consolidation
The move toward NextGen technologies coupled with age and deterioration of existing FAA
facilities poses both challenges and opportunities to update and integrate or consolidate FAA air
traffic facilities. These efforts, however, are controversial because, in many cases, they involve
closing facilities and relocating personnel. Therefore, there has been considerable interest in
establishing processes for independent recommendations and/or reviews of FAA consolidation
plans. In 2007, under the Bush Administration, FAA provided a legislative proposal outlining a
process for evaluating and implementing facility and service consolidation in a manner designed
to minimize political influence on the process, much like the military base realignment and
closure (BRAC) process, on which it was modeled. The objective was to identify and implement
Congressional Research Service
17

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

realignment and consolidation activities that would help reduce FAA capital, operating,
maintenance, and administrative costs without adversely impacting system safety.
While neither the Senate-passed bill nor the House-passed bill would establish a commission with
final decision authority over FAA facility consolidation, both bills seek to establish a process for
reviewing FAA proposals.
The House-passed bill proposes to establish an Aviation Facilities and Services Board to review
and make recommendations based on FAA consolidation proposals. Unless Congress specifically
disapproves, FAA would be required to implement Board recommendations by initiating action
within one year and completing recommended realignments and consolidations within three years
after the Board issues its report and recommendations.
The Senate-passed bill would establish an Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board to
review and analyze the FAA’s recommendations along with public comments regarding these
recommendations. Based on this review and analysis, the Board would make its own
recommendations for realignment of aviation facilities and services that would be submitted in a
report to the President and to congressional oversight committees. The legislation would
explicitly prohibit consolidation of any air traffic control facilities or regional offices until the
board’s recommendations are completed. The bill also contains a provision that would require the
FAA to establish a process for including employees selected from collective bargaining units
likely to be affected by air traffic modernization projects, including NextGen initiatives, in the
planning, development, and implementation of such projects.
The Senate-passed bill would also require FAA to establish a task force to review conditions in
existing air traffic control facilities. The task force would be charged with identifying facilities in
need of remediation to correct conditions that may impact health and safety.
FAA Personnel Management System
In 1995, Congress authorized the Administrator of FAA to develop a new personnel management
system for the agency’s workforce. Section 347(a) of the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, provided for the development and implementation of
this personnel management system following consultation with FAA employees and any non-
governmental experts in personnel management systems employed by the Administrator.3 The
system was intended to provide for “greater flexibility in the hiring, training, compensation, and
location of personnel.”4 As enacted originally, chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, relating to
labor-management relations in most federal agencies, did not apply to the new personnel
management system.5 In March 1996, however, Congress amended section 347 to make chapter
71 applicable to this system.6

3 P.L. 104-50, Sec. 347(a), 109 Stat. 436, 460 (1995).
4 Id.
5 See P.L. 104-50, Sec. 347(b), 109 Stat. 436, 460 (1995) (identifying provisions of Title 5, U.S. Code, that would be
applicable to the new personnel management system).
6 P.L. 104-122, Sec. 1, 110 Stat. 876 (1996).
Congressional Research Service
18

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

In October 1996, Congress considered additional requirements for the FAA personnel
management system. Section 253 of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 amended
Title 49 of the U.S. Code to add a new section involving consultation and negotiation with respect
to the new system.7 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122(a) provides, in relevant part:
(1) Consultation and Negotiation—In developing and making changes to the personnel
management system initially implemented by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration on April 1, 1996, the Administrator shall negotiate with the exclusive
bargaining representatives of employees of the Administration certified under section 7111
of title 5 and consult with other employees of the Administration.
(2) Mediation—If the Administrator does not reach an agreement under paragraph (1) with
the exclusive bargaining representatives, the services of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service shall be used to attempt to reach such agreement. If the services of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service do not lead to an agreement, the Administrator’s
proposed change to the personnel management system shall not take effect until 60 days
have elapsed after the Administrator has transmitted the proposed change, along with the
objections of the exclusive bargaining representatives to the change, and the reasons for such
objections, to Congress.
In the report that accompanied the Senate version of the 1996 Act, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation indicated that “[i]n negotiating changes to the personnel
system, the Administrator and the exclusive bargaining representatives would be required to use
every reasonable effort to find cost savings and to increase productivity within each of the
affected bargaining units, as well as within the FAA as a whole.”8 The House version of the act
did not include a provision on consultation, negotiation, and mediation. The Senate provisions
were incorporated into the final version of the legislation during conference.9
In 2005, a federal district court considered the impact of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122 on labor-
management relations at FAA.10 After reaching bargaining impasses with the FAA, the National
Air Traffic Controllers Association (“NATCA”) and the Professional Airways Systems Specialists
(“PASS”) sought the assistance of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (“FSIP”), an entity within
the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA”) that provides assistance with resolving
negotiation impasses between federal agencies and unions. In 2004, unclear about whether it had
the authority to resolve impasses involving the FAA in light of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122, FSIP
declined to provide assistance.11
After reviewing the development of the FAA personnel management system and the enactment of
49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122, the district court concluded that complaints related to an agency’s
participation in FSIP’s impasse resolution procedures could be deemed an unfair labor practice.12
Consequently, the court declared that “[w]hen agency action constitutes an arguable unfair labor

7 P.L. 104-264, Sec. 253, 110 Stat. 3213, 3237 (1996).
8 S.Rept. 104-333, at 36 (1996).
9 See H.Rept. 104-848, at 109 (1996).
10 National Air Traffic Controllers Association v. Federal Service Impasses Panel, 2005 WL 418016 (D.D.C. 2005).
11 Id. at 1-2.
12 Id. at 4.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

practice, jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Authority and the Courts of Appeals.... For these
reasons, the [court] concludes that it is without jurisdiction and should defer to the FLRA.”13
Although the FLRA did not address the matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit did review the district court opinion in February 2006. In National Air Traffic
Controllers Association v. Federal Service Impasses Panel, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district
court decision, concluding that FSIP did not have a clear and specific statutory mandate to assert
jurisdiction over the parties’ bargaining impasses.14 The court did observe, however, that the
FAA’s refusal to participate in proceedings before FSIP could form the basis of an unfair labor
practice charge before the FLRA.15
On April 5, 2006, FAA announced formally that it had reached an impasse in its negotiations with
NATCA regarding its agency-wide contract covering the air traffic controller workforce.16 In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122(a)(2), the FAA Administrator indicated that the agency
would send its last, best offer to Congress.17 On June 5, 2006, FAA imposed a new labor contract
on NATCA. FAA maintained that the new contract would save the government approximately
$1.9 billion over five years through various measures, including the creation of a separate, lower
pay scale for new employees.18
Section 601 of the House-passed bill appears to respond to the events involving NATCA and
PASS in 2006. The section would amend 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122(a) to allow for the involvement of
FSIP if the Administrator and a bargaining representative fail to resolve issues in controversy
arising from the negotiation of a term collective bargaining agreement. Under the amended 49
U.S.C. Sec. 40122(a)(2), FSIP would be permitted to assist the parties with issues in controversy
by ordering binding arbitration by a private arbitration board that would consist of three
members.19 Each party would select one arbitrator from a list of not less than 15 arbitrators with
federal sector experience provided by the director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service (“FMCS”). The two arbitrators would then select a third arbitrator from the list. If the two
arbitrators were unable to agree on the third person, the parties would select the third person by
alternately striking names from the list until only one name remained.
The arbitration board would be required to give the parties a full and fair hearing, including the
opportunity to present evidence in support of their claims in person, by counsel, or by another
representative. The arbitration board would be required to render its decision within 90 days of its
appointment. The arbitration board would have to take into consideration such factors as: the

13 Id.
14 437 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
15 Id. at 1265.
16 See FAA Declares Impasse in Controller Talks; Next Stop for Two Sides is Congress, Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No.
66, at A-5 (April 6, 2006).
17 Id. H.R. 5449, a measure introduced by Representative Steven C. LaTourette on May 22, 2006, to repeal 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 40122(a)(2), was defeated. The measure was considered under suspension of the rules and required a two-thirds
vote to pass. The vote was 271-148. For additional information on the congressional consideration of H.R. 5449, see
FAA Imposes Labor Contract on NATCA Following 60-Day Congressional Review, Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 111, at
A-10 (June 9, 2006).
18 FAA Imposes Labor Contract on NATCA Following 60-Day Congressional Review, supra note 15.
19 For unresolved issues that arise during mid-term bargaining, the Federal Service Impasses Panel would provide
assistance to the parties, but only to the extent allowable under 5 U.S.C. § 7119. 5 U.S.C. § 7119 does not provide
explicitly for binding arbitration.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

effect of its decisions on FAA’s ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce; the effect of its
decisions on the agency’s budget; the effect of its decisions on other FAA employees; and any
other factors whose consideration would assist the board in fashioning a fair and equitable award.
The costs of the arbitration would be shared equally by the parties.
Upon reaching a voluntary agreement or at the conclusion of binding arbitration, the final
agreement, except for those matters decided by an arbitration board, would be subject to approval
by the head of the agency and, if requested by the bargaining representative, subject to ratification
by such organization.
Section 313 of Senate-passed H.R. 658 would also amend 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122(a) to allow for
the involvement of FSIP if the Administrator and a bargaining representative fail to reach
agreement. Under the amended 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40122(a)(2), FSIP would be permitted to assist the
parties by ordering binding arbitration by a private arbitration board consisting of three members.
Each party would select one arbitrator from a list of not less than 15 arbitrators with federal sector
experience provided by the director of the FMCS. The two arbitrators would then select a third
arbitrator from the list. If the two arbitrators were unable to agree on the third person, the parties
would select the third person by alternately striking names from the list until only one name
remained.
The arbitration board would be required to give the parties a full and fair hearing, including the
opportunity to present evidence in support of their claims, and an opportunity to present their case
in person, by counsel, or by another representative. The arbitration board would be required to
render its decision within 90 days of its appointment. Unlike the House-passed measure, the
Senate-passed bill would require the arbitration board to take into consideration only the effect of
its decisions on the agency’s budget and its ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce. The
costs of the arbitration would be shared equally by the parties.
Upon reaching a voluntary agreement or at the conclusion of binding arbitration, the final
agreement, except for those matters decided by an arbitration board, would be subject to approval
by the head of the agency and, if requested by the bargaining representative, subject to ratification
by such organization.
NextGen Air Transportation System Modernization
NextGen is an ambitious program to replace ground-based navigation and radar surveillance of
aircraft with a system that guides and tracks aircraft using satellite-based global positioning
system (GPS) capabilities. NextGen also encompasses FAA air traffic control equipment
modernization, new digital communications capabilities, and advanced air traffic management
tools and procedures. The target date for full implementation is 2025. The cost, complexity, and
technical risk associated with this initiative have been a major focus of FAA reauthorization
debate.
S. 223 and H.R. 658 differ considerably with respect to funding authorizations to support
NextGen development. Primary funding for NextGen activities is derived from FAA’s Facilities
and Equipment (F&E) account. S. 223 would authorize the F&E account at $3,500 million in
FY2010 and at $3,600 million in FY2011. In contrast, H.R. 658 proposes a four-year
authorization in which F&E would be authorized $2,700 million in FY2011 and $2,600 each
fiscal year for FY2012 through FY2014. In FY2011, the only year the two bills overlap, S. 223
Congressional Research Service
21

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

proposes an authorized funding level that is $900 million above the amount specified in H.R. 658.
S. 223 would also establish a specific Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account within
the aviation trust fund. Under the proposal, the modernization account would be allocated $400
million annually in revenues derived from taxes levied on aviation jet fuels. H.R. 658 does not
include a similar provision. While this would not increase the authorized amount for FAA’s F&E
account, it would establish a dedicated funding mechanism for modernization initiatives,
principally NextGen. H.R. 658 does not include a similar provision.
Both H.R. 658 and S. 223, however, include numerous provisions intended to improve the
management, oversight, and implementation of NextGen. H.R. 658 directs the Department of
Transportation to give priority to funding NextGen infrastructure and technology demonstrations.
It calls for creating an appointed position of Chief NextGen Officer within FAA that reports
directly to the Administrator and has direct responsibility for implementing NextGen activities
and budgets and coordinating NextGen implementation. Further, H.R. 658 calls for redesignating
the Director of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), the FAA entity charged with
designing and implanting the NextGen plan, to an appointed Associate Administrator position.
Additionally, the bill would require agencies assisting FAA with NextGen implementation, such
as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense
(DOD), to designate a senior official to coordinate and oversee the agency’s NextGen activities.
Both the Senate and House bills seek to include FAA employees in air traffic control
modernization projects, and would require the FAA to track specific performance metrics to
gauge NextGen progress and derived benefits.
Like H.R. 658, S. 223 would also establish a Chief NextGen Officer position within FAA, but
does not specifically indicate whether this individual would report directly to the Administrator.
S. 223 also seeks to establish a NextGen implementation office, headed by Chief NextGen
Officer, to coordinate all NextGen related activities, both within FAA and across various
government agencies.
In addition, S. 223 seeks to establish an Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board,
composed of FAA and aviation stakeholder representatives. It also would require FAA to conduct
a facilities needs assessment detailing its proposed facility and service realignment plans to
support the transition to NextGen. The oversight board would be responsible for reviewing the
FAA plans as well as providing Congress with its own recommendations. As noted previously,
FAA would not be permitted to move forward with facility realignments before the board
completes its recommendations, unless a written agreement with all affected FAA employee
bargaining representatives is reached for a specific facility realignment initiative.
S. 223 would also set specific deadlines for implementing precision navigational procedures,
called Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures, that rely on NextGen navigation
capabilities by 2014 at the 137 busiest commercial passenger airports, and by 2016 at other
airports.
One specific issue of interest for users of FAA air traffic services has been the consideration of
incentives or government aid for equipping aircraft with NextGen capabilities. Airlines and
aircraft manufacturers and groups representing these entities have sought incentives for NextGen
equipage as a means to accelerate the transition to NextGen and reduce some of the economic and
technical risks assumed by acquiring aircraft technologies to support NextGen implementation.
Their arguments for such an approach hinge on assertions that aircraft avionics are an integral
component of NextGen infrastructure. Based on this position, various proposals have been
Congressional Research Service
22

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

offered, such as a government operated NextGen infrastructure bank or government-backed loans.
Direct government grants for equipment acquisition have also been suggested. FAA, meanwhile,
has advocated a best-equipped, best-served strategy, pointing to cost-saving benefits to early
adopters of NextGen technologies. S. 223 directs the FAA to issue a report identifying various
incentive options for NextGen equipage. While H.R. 658 directs FAA to report on ways to
accelerate NextGen technologies, it does not specifically address operator equipage. S. 223, on
the other hand, includes language that would provide financial incentives for NextGen equipage
through mechanisms such as grants from the FAA. FAA has already used similar mechanisms to
fund a few recent demonstration projects using air carrier aircraft. S. 223 also includes a
provision that would establish an equipage bank pilot program for public-use aircraft with
participation limited to five states.
H.R. 658 does, however, seek to impose a readiness verification that the necessary ground
infrastructure has been deployed and is properly working before FAA requires aircraft to equip
with Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) In technologies. ADS-B In is a
component of NextGen which will enable aircraft to receive traffic, weather, and other flight
information. The House bill does not require such a verification before FAA requires aircraft to
equip with ADS-B Out avionics that broadcast aircraft position to ground stations for air traffic
control surveillance. S. 223, in contrast, would require FAA to verify readiness before mandating
either ADS-B Out or ADS-B In and would accelerate the timeline for ADS-B equipage by
requiring all aircraft to equip with ADS-B Out by 2015 and with ADS-B In by 2018. Under
current FAA plans, ADS-B Out will be mandatory for many airspace users by 2020 while no
specific requirements for ADS-B In equipage have been announced. Aviation users have been
seeking greater assurance that their investments in both ADS-B Out and ADS-B In will be cost
beneficial, a determination that depends largely on the FAA’s ability to establish firm technical
standards and deploy necessary ground infrastructure.
Aviation Safety
Several aviation safety issues are addressed in pending FAA reauthorization legislation.
Significant safety issues include runway safety measures, the safety of air ambulance operations,
oversight of air carriers, regulations and oversight of aviation maintenance providers and
certificated repair stations (particularly repair stations located outside the United States), safety
issues pertaining to operations of unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system, and changes
to flight and duty time limits to address concerns over pilot fatigue.
Additionally, the Senate-passed bill includes several provisions pertaining to pilot training, pilot
records, pilot fatigue, and airline safety programs. These issues, primarily addressing concerns
over pilot training and selection and flight operations among regional air carriers, were largely
addressed in legislation enacted during the 111th Congress (see The Airline Safety and Federal
Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, P.L. 111-216).20 Similar provisions in the Senate
bill under consideration in the 112th Congress are not included in the discussion below.

20 Details of the enacted provisions are summarized in CRS Report R40410, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress, coordinated by Bart Elias.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Runway Safety
Runway incursions—events where aircraft, vehicles, or pedestrians stray onto active runways and
pose a collision hazard to landing or departing aircraft—remain a central safety concern. FAA’s
major technology initiatives to mitigate runway incursions include the deployment of advanced
surface radar capabilities (Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X or ASDE-X) and
controller alerting to warn of impending incursions (the Airport Movement Area Safety System or
AMASS) at busy airports. However, ASDE-X has been scaled back and delayed. Also, the utility
of the AMASS system has been questioned by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
because it does not convey warning information directly to pilots, potentially limiting the
system’s ability to mitigate collisions. The NTSB has recommended that FAA develop systems
that provide direct warnings to pilots. FAA recently approved the use of electronic flight bags,
portable computers for pilot use, with moving maps to improve pilot situation awareness while
taxiing. While useful for orienting and navigating in the airport environment, these devices
currently do not present information regarding other aircraft and vehicles in the airport
environment. To provide direct incursion mitigation tools for pilots, FAA has deployed runway
status lights (RWSLs) at some airports to warn taxiing aircraft that it is unsafe to cross an active
runway, and final approach runway occupancy signal (FAROS) lights to warn landing aircraft if
the runway ahead is occupied.
The House-passed bill contains a provision that would require FAA to submit a report to
Congress detailing its plan to install systems to alert controllers, flight crews, or both of potential
runway incursions by December 31, 2011. The FAA would be required to integrate the plan into
its annual NextGen Implementation Plan document. The bill would also require FAA to develop a
strategic plan for runway safety within six months of enactment. The plan would be required to
specifically address the effects of expected increases in air traffic on runway safety risk, and
include specific goals to improve runway safety; near-term and long-term actions for reducing the
number of runway incursions and their severity; a timeline and a list of resources needed for
implementing these actions; and details of a continuous process for monitoring progress toward
achieving stated runway safety goals. The bill also would direct the FAA’s Air Traffic
Organization (ATO) to evaluate ASDE-X for its potential contribution to NextGen, accelerate
ASDE-X implementation, and evaluate airport surveillance technologies and associated
collaborative management software for potential application in NextGen surface management.
The Senate-passed bill contains language similar to the House-passed bill directing FAA to
develop a plan reducing runway incursions at all commercial service airports. The plan is to
include actions such as improving airport lighting, signage, and runway markings. The Senate bill
would also require FAA to develop a process for tracking and investigating operational errors and
runway incursions within one year of enactment. It also directs the Surface System Program
Office to evaluate the potential contributions of ASDE-X and surface management software to the
NextGen initiative.
Safety of Air Ambulance Operations
The safety of air ambulance operations, particularly helicopter emergency medical service
(HEMS) flights, has been in the spotlight over the past few years in response to increased
accidents in this growing industry. NTSB and other aviation safety experts are advocating the
mandatory use of formal flight dispatch procedures and risk management practices among
helicopter air ambulance operators as well as mandatory installation of terrain warning systems
Congressional Research Service
24

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

on HEMS aircraft. NTSB also found that many air ambulance accidents occur when patients are
not on board. Present regulations allow air ambulances to operate under a less stringent set of
rules with regard to weather minimums and pilot duty times when not carrying patients.
Both the House-passed and Senate-passed bills would require air ambulance flights to be operated
under commercial flight rules, codified in 14 CFR Part 135, whenever medical personnel are on
board. Currently, air ambulance operators are only required to operate under these regulations
when medical patients are on board. Ferry flights and flights to pick up patients can be conducted
under less stringent general aviation regulations contained in 14 CFR Part 91. Both the House-
passed and Senate-passed bills include exemptions to Part 135 weather reporting requirements at
destinations until FAA certifies that accurate and reliable portable ground-based weather
measuring and reporting systems are available.
Both bills would require air ambulance operators to provide annual operations and safety data to
the FAA. In addition, the House-passed bill would require FAA to study low-altitude aircraft
weather observation technology and the feasibility of requiring night-vision goggles for
helicopter emergency medical service pilots. The Senate-passed bill would require FAA to study
and develop rulemaking on available cockpit voice and flight data recorders for helicopters and
fixed-wing aircraft used for emergency medical service operations
Maintenance Providers and Repair Stations
Concerns over the potential safety implications of a variety of air carrier maintenance practices
have been raised by some aviation safety experts and some Members of Congress. Two
overarching concerns that have been identified are the safety of maintenance work outsourced to
third-party repair stations, especially repair stations located outside the United States, and the use
of non-certificated maintenance providers for routine and extensive repair work and FAA
oversight of these non-certificated maintenance providers.
With regard to airline maintenance, both bills include provisions that would restrict the use of
non-certified maintenance providers, allowing only airline employees or employees of FAA-
certified repair stations to carry out substantial and routine maintenance and complete required
inspections of aircraft used in airline service. Air carriers would also be required to provide
complete lists of their non-certificated maintenance providers, whose activities would be
restricted to non-routine, non-substantial maintenance and repair work under this provision.
Both bills would also require FAA to inspect foreign repair stations that work on U.S. air carrier
aircraft or components installed on such aircraft at least two times annually. FAA would be
required to certify to Congress that these inspections have been carried out. The bills would also
extend the requirement for drug and alcohol testing programs to safety-critical positions at
foreign repair stations working on air carrier aircraft or components. Drug testing programs are
already required for safety-critical maintenance personnel working for airlines and repair stations
servicing air carrier aircraft within the United States.
Extending these requirements to repair stations in foreign countries may be complicated by
specific privacy laws and rights in other countries that may limit the FAA’s authority to impose
drug and alcohol testing programs that are comparable to existing programs in the United States.
Concerns have also been raised that the provision may threaten an aviation safety agreement
Congressional Research Service
25

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

between the United States and the European Union (EU).21 Under that agreement, FAA, the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and aviation safety oversight organizations from EU
member countries work collaboratively to certify and inspect repair stations. The legislative
language requires that the programs be consistent with applicable laws of countries where repair
stations are located. While the bills also seek international standards for alcohol and controlled
substance testing, consensus agreements and uniform application of these standards
internationally may be difficult to achieve.
Air Carrier Oversight
In addition to concerns over maintenance outsourcing, there has been increasing interest in safety
oversight of airline maintenance and flight operations. These issues have largely emerged
following the investigation of FAA whistleblower allegations that safety oversight of airline
operations were compromised by FAA oversight practices resulting in failures to comply with
required safety checks and maintenance actions. The allegations have raised policy questions
regarding FAA oversight of air carriers and programs to encourage airlines and airline employees
to come forward with information regarding possible regulatory violations and safety
deficiencies.
Provisions in the House-passed bill seek to improve FAA’s Voluntary Disclosure Reporting
Program (VDRP), which allows airlines to self-disclose safety violations with certain protections
established to promote safety rather than seek regulatory enforcement action against the airlines.
The language would require FAA inspectors to verify that air carrier solutions to correct safety
violations reported under the VDRP are comprehensive and fully implemented. The bill would
also require that inspectors confirm that violations reported by the airline under the VDRP had
not been previously discovered by an FAA inspector or previously disclosed by the airline. The
bill would require FAA to establish a process for FAA supervisory inspectors to review and
approve VDRP disclosures after they have been initially reviewed by an inspector. The provision
also calls for an Inspector General review of the VDRP, including an assessment of whether it is
improving the detection and correction of safety violations and compliance with regulations.
The bill also calls for a monthly headquarters-level review of the Air Transportation Oversight
System (ATOS) database to identify trends in regulatory compliance and corrective actions. The
FAA would be required to report quarterly to congressional oversight committees regarding the
results of these reviews.
The House-passed bill also contains language that would prohibit former FAA inspectors from
working in private sector positions representing air carriers over which they had oversight or
inspection responsibility for a period of two years after holding such a position at the FAA. The
bill would limit the length of time a principal supervisory inspector would be allowed to oversee
the operations of a single air carrier to five years or less.
The Senate-passed bill would similarly require FAA to take such action as it deems necessary to
ensure that, under the VDRP program, FAA inspectors fully evaluate corrective actions proposed
by the air carrier before accepting the voluntary disclosure, verify corrective actions are taken
within the proposed timeframe, and carry out inspections to assess whether these corrective

21 Daniel Michaels, “Airline Rule Threatens Pact With EU.” The Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

actions adequately remedy the disclosed problem. The measure would also require a second level
supervisory review of all air carrier VDRP submissions to ensure that the problem had not been
previously identified by an FAA inspector or disclosed by the airline in the past five years. The
Senate bill calls for a GAO study of VDRP, identifying whether it has demonstrated benefits with
respect to uncovering problems that may have otherwise gone undetected, and its possible role in
reducing violations and improving regulatory compliance.
The Senate bill also directs FAA to establish a national review team to conduct periodic reviews
of FAA air carrier oversight and report annually on its findings to congressional oversight
committees, and directs the DOT OIG to monitor and report on the effectiveness of the review
teams. The bill authorizes the FAA to hire an additional 200 safety inspectors. It also requires a
headquarters’ level review within FAA of the ATOS database on a monthly basis to ensure that
trends in regulatory compliance issues are adequately identified and corrective actions taken. The
headquarters’ review team would be required to submit internal FAA reports on a monthly basis
as well as quarterly reports to congressional oversight committees. The bill would also require
FAA to develop and implement a plan to ensure safety enforcement consistency within nine
months of enactment, and make periodic reviews and updates to that plan as needed.
The Senate-passed bill would similarly require the FAA to take such action as it deems necessary
to ensure that, under the VDRP program, FAA inspectors fully evaluate corrective actions
proposed by the air carrier before accepting the voluntary disclosure, verify corrective actions are
taken within the proposed timeframe, and carry out inspections to assess whether these corrective
actions adequately remedy the disclosed problem. The measure would also require a second level
supervisory review of all air carrier VDRP submissions to ensure that the problem had not been
previously identified by an FAA inspector or disclosed by the airline in the past five years. The
Senate bill calls for a GAO study of VDRP, identifying whether it has demonstrated benefits with
respect to uncovering problems that may have otherwise gone undetected, and its possible role in
reducing violations and improving regulatory compliance.
The Senate-passed bill would require all air carriers to establish a Safety Management System
(SMS) that includes an Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP); a Flight Operations Quality
Assurance (FOQA) program; a Line Operational Safety Audit (LOSA) program; and a Flight
Crew Fatigue Risk Management program. While many of these aspects of an SMS have been
implemented at major airlines, their use is not as prevalent among regional and commuter air
carriers. Additionally, the bill would require major airlines to collaborate and conduct operational
oversight of their regional and commuter air carrier partners through periodic safety audits;
training, maintenance, and inspection programs; and mechanisms for the exchange of safety-
related information. In developing regulations for SMS, the FAA would be required to assess the
merits and feasibility of using cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data in airline safety oversight
practices. Historically, CVR use has been limited to accident investigations. A separate provision
of the bill would generally protect ASAP, FOQA, and LOSA data from discovery in judicial
proceedings, and exempt any such data acquired by FAA or another federal entity from Freedom
of Information Act disclosure requirements. FAA would, however, be allowed to disclose such
information to carry out its safety mission, to explain a need for change in policy or regulations,
correct a condition that compromises safety, or to carry out a criminal investigation or
prosecution. NTSB would be allowed to reference such data in issuing safety recommendations.
The Senate-passed bill would also require FAA to conduct at least one random, unannounced on-
site inspection of regional carriers that have an established contract to provide service with
another air carrier to ensure compliance with FAA safety standards. The bill would also prohibit
Congressional Research Service
27

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

FAA inspectors from accepting positions representing air carriers before FAA that they were
responsible for inspecting and overseeing for a period of three years after leaving the FAA.
Both the House-passed and Senate-passed bills would establish an Aviation Safety Whistleblower
Investigation Office within the FAA that would be responsible for looking into complaints,
allegations, and information submitted by FAA certificate holders and employees to access
whether violations of FAA orders, regulations, standards, or federal laws pertaining to aviation
safety may have occurred. The investigation office would be responsible for referring suspected
criminal violations to the DOT OIG. The office may issue recommendations to the FAA based on
its investigative findings, and would be required to submit annual reports to Congress
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Growing interest in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or unmanned aerial systems
(UASs) is spurring considerable debate over how to accommodate these unmanned systems and
keep them safely separated from other air traffic. FAA and other federal agencies face a wide
variety of complex issues related to integrating unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace
System, including reliable technologies for detecting, sensing, and avoiding other aircraft; radio
frequency spectrum needs for unmanned aircraft operations; technologies and procedures for
systems safety; and training and certification requirements for unmanned aircraft operators.
The House-passed bill includes a provision requiring FAA to develop a comprehensive plan
within nine months of enactment to safely integrate commercial unmanned aircraft systems
(UASs) in the national airspace system. The bill further specifies that this integration is to be
completed as soon as possible, but not later than September 30, 2012, and authorizes such sums
as may be necessary to carry out the implementation plan.
The House-passed bill further requires the Secretary of Transportation to determine if certain
UASs can be safely operated in the national airspace system before completion of the integration
plan, and to establish requirements for safe operation of such aircraft. The bill also requires the
Secretary of Transportation to issue guidance within nine months of enactment regarding public
unmanned aircraft, such as those operated by federal or state and local entities. The guidance is to
expedite certification or authorization of public-use UASs; provide for collaboration with public
agencies to allow for incremental expansion of UAS operations as technologies mature; and
facilitate the capability of public agencies to develop and use test ranges to fly UASs. The bill
also includes a provision directing FAA, in coordination with other federal agencies, to develop
methods and technologies for assessing risk and preventing design and maintenance related
failures of unmanned aircraft systems that could pose risks to other aircraft; a better
understanding of human factors issues related to unmanned aircraft systems safety; and dynamic
simulation models for assessing the integration of all types of UASs into the national airspace
system without causing any degradation of existing levels of safety among all system users. The
bill specifies slightly more that $6 million per year for FY2009 through FY2012 for unmanned
aircraft system research.
The Senate-passed bill includes a provision requiring FAA to develop a plan for accelerating the
integration of UASs into the National Airspace System within one year of enactment. Under the
plan, the FAA would be required to establish a test project examining UAS integration at two test
sites by 2012. Under the plan, the FAA would be required to create a safe, non-exclusionary
airspace designation for cooperative manned and unmanned aircraft; establish certification, flight
standards, and air traffic requirements for the test sites; dedicate funding for UAS certification,
Congressional Research Service
28

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

flight standards, and air traffic requirements; encourage the leveraging and coordination of
research with NASA and DOD; address both military and civilian UAS operations; ensure that
UAS operations are incorporated into the NextGen system implementation plan; and verify the
safety of UAS vehicles and navigational procedures before integrating them into the NAS.
The bill also calls for FAA to work in conjunction with other federal agencies to develop
technologies and methods to assess the risk and improve the safety of manufactured UASs, and
conduct research on human factors aspects of UAS operations. The bill also calls for an
assessment by the National Academy of Sciences of UAS technologies and human factors, and
directs FAA to establish three two-year test projects in sparsely populated areas designed to
accelerate the safe integration of UASs into the NAS. The Senate bill would also requires FAA to
develop a UAS “roadmap,” update its policy statement regarding UASs, and issue proposed
rulemaking on issuing airworthiness certificates and experimental certificates for UAS systems
operated for compensation or hire. The Senate-passed bill includes language that would restrict
FAA from regulating recreational model aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds that are flown in
direct visual line-of-sight of the operator under rules intended for unmanned aircraft.
Pilot Fatigue
Reducing incidents caused by fatigue across all modes of transportation by establishing working
hour limits for transportation operators based on fatigue research, circadian rhythms, and sleep
and rest requirements has been a long-standing priority of the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB). While existing federal regulations include flight time and rest requirements for
flight crews that vary depending on the type of commercial flight operation being conducted,
these regulations have often been criticized as not adequately reflecting scientific knowledge
regarding human fatigue, alertness, and sleep needs. In airline operations, pilot organizations,
through collective bargaining, have been able to negotiate schedules that provide longer rest
periods than the minimum required under FAA regulations. However, there is still concern that
airline pilots’ rest periods do not adequately allow for the time associated with transportation to
and from the airport and for circadian disruption associated with crossing time zones.
The House-passed bill would require FAA to issue regulations to include various flight
assignments not flown under commercial flight rules (e.g., ferry flights or return-to-service test
flights) to count toward pilots’ flight time for the purposes of determining maximum allowable
flight hours and establishing crew rest requirements. The House-passed bill would exempt air
ambulance and all-cargo operations flown under commuter and on-demand (Title 14 CFR Part
135) rules from any changes to flight time limitations and rest requirements, leaving these
categories of operations under the existing regulations pertaining to flight time and rest
requirements.
The Senate-passed bill would require FAA to issue regulations on airline pilot flight and duty
times that reflect the best available scientific information. FAA would also be required to
establish regulations requiring the airlines to implement FAA-approved fatigue risk management
plans, and update these plans every two years. The bill also would require the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct a study examining the effect of pilots’ commuting, sometimes long
distances, to their duty assignments on fatigue. Similar requirements were enacted during the
111th Congress as part of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of
2010 (P.L. 111-216, Sec. 212), however regulatory actions mandated under these provisions have
not yet been completed.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Miscellaneous Safety-Related Provisions
The Senate-passed bill would require FAA, in consultation with OSHA, to establish milestones
for completing the work begun under the August 2000 MOU, and would require FAA to initiate
development of a policy statement setting forth circumstances under which OSHA requirements
may be applied to crewmembers onboard an aircraft. While the House passed more extensive
provisions requiring occupational safety and health standards for flight attendants in the 111th
Congress, these provisions were not included in House-passed H.R. 658. Airlines oppose OSHA
involvement out of concern that having multiple regulatory agencies overseeing safety issues
could cause additional confusion and burdens to the industry. The House-passed bill would
require a GAO study of FAA activities addressing new technologies for dealing with smoke in the
cockpits of commercial aircraft. The House-passed bill would specifically prohibit FAA from
restricting the carriage of compressed oxygen and other oxidizing gases onboard aircraft in
Alaska when aviation provides the only practical means of shipment. The House-passed bill
would also prohibit FAA from restricting the transport of lithium batteries in a manner more
restrictive than allowed under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) technical
instructions.
Airline Industry Issues
FAA reauthorization legislation addresses several airline industry issues. Significant issues
include airline labor issues related to the formation of labor unions; takeoff and landing slot
controls at Washington Reagan National Airport; possible changes to or elimination of the
Essential Air Service (EAS) program for small communities; plus an array of airline consumer
protection or passenger rights issues.
Industry Labor Issues
In May 2010, the National Mediation Board (NMB) promulgated a new rule concerning election
procedures under the Railway Labor Act. Under the new rule, the NMB will certify a collective
bargaining representative for a craft or class of employees based on a majority of valid ballots
cast in a representation election.22 The NMB’s previous rule required that a majority of eligible
voters in the craft or class of employees cast valid ballots in favor of representation.23 Thus, under
the NMB’s old rule, it was possible for a representative that received a majority of votes to be
denied certification because not all eligible voters in the craft or class of employees actually voted
in the election.24 The NMB observed that the new rule “will provide a more reliable
measure/indicator of employee sentiment in representation disputes and provide employees with

22 See Representation Election Procedure, 75 Fed. Reg. 26,062 (May 11, 2010) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. pts. 1202,
1206). 29 C.F.R. pt. 1202.4, as revised, now states, in relevant part: “Except in unusual or extraordinary circumstances,
in a secret ballot the Board shall determine the choice of representative based on the majority of valid ballots cast.”
23 See id.
24 See Representation Election Procedure, 74 Fed. Reg. 56,750, 56,752 (proposed Nov. 3, 2009) (to be codified at 29
C.F.R. pts. 1202, 1206) (“[U]nder current election procedures, the Board determines that the failure or refusal of an
eligible voter to participate in an NMB-conducted election is the functional equivalent of a ‘no union’ vote.”).
Congressional Research Service
30

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

clear choices in representation matters.”25 Section 903 of the House-passed bill would invalidate
the new rule. The Senate-passed bill does not do so.
Washington Reagan National Airport Slot Controls
The total number of flights that can be handled in a given period of time at Washington Reagan
National Airport is set by federal statute (landings and takeoffs are referred to in industry parlance
as slots). This system has existed for over two decades, although the statutory limitations on the
number of slots available have been modified over that period by congressional action, especially
since 2000.
Flights at Reagan National are further restricted by what are known as perimeter rules. These
rules, which date to the opening of Dulles Airport in the early 1960s, were designed to move most
long-distance airline traffic to the new airport. Again, these perimeter rules have been modified
over time. At present, flights of 1,250 miles or less are referred to as being within the perimeter.
Prior to congressional action in 2000, all slots for flights arriving or departing Reagan National
were required to operate within the perimeter. Since 2000, Reagan National has accommodated
additional flights, using newly created slots providing service to destinations outside the
perimeter, so-called beyond perimeter slots.
Many Members of Congress and their constituents were long unhappy with the perimeter
restrictions, wishing to be able to fly to more distant locations from Reagan National. In 2000,
and again in 2003, Congress acceded to this view in a limited fashion, allowing the
aforementioned beyond perimeter slots. In the same pieces of legislation, Congress also added
additional slots for service within the perimeter, thereby increasing the absolute number of flights
allowed per day at the airport.
Certain other Members of Congress, Washington metro area local governments, and local
residents living near the airport or in its flight paths have opposed increased traffic at Reagan
National for any reason. Although this opposition focuses primarily on the noise impacts of
additional traffic, opponents of increased flights have also cited other reasons to hold this view.
In February 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) produced a study that suggested
that additional flights could be handled at Reagan National.26 Although the operator of the airport,
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, agreed that additional capacity could be added,
it did not support additional slots.
The House-passed bill (Sec.423) provides for 10 new beyond perimeter slots. New beyond
perimeter slots are to be created by reducing existing within perimeter slot allocations by an equal
number.
The Senate passed bill (Sec. 737) provides for 24 beyond perimeter slots. Incumbent carriers
granted these beyond perimeter slots must, under certain conditions, give up an equal number of

25 Representation Election Procedure, 75 Fed. Reg. at 26,062.
26 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Reagan National Airport: Update on Capacity to Handle Additional Flights
and Impact on Other Area Airports, GAO-07-352, February 28, 2007, p. 31, http://www.gao.gov/search?q=GAO-07-
352.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

within-perimeter service slots. Following an impact study of the direct effects of the additional
slots, that finds no deleterious effects of the change, DOT may grant up to an additional 8 slots.
Essential Air Service Program
The Essential Air Service Program (EAS) is a DOT-managed program that provides subsidies 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 to smaller communities that might otherwise lose service because of economic
factors. Over time the scope of the EAS program has been modified by statute and regulation.
Vision 100 included several mechanisms and incentives designed to move communities out of the
standard EAS program. Communities have not sought to participate in these incentive regimes,
however, suggesting that the incentives themselves may need to be reconsidered if they are to be
effective. Vision 100 created a trial program that would have required community financial
participation as a condition for continued access to EAS funding in some instances. Each annual
appropriations bill since passage of Vision 100, however, has prevented the use of any
appropriated funds to implement the cost-sharing trial program.
The bill passed by the House and the approved Senate bill include different provisions with
regard to the EAS program.
As passed by the House the bill would phase out the program over three years, scheduling the
EAS in the contiguous states to sunset on October 1, 2013. Only Alaska and Hawaii would be
eligible for EAS subsidies afterwards. Aside from the $50 million in annual overflight fee
collections for the EAS program through FY2013, the House bill will gradually decrease the
annual appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund—$97.5 million for FY2011, $60
million for FY2012, and $30 million for FY2013.
Other provisions in the EAS section of the legislation include a repeal of the never-used EAS
Local Participation Program; a provision allowing the Secretary to incorporate financial
incentives in EAS contracts based on carrier performance; an 18-month deadline for issuance of
Revised Guidance for the program and a two-year timeframe for the Secretary to submit a report
on implementation of the revised guidelines.
The bill passed by the Senate would extend the EAS program but add more restrictions.
Specifically, it would limit EAS subsidies to airports that are 90 miles or more from the nearest
medium or large hub, an increase from the current limit of 70 miles. The bill would also limit
EAS subsidies to locations that have 10 or more enplanements per day, except in Alaska.
However, the FAA administrator would be able to waive both the distance requirement and the
minimum enplanements requirement.
The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV (P.L. 112-27), like the Senate bill
provision, increases the minimum distance for EAS eligibility from 70 miles to 90 miles from the
nearest medium or large hub, except in Alaska. The provision gives the Secretary of
Transportation authority to waive this restriction in cases where geographic characteristics pose
undue difficulties in accessing the nearest medium or large hub. The act also includes a cap of
$1,000 on the per-passenger subsidy rate, regardless of distance. Under existing law, a per-
passenger subsidy cap of $200 also applies to otherwise eligible airports located less than 210
miles from a medium or large hub. The per-passenger subsidy caps do not apply to Alaska.
Congressional Research Service
32

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Airline Passenger Rights Issues
Historically, since the deregulation of aviation in 1978, DOT’s role in consumer protection has
been limited. The main power DOT has to protect consumers is its authority to take action against
air carriers for “deceptive trade practices.” The definition and interpretation of deceptive trade
practices can significantly impact the scope of DOT’s enforcement authority. Beginning in 2009,
a broader use of this authority began emerging from the regulatory process.
DOT Regulatory Action on Airline Passenger Rights
On December 18, 2009, DOT issued a final rule, “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections.”27
The rule addresses some of the passenger rights issues included in the House and Senate bills and
the rule’s provisions are therefore briefly summarized below for context. The rule cites the DOT’s
authority “and responsibility under 49 U.S.C. Section 41712, in concert with 49 U.S.C. Sections
40101(a)(4), 40101(a)(9), and 41702 to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices and
to ensure safe and adequate service in air transportation,” to address passenger rights issues
through regulation. The final rule includes the following mandates:
• Air carriers are required to develop and implement a contingency plan for
lengthy tarmac delays.
• Each contingency plan must include an assurance that, for domestic flights, the
air carrier will not allow a tarmac delay to exceed three hours unless the pilot-in-
command determines there is a safety-related or security-related impediment to
deplaning passengers, or Air Traffic Control has advised the pilot-in-command
that deplaning would significantly disrupt airport operations.
• For international flights, air carriers must commit to a set number of on-tarmac
hours, but the number of hours is determined by the air carrier and set forth in its
plan.
• Air carriers’ contingency plans must include assurance that adequate food and
potable water will be provided no later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the
gate.
• Air carrier plans must include assurance of operable lavatory facilities and
adequate medical attention.
• Under the rule, any chronically delayed flight scheduled by an air carrier is
considered an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition
within the meaning of 40 U.S.C. Section 41712.
• Air carriers must designate employees to monitor the impacts of flight delays and
cancellations, respond to consumer complaints, and tell consumers where and
how to file complaints.
• Air carriers must display flight delay information for each domestic flight they
operate on their websites.

27 Department of Transportation, “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections,” 74 Federal Register 68982-69004,
December 30, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

• Air carriers must adopt customer service plans and audit their own compliance
with the plans.
• Air carriers are prohibited from applying changes to their contracts of carriage
retroactively.
A further rulemaking, announced April 20, 2011, will add a number of consumer
protections, including the following:
• Baggage fees must be reimbursed for lost bags.
• Additional fees must be prominently disclosed on airline websites.
• The ban on lengthy tarmac delays is expanded to foreign airlines’ operations at
U.S. airports. A four-hour limit on tarmac delays is placed on international
flights.
As the reauthorization process continues, some observers would argue that many of the following
passenger rights provisions are moot given the DOT action. Others, however, may wish to change
the scope of the DOT rule. In addition, because the authority of DOT to issue and implement the
rule could be challenged in court, some may wish to codify the changes and reduce the likelihood
of a successful court challenge.
Airline and Airport “Emergency Contingency Plans” for Tarmac Delays
The House-passed bill (Sec. 423) would require, no later than 90 days after the date of enactment,
that both air carriers and operators of large or medium hub airports submit to DOT an emergency
contingency plan for each of these airports. The plans must describe how the airline plans to
provide food, water, restroom facilities, cabin ventilation, and access to medical treatment for
passengers on aircraft that are on the ground for extended time without access to the terminal and
how they plan to share facilities and make gates available at the airport during an emergency.
Airport operators also would be required to submit an emergency plan describing how the airport
operator will provide for the sharing of the use of the airport’s facilities and make gates available
during an emergency. In the case of airports used for foreign transportation, the airport is to
describe how the airport will provide for the use of the terminal to the maximum extent
practicable for the processing of passengers arriving at the airport on such flights and in the cases
of excessive tarmac delay.
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 401) would require that not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment, each air carrier and airport operator submit a proposed contingency plan to DOT for
review and approval. DOT is to establish minimum standards for these plans to ensure that these
plans address long tarmac delays and provide for the health and safety of passengers and crew.
The air carrier plans are to require each air carrier at a minimum to provide essential services,
including adequate food, potable water, restroom facilities, cabin ventilation, cabin temperatures,
and medical treatment.
Regarding the right to deplane, the plan is to provide passengers with the right to deplane and
return to the terminal (when this can be done safely) if three hours have elapsed since they have
boarded and the aircraft doors have been closed; or three hours have elapsed after the aircraft has
landed and the passengers have been unable to deplane. The offer to deplane must be repeated at
least once every three hours thereafter. Exceptions are allowed if the pilot determines that the
Congressional Research Service
34

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

aircraft will depart or unload within less than 30 minutes or that permitting a passenger to deplane
would jeopardize passenger safety or security. These requirements also apply to diverted flights.
After the plan has been reviewed by DOT, it is to be made available to the public. Air carriers
would be required to report any flight delayed on the tarmac for over three hours to the Office of
Consumer Protection at DOT within 30 days.
The airport operator would also be required to submit a proposed contingency plan describing
how the operator will provide for the deplanement of passengers following a long tarmac delay,
will provide for the sharing of facilities, and make gates available for use by aircraft experiencing
delays. Civil penalties may be assessed on any air carrier or airport operator that does not submit,
obtain approval of, or adhere to a contingency plan submitted under the bill. Each air carrier or
airport would be required to submit a contingency plan and must ensure public access to the
approved plans via their Internet website or by other means determined by DOT.
Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection
Section 404 of the Senate-passed bill would require the Secretary of DOT to establish a four-
member committee for aviation consumer protection to advise the Secretary in carrying out
passenger service improvements. The House-passed bill contains no similar provision.
Monthly Air Carrier Reports on Customer Service and Flight Delay History
The House-passed bill (Sec. 422) would require airlines to file monthly reports on flights that are
diverted from their scheduled destination to another airport and on flights that depart from the
originating airport gate but are cancelled before takeoff. The data must be compiled in a single
monthly report and be made available on the DOT website.
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 425) would require air carriers, on a monthly basis, to publish and
update on the Internet website of the air carrier, a list of chronically delayed flights operated by
the carrier and to share the list with each entity that is authorized to book passenger air
transportation (e.g., travel agents or websites), for inclusion on the Internet website of the entity.
Air carriers or entities described above would need to prominently disclose on their Internet
websites, at the time of ticket booking, the following: (1) the on-time performance for the flight if
the flight is a chronically delayed flight and (2) the cancellation rate for the flight if the flight is a
chronically canceled flight. A chronically delayed flight is defined as one that has not been on-
time at least 40% of the time in the last three months, and a chronically canceled flight as one
whose departures have been canceled at least 30% of the time for the last three months.
Expansion of DOT Airline Consumer Complaint Investigations
The House-passed bill (Sec. 424) would require that, subject to the availability of appropriations,
the Secretary of DOT is to investigate consumer complaints regarding flight cancellations;
compliance with federal regulations regarding the overbooking of seats on flights; lost, damaged,
or delayed baggage (and problems with air carrier claim procedures); problems with refunds for
unused or lost tickets; incorrect or incomplete information on fares, discount fare conditions and
availability, overcharges, and fare increases; rights of frequent flier mile holders; and deceptive or
misleading advertising. The Senate-passed bill also includes this provision (see Sec. 403), with
Congressional Research Service
35

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

the additional requirement that DOT is to provide, in an annex to its budget request, an estimate
of the resources needed to investigate all such claims received by DOT in the previous year.
Consumer Complaint Hotline Telephone Number
The House-passed bill (Sec. 425) would require DOT to establish a consumer complaint hotline
telephone number for use by airline passengers. The Secretary of Transportation would need to
notify the public of the telephone number. Air carriers using aircraft of 30 seats or more would
need to include on their websites, ticket confirmations, or boarding passes the hotline number; the
email address, telephone number, and mailing address of the air carrier; and the email address,
telephone number and mailing address of the Aviation Consumer Protection Division of the
Department of Transportation. The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 401) also includes a hotline provision.
The bill, however, is less prescriptive concerning the means used to publicize the hotline
telephone number, simply leaving it up to the Secretary of Transportation to publicize the number.
Musical Instruments
Section 424 of the House-passed bill would require air carriers to permit passengers to stow a
musical instrument in the aircraft passenger compartment in a closet, baggage or cargo stowage
compartment without charge, if the instrument can be stowed in accordance with the requirements
for carriage of carry-on baggage or cargo set forth by the Administrator of the FAA and there is
space for such stowage on the aircraft. For instruments too large to be stowed in a closet, baggage
or cargo stowage compartment the instrument may be stowed in a seat if it fits and the passenger
pays for the seat. An instrument may be treated as checked baggage if the sum of the length,
width, and height, including the case does not exceed 150 inches, if its weight does not exceed
165 pounds, and it can be stowed in accordance with the requirements for the stowage of baggage
or cargo. Section 713 of the Senate-passed bill is similar to the House bill.
Disclosure of the Operating Air Carrier Name for Each Flight Segment
The Senate-passed bill (Sec.406) would declare it an unfair or deceptive practice for any air
carrier, ticket agent, or other person offering to sell tickets for air transportation not to disclose the
name of the air carrier providing the air transportation. If the flight has more than one segment it
shall be an unfair or deceptive practice not to name the air carrier providing the air transportation
for each flight segment. For Internet offers, the disclosure must be on the first display screen of
the website.
P.L. 111-216, The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, in
Section 210 incorporates the provision of Senate-passed H.R. 1586 requiring disclosure of the
name of an air carrier providing air transportation for each flight segment. The provision declares
any failure to disclose such information an unfair or deceptive practice. For Internet offers, the
provision requires that the disclosure be on the first display screen of the website and in a format
that is easily visible to a viewer. The House-passed bill does not include a similar provision.
Disclosure of Passenger Fees
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 405) would require the Secretary of Transportation to complete a
rulemaking that requires each air carrier operating in the United States to make available to the
Congressional Research Service
36

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

public and to the Secretary a list of all passenger fees and charges (other than airfare) that may be
imposed by the air carrier. The lists are to include fees for checked baggage or oversized baggage;
meals, beverages, or other refreshments; seats in exit rows, seats with additional space, or other
preferred seats in any given class of travel; purchasing tickets from an airline ticket agent or
travel agency; or any other good, service, or amenity provided by the air carrier, as required by
the Secretary. The Secretary may require air carriers to make available the information on their
Internet websites, to travel agencies, and in advertising. The Secretary shall also require air
carriers to update the information as necessary but no less frequently than every 90 days, unless
there has been no increase. The House-passed bill does not include a provision on this issue.
Notification Requirements in Regard to Passenger Taxes and Fees
The Senate-passed bill (Sec. 407) requires the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection and
Enforcement of the Department of Transportation to establish rules to ensure that all consumers
are able to easily and fairly compare airfares and charges when buying tickets, including all taxes
and fees.
The bill would also make it an unfair or deceptive practice for an air carrier or ticket agent to sell
a ticket for air transportation unless they display all tax and fee information in reasonable
proximity to the price listed for the ticket and provide information on the said taxes and fees
including the amounts and a description of each before requiring the purchaser to provide any
personal information.
The taxes and fees covered by the provision include all taxes and fees, charges and surcharges
included in the price of the ticket. Among these charges are fuel surcharges, surcharges relating to
peak or holiday travel, baggage fees, seating assignment fees, and operational services that are
charged when the ticket is purchased. Additionally, Section 807 of the Senate-passed bill specifies
that if taxes are disclosed separately, the inclusion of non-tax costs in the amounts attributed to
taxes is prohibited.
The House-passed bill does not include any provisions addressing this issue.
Denied Boarding Compensation
The House-passed bill (Sec. 428) would require that, not later than six months after enactment
and every two years thereafter, the Secretary of DOT shall evaluate the amount provided for
denied-boarding compensation and issue a regulation to adjust such compensation as necessary.
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Delayed Baggage Compensation
The House-passed bill (Sec. 429) would require GAO to conduct a study to (1) examine delays in
the delivery of checked baggage to passengers and (2) make recommendations for establishing
minimum standards to compensate passengers in the case of unreasonable delays in checked
baggage delivery. GAO is to consider the additional fees for checked baggage that are now
imposed by some air carriers and how the additional fees should improve an air carrier’s baggage
performance. Results are to be reported 180 days after enactment. The Senate bill does not
include this provision.
Congressional Research Service
37

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Study of European Union Rules for Passenger Rights
The House-passed bill (Sec. 511) would require GAO to conduct a study to evaluate and compare
the regulations of the European Union and the United States on compensation offered to
passengers who are denied boarding or whose flights are cancelled or delayed. The Senate bill
does not include this provision.
Insecticide Use on Passenger Aircraft
Section 425 of the House-passed bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a
public Internet website that lists countries that may require an air carrier to treat an aircraft
passenger cabin with insecticides. Air carriers or ticket agents selling tickets in the United States
for a foreign destination listed in the DOT website shall disclose on their own website or through
other means that the destination country may require the carrier to treat the cabin with
insecticides. The Senate-passed bill does not include this provision.
Prohibitions Against Cell Phone or Other Voice Communication Devices
Section 433 of the House-passed bill requires the FAA to conduct a study on the impact of the use
of cell phones for voice communications in an aircraft during a flight in scheduled passenger air
transportation where currently permitted by foreign government in foreign air transportation. The
Senate-passed bill does not include this provision.
Smoking Prohibition
The House-passed bill (Sec. 401) would amend the smoking prohibition set forth in 49 U.S.C.
41707. It would clarify that the prohibition applies to passenger flights, both international and
domestic. It would also broaden the coverage to include nonscheduled intrastate, interstate, or
international flights if a flight attendant is a required crewmember of the aircraft. The Senate bill
does not include this provision.
Study of Air Quality in Aircraft Cabins
Section 564 of the Senate-passed bill would require FAA to initiate, within one year of enactment,
a study of air quality in aircraft cabins that assesses bleed air quality on the full range of
commercial aircraft operating in the United States; identifies oil-based contaminants, hydraulic
fluid toxins, and other air toxins that appear in cabin air and their quantity and prevalence;
determines the specific amount and duration of toxic fumes present in aircraft cabins that
constitute a health risk to passengers; develops a reporting standard for smoke and fume events in
aircraft cabins; identifies the potential health risks from exposure to toxic fumes during flight; and
determines the extent to which the installation of sensors and air filters on commercial aircraft
would provide a public health benefit. The House-passed bill does not contain a provision
regarding this issue.
Congressional Research Service
38

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Seat Dimension Disclosure to Facilitate Use of Child Safety Seats
Section 408 of the Senate-passed bill would require FAA to prescribe regulations for posting on
air carrier websites the maximum child safety seat dimensions that will fit into a seat on an
aircraft. The House-passed bill does not address this issue.
Environmental and Energy Issues
Aviation and airport operations have air quality, water quality, waste, and community noise
impacts.28 Within the context of FAA reauthorization, both H.R. 658 and S. 223 include
provisions intended to address issues associated with environmental impacts, and to assist airport
operators with complying with local, state, and federal regulations related to those impacts. Those
provisions include requirements for
• research into technology or processes that could reduce noise, air emissions, and
energy use;
• grants and procedural changes to assist airports in meeting environmental
compliance requirements; and
• changes to address airport and aircraft air and noise emissions (including
modifications to the Air Tour Management Program).
In addition to the categories listed above, the proposals also include provisions regarding airport
sustainability practices.29 Section 221 of the Senate bill directs FAA to establish a 15-member
airport sustainability planning working group. Among other functions, it would develop “best
practices and metrics for the sustainable design, construction, planning, maintenance, and
operation of an airport.” The Senate-passed bill specifies that no funds may be authorized to carry
out the provision. Under H.R. 658 (Sec. 510), FAA may implement, to the extent practicable,
sustainable practices to incorporate energy-efficient design, equipment, systems, and other
measures in the construction and major renovation of air traffic control facilities to reduce energy
consumption at, improve the environmental performance of, and reduce the cost of maintenance
for those facilities.
Both H.R. 658 and S. 223 include provisions intended to address waste generation at airports
(House, Sec. 134, “Solid Waste Recycling Plans,” Senate, Sec. 714, “Recycling Plans for
Airports”). The Senate bill would amend the definition of “airport planning”30 to include planning
to minimize the generation of solid waste in a manner consistent with applicable state and local
recycling laws. Both bills would also amend the list of conditions under which an airport
improvement grant application may be approved.31 Under those conditions, airports required to

28 For additional background see CRS Report RL33949, Environmental Impacts of Airport Operations, Maintenance,
and Expansion, by Linda Luther.
29 For information regarding sustainability programs, see the Sustainability Aviation Guidance Alliance (SAGA)
website at http://www.airportsustainability.org/. SAGA is a coalition of representatives from FAA, Airports Council
International-North America (ACI-NA), the Airport Consultants Council (ACC), the American Association of Airport
Executives (AAAE), the Air Transport Association (ATA), and consultants who represent the participating
associations.
30 49 U.S.C. § 47102 (5).
31 49 U.S.C. § 47106 (a).
Congressional Research Service
39

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

have an airport master plan must address (in the master plan) factors such as the feasibility of
solid waste recycling at the airport and minimizing the generation of solid waste at the airport.
Environmental-Related Research Programs and Funding
Under “Title X—Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2011,”
H.R. 658 includes the following environmental-related research and development requirements
(except where noted otherwise, research funding would be from amounts made available under
the Research and Development section of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund):32
• Airport cooperative research program (Sec. 1007)—would permanently
authorize the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP ).33 A funding
source for the ACRP is not designated in the bill.
• Interagency research initiative on aviation and the environment
(Sec. 1010)—directs the FAA Administrator, in coordination with NASA, to
establish a research initiative to assess the potential affects of aviation on the
environment and to evaluate approaches to address those impacts.
• Aviation fuel research and development program (Sec. 1011)—would require
FAA, in coordination with NASA, to continue to study technologies that would
allow the use of unleaded gasoline in piston-engine aircraft (currently, piston-
engine aircraft—mostly general aviation aircraft—use leaded gasoline).
• Research program on alternative jet fuel technology for civil aircraft (Sec.
1012)—would establish a research program to conduct research into the
development of jet fuels from alternative sources such as coal, natural gas,
biomass, ethanol, butanol, and hydrogen.
• Review of FAA’s energy- and environment-related research programs (Sec.
1013)—would require FAA to contract with the National Research Council to
assess the adequacy of FAA’s energy- and environment-related research
programs. Among other requirements, the review must assess whether such FAA
research programs are properly coordinated with NASA, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other relevant agencies.
Under “Title VI—Aviation Research,” S. 223 also includes several environmental-related
research requirements. Like the House bill, S. 223 would permanently authorize the Airport
Cooperative Research Program (Sec. 601). Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill specifies funding
amounts for the program. Not more than $15 million per year for FY2010 and FY2011 may be
appropriated for the program. The Senate bill also specifies that not less than $5 million shall be
used for “research activities related to the airport environment, including reduction of community
exposure to civil aircraft noise, reduction of civil aviation emissions, or addressing water quality
issues.”

32 49 U.S.C. § 48102 (a).
33 The ACRP was authorized as a four-year pilot program under Vision 100 (49 U.S.C. §44511(f)). Funds for the
program were previously authorized under the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations, under the Airport
Planning and Development and Noise Compatibility Planning and Programs. In the House-passed bill, the ACRP is
explicitly not allowed to receive funding from this source.
Congressional Research Service
40

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Also similar to the House bill, S. 223 would establish research programs related to developing
alternative fuel technology (from natural gas, biomass, and other renewable sources) for civilian
aircraft (Sec. 603). The Senate bill differs in that it more specifically establishes a research
program to develop jet fuel using “clean coal” (Sec. 604).34
Section 602 of S. 223 (“Reduction of noise, emissions, and energy consumption from civilian
aircraft”) would establish a research program related to reducing civilian aircraft energy use, air
emissions, and source noise through grants or other measures. The program would include
participation of educational and research institutions or private sector entities that have existing
facilities and experience developing and testing noise, emissions and energy reduction engine and
aircraft technology, and developing alternative fuels. The Senate-passed bill would establish a
“Consortium for Continuous Low Energy, Emissions, and Noise” (CLEEN) to perform research
in coordination with NASA and other relevant agencies. Performance objectives of the program,
to be reached no later than January 1, 2016, include certifiable aircraft technology that reduces
fuel burn 33 percent; certifiable engine technology that reduces nitrogen oxide emissions by 60%;
and certifiable aircraft technology that reduces noise levels by 32 Effective Perceived Noise in
decibels (EPNdb) cumulative.
Additional environmental-related research and development requirements specified under Title
VI of S. 223 include the following:
• Pilot program for zero emission airport vehicles (Sec. 609)—would establish a
pilot program under which certain public-use airports may use funds35 to acquire
and operate zero emission vehicles. Program participants may qualify for funds
only if the airport is located in an air quality non-attainment area.36 The federal
share of the costs of a project carried out under the program would be 50%.
• Reduction of emissions from airport power sources (Sec. 610)—would amend
the “Airport ground support equipment emissions retrofit pilot program”37 to
establish a program under which certain airports would be encouraged to assess
their energy requirements, including heating and cooling, base load, back-up
power, and power for on-road airport vehicles and ground support equipment, to
identify opportunities to reduce harmful emissions, and to increase energy
efficiency at the airport. Grants for such an assessment would be available under
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations.38
Also, Section 216 of S. 223 (“Research improvement for aircraft”) would amend existing
“Facility, Personnel, and Research” requirements with regard to “improved aircraft,
aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances”39 to require the Administrator to conduct or

34 Unless noted otherwise, all research projects authorized under Title VI of the Senate-passed bill are funded through
grants made available under the Research and Development section of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (49 U.S.C.
§ 48102(a)).
35 Available under the Airport Improvement requirements at 49 U.S.C. § 47117 or the airport planning and
development and noise compatibility planning and programs of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations at
49 U.S.C. § 48103.
36 As defined under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7501(2).
37 49 U.S.C. § 47140.
38 49 U.S.C. § 48103.
39 49 U.S.C. § 44504(a).
Congressional Research Service
41

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

supervise research to “support programs designed to reduce gases and particulates
emitted.”
Grants and Procedural Changes to Assist with Environmental
Compliance
The House-passed bill would amend the state block grant program40 to specify that federal, state,
and local environmental requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.),41 would apply to the program (Sec. 502). The House-passed bill
specifies that any federal agency that must grant some form of approval (i.e., a permit or license)
to a state must consult with that state during the approval process. Further, the federal agency
would be required to use any state-prepared environmental analysis associated with that approval.
The Senate-passed bill also includes provisions that would similarly amend the state block grant
program (under Sec. 209). Unlike the House bill, S. 223 would establish a pilot program for up to
three states that do not participate in the block grant program.
Also related to NEPA compliance, Section 503 of H.R. 658 would amend current law specifying
“expedited, coordinated environmental review” processes42 to included airport capacity
improvement projects and certain NextGen environmental efficiency projects. Further, under Sec.
504, the House bill would amend current requirements that allow FAA to accept funds from an
airport sponsor to hire additional staff or obtain the services of consultants to expedite the
processing, review, and completion of environmental activities associated with an airport
development project.43 The proposal would allow FAA to accept funds to hire additional staff to
conduct “special environmental studies” related to a federally funded airport project; conduct
studies or reviews to support noise compatibility measures approved under the Part 15044
requirements; or conduct studies or reviews to support environmental mitigation specified in a
project’s final decision and delineated at the completion of the NEPA process. The Senate bill
includes provisions essentially identical to House bill Sec. 504, under “Airport funding of special
studies or reviews” (Sec. 210).
The House-passed bill (Sec. 506, “Grant eligibility for assessment of flight procedures”) would
amend the existing noise compatibility program requirements45 to allow grants to airport
operators to assist them in completing environmental review46 and assessment activities for
proposals to implement flight procedures. Further, the proposal would allow a project sponsor to

40 49 U.S.C. § 47128.
41 Among other provisions, NEPA requires airport operators to consider the environmental impact of any proposed
action that may require federal funding or approvals. It also requires them to look at all reasonable alternatives to meet
a given project’s purpose and need, before final decisions are made. For more information, see FAA’s “NEPA
Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects,” Order 5050.4B, April 28, 2006, available at http://www.faa.gov/
airports/resources/publications/orders/environmental_5050_4/.
42 49 U.S.C. § 47171.
43 49 U.S.C. § 47173.
44 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning requirements are specified under 14 C.F.R. Part 150 and are, hence, commonly
referred to as “Part 150” requirements.
45 49 U.S.C. § 47504.
46 Generally, “environmental review” requirements refer to environmental review requirements specified under the
NEPA regulations. However, they may apply more broadly to any review, study, or analysis required by any other
environmental law applicable to a given project.
Congressional Research Service
42

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

provide FAA with funds to hire additional staff as necessary to expedite completion of the
environmental review necessary to implement flight procedures. The Senate bill includes
provisions essentially identical to the House bill under “Grant eligibility for assessment of flight
procedures” (Sec. 211).
Unlike the House-passed bill, Sec. 213 of S. 223 would establish a trial program to provide grants
for up to six environmental mitigation demonstration projects. Eligible projects would include
those that would measurably reduce or mitigate aviation impacts on noise, air quality, or water
quality in the vicinity of the airport. The federal share of the projects would be 50% of the project
costs, up to $2.5 million, and would be apportioned under the AIP.
Requirements to Address Aircraft and Airport Air Emissions and
Noise
In 1990, Congress mandated a phase out of non-Stage 3 aircraft over 75,000 pounds by December
31, 1999.47 This has allowed Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds, primarily
corporate and private-use aircraft, to continue to operate. In 2006, non-Stage 3 aircraft
represented a relatively small number of all operational turbojet aircraft under 75,000 pounds
(approximately 1,330 or 13%). However, at some airports, particularly smaller commercial and
general aviation airports, their use makes a disproportionate contribution to noise exposure
contours. As a result, several airports have sought to ban or restrict access to such aircraft. Those
efforts have generally been prohibited by FAA.
Both the House and Senate bills would prohibit the operation of aircraft under 75,000 pounds, not
complying with Stage 3 noise levels, with certain explicit exceptions. Under Sec. 508 of H.R.
658, the prohibition would take effect December 31, 2016. Under Sec. 710 of S. 223, the
prohibition would take effect two years earlier, December 31, 2014.
The following sections of the House proposal also deal with issues associated with airport and
aircraft noise or air emissions:
• Determination of Fair Market Value of Residential Properties (Sec. 507)—
specifies that, in approving the use of noise compatibility funds for the
acquisition of residential real property, the FAA must ensure that the property
appraisal disregards any decrease or increase in the fair market value of the real
property caused by the project for which the property is to be acquired.
• Aircraft Departure Queue Management Pilot Program (Sec. 509)—funds a
pilot program at five public-use airports that would be required to develop and
test new air traffic flow management technologies to better manage the flow of
aircraft on the ground and reduce ground holds and idling times for aircraft to
decrease emissions and increase fuel savings. Not more than $2.5 million may be
expended under the trial program at any single public-use airport.48

47 Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508).
48 Funded under 49 U.S.C. § 48101(a), “Air navigation facilities and equipment, General authorization of
appropriations.”
Congressional Research Service
43

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

• Sense of Congress (Sec. 511)—states the sense of the Congress with respect to
the European Union (EU) directive extending the EU’s emission trading proposal
to international civil aviation. The bill specifies that, by not working through the
International Civil Aviation Organization in a consensus-based fashion, the EU
directive is inconsistent with the Convention on International Civil Aviation; and
that it is antithetical to building international cooperation to address greenhouse
gas emissions from aircraft.
• Aviation Noise Complaints (Sec. 512)—requires that each owner or operator of
a large hub airport post to the airport’s website, a telephone number to receive
aviation noise complaints related to the airport. Annually after implementation,
any owner or operator that receives complaints from 25 individuals, must submit
a report to the Administrator regarding the number of complaints received and a
summary of the nature of the complaints. Also, FAA must make that information
available to the public by electronic means.
Under Sec. 104, S. 223 amends the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations to include a
total of $4.0 and $4.1 billion for airport planning and development and noise compatibility
planning and programs for FY2010 and FY2011, respectively.
Section 712 of S. 223 would create a pilot program for the redevelopment of property purchased
with noise mitigation funds or passenger facility charge funds, to encourage airport-compatible
land uses. The trial program would involve up to four airport operators that have submitted a
noise compatibility program to FAA. The federal share of the allowable costs of a project carried
out under the pilot program shall be 80%. Provisions in this section would also amend the list of
allowable noise compatibility measures49 to include land use planning that will prevent the
introduction of additional incompatible land uses.
The Air Tour Management Program
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Title VIII, P.L. 106-181, hereinafter “Air
Tour Act”) regulates commercial air tours over most units of the National Park System. It requires
the FAA and the National Park Service (NPS) to create management plans for air tours at
individual park units and within a half-mile of their boundaries (as well as for air tours over tribal
lands). The purpose of a plan is to mitigate or prevent any significant adverse impacts of
commercial air tours to natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and adjacent tribal
lands.
The Air Tour Act final rule50 requires air tour operators to apply for authority to fly over national
park and adjacent tribal lands. The FAA received applications for commercial air tours at more
than 100 of the 394 park units, and has granted interim operating authority to all applicants. An
application triggers development of an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) by the FAA and NPS
for each unit where there is no existing plan.51 Development of an ATMP requires an
environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C.

49 49 U.S.C. § 47504(a)(2).
50 Federal Aviation Administration, “Air Tour Act,” 67 Federal Register 65661, October 25, 2002.
51 The FAA provides ATMP information on its website at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/
arc/programs/air_tour_management_plan/more_tour_management_plan.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
44

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Sec.Sec.4321-4370f). The FAA and NPS are currently developing ATMPs for several park units,
but none have been completed to date. A January 2006 GAO report concluded that the delay in
implementing the Air Tour Act has limited the ability of tour operators to make major business
decisions. GAO further concluded that Congress may wish to consider amending the Air Tour Act
to give the agencies discretion in determining which park units may need ATMPs.52
The House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 658 contain provisions seeking to expedite and
streamline agency actions, in part because of the slow progress in completing ATMPs. The
House-passed version would provide that, in lieu of an ATMP, the NPS Director and FAA
Administrator could enter into a voluntary agreement with a commercial air tour operator that
would govern commercial air tours over a park unit. Park units with 50 or fewer annual air tour
flights would be exempted from the requirement for an ATMP or voluntary agreement, although
the NPS Director could disallow an exemption. Among other provisions, the bill would establish
reporting requirements for commercial air tour operators, and could provide for more interim
operating authority because interim conditions have prevailed for longer than had been
anticipated.
Some of the air tour provisions in the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 658 are similar,
although many of them differ. For instance, the Senate version would allow for development of a
voluntary agreement to govern air tours over national park units, but would not exempt parks with
50 or fewer annual flights from the requirement to develop an ATMP or a voluntary agreement.
Both versions would allow the agencies to modify interim operating authority, but only the
Senate-passed version would allow an air tour operator that obtains operating authority for
commercial air tours to transfer that authority to another air tour operator. Both versions would
establish reporting requirements for commercial air tour operators, but the Senate-passed version
seeks to rescind the operating authority of a commercial air tour operator that does not file a
report and to require the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation to audit the
reports. Also, only the Senate version would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assess a fee
on commercial air tour operators, and the Secretary is to collect sufficient revenue to pay the
costs of developing ATMPs.


52 The report, including information on agency actions on GAO recommendations, is available on the GAO website at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06263.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
45

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Author Contact Information

Bart Elias, Coordinator
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
Robert S. Kirk
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
rkirk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7769
chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651
Rachel Tang
Todd B. Tatelman
Analyst in Transportation and Industry Policy
Legislative Attorney
rtang@crs.loc.gov, 7-7875
ttatelman@crs.loc.gov, 7-4697
Linda Luther
Jon O. Shimabukuro
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Legislative Attorney
lluther@crs.loc.gov, 7-6852
jshimabukuro@crs.loc.gov, 7-7990
Brent D. Yacobucci

Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

byacobucci@crs.loc.gov, 7-9662

Congressional Research Service
46

---

FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress

Key CRS Policy Staff and Areas of Expertise
The table below provides a quick reference for congressional staff seeking to identify experts to contact
regarding specific issues or aspects of FAA reauthorization legislation.

Name
Areas of Expertise
Division Telephone
Bart Elias
Next Generation Air Traffic System (NGATS)
RSI 7-7771
FAA Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
FAA Management and Operations
Airport and Airspace Demand and Capacity Analysis
Aviation Safety
Aircraft Noise Policy and Quiet Aircraft Technology
Bob Kirk
FAA Financing and Aviation Taxes
RSI 7-7769
Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF)
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Airport Finance
Rachel Tang
Airport Management and Airline Issues
RSI 7-7875
Essential Air Service and Small Community Air Service
Development Programs
Linda Luther
Airport Environmental Issues
RSI
7-6852
Carol Hardy
Air Tour Management Program
RSI 7-8651
Vincent
Aviation Impacts on National Parks
Jim McCarthy
Aircraft Emissions
RSI
7-7225
Brent Yacobucci
Aviation Fuels
RSI 7-9662
Alternative Fuels for Aircraft and Ground Support Vehicles
Jon Shimabukuro
Labor Law and Policy
ALD 7-7990
FAA Labor Relations
Todd Tatelman
Aviation Law (Domestic and International)
ALD
7-4697


Congressional Research Service
47

---