Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Reauthorization: An Overview
of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Bart Elias, Coordinator
Specialist in Aviation Policy
May 7, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40410
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Summary
Funding authorization for aviation programs set forth in Vision 100—Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176) and authorization for taxes and fees that provide revenue for
the aviation trust fund expired at the end of FY2007. While Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) reauthorization legislation was considered during the 110th Congress, the only related
legislation enacted consisted of several short-term extensions for aviation trust fund revenue
collections and aviation program authority, thus carrying the issue of FAA reauthorization over to
the 111th Congress. While FAA reauthorization debate has continued during the 111th Congress,
additional short-term extensions have been passed to extend the authorization of aviation
programs, funding, and aviation trust fund revenue collections.
On February 11, 2009, Representative Oberstar introduced the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009
(H.R. 915). The bill is similar to FAA reauthorization legislation passed by the House during the
110th Congress (see H.R. 2881, 110th Congress). H.R. 915, as amended, was passed by the House
on May 21, 2009. H.R. 915 would authorize almost $54 billion for FAA programs over three
years spanning from FY2010 through FY2012. The financing title of the bill would raise fuel
taxes for corporate jets and other general aviation aircraft, but would keep fuel taxes paid by the
airlines and passengers’ taxes at their current rates. The bill would also allow airports to increase
passenger facility charges (PFCs), raising the maximum from $4.50 to $7 per passenger. The bill
would increase authorized spending for facilities and equipment to support development of Next
Generation (NextGen) air traffic modernization initiatives, and would authorize increased funding
for airport infrastructure improvement grants. The bill seeks modifications in FAA management
and oversight of NextGen air traffic modernization projects, and includes provisions addressing
system capacity, aviation safety, environmental issues, and airline industry issues, including
airline passenger rights issues. The House also passed the Airline Safety and Pilot Training
Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3371) on October 14, 2009, a bill containing numerous
provisions related to airline safety.
On July 14, 2009, Senator Rockefeller introduced the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and
Safety Improvement Act (S. 1451), containing a two-year FAA reauthorization proposal. The bill
would authorize $34.56 billion over a two-year span covering FY2010 and FY2011. Unlike the
Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007 (S. 1300, 110th Congress), S. 1451 does not
contain any proposal for aviation system user fees. Rather, it focuses on accelerating the
deployment of NextGen air traffic technologies and a number of safety issues, including the
safety of air ambulance operations, unmanned aircraft, commuter airlines, and FAA oversight of
airlines and aircraft repair stations. The bill seeks to streamline the PFC approval process, but
does not seek any increase to maximum PFC levels. The bill also seeks to improve airline
consumer service through enhanced disclosure requirements and contingencies for flights that are
substantially delayed, and it seeks an increase in funding for Essential Air Service (EAS)
subsidies and small community air service grants. On March 22, 2010, the Senate passed H.R.
1586 as amended, which is similar to S. 1451 and includes an aviation trust fund revenue title.
Subsequently, on March 25, 2010, the House passed its amended version of H.R. 1586, titling it
the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010, which incorporates the text of H.R. 915 and H.R.
3371. A conference to resolve the differences on H.R. 1586 is pending. This report will be
updated as needed.
Congressional Research Service
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Legislative Status........................................................................................................................ 2
Proposed Funding Authorization Levels ...................................................................................... 5
House-passed H.R. 1586 ....................................................................................................... 5
Senate-passed H.R. 1586....................................................................................................... 5
Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act: Budgetary Effects Determination................................................ 7
House-passed H.R. 1586 ....................................................................................................... 7
Senate-passed H.R. 1586....................................................................................................... 7
Aviation System Finance............................................................................................................. 7
House-passed H.R. 1586 ....................................................................................................... 8
Registration, Certification, and Related Fees ................................................................... 9
Senate-passed H.R. 1586....................................................................................................... 9
Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account ............................................................... 9
Airport Financing........................................................................................................................ 9
AIP Funding ....................................................................................................................... 10
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 10
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 11
Formula Funding (Entitlements).......................................................................................... 11
Primary Airport Entitlements......................................................................................... 11
Virtual Primary Airports................................................................................................ 11
Passenger Enplanement Report ..................................................................................... 12
Study of Primary Airport Apportionment Based on Enplanement Ratio ......................... 12
General Aviation Entitlements ....................................................................................... 12
State Block Grant Program............................................................................................ 13
Puerto Rico Minimum Guarantee .................................................................................. 13
United States Territory Minimum Guarantee ................................................................. 13
Discretionary Funds ............................................................................................................ 14
Minimum Discretionary Fund ....................................................................................... 14
Noise Set-aside ............................................................................................................. 14
Military Airport Program (MAP)................................................................................... 14
AIP Project Eligibility Changes........................................................................................... 15
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 15
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 15
AIP Grant Assurances ......................................................................................................... 16
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 16
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 16
Federal Share ...................................................................................................................... 16
House ........................................................................................................................... 16
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 17
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) ...................................................................................... 17
Increasing the PFC Cap................................................................................................. 17
Project Eligibility.......................................................................................................... 18
Competition Plans......................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Award of Architectural and Engineering Contracts for PFC Funded
Airside Projects Made Subject to “Qualification-Based Selection”
Procurement Requirements ........................................................................................ 19
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Participation in PFC Funded Contracts.................. 19
Passenger Facility Charge Pilot Program ....................................................................... 20
PFC Grant Streamlining and Revenue Diversion Provisions .......................................... 20
Other Airport-related Provisions.......................................................................................... 20
Privatization.................................................................................................................. 20
Airport Development Rights Pilot Program—Sunset Provision...................................... 21
Pilot Program for Redevelopment of Airport Properties ................................................. 21
Land Use and Conveyance Provisions ........................................................................... 22
Priority Review of Cold Weather State Construction Projects ........................................ 23
Noise Monitoring of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign ........... 23
Solid Waste Recycling Plans ......................................................................................... 23
Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program ..................................................... 23
Training Program for Certification of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises .................... 24
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority ................................................................. 24
Spending Guarantee Mechanisms.............................................................................................. 25
House-passed H.R. 1586 ..................................................................................................... 25
Senate-passed H.R. 1586..................................................................................................... 25
FAA Management and Organizational Issues............................................................................. 26
Planning and Oversight of Next Generation Air Transportation System Development .......... 26
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 27
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 28
Realignment and Consolidation of FAA Facilities and Operations ....................................... 30
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 30
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 31
Air Traffic Controller and Technical Staffing and Training .................................................. 32
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 32
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 33
Partnerships for Next Generation Technology Deployment .................................................. 33
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 33
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 34
FAA Personnel Management ............................................................................................... 35
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 37
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 38
System Capacity ....................................................................................................................... 38
Washington Reagan National Airport Slot Controls ............................................................. 39
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 39
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 39
Aviation Safety ......................................................................................................................... 40
Investigation of Aviation Safety Concerns by Whistleblowers.............................................. 40
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 40
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 40
Runway Safety.................................................................................................................... 41
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 41
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 42
Pilot Fatigue ....................................................................................................................... 42
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 42
Congressional Research Service
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 43
Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Safety .................................................................... 44
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 44
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 44
Incorporating Unmanned Aircraft Operations ...................................................................... 45
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 46
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 47
Wake Turbulence Prediction, Detection, and Avoidance....................................................... 47
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 47
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 47
Safety of Airline Maintenance Practices .............................................................................. 48
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 48
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 48
Safety Oversight of Airline Operations ................................................................................ 49
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 49
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 50
Occupational Safety and Health .......................................................................................... 51
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 51
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 52
Airline Pilot Training and Certification................................................................................ 52
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 52
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 53
Implementation of NTSB Flight Crewmember Training Recommendations ......................... 53
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 53
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 53
FAA Pilot Records Database ............................................................................................... 54
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 54
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 54
Air Carrier Safety Management Systems ............................................................................. 55
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 55
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 56
Air Carrier Flight Crew and Dispatcher Training ................................................................. 56
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 56
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 56
FAA Oversight and Surveillance of Air Carriers .................................................................. 56
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 56
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 57
Flight Crew Mentoring, Professional Development, and Leadership .................................... 57
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 57
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 57
Oversight of Flight Training Schools ................................................................................... 58
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 58
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 58
Flight Crewmember Pairing and Crew Resource Management Techniques .......................... 58
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 58
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 58
Addressing Safety Concerns over Wind Turbines ................................................................ 59
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 59
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 59
Environmental and Energy Issues.............................................................................................. 60
Congressional Research Service
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Environmental-related Research Funding and Requirements................................................ 61
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 61
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 62
Mitigation Grants................................................................................................................ 63
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 63
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 64
Grants and Procedural Changes to Assist with Environmental Compliance .......................... 64
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 64
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 65
Requirements to Address Aircraft and Airport Air Emissions and Noise............................... 65
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 65
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 67
The Air Tour Management Program .................................................................................... 67
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 68
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 68
Airline Industry Issues .............................................................................................................. 69
The Essential Air Service Program ...................................................................................... 69
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 70
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 70
Airline Ownership............................................................................................................... 71
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 71
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 71
Airline Alliances/Antitrust Exemptions ............................................................................... 71
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 72
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 72
Air-rail Codeshare Study..................................................................................................... 72
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 72
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 72
Airline Passenger Rights Issues ................................................................................................. 72
DOT Regulatory Action on Airline Passenger Rights........................................................... 73
Airline and Airport “Emergency Contingency Plans” for Tarmac Delays ............................. 74
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 74
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 74
Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection ...................................................... 75
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 75
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 75
Monthly Air Carrier Reports/Publication of Customer Service data and Flight Delay
History............................................................................................................................. 75
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 75
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 75
Expansion of DOT Airline Consumer Complaint Investigations .......................................... 76
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 76
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 76
Consumer Complaint Hotline Telephone Number................................................................ 76
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 76
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 76
Musical Instruments............................................................................................................ 76
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 76
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 77
Congressional Research Service
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Disclosure of the Operating Air Carrier Name for Each Flight Segment ............................... 77
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 77
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 77
Disclosure of Passenger Fees .............................................................................................. 77
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 77
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 78
Notification Requirements in Regard to Passenger Taxes and Fees ...................................... 78
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 78
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 78
Transparency in Passenger Tax Disclosures ......................................................................... 78
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 78
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 78
DOT Inspector General (IG) Review of Air Carrier Flight Delays, Cancellations, and
Associated Causes............................................................................................................ 79
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 79
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 79
Notification of Flight Status by Text Message or Email ....................................................... 79
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 79
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 79
Denied Boarding Compensation.......................................................................................... 79
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 79
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 79
Delayed Baggage Compensation ......................................................................................... 80
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 80
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 80
Study of European Union Rules for Passenger Rights.......................................................... 80
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 80
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 80
Insecticide Use on Passenger Aircraft.................................................................................. 80
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 80
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 80
Prohibitions Against Cell Phone or Other Voice Communication Devices ............................ 81
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 81
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 81
Airport Master Plans ........................................................................................................... 81
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 81
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 81
Smoking Prohibition ........................................................................................................... 81
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 81
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 81
Study of Air Quality in Aircraft Cabins................................................................................ 82
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 82
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 82
Study of Air Cleaning Technology....................................................................................... 82
House-passed H.R. 1586 ............................................................................................... 82
Senate-passed H.R. 1586............................................................................................... 82
Congressional Research Service
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Tables
Table 1. Federal Aviation Administration Extension Bills ............................................................ 3
Table 2. Proposed Reauthorization Funding Levels for FAA Accounts ......................................... 6
Table 3. Aviation Taxes and Fees ................................................................................................. 8
Table 4. Specific Authorizations in House-passed H.R. 1586 for Runway Incursion
Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 42
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 83
Key CRS Policy Staff and Areas of Expertise ............................................................................ 84
Congressional Research Service
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Background
Funding authorization for aviation programs set forth in Vision 100—Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereinafter referred to as “Vision 100”) expired at the end of
FY2007. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization legislation was considered at
length during the 110th Congress. During the first session of the 110th Congress, the House passed
the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2881, 110th Congress). A Senate bill (S. 1300, 110th
Congress) was ordered reported, as was a transportation infrastructure financing bill (S. 2345,
110th Congress) containing provisions for modifying and reauthorizing the existing tax and fee
structure for aviation. In early May 2008, the Senate attempted, but failed, to take up
consideration of H.R. 2881, a reflection of disagreements regarding direct user fee proposals in S.
1300 and various labor provisions in the bills.
Without passage of FAA reauthorization legislation, aviation trust fund revenue collections and
aviation program authority have been continued through a series of short-term extensions passed
by the 110th Congress. The Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act, Part II (P.L. 110-330)
extended these authorizations until March 31, 2009, thus carrying the issue of FAA
reauthorization over to the 111th Congress. On March 30, 2009, the Federal Aviation
Administration Extension Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-12) was enacted, further extending revenue
collections and aviation program authority through the end of FY2009; on October 1, 2009, the
Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act (P.L. 111-69) was enacted,
extending this authority through the end of calendar year 2009; and on December 16, 2009, the
Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act, Part II (P.L. 111-116) was
enacted, further extending the existing authority through March 31, 2010. On March 31, 2010, the
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-153) was enacted. The bill
extended tax collections funding the aviation trust fund, expenditure authority, and aviation
programs through April 30, 2010. Both the House and the Senate also passed versions of longer-
term FAA reauthorization in late March 2010 (see H.R. 1586). A conference to reconcile the
differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill is pending. While the House and
Senate continue to work to resolve differences between their respective versions of H.R. 1586,
the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010 was enacted on April 30, 2010, extending tax
collections funding the aviation trust fund, grant authority for airport projects, and aviation
programs through July 3, 2010.
This report tracks the status of ongoing legislative action and debate related to FAA
reauthorization. It is organized into six major program areas: aviation system finance; airport
financing; FAA management and organizational issues; system capacity and safety;
environmental issues; and airline industry issues. In several cases, provisions that appear in
various unrelated sections of proposed legislation have been rearranged in this report in an effort
to group and discuss related items in an issue-driven or programmatic context. Since this report is
primarily written as a means of communicating key legislative provisions under consideration in
the ongoing FAA reauthorization process, it does not go into detail regarding the specific policy
issues behind these legislative proposals.
Congressional Research Service
1
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Legislative Status
On February 9, 2009, Representative Oberstar introduced the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009
(H.R. 915). The bill is similar in many respects to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R.
2881, 110th Congress), which was passed by the House during the 110th Congress. In comparison,
H.R. 915 specifies slightly higher annual funding authorization levels, and would authorize FAA
programs over a three-year span from FY2010 through FY2012, instead of a four-year
authorization covering FY2008 through FY2011.
On March 5, 2009, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered H.R. 915
reported with the addition of a “manager’s amendment” that was offered by Representative
Oberstar and agreed to by a voice vote of the full committee. It was reported on March 19, 2009
(H.Rept. 111-119).
On March 30, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-12) was
enacted, extending authorization of aviation programs and revenue collections through the end of
FY2009. The act authorizes a total of $15,856 million for FAA programs in FY2009. It also
extends authority to collect aviation taxes and fees at existing rates.
H.R. 915 was brought before the House on May 21, 2009, and passed by a vote of 277-136. Like
H.R. 2881 (110th Congress), House-passed H.R. 915 includes a trust fund financing title that
would increase aviation fuel taxes for non-commercial operators, but does not include any direct
user fee funding mechanisms as proposed by the FAA under the Bush Administration, or any
surcharge or direct user fee proposal such as the one included in the Senate bill during the 110th
Congress (S. 1300, 110th Congress). Additionally, on October 16, 2009, the House passed the
Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3371), a bill that addresses a
number of airline safety issues primarily stemming from the February 2009 crash of a regional
turboprop passenger airplane near Buffalo, New York.
On July 14, 2009, S. 1451, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement
Act, a two-year FAA reauthorization bill, was introduced by Senator Rockefeller. Unlike the
Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007 (S. 1300, 110th Congress), S. 1451 does not
contain any proposal for aviation system user fees. Rather, it focuses on accelerating the
deployment of NextGen technologies and a number of safety issues, including the safety of air
ambulance operations, unmanned aircraft, commuter airlines, and FAA oversight of airlines and
aircraft repair stations.
On July 21, 2009, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation convened a
markup session on S. 1451. The bill was ordered reported in the nature of a substitute on
September 29, 2009.
On March 10, 2010, the Senate began floor debate on S.Amdt. 3452 to H.R. 1586. The
amendment, offered in the nature of a substitute to the unrelated House bill to impose additional
taxes on bonuses to recipients under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), is similar to S.
1451 and also includes a revenue title (Title VIII) seeking to extend aviation trust fund
expenditure authority, establish an air traffic control system modernization account, and modify
non-commercial aviation fuel taxes. The Senate passed H.R. 1586, as amended, on March 22,
2010. The Senate FAA reauthorization bill is hereinafter referred to as Senate-passed H.R. 1586
or simply the Senate-passed bill.
Congressional Research Service
2
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
On March 25, 2010, the House agreed to H.Res. 1212, which had the effect of allowing the
insertion of the text of H.R. 915 and H.R. 3371 as an amendment to the Senate-amended H.R.
1586 under suspension of the rules. The House subsequently passed the amended H.R. 1586,
giving it the title the Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010 on March 25, 2010. A
conference to resolve the differences on H.R. 1586 is pending.
Aviation programs and aviation trust fund revenue collections have meanwhile continued under a
series of short-term extensions. On October 1, 2009, President Obama signed the Fiscal Year
2010 Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act (P.L. 111-69). The act authorizes aviation
trust fund revenue collections and expenditure authority, Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
grant authority, and authority for FAA programs for a three month period, up until the end of
calendar year 2009. AIP obligation authority was extended through FY2010 under the act. On
December 16, 2009, President Obama signed the Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation
Administration Extension Act, Part II (P.L. 111-116), further extending existing statutory
authority for aviation trust fund revenue collections and federal aviation programs through March
31, 2010. On March 31, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 was enacted,
extending existing aviation-related authorizations through April 30, 2010. On April 30, 2010, the
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010 was enacted, extending tax collections funding the
aviation trust fund, grant authority for airport projects, and aviation programs through July 3,
2010. In total, there have been 13 short-term FAA extension bills enacted since the authorizations
set forth in Vision 100 (P.L. 108-176) expired at the end of FY2007: eight in the 110th Congress
and five in the 111th Congress (see
Table 1).
Table 1. Federal Aviation Administration Extension Bills
110th –111th Congresses
Public Law
Title of Legislation
Length of FAA Extension
H.J.Res. 52
P.L. 110-92
Joint Resolution
Enacted: 9/29/2007
Continuing Appropriations for FY2008
Expired: 11/16/2007
H.R. 3222
P.L. 110-116
Continuing Appropriations for Department
Enacted: 11/13/2007
of Defense for Fiscal Year ending Sept. 30,
2008
Expired: 12/14/2007
H.J.Res. 69
P.L. 110-149
Joint Resolution
Enacted: 12/14/2007
Continuing Appropriations for FY2008
Expired: 12/21/2007
H.J.Res. 72
P.L. 110-149
Continuing Appropriations for FY2008
Enacted: 12/21/2007
Expired: 12/31/2007
Congressional Research Service
3
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Public Law
Title of Legislation
Length of FAA Extension
H.R. 2764
P.L. 110-161
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
Enacted: 12/26/2007
Expired: 2/29/2008
H.R. 5270
P.L. 110-190
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008
Enacted: 2/28/2008
Expired: 6/30/2008
H.R. 6327
P.L. 110-253
Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Enacted: 6/30/2008
Act of 2008
Expired: 9/30/2008
H.R. 6984
P.L. 110-330
Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Enacted: 9/30/2008
Act of 2008, Part II
Expired: 3/31/2009
H.R. 1512
P.L. 111-12
Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Enacted: 3/30/2009
Act of 2009
Expired: 9/30/2009
H.R. 3607
P.L. 111-69
Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation
Enacted: 10/1/2009
Administration Extension Act
Expires: 12/31/2009
H.R. 4217
P.L. 111-116
Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Aviation
Enacted: 12/16/2009
Administration Extension Act, Part II
Expires: 3/31/2010
H.R. 4957
P.L. 111-153
The Federal Aviation Administration
Enacted: 3/31/2010
Extension Act of 2010
Expires: 4/30/2010
H.R. 5147
P.L. 111-161
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010
Enacted: 4/30/2010
Expires: 7/3/2010
Source: CRS analysis of specified legislation.
Congressional Research Service
4
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Proposed Funding Authorization Levels
Funding authorization levels for the FAA have been historically split among four principal
accounts: Operations and Maintenance (O&M); the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or
Grants in Aid for Airports; Facilities and Equipment (F&E); and Research, Engineering, and
Development (RE&D). The FAA, under the Bush Administration, had proposed a restructuring of
these accounts, largely to separate operational activities carried out by the Air Traffic
Organization (ATO) from the FAA’s regulatory functions. However, Congress has not gone along
with these proposed modifications in either appropriations or reauthorization legislation.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill would authorize almost $54 billion for FAA programs over three years
spanning from FY2010 through FY2012. Proposed authorization levels specified in the bill are
presented in
Table 2. The bill would increase authorized spending for O&M, F&E, and RE&D
functions to support development of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS or
NextGen) air traffic modernization initiatives, and would authorize increased funding for airport
infrastructure improvement grants under AIP. Overall annual increases to aggregate funding
authorization average between roughly 3.5% and 4.0% over the authorization period. The House-
passed bill proposes considerable increases to the F&E account. These increases are largely being
driven by an emphasis on accelerating NextGen modernization efforts.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would authorize almost $35 billion for FAA programs for FY2010 and
FY2011. Proposed authorization levels, presented in
Table 2, roughly match amounts specified in
the House-passed bill, with the Senate-passed bill providing slightly lower amounts for O&M and
slightly higher amounts for F&E, reflecting its emphasis on accelerating the development and
deployment of NextGen technologies and flight procedures to exploit those technologies.
Amounts for AIP specified in Senate-passed H.R. 1586 are identical to the amounts specified in
the House-passed bill, while amounts for RE&D functions are slightly lower, but, nonetheless, are
considerably higher than historical appropriations amounts.
Using RE&D funding, the bill seeks to establish a research grant program for undergraduate
students and students at technical colleges examining training requirements for aircraft
maintenance and the impact of new technologies on training requirements for pilots and air traffic
controllers.
Congressional Research Service
5
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Table 2. Proposed Reauthorization Funding Levels for FAA Accounts
($ in millions)
Account FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FAA Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
House-passed
9,531
9,936
10,350
Senate-passed
9,336
9,620
-
Conference
-
-
-
Enacted
-
-
-
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
House-passed
4,000
4,100
4,200
Senate-passed
4,000
4,100
-
Conference
-
-
-
Enacted
-
-
-
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
House-passed
3,259
3,353
3,506
Senate-passed
3,500
3,600
-
Conference
-
-
-
Enacted
-
-
-
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D)
House-passed
215
226
245
Senate-passed
200
206
-
Conference
-
-
-
Enacted
-
-
-
Totals
House-passed
17,005
17,615
19,301
Senate-passed
17,036
17,526
-
Conference
-
-
-
Enacted
-
-
-
Source: CRS analysis of House-passed and Senate-passed H.R. 1586.
Congressional Research Service
6
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act: Budgetary Effects
Determination
House-passed H.R. 1586
No provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Specifies that the compliance determination for the FAA Reauthorization Act under the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 is to be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
“Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation” for this act, submitted for printing in the
Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
Aviation System Finance
Since passage of Vision 100, there has been considerable discussion about the long-term health of
the existing trust-fund-based FAA financing system. There are many who believe that the existing
system will have difficulty providing all of the funding that the agency will need in the years
ahead.
Table 3 shows the existing aviation trust fund revenue structure.
In the 110th Congress, the Bush Administration suggested that a new funding system, based on
user fees that were more closely tied to aviation industry flight activity, should be adopted.
Congress, and many, but not all, aviation groups chose to basically ignore the Bush
Administration proposals. Legislation passed by the House and considered in the Senate during
the 111th Congress appears to have been largely influenced by aviation interests, especially those
representing the general aviation (GA) portion of the industry who asserted that the existing
funding system could be tweaked in such a way that it would remain adequate at least until the
next reauthorization cycle.
Congressional Research Service
7
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Table 3. Aviation Taxes and Fees
Existing Tax or Fee
Tax or Fee
Rate (2009)
House Senate
Passenger Ticket Tax
7.5% NA NA
(domestic)
Flight Segment Tax
$3.60 NA NA
(domestic)
Cargo Waybill Tax
6.25%
NA
NA
Frequent Flyer Tax
7.5%
NA
NA
General Aviation Gasolinea
19.3 cents/gal on
24.1 cents/gal on
NA
General Aviation Jet Fuel
21.8 cents/gal on
35.9 cents/gal on
35.9 cents/gal on
(Kerosene)a
Commercial Jet Fuel
4.3 cents/gal on
NA
NA
(Kerosene)a
International
$16.10 (Alaska/Hawaii to
NA NA
Departure/Arrivals Tax
mainland - $8)
(indexed to CPI) (prorated
Alaska/Hawaii from
mainland)
Fractional Ownership
NA NA
14.1
cents/gal on
Surtax on general aviation
jet fuel
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.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) does not have jurisdiction over
the aviation taxes and fees that constitute the revenue stream for the airport and airway trust fund
(aviation trust fund). The Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction on revenue
issues, held a Hearing on the Financial Status of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund on May 7,
2009. As had been the case in the 110th Congress, the T&I Committee recommended an increase
in the general aviation gasoline tax to 24.1 cents per gallon and in the general aviation jet fuel tax
to 35.9 cents per gallon, which the Ways and Means Committee chose to support. The Ways and
Means Committee did not mark up separate legislation on this issue. Rather, the Committee
provided a Revenue Title, including the proposed fuel tax changes, which was incorporated into
the House passed version of the bill as an amendment during floor consideration.
The legislation passed by the House also includes a provision calling for the adjustment of
existing overflight fees (flights that do not take off or land in the U.S.) (these fees are currently
used primarily to fund a portion of the Essential Air Service (EAS) program). The FAA is to
adjust these fees by expedited rulemaking to insure that the fees are reasonably related to the cost
of providing air traffic services for overflights. The bill, however, specifically excludes altitude as
a factor that must be used in the adjustment of the overflight fees.
Congressional Research Service
8
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Registration, Certification, and Related Fees
The bill includes fees for aircraft registration, airman certificates, and other types of FAA-
provided documentation. It also provides that these fees may be adjusted over time if the FAA’s
cost accounting system indicates that the cost of providing these services to the aviation sector are
higher/lower than the fee levels established in the bill.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Legislation passed by the Senate includes a finance title that extends the airport and airway trust
fund through the end of FY2013 and makes modest changes to the aviation tax and fee structure.
The most notable change is an increase in the general aviation jet fuel tax to 35.9 cents per gallon.
This is the same level proposed by the House in its legislation. The Senate bill proposes a new
“surcharge” on aviation jet fuel used by fractional ownership aircraft of 14.1 cents per gallon. A
further change proposed in the bill makes fractionally owned aircraft subject to the general
aviation jet fuel tax of 35.9 cents per gallon (fractionally owned aircraft currently pay the 4.3
cents per gallon commercial jet fuel tax). The Senate bill includes an oversight fee review process
nearly identical to that found in the House bill. The bill does not include provisions on dealing
with registration, certification, and related fees.
Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account
The Senate bill creates a new Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account within the
existing airport and airway trust fund. The bill requires that this account be provided with $400
million per year primarily from taxes collected on aviation jet fuel. Funds deposited in the
account, which is to be created beginning October 1, 2010, are available for appropriation on an
annual basis for expenses related to the implementation of NextGen.
Airport Financing
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants for airport development and
planning. AIP funding is usually limited to capital improvements related to aircraft operations.
Commercial revenue-producing portions of airports and airport terminals are improvements that
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. Small airports are much more dependent on AIP grants than large and
medium hub airports. The larger airports can more easily generate revenue from user fees and
have historically had the financial wherewithal to successfully access the bond market. For
background and legislative history of federal aid to airports, including a description of the AIP
program, as well as an overall discussion of AIP issues, see CRS Report R40608,
Airport
Improvement Program (AIP): Reauthorization Issues for Congress, by Robert S. Kirk.
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.
Congressional Research Service
9
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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.
Both the House and Senate bills retain the basic AIP program size, structure, and funding
distribution. The bills would increase the program’s overall year-over-year authorization level by
$100 million for each of the years covered by the bills. The House bill, as a three-year bill, would
fund AIP for FY2010 through FY2012, whereas the Senate bill would only fund the program for
two years, FY2010 and FY2011.
The House bill would raise the PFC cap to $7. Consequently, the House bill would probably raise
the significance of the role of the PFC relative to that of the AIP within the context of airport
finance. The Senate bill does not raise the PFC cap.
Although neither bill would restructure the AIP or PFC programs substantially, they would make
a significant number of what may be seen as perfecting changes.
AIP Funding
The AIP authorization for FY2007, the final year of funding under Vision 100, was $3.7 billion.
The authorization levels for FY2008 and FY2009 under the FAA extension bills were $3.675
billion and $3.9 billion, respectively.1 For FY2010, the partial year extensions are based on the
assumption of a full-year authorization of $4 billion.
For FY2007, the amount actually made available through the appropriations process (i.e., the
obligation limitation under P.L. 110-5) for AIP was $3.515 billion. In FY2008 and FY2009, the
amount made available through the appropriations process was also $3.515 billion for each year
(i.e., the obligation limitations under P.L. 110-161 and P.L. 111-8). Thus over time the difference
between the authorized amounts and the amounts made available through the appropriations
process has grown. The obligation limitation for FY2010 under the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-117) was again set at $3.515 billion.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 101) would authorize AIP as follows: $4.0 billion for FY2010; $4.1
billion for FY2011; and $4.2 billion for FY2012. The $100 million annual growth in the program
extends the pattern of funding growth in Vision 100. Over the three-year life of the bill, $12.3
billion would be authorized for AIP.
The bill would also rescind $305.5 million in unobligated amounts authorized for FY2009 and
$102 million in unobligated amounts authorized for years previous to FY2009. However, because
of the gap between the amounts authorized and the amounts made available for these fiscal years,
many doubt that these rescissions will have a significant effect on the funding available for AIP.
1 See P.L. 110-253 and P.L. 111-12.
Congressional Research Service
10
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 104 would authorize AIP as follows: $4.0 billion for FY2010; $4.1 billion for FY2011.
This matches the increases proposed in the House bill for these two years. Over the two-year life
of the bill $8.1 billion would be authorized for AIP.
Formula Funding (Entitlements)
Primary Airport Entitlements
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill does not include provisions altering the primary airport formulas. The bill does,
however, include a provision (Section 140) related to the reduction of apportionments at large hub
airports that charge PFCs above the $4.50 level. These airports would have their formula
apportionments (entitlements) reduced by 100% of the projected PFC revenues for the fiscal year,
but not more than 100% of the amount than would otherwise be apportioned.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate 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). Earlier, the FY2006 Transportation/Treasury Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-
115) extended the virtual primary airport eligibility through FY2006 but at a reduced entitlement
of $500,000.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill includes no provisions regarding virtual primary airports.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 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 mark-up an additional provision was added for FY2008-2011 for airports with
fewer than an average of 10,000 enplanements in 2004-2006.
Congressional Research Service
11
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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.
Passenger Enplanement Report
House-passed H.R. 1586
No provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 107(c) requires the FAA to prepare a report on every U.S. airport that reported between
10,000 and 15,000 passenger enplanements during each of the last two most recent years for
which such data are available. The FAA is to report on the methods used by each of these airports
to reach the 10,000 enplanement threshold that airports must normally reach to qualify for
primary airport entitlements, including whether airports subsidize commercial flights to reach the
primary airport threshold. The FAA is to submit the report to Congress and the Secretary of
Transportation.
Study of Primary Airport Apportionment Based on Enplanement Ratio
House-passed H.R. 1586
No provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 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.
General Aviation Entitlements
There are two components of the general aviation entitlements: the State Apportionment and the
General Aviation apportionment (sometimes referred to as the Nonprimary Entitlement). Under
current law 20% of AIP funds are to be apportioned for both components.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 139) would make changes in the general aviation entitlements. The state
apportionment would be 10% of the amounts available for apportionment under AIP with a $300
million minimum. The nonprimary airport entitlement would remain $150,000 or one-fifth the
estimated five-year development costs published in the most recent National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS). Should the 10% of amounts available for apportionment to the states
Congressional Research Service
12
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
fall below $300 million in a fiscal year (for this to happen the amounts available for
apportionment for all of AIP would have to fall below $3 billion) the nonprimary entitlements
would be reduced on a prorated basis to provide the funds to bring the state apportionment up to
its $300 million minimum.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include a similar provision. GA entitlements would remain essentially
the same as under current law.
State Block Grant Program
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 502) would amend the state block grant program2 by specifying that
federal environmental requirements would apply to the program. The proposal specifies that any
federal agency that grants any 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 209 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.
Puerto Rico Minimum Guarantee
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 151) provides a minimum entitlement for Puerto Rico, which guarantees
that Puerto Rico shall receive at least 1.5% of the total amounts apportioned to all airports under
49 U.S.C. 47114 (c) and (d) for commercial service and general aviation airports.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
No provision.
United States Territory Minimum Guarantee
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill includes no provision regarding a United States Territory Minimum Guarantee.
2 49 U.S.C. § 47128.
Congressional Research Service
13
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 217 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 falls below that percentage.
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) remains 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.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill (Section 141) sets the minimum amount to be credited to the discretionary
fund at $520 million per year and drops the letter of intent language.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 208(k) includes the same provision as the House bill.
Noise Set-aside
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 143) 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 208 (h) includes the same provision as the House bill.
Military Airport Program (MAP)
House-passed H.R. 1586
Retains the MAP as it exists under current law.
Congressional Research Service
14
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 212 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. Section 220 would raise the allowable number of general aviation
airports that may be designated under MAP from one to three.
AIP Project Eligibility Changes
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House 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. 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 an “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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 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 for an airport
development project, but only 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 makes AIP eligible grants to an airport operator to assist in completing 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 mark-up of the bill by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation an
amendment was agreed upon 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 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.
Congressional Research Service
15
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
AIP Grant Assurances
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 133) 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
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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Includes provisions similar to the House bill.
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;3
• “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.
House
Section 134 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
3 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
16
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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 percent or less of the national
average; 2) the area has an unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for
which data are available, at least 1% 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 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)
Increasing the PFC Cap
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 111 of the bill would allow for PFCs above the existing $4.50 cap at the $5, $6, and $7
levels. As is true under current law, only two PFCs could be charged during any single one-way
trip, with a round-trip maximum of $28 (the current maximum is $18). As mentioned earlier, large
hub airports imposing a PFC above the $4.50 level would forego from their AIP formula
entitlements an amount equal to their projected PFC revenues but not more than 100% of the
entitlement funding that otherwise would have been apportioned.
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 versus origin
and destination passengers. Some have argued that the PFC structure favors large hub airports’
PFC revenues because the costs to an airport of a connecting passenger are less than those that
primarily service originating passengers.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Does not include an increase in the PFC cap.
Congressional Research Service
17
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Project Eligibility
House-passed H.R. 1586
In addition, the bill (Section 114) proposes a pilot program that would make available 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.
Section 112 of the bill includes a provision that would make eligible projects to construct secure
bicycle storage facilities for use by passengers at the airport and that are in compliance with
applicable security standards. One year after enactment the FAA is to submit a report on progress
made by airports to install bicycle parking.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill (Section 201) includes language that would make major changes to 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 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
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 the $3 level 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.
Section 207(b) would prohibit the use of PFCs to construct bicycle storage facilities. This
provision originated as a floor amendment and appears to be a response to Section 112 of the
House bill, discussed above.
Competition Plans
Under current law no AIP or PFC grant may be approved for a large or medium hub airport unless
the airport has submitted a written competition plan to the FAA.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill would extend the competition plan requirement.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill is silent on the competition plan requirement.
Congressional Research Service
18
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Award of Architectural and Engineering Contracts for PFC Funded
Airside Projects Made Subject to “Qualification-Based Selection”
Procurement Requirements
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 113 of the bill appears to make any airside airport project supported by PFC-derived
funds subject to Title IX of the Federal Property Administration Services Act of 1949, commonly
known as the Brooks Act. Under the Brooks Act, consulting firms who provide engineering and
architectural services are selected under “qualification-based selection” procedures. AIP
professional service contracts already fall under the Brooks Act. Assuming the implementation of
Section 113 would follow the AIP pattern, selections based on cost proposals would not be
permitted if PFC funding is used to help pay the cost of consultant services. Fees for services
would only be negotiated after the selection of the consulting firm is made.4 Under AIP, a clear
distinction is made between architectural and engineering contracts as opposed to contracts for
aviation planning services.5 Section 113, however, appears to combine planning and a variety of
other administrative functions with architectural and engineering services. Unless clarified, this
could lead to non-engineering services being reimbursed at the higher engineering overhead rate.6
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include a similar provision.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Participation in PFC Funded Contracts
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 115 extends the application of requirements under 49 U.S.C. Parts 23 and 26 regarding
the participation of disadvantaged business enterprises in contracts, subcontracts and business
opportunities funded using PFCs and in airport concessions. It requires the Secretary of
Transportation to issue regulations necessary to implement the provision.7
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include a similar provision.
4 See http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/procurement/professional_services/
5 See Federal Aviation Administration,
Advisory Circular no. 150/5100-14D, Architectural, Engineering, and Planning
Consultant Services for Airport Grant Projects, http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/87be820a72d12407862570a6006b4f29/$FILE/150-5100-14d.pdf
6 One example of this is the case, under a contract funded with federal-aid highway funds, in which a consulting firm
was reimbursed for the services of a typist at the engineer overhead rate. See http://www.projo.com/news/content/
DOT_Employees_05-09-07_BN5IM6Q.35f046d.html
7 For background on minority participation goals see, CRS Report RL33284,
Minority Contracting and Affirmative
Action for Disadvantaged Small Businesses: Legal Issues, by Jody Feder.
Congressional Research Service
19
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Passenger Facility Charge Pilot Program
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill does not include this provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill 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. GAO is to conduct a study of alternative means of collecting
PFCs.
PFC Grant Streamlining and Revenue Diversion Provisions
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill does not include a provision similar to the Senate bill.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 201 of the 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 they file their 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 the
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 charge 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.
Other Airport-related Provisions
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
Congressional Research Service
20
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The bill (Section 145) would raise the required air carrier approval percentages from 65% to 75%.
Airports participating in the pilot program would not be eligible for AIP funds.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Airport Development Rights Pilot Program—Sunset Provision
This pilot program allows for the purchase of a privately owned public use airport’s development
rights as a means of keeping the airport open and operating. The FAA argues that the program has
not been a success and suggests a better strategy would be to find a public sponsor to purchase the
airport rather than just the development rights. Some general aviation supporters may still be
supportive of the pilot program.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The bill (Section 147) includes a sunset provision that sets the end of the Airport Development
Rights Pilot program as September 30, 2008.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include similar language.
Pilot Program for Redevelopment of Airport Properties
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 817) requires that within a year of enactment the 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)(1)(A) 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.
Congressional Research Service
21
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
The trial program is to encourage compatible land uses with the airport and generate economic
benefits to both the airport operator and the affected local jurisdiction.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 712 of the Senate bill includes a similar provision, although the grant requirement and
limitations vary somewhat.
Land Use and Conveyance Provisions
In Both House and Senate Bills
Section 814 of the House bill and Section 218 of the Senate bill, in regard to Merrill Field Airport
in Anchorage, Alaska, releases, without monetary consideration, the municipality of Anchorage,
Alaska, 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 the FAA, for land subsequently conveyed for use by the
State of Alaska for the construction or reconstruction of a federally subsidized highway project.
Section 832 of the House bill and Section 219 of the Senate bill release the city of St. George,
Utah, 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.
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 810 allows the Secretary of Transportation to approve the sale of Lost Nation Airport
from the city of Willoughby, Ohio, to Lake County, Ohio, if certain conditions are met.
Section 811 allows for the closure of Pollock Municipal Airport, Louisiana, and release of the
town from any term, condition, reservation, or restriction contained in a surplus property
conveyance or transfer document or other order or finding by the Department of Transportation
that would prevent the closure of the airport and redevelopment of the facilities to non-
aeronautical uses.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 728 requires the conveyance of certain federal land to Clark County, Nevada, 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, sports arenas.
Congressional Research Service
22
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Priority Review of Cold Weather State Construction Projects
House-passed H.R. 1586
No Provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The FAA is 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 in the
typical calendar year prevents major construction projects from being carried out before May 1.
Noise Monitoring of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace
Redesign
House-passed H.R. 1586
No provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The FAA, not later than 270 days after the date of enactment and every 180 days thereafter until
completion of the airspace redesign, shall, in conjunction with the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey and the Philadelphia International Airport, monitor the air noise impacts of the
redesign and submit to Congress a report on the findings of the FAA with respect to the
monitoring.
Solid Waste Recycling Plans
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 132 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 714 includes language similar to that included in the House bill.
Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 137 requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to eliminate barriers
to small business participation in airport-related contracts and concessions by prohibiting
Congressional Research Service
23
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
excessive, unreasonable, or discriminatory bonding requirement for any project funded under AIP
or using passenger facility charge revenues under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40117.
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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill includes provisions similar to those contained in the House bill.
Training Program for Certification of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 138 requires that 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. $2 million is authorized annually to carry out the provision. Not later than 24 months
after the date of enactment the Secretary shall submit a report to the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
on the results of the training program.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 715 of the Senate bill includes a similar provision.
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill has no provision concerning the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 718 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.
Congressional Research Service
24
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th 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 assure that federal capital
spending for U.S. airports and airways (i.e., AIP and F&E) would be funded at their fully
authorized levels. For a detailed discussion of the history and impact of the various spending
guarantee mechanisms, see CRS Report RL33654,
Aviation Spending Guarantee Mechanisms, by
Robert S. Kirk.
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 provided
any funding for RE&D or O&M if the bill fails to fully fund AIP and F&E at their authorized
levels. The current guarantees have been incorporated into the FAA extension bills, keeping them
in effect.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 105) 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 FY2010, the amounts made available
would equal 90% of the estimated level of receipts plus interest on the fund for the fiscal year.
For FY2011 and FY2012, 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., FY2009 and FY2010,
respectively). 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 two years of the reauthorization, allowing a modest
accumulation in the unexpended balance of the trust fund during these years. 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 (as has happened in recent years), 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 could be set at a higher level.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 105 would extend the existing guarantees through 2011.
Congressional Research Service
25
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
FAA Management and Organizational Issues
Management and organizational reform at the FAA has been a central focus of both legislative
and administration initiatives over the past several years. Central issues include
• measures designed to achieve better integration of NGATS/NextGen planning
and implementation into the FAA’s ongoing planning and acquisition activities;
• measures to establish a mechanism for considering possible realignment and
consolidation of various FAA facilities and services; and
• provisions to increase the flexibility in the design and implementation of
NGATS/NextGen by allowing airports and private entities to play a more direct
role in acquiring, deploying, and maintaining facilities and services to augment
the FAA’s air traffic communications, navigation, and surveillance capabilities.
These issues, and the related legislative proposals under consideration in the current FAA
reauthorization debate, are discussed in further detail below.
Planning and Oversight of Next Generation Air Transportation
System Development
A central issue permeating the current reauthorization debate is the adequacy of management and
organizational processes to facilitate development of NextGen. NextGen is being developed to
address system-wide capacity needs, and is scheduled to be completed prior to 2025. A provision
in Vision 100 created the multi-agency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) and
charged it with the task of defining, developing, and implementing the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NGATS) or NextGen plan.
Over the past three years, the JPDO has collaborated with governmental and industry partners to
draft a concept for NextGen development. Some critics have argued that the pace of this effort
has been too slow, while others have voiced concern that the scope of the JPDO concept—
encompassing “curbside-to-curbside” movement of airline passengers, rather than just block-to-
block handling of all aircraft types within the national airspace system—may be inappropriate.
Still others have raised concerns over the organizational and management structure of the JPDO,
specifically regarding the JPDO’s potential lack of influence over management and budgetary
processes of participating agencies. While these agencies are ultimately charged with the task of
carrying out the engineering work to build NextGen as well as the operational responsibilities to
run and maintain the national airspace system and its many components, including, but not
limited to air traffic control services and airport security functions, the link between their
respective budgets and the NextGen program is not clearly defined.
Various options to address these concerns that have been identified include establishing a lead
systems integration (LSI) entity to oversee the engineering of NextGen systems, or possibly
establishing specific reporting requirements, perhaps through the budget and appropriations
process, in which the various agencies involved could identify how budgetary elements would
support NextGen development and how cross-agency efforts would be coordinated and aligned.
Congressional Research Service
26
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill includes sense of Congress language recognizing that modernizing the air
transportation system is a national priority. To address this need to prioritize investment in the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS), the bill includes several provisions
designed to improve the management and implementation of this effort.
The bill would establish the JPDO director as a voting member of the FAA’s Joint Resources
Council. The bill would give the JPDO director the title Associate Administrator for the Next
Generation Air Transportation System, a position that would report directly to the FAA
Administrator. To the extent possible, the JPDO director would be required to oversee
development of the integrated NGATS plan, ensuring that each federal agency involved has
requested sufficient funds in the annual budget process to carry out its responsibilities under the
plan. The JPDO director would also be responsible for making sure that the development and
implementation of NGATS stays on schedule, and identify and justify in the President’s budget
submission any inconsistencies between the NGATS plan and the budget request.
House-passed H.R. 1586 would also require each component agency involved in the NGATS
initiative to designate a senior official responsible for carrying out NGATS-related activities of
the agency, serving as a liaison for the agency in matters involving NGATS support, and ensuring
that the agency meets its obligations set forth in memoranda of understanding regarding NGATS
development and support. The bill further requires that the JPDO work with the OMB to develop
a process for identifying projects tied to the NGATS program across all affiliated federal agencies
and consider the NGATS as a cross-agency, unified program.
Further, the House-passed bill would require a multiagency integrated work plan for NGATS
including an outline of activities required to achieve the end-state architecture defined in the
program’s concept of operations (CONOPS); year-by-year details of accomplishments, activities,
research, requirements, rulemakings, policy decisions, and other milestones; an outline of annual
objectives and responsible agencies; an estimate of year-by-year funding requirements for each
development stage; and “a clear explanation of how each step in the development of [NGATS]
will lead to the following step and the implications of not successfully completing a step in the
time period described in the integrated work plan.” The bill would also require the FAA to issue a
“NextGen Implementation Plan,” detailing how the agency is implementing NGATS, on an
annual basis as well as annual reports to the congressional oversight committees detailing
progress made in carrying out the multiagency integrated NGATS work plan. Also, under the
House-passed bill, the NGATS Senior Policy Committee would be required to meet twice each
year and prepare an annual report to coincide with the President’s budget request detailing
progress made on the multiagency integrated NGATS work plan and any changes to that plan,
detailing the impact of those changes.
The bill would also require GAO to review the progress and challenges of transforming the
national airspace system to NGATS, and review ongoing air traffic modernization projects and
progress on NGATS component systems including En Route Automation Modernization
(ERAM); Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System/Common Automated Radar
Terminal Systems (STARS/CARTS); Traffic Flow Management Modernization (TFM-M);
System Wide Information Management (SWIM); and ADS-B. The bill would also task the
National Research Council with performing a review of the enterprise architecture for the
NGATS examining technical activities, program risk, and opportunities to mitigate risk based on
experiences with other complex, software-intensive systems. The bill would also require the FAA,
Congressional Research Service
27
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
in consultation with other agencies such as NASA, to initiate a research program on methods to
improve and streamline the process of certifying new technologies for introduction into the
national airspace system. The bill also authorizes additional appropriations, totaling $56.8 million
over the four-year authorization period, specifically for airspace redesign initiatives to enhance
aviation system capacity and reduce delays.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Title III of Senate-passed H.R. 1586 includes numerous provisions related to the management and
oversight of FAA air traffic modernization initiatives and NextGen technology deployment. The
FAA would be required to issue a NextGen implementation plan within six months of enactment
that would be updated annually and must include a schedule of rulemaking pertaining to
regulations and guidelines for implementing NextGen.
The bill seeks to create an Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board made up of the
Administrator, a Department of Defense (DoD) representative, someone representing the public
interest, and individuals representing various aviation interests including airports; passenger or
cargo air carriers; aircraft manufacturers; FAA labor organizations; and general aviation. Board
members would be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate to serve
four-year terms. The board would be responsible for reviewing and advising the FAA regarding
modernization programs, the annual NextGen Implementation Plan and budget, cost accounting
practices, the strategic plan for modernization, and the operational efficiency of the air traffic
control system. The board would be required to approve air traffic equipment purchases over
$100 million, the FAA’s annual budget request for facilities and equipment, and the FAA’s annual
Capital Investment Plan (CIP).
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 also seeks to create a new NextGen management structure led by a
Chief NextGen Officer, selected by the FAA Administrator with the approval of the proposed Air
Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board. The Chief NextGen Officer would be
responsible for overseeing the implementation of all FAA NextGen programs, developing an
annual NextGen implementation plan, and overseeing JPDO’s facilitation of cooperation among
participating federal agencies. The Senate bill seeks to modify the managerial structure and
responsibilities of the JPDO, referring to it instead as the NextGen System Implementation
Office, which would be headed by a director that would report to the Chief NextGen Officer.
Other agencies engaged in NextGen development would be required to designate an agency
NextGen implementation officer to oversee the respective agencies activities related to NextGen
development, liaison and coordinate with other agencies on NextGen implementation, and
manage agency projects, staffing and budgets tied to NextGen. Within six months of enactment,
each of the agencies would be required to issue memoranda of understanding with other
participating agencies describing the responsibilities, budgetary commitments, and staffing
resources of each agency devoted to NextGen implementation.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 also includes language designed to accelerate NextGen technology
deployment. Specifically, the bill would require the FAA to issue a report within six months of
enactment detailing its strategy for developing, certifying, and implementing Required
Navigational Performance (RNP) and area navigation (RNAV) capabilities/procedures, which
exploit satellite navigation technologies, to maximize efficiency and capacity at the nation’s
busiest airports. The bill sets a implementation schedule that would require completion of 30% of
the procedures within 18 months of enactment, 60% within 36 months, and 100% by January 1,
2014. The bill would also require the FAA to issue a report by January 1, 2014, detailing its plan
Congressional Research Service
28
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
for expanding RNAV/RNP capabilities to other airports, and sets a timeframe that would require
25% of planned procedures to be implemented by 2015, 50% by 2016, 75% by 2017, and 100%
by 2018. A separate provision of the bill would require the FAA to set a target of commissioning
200 RNP procedures annually through FY2012, with 25% of these meeting low visibility
approach criteria objectives established in the NextGen Implementation Plan. In establishing
priorities for these implementation schedules, the bill directs the FAA to expand the charter of the
Performance Based Navigation Aviation Rulemaking Committee as needed to establish priorities
based on their potential benefits with regard to improving safety and alleviating airport and
airspace congestion. The bill also would require the FAA to submit its plan for a nationwide
communications systems to congressional oversight committees within one year of enactment.
The bill also calls for a report evaluating the impact of NextGen technologies on more efficient
use of airspace, reduced fuel consumption, and reduced aircraft emissions. The FAA would also
be required to assess the feasibility of reducing aircraft separation standards without
compromising safety, and if deemed feasible, develop a timetable for implementation of reduced
separation standards.
The bill would also require the FAA to submit a report to the congressional oversight committees
detailing its program and schedule for integrating ADS-B into the National Airspace System,
including a clearly defined budget, schedule, and a transition plan with clearly defined
milestones. In the report, the FAA would be required to identify any potential workforce and
operational changes expected to result from ADS-B deployment as well as a timeline for
implementing advanced operational procedures exploiting ADS-B capabilities, including ADS-B
air-to-air features. The report would be required to assess the benefits derived from ADS-B
deployment. The Senate bill would require the FAA to finalize its rulemaking proceeding
regarding requirements for ADS-B equipage of aircraft, and would accelerate requirements for
aircraft operators to install “ADS-B Out” (i.e., transmission only) capabilities by 2015, pending
verification by the Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board that the necessary ADS-B
ground infrastructure is in place and properly functioning, that certification standards for aircraft
ADS-B equipment have been approved, and that such equipment interfaces safely and efficiently
with ADS-B infrastructure. The bill also would require the equipage of aircraft with “ADS-B In”
(i.e., receive capability) by 2018. Toward reaching this objective of full-scale ADS-B deployment
by 2018, the bill would require operational testing of ADS-B in congested airspace, identification
of required equipment and training for air traffic controllers, and the development of procedures
for air traffic management in environments where there is a mix of ADS-B and radar-based air
traffic monitoring. The bill would also require the FAA to issue a report identifying incentive
options that would encourage operators to equip aircraft with NextGen technologies, including
development of policies that would give priority to ADS-B equipped aircraft.
The bill would authorize the FAA to enter into agreements, using grants or other financial
instruments, to fund the cost of equipping aircraft with communication, surveillance, and
navigation equipment, such as ADS-B, and other avionics to enable NextGen air traffic control
capabilities. The bill, however, does not authorize any specific funding amounts for these
purposes. Additionally, the bill requires the FAA to submit a report on funding NextGen
technologies in a manner that does not increase the federal deficit, takes into consideration
options for public-private partnerships, and recommends financing alternatives to user fees and
taxes imposed on users of the aviation system. The report would also be required to discuss
potential operational benefits or other incentives for early adopters of NextGen technologies, such
as preferential access to certain airspace, flight routes, or airport runways.
Congressional Research Service
29
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would also require the FAA to adopt and monitor a series of
performance metrics to gauge the efficiency of the National Airspace System. The bill specifies
that, at a minimum, these metrics are to include allowable operations per hour on runways;
average gate-to-gate times; fuel burned between city pairs; numbers and percentages of
operations using advanced RNAV/RNP and ADS-B procedures; average distance flown between
key city pairs; times between pushback and takeoff; flights that proceed using an uninterrupted or
continuous climb or descent; average gate arrival delay for all arrivals; actual versus planned
flight times for key city pairs; and metrics to demonstrate reduced fuel burn and reduced aircraft
emissions. The FAA would be required to establish baseline levels for each of these metrics, make
all data publicly available, and issue annual progress reports.
Within six months of enactment, Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would require the FAA to develop a
plan for streamlining and accelerating the process for certifying NextGen technologies,
addressing factors such as manufacturing, installation, operational procedures, pilot and controller
training, and staffing needs. The FAA would be required to assess the extent to which third parties
will be used in the certification process, and the cost and benefits of relying on third parties.
Realignment and Consolidation of FAA Facilities and Operations
The FAA’s reauthorization proposal introduced in the 110th Congress (see H.R. 1356/S. 1076,
110th Congress) outlined a process for evaluating and implementing recommended FAA facility
and service consolidation in a manner designed to minimize political influence on the process,
much like the military BRAC process, which it is closely modeled after. The overall objective
would be to identify and implement recommended realignment and consolidation activities that
would help reduce FAA capital, operating, maintenance, and administrative costs without
adversely impacting system safety.
The FAA proposal includes details of the process and a timeline for carrying out a system-wide
review and implementation of realignment and consolidation of FAA facilities and services.
While the proposed process closely follows the military BRAC process, which has generally been
regarded as a successful approach to realignment and consolidation of military bases and units,
the prospect of implementing such a process to assess FAA facilities and services may be
regarded as controversial during the reauthorization debate, particularly in local regions that may
stand to lose FAA facilities and jobs as an outcome of the process. Consideration of the process in
legislation may also be opposed by labor organizations representing FAA employees, although
nothing in current statute generally prohibits the FAA from engaging in organizational
consolidation and realignment.
House-passed H.R. 1586
In contrast to the FAA proposal offered by the Bush Administration, The House-passed bill
proposes to establish an FAA working group, similar to an advisory group, to develop criteria and
make recommendations for realignment of services and facilities. Members of the nine-member
working group would consist of the FAA Administrator, two airline representatives, two airport
representatives, two representatives from the general aviation community, and two labor
organization representatives representing FAA regional office or field employees. An amendment
agreed to and incorporated into the House-passed version of the bill would require that FAA
regional office consolidation be included in the scope of the working group’s oversight. That
provision also stipulates that the working group members from labor unions representing FAA
Congressional Research Service
30
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
employees may be selected from unions representing employees working at either field facilities
or regional offices.
The FAA would be required to form the working group within nine months of enactment, and
once established, the working group would have six months to develop criteria and
recommendations for realignment and present those findings to the appropriate congressional
oversight committees. The working group’s report is to include justifications for each
recommendation to consolidate or realign specific facilities and services, including associated
costs and savings estimates. In addition to providing the report to the congressional committees,
the report would be published in the Federal Register allowing 45 days for public comments and
written objections to the recommendations contained in the report.
Sixty days after the close of the public comment period, the FAA Administrator would be
required to submit a second report to the congressional oversight committees detailing the
Administrator’s recommendations for consolidation and realignment, along with copies of any
public comments and objections received. The statute would bar the Administrator from
implementing any consolidation or realignment of facilities or services until this report is
submitted. However, once the report is submitted, this does not otherwise limit the
Administrator’s authority to initiate proposed actions or require that these actions be subject to
any further review.
The House-passed bill also calls for the creation of an 12-member task force on air traffic control
facility conditions. Eight members of the task force would be selected by the FAA administration,
and four would be chosen by labor unions representing employees that work at these field
facilities. Four members would be required to be experts on various hazardous building
conditions, while two members would be required to have expertise in rehabilitating aging
buildings. Members would be appointed for the duration of the task force’s existence. They would
not be compensated for their membership, but would be reimbursed for travel expenses related to
the work of the task force. Under the provision, the task force would be permitted to hire
personnel as needed, and state and federal employees may be detailed to work on the task force.
The task force would be responsible for studying the conditions of all air traffic control facilities,
facility condition indices (FCIs), reports of respiratory ailments of other conditions within these
facilities, facility conditions that could interfere with job performance, and available scientifically
approved remediation techniques and their application. Based on its study, the task force would
be required to issue recommendations to prioritize facility rehabilitation, ensure that the FAA
utilizes scientifically approved remediation techniques, and assist the FAA in making
programmatic changes to prevent facilities from deteriorating to unsafe levels.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would require the FAA to allow for public comment on and publish
within nine months of enactment details of the final criteria to be used in making its
recommendations regarding the realignment of services and facilities intended to assist in the
transition to NextGen facilities and to reduce costs without compromising safety. Within nine
months of enactment, the FAA would also be required to publish a formal list of services and
facilities recommended for realignment, including a justification and cost savings analysis for
each. If requested, the FAA would be required to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed
realignment in any community that would be affected by its recommendations. Upon release of
these recommendations, the proposed Air Traffic Control Modernization Oversight Board,
discussed above, would be required to review and analyze the FAA’s recommendations along
Congressional Research Service
31
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
with public comments regarding these recommendations. Based on this review and analysis, the
Board would make its own independent 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would also require the FAA to convene a task force on air traffic control
facility conditions. The task force, to be comprised of seven members appointed by the
Administrator and four members appointed by labor unions representing field facility employees,
would be required to have four specialists on toxic mold abatement, “sick building syndrome,”
and other building health hazards, and two specialists with expertise on rehabilitating aging
buildings. The task force would be required to study the conditions of all air traffic control
facilities in the United States; review reports of employees working in these facilities related to
respiratory ailments and other facility-related health conditions; assess conditions of the facilities
that may interfere with job performance and safety; the ability of managers and supervisors to
document and seek remediation for unsafe facility conditions; whether employees reporting
facility related illnesses are treated fairly; whether scientifically approved remediation techniques
are implemented in a timely fashion when hazardous facility conditions are identified; and FAA
resources for facility maintenance and renovation. Based on its study, the task force shall make
recommendations, within six months of its formation, regarding the prioritization of facilities
with respect to remediation and renovation to address employee health and safety, methods for
ensuring that scientifically approved remediation techniques are used to correct problems at all
affected facilities; and programmatic changes to prevent aging air traffic control facilities from
deteriorating to unsafe levels. Within 30 days of receiving the task force study and
recommendations, the FAA would be required to report to the congressional oversight committees
regarding its plan, timeline, and budgetary requirements and priorities for addressing the task
force’s recommendations.
Air Traffic Controller and Technical Staffing and Training
Amid growing numbers of retiring controllers and the pending shift toward integrating NextGen
technologies in the air traffic control environment, there is growing policy interest in the staffing
of air traffic facilities and the training of air traffic controllers and systems specialists that
maintain air traffic control technologies. Besides the need to train controllers 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, particularly as the FAA faces a near-term transition in the controller workforce with large
numbers of retirements anticipated over the next three to five years.
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 would require the National Academy of Sciences to carry out a study
examining human factors, traffic activity, and air traffic control technology and based on this
study make recommendations for the development of FAA staffing standards for air traffic
controllers. The bill also would require the FAA to study the adequacy of training programs for
Congressional Research Service
32
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
air traffic controllers examining current training and required competencies as well as available
training approaches and required competencies for NextGen operations. 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate language directs the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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.
Partnerships for Next Generation Technology Deployment
An option under consideration is to allow private sector investment in communications,
navigation, surveillance and other services provided within the context of the national airspace
system. For example, under such provisions, telecommunications providers may opt to deploy
technologies to augment in-cockpit air traffic surveillance capabilities and datalink weather and
other flight-related information to airborne aircraft. Under such a scheme, these providers may be
able to offer certain fee-for-service capabilities to aircraft to augment a core set of required
aircraft communication, navigation, and surveillance capabilities. Another option being
considered is to allow for airport ownership and control of certain communications, navigation,
and surveillance equipment that has been historically acquired, deployed, and maintained by the
FAA.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill would authorize the creation of a public-private partnership that includes a
“university component with significant aviation expertise in air traffic management, simulation,
meteorology, and engineering and aviation business” to serve as an airport-based testing site for
existing NGATS technologies. The provision stipulates that the testing site should serve a mix of
both commercial and general aviation traffic. Also, the House-passed bill would establish a
NextGen Research and Development Center of Excellence. The center would be responsible for
leveraging the FAA’s centers of excellence program, a program that relies on several university
consortia to address ongoing FAA research and development challenges, to enhance the
development of NGATS technologies within academia and industry. The NextGen Research and
Development Center of Excellence would be responsible for providing educational, technical, and
Congressional Research Service
33
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
analytical assistance to the FAA and other agencies involved in NGATS development, such as
NASA and the DoD, to aid in the research and development of NGATS technologies.
The bill also includes language that would require the FAA to establish a process for including
certain FAA employees, selected by their respective collective bargaining units, along with other
stakeholders that are likely to be impacted by the NGATS development and other modernization
initiatives in the planning, development, and deployment of ATC modernization projects. This
may include air traffic controllers and airway system specialists that maintain ATC infrastructure,
who have expressed concern that they have not been adequately included in the planning and
conceptualization of NGATS and in the development of other modernization initiatives. These
employees would serve in a collaborative, advisory capacity and, in addition to regular
compensation and benefits, would receive travel and per diem expenses in accordance with FAA
travel policies while serving in this capacity.
House-passed H.R. 1586 would also require the FAA to prepare a report on the program and
schedule for integrating ADS-B into the national airspace system. The report is to include detailed
information on protections and contingencies that would be included in any FAA contracts to
cover the event of a contractor’s default, bankruptcy, acquisition, or other event that may
jeopardize the uninterrupted delivery of ADS-B services. The provision further specifies that any
FAA contract for ADS-B services contain contingencies requiring: FAA Administrator approval
of any assignment of the contract or assumption of the contract vendor by another entity;
designation of ADS-B assets as critical national infrastructure for security purposes; continuation
of ADS-B broadcast services for a reasonable period following a contract termination or in the
event of material nonperformance, until another vendor can begin providing these services; and
permission for the federal government to acquire or utilize the ADS-B contractor assets to ensure
uninterrupted ADS-B services, provided that reasonable compensation for use of such assets is
made.
The House-passed bill would require the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector
General (DOT OIG) to conduct a review of the effectiveness of FAA oversight in connection with
third party development of flight procedures, such as instrument approaches to airports. The
review would include an assessment of the degree to which the FAA is relying on plans to utilize
third parties for developing flight procedures, and whether there is adequate FAA staff and
processes to assess the safety of these third-party activities. The report is to also assess whether
the FAA has sufficient internal staffing and resources to meet the needs for safely and efficiently
developing flight procedures without the use of third-party resources.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 includes language that would require the FAA to assess the costs and
benefits of using third parties to assist in the development of RNP and RNAV procedures for
increasing capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system. The FAA would also be
required to assess the costs and benefits of using third parties to develop and verify certification
standards for NextGen technologies. A separate provision of the bill would specifically authorize
the FAA to give third parties the ability to design, flight check, and implement RNP procedures.
Similar to House language, the bill instructs the DOT OIG to carry out assessments of third-party
agreements for developing new operational and approach procedures, focusing on whether the
FAA has established sufficient mechanisms and allocated sufficient staffing to provide safety
oversight of these activities.
Congressional Research Service
34
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
The Senate-passed bill would also establish cooperative agreements with up to five states under a
test program for creating ADS-B equipage banks that would provide loans and other assistance to
public entities for equipping aircraft with ADS-B and other related NextGen avionics. Each bank
would be required to fund each account with 50% of a project’s funds derived from nonfederal
sources. Each bank would be required to maintain an investment grade rating on its debt
issuances or maintain sufficient bonds or insurance to maintain viability. Investment income,
derived from investing in U.S. Treasury securities, bank deposits, or other DOT-approved
financial instruments, would be credited to the ADS-B equipage account and made available for
providing loans and assistance for eligible ADS-B equipage projects at below market interest
rates. Loan repayment terms under this proposed program would not be allowed to exceed 10
years. The bill would authorize $25 million per year for FY2010 through FY2014 for providing
the federal funding to these ADS-B equipage banks.
FAA Personnel Management
In 1995, Congress authorized the Administrator of the 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.8 The system was intended to provide for “greater flexibility in the hiring, training,
compensation, and location of personnel.”9 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.10 However, in March 1996, Congress amended section 347 to
make chapter 71 applicable to this system.11
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.12 49 U.S.C. § 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
8 P.L. 104-50, § 347(a), 109 Stat. 436, 460 (1995).
9
Id.
10
See P.L. 104-50, § 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).
11 P.L. 104-122, § 1, 110 Stat. 876 (1996).
12 P.L. 104-264, § 253, 110 Stat. 3213, 3237 (1996).
Congressional Research Service
35
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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.”13 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.14
In 2005, a federal district court considered the impact of 49 U.S.C. § 40122 on labor-management
relations at the FAA.15 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. § 40122, FSIP declined to provide
assistance.16
After reviewing the development of the FAA personnel management system and the enactment of
49 U.S.C. § 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.17
Consequently, the court declared that “[w]hen agency action constitutes an arguable unfair labor
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.”18
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 Services 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.19 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.20
On April 5, 2006, the 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.21 In
13 S.Rept. 104-333, at 36 (1996).
14
See H.Rept. 104-848, at 109 (1996).
15 National Air Traffic Controllers Association v. Federal Service Impasses Panel, 2005 WL 418016 (D.D.C. 2005).
16
Id. at 1-2.
17
Id. at 4.
18
Id.
19 437 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
20
Id. at 1265.
21 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).
Congressional Research Service
36
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 40122(a)(2), the FAA Administrator indicated that the agency would
send its last, best offer to Congress.22 On June 5, 2006, the 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.23
House-passed H.R. 1586
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. § 40122(a)(2) to allow for the involvement of
FSIP if the Administrator and a bargaining representative fail to reach agreement under 49 U.S.C.
§ 40122(a)(1). Under the amended 49 U.S.C. § 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 Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (“FMCS”).
The two arbitrators would then select a third arbitrator from the list. If the two arbitrators are
unable to agree on the third person, the parties will select the third person by alternately striking
names from the list until only one name remains.
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. The costs of the arbitration would be shared
equally by the parties.
In addition, section 601(b) would invalidate any changes that were implemented by the FAA
Administrator on and after July 10, 2005, without the agreement of the exclusive bargaining
representative. The parties would be governed by their last mutual agreement until a new contract
was adopted. Thus, section 601(b) would appear to have the effect of undoing the new contract
that was imposed on June 5, 2006.
Sections 602 and 603 would make applicable to the FAA personnel management system
additional provisions of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Section 602, for example, would make
applicable to the personnel system 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301 and 2302, which relate to merit systems
principles and prohibited personnel practices. Section 603 would make applicable to the
personnel system 5 U.S.C. § 5596, which provides for the availability of back pay when there has
been an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action. The availability of back pay for personnel
actions that occurred prior to the date of enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act would be
limited to cases in which the Merit Systems Protection Board found that the FAA committed an
unjustified or unwarranted personnel action, but ruled that the Board did not have the authority to
provide a remedy. A petition for review would also have to be filed with the clerk of the Board
22
Id. H.R. 5449, a measure introduced by Representative Steven C. LaTourette on May 22, 2006, to repeal 49 U.S.C. §
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).
23 FAA Imposes Labor Contract on NATCA Following 60-Day Congressional Review, supra note 22.
Congressional Research Service
37
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
within six months after the date of the enactment. The availability of back pay for proceedings
pending on or commenced after the date of enactment would not be subject to those conditions.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 313 of Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would also amend 49 U.S.C. § 40122(a)(2) to allow for
the involvement of FSIP if the Administrator and a bargaining representative fail to reach
agreement under 49 U.S.C. § 40122(a)(1). Under the amended 49 U.S.C. § 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 are unable to
agree on the third person, the parties will select the third person by alternately striking names
from the list until only one name remains.
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. The costs of the arbitration would be shared
equally by the parties.
Unlike the House-passed bill, Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would not invalidate the changes that
were implemented by the FAA Administrator on and after July 10, 2005. In addition, Senate-
passed H.R. 1586 does not address the application of 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301, 2302, and 5596 to the
FAA personnel management system.
System Capacity
Addressing system congestion and capacity had been a significant issue during FAA
reauthorization debate in the 110th Congress. Under the Bush Administration, the FAA made
significant legislative and regulatory proposals focused on obtaining the authority to implement
market-based approaches to controlling congestion at selected high-density airports. Specifically,
it had sought statutory authority to control congestion at certain airports through market-based
mechanisms, such as slot auctions and peak-period pricing. In 2008, the Bush Administration
sought to impose slot auctions at New York’s La Guardia and Kennedy Airports through the
regulatory process. This initiative was opposed by many aviation industry groups and by the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, the airport operator. A December 8, 2008, ruling by the
U.S. Court of Appeals put a temporary halt to this initiative.24
Indications are that the Obama Administration will not seek to reopen this issue and that it will
not be a major issue in its reauthorization proposals. The House-passed bill is silent on these
issues except for a provision calling on GAO to study and make recommendations on strategies
for relieving congestion at airports and in airspace such as, slots, quotas, and such other remedies
as they might identify.
24
Transportation Weekly. Appeals Court Puts NY Airport Slot Auctions on Hold. December 18, 2008. p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
38
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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.
In addition, 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 late 1950s, 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.25 Although the operator of the airport,
the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority, agreed that additional capacity could be added,
it did not support additional slots.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill as passed provides for an additional 12 slots, 10 of which are to be beyond
perimeter slots. The new beyond perimeter slots are to be created by reducing existing within
perimeter slot allocations at the airport by an equal number.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill makes no changes to the existing slot regime at Reagan National. During
floor consideration of the bill, several Members participated in a colloquy during which the bill
25 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Reagan National Airport: Update on Capacity to Handle Additional Flights
and Impact on Other Area Airports. GAO-07-352. Washington, DC. February 2007. 31 p.
Congressional Research Service
39
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
managers agreed to consider the concerns of Senators from western states when this provision
was conferenced with the House.
Aviation Safety
Both the House and Senate reauthorization bills contains numerous provisions addressing a
number of aviation safety issues including whistleblower protections; runway incursions; pilot
fatigue; helicopter emergency medical service operations; unmanned aircraft operations; wake
turbulence prediction, detection, and avoidance; airline maintenance practices; safety oversight of
airline operations; aircrew occupational safety and health; airline pilot training and certification;
and concerns over the impact of wind turbine farms on aviation safety. Additionally, the bills
address a number of issues regarding airline pilot training, fatigue, and operational safety, largely
stemming from findings of the investigation of the February 12, 2009, crash of a regional
turboprop passenger airline flight near Buffalo, New York.
Investigation of Aviation Safety Concerns by Whistleblowers
A school of thought regarding aviation safety maintains that open communication without fear of
reprisal regarding potential safety concerns may improve safety by creating a culture and
environment where aviation workers can identify and report unsafe conditions and practices
before they lead to mishaps. In line with this view, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21, P.L. 106-181) established a whistleblower protection
program for the airline industry. The act also required the FAA to establish procedures for
protecting airlines and their employees from adverse enforcement actions for regulatory
violations reported or discovered through voluntary reporting programs, such as the Aviation
Safety Action Program (ASAP).
House-passed H.R. 1586
The bill includes a provision to 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. The House-
passed bill also contains sense of Congress language that whistleblowers at the FAA should be
granted the full protection of the law.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Similar to the House language, the Senate bill seeks to establish an Aviation Safety Whistleblower
Investigation Office within the FAA.
Congressional Research Service
40
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th 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. The
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 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 the FAA develop systems that provide direct
warnings to pilots. The 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, the FAA has been operationally testing the use
of runway status lights (RWSLs) 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 FAA has not fully evaluated the results of these ongoing
operational tests and has not made any decisions regarding the operational deployment of these
systems beyond the test phase at this point.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill contains a provision that would require the 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, 2009. The FAA would be required to integrate the plan into
its annual NextGen Implementation Plan document. As shown in
Table 4, the House-passed bill
also explicitly authorizes, from the amounts authorized for overall Facilities and Equipment
(F&E) spending, the amounts specified for runway incursion reduction programs and runway
status lights (indicators for taxiing aircraft that a runway is occupied by a landing or departing
aircraft and should not be used or crossed). The bill would also require the 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. As passed, the House-passed bill also includes a provision
expressing the sense of Congress that the FAA should enter into good faith discussions with the
city of Santa Monica to achieve runway safety area solutions, to mitigate the effects of possible
short landings or runway overruns, that are consistent with FAA design guidelines.
Congressional Research Service
41
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Table 4. Specific Authorizations in House-passed H.R. 1586 for
Runway Incursion Mitigation
($ in millions)
Program
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Runway Incursion Reduction Programs
12
12
12
Runway Status Lights
125
100
50
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Like the House-passed bill, a provision in the Senate bill would require the FAA to issue its plan
for deploying systems for alerting controllers and flight crews regarding potential runway
incursions by December 31, 2009, and integrate it into the annual NextGen Implementation Plan.
The Senate would also require the FAA to review all commercial service airports in the United
States and initiate action to improve lighting, signage, and runway and taxiway markings. The bill
also directs the FAA to develop a process for tracking and investigating operational errors and
runway incursions within one year of enactment. The bill also directs the FAA’s Air Traffic
Organization (ATO) to evaluate the potential contributions of ASDE-X and surface management
software to the NextGen initiative. It would also require the FAA to consider available options for
expediting certification of Ground Based Augmentation System technology and to develop a plan
to utilize such a system at the 35 busiest airports by the end of FY2012.
Pilot Fatigue
Reducing accidents 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 longstanding priority of the 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
account for the time associated with transportation to and from the airport, and circadian
disruption associated with crossing time zones over the course of a trip. However, concern over
pilot fatigue tends to be even greater for other commercial operators, besides the airlines, where
there are less stringent regulatory requirements for flight time and rest requirements, and fatigue
issues are not typically addressed in pilot contracts to the extent that they are covered in contracts
between major airlines and their pilots.
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 would require the FAA to update flight and duty time regulations to
address problems related to pilot fatigue. In developing these regulations, the bill stipulates that
the FAA is to address the time of day that flights occur; the number of takeoffs and landings in a
duty period; the number of time zones crossed; research findings on fatigue, sleep, and circadian
rhythms; NTSB and NASA recommendations regarding sleep and rest requirements; international
standards pertaining to flight schedules and duty periods; alternative procedures to facilitate
Congressional Research Service
42
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
alertness in the cockpit; airline scheduling, attendance, and sick leave policies; the effects of
commuting, means of commuting, and length of commutes on pilot fatigue; medical screening
and treatment; rest environments; and any other related factors considered appropriate by the
FAA. The bill would require the FAA to issue proposed rulemaking within 30 days of enactment
and issue a final rule within one year.
The bill would also require all airlines operating under 14 CFR Part 121 to submit a fatigue risk
management plan to the FAA for approval. The fatigue risk management plans must include
current flight and duty time limitations; a rest scheme to manage fatigue, including annual
training to increase awareness of fatigue and its effects and available fatigue countermeasures;
and the development and utilization of a methodology to continually assess the effectiveness of
the fatigue risk management program and its ability to improve alertness and mitigate
performance errors. Airlines would be subject to civil penalties for failing to submit or implement
a fatigue risk management plan in accordance with these proposed requirements.
The bill also calls for a study on the effects of commuting on pilot fatigue to be carried out by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). In conducting the study, the NAS would be required to
consider the following factors: the prevalence of commuting in the commercial air carrier
industry, including the number and percentage of pilots who commute; information regarding
pilot commuting, including distances traveled, time zones crossed, time spent in travel, and
methods of travel utilized; research on the impacts of commuting on pilot fatigue, sleep, and
circadian rhythms; commuting, sick leave, and fatigue policies and check-in procedures of
commercial air carriers, including passenger and all-cargo airlines; presentations from the FAA’s
June 2008 Aviation Fatigue Management Symposium; FAA and international policies and
guidance regarding commuting; and any other matters considered appropriate by the FAA. The
FAA would be required to consider the findings and recommendations of the report and update
flight and duty time regulations accordingly.
House-passed H.R. 1586 also includes a provision that would task the National Academy of
Sciences with completing a study of pilot fatigue, and would require the FAA to implement the
recommendations of the CAMI study regarding flight attendant fatigue. The bill includes an
authorization of such sums as may be necessary to carry out this provision. It would also require
the FAA to rewrite current flight and duty time regulations for air carrier, commuter airline, and
charter pilots to count flight time accumulated conducting non-revenue flight assignments for the
operator toward pilot flight and duty time totals.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Like the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed measure would require the FAA to issue
regulations on airline pilot flight and duty times that reflect the best available scientific
information. The 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.
Congressional Research Service
43
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Safety
The safety of helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) operations has been in the spotlight
over the past few years in response to increased accidents in this growing industry. The National
Transportation Safety Board (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
on HEMS aircraft. The NTSB also found that many air ambulance accidents occur when patients
are not on board, such as en route to an accident scene. Present regulations allow air ambulances
to operate under a less stringent set of rules with regards to weather minimums and pilot duty
times when not carrying patients. However, the NTSB believes that air ambulance flights should
operate under more stringent commercial operating rules at all times that medical personnel are
carried on board.26 In 2008, the NTSB added improvements to the safety of emergency medical
service flights—including more stringent regulations, flight risk evaluation programs, formal
dispatch and flight following procedures providing up-to-date weather information, and the
installation of terrain awareness and warning systems (TAWS) on aircraft—to its list of “most
wanted” transportation safety improvements.
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 313 of the House-passed bill would require the FAA to address HEMS safety through
rulemaking. The provision directs the FAA to address dispatch procedures, pilot training
standards, and technology and equipment in regulations pertaining to HEMS operators. The FAA
would be required to establish training standards in crew resource management (CRM), flight risk
evaluation; controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) avoidance; recovery from inadvertent flight into
instrument meteorological conditions (IMC); operational control of the pilot in command (PIC);
and the use of flight simulators and line oriented flight training (LOFT). The FAA would also be
specifically required to address safety technologies, including helicopter TAWS; radar altimeters;
and flight data and cockpit voice recorders. Additionally, the FAA would be required to address
the use of safety gear including helmets, shoulder harnesses, seatbelts, and fire resistant clothing
to improve crash survivability for pilots and medical crews. The provision would require each
HEMS operator to establish a flight risk evaluation program, including a checklist for pilots to
use in determining whether to accept a mission. HEMS operators with 10 or more helicopters
would be required to set up an operations control center. The provision would also require that the
FAA enforce commercial operating standards regarding weather minimums and flight and duty
time limitations whenever medical personnel are on board, and not just when patients are being
transported as is now the case. Also, Section 314 of the bill would require the FAA to complete a
study assessing the feasibility of requiring HEMS pilots to use night vision goggles during
nighttime operations, and Section 315 of the bill would require GAO to conduct a study
examining safety in the helicopter and fixed-wing air ambulance industry.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would require both fixed-wing and helicopter emergency medical service
flights to operate under commercial flight rules specified in 14 CFR Part 135 whenever medical
26 See CRS Report RL33430,
The Safety of Air Ambulances, by Bart Elias, and National Transportation Safety Board,
Special Investigation Report on Emergency Medical Service Operations, NTSB/SIR-06/01.
Congressional Research Service
44
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
crew are on board, regardless of whether there are patients on board or not. However, operators
would be exempt from this requirement if operating under instrument flight rules. While Part 135
flight time and rest requirements and weather minimums would still apply to flights conducted in
instrument conditions, they would be exempted from weather reporting requirements at their
destination until the FAA determines that destination weather for response sites and other HEMS
destinations can be reliably and accurately provided by portable weather measuring and reporting
systems.
The bill would also require the FAA to initiate rulemaking within 60 days of enactment to create a
standardized checklist of flight risk evaluation factors for HEMS and fixed-wing air ambulances
to determine whether a mission should be accepted. It also would require the FAA to initiate
rulemaking within 60 days requiring HEMS and fixed-wing air ambulances to implement
comprehensive dispatch and flight following procedures. These rulemaking processes would be
required to be completed within 18 months. The bill would also require air ambulance operators
to submit annual reports to the FAA detailing the number and type of flight requests that are
accepted or declined.
The Senate-passed bill also includes a provision requiring the installation and use of TAWS on
HEMS and fixed-wing air ambulance aircraft within one year of enactment. The bill would also
establish reporting requirements for air ambulance operators to report to the FAA on aircraft in
their fleet that perform air ambulance services, and the number of flights and hours flown
providing air ambulance services. The FAA, in turn, would be required to submit a report to
Congress within 18 months of enactment providing details of the data it obtains regarding the
number of air ambulance aircraft, flights, and flights hours flown. The bill would also require the
FAA to assess the availability, survivability, size, weight, and cost of cockpit voice recorder and
flight data recorder technologies for installation on air ambulance aircraft. Within one year of
enactment, the FAA would be required to issue regulations requiring voice communication
recorders and flight data recorders on aircraft used for emergency medical service operations. The
bill also calls for a GAO study of the HEMS and fixed-wing air ambulance industry.
Incorporating Unmanned Aircraft Operations
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. Over the next five to ten years, the FAA
anticipates that civilian-use UAVs will rapidly transition to operational status, and users will seek
permission to fly UAVs in all airspace throughout the United States in all weather conditions. The
FAA and other federal agencies face a wide variety of complex issues related to integrating
unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System (NAS) 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.
On February 13, 2007, the FAA issued a notice of policy on unmanned aircraft operations in the
national airspace system. That policy states that “no person may operate a UAS in the National
Airspace system without specific authority.”27 For military unmanned aircraft and unmanned
27 Federal Aviation Administration, “Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System,”
Federal
Register, 72
(39), February 13, 2007, 6689-6690.
Congressional Research Service
45
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
aircraft operated by federal, state, or local governments, the mechanism for such authority from
the FAA is through application for and receipt of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA).
The FAA has issued more than 50 such authorizations over the past two years, mostly to the
Department of Defense, but also to other federal agencies such as Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For non-
governmental entities seeking authorization to operate unmanned aircraft in the national airspace
system, a special airworthiness certificate must be obtained from the FAA. The FAA has indicated
that, at present, it is only issuing experimental airworthiness certificates for unmanned aircraft.
By being designated as experimental, these vehicles are restricted to sparsely populated areas and
away from routes used by manned aircraft. As of February 2007, the FAA had issued five such
certificates to civilian organizations for unmanned aircraft research and development, marketing,
and training.
However, the FAA is concerned that other civilian users have been operating commercial UAVs
under guidelines issued in the early 1980s that were intended to apply only to hobbyists or
recreational users of model aircraft. Those guidelines instruct such users to maintain altitudes
lower than 400 feet above the ground, select sites away from populated and noise-sensitive areas,
give right of way to full-scale aircraft, and advise airport operators and air traffic facilities if
operating within three miles of an airport. The FAA statement of policy clarifies that these general
guidelines alone are not sufficient for commercial operators of unmanned aircraft, regardless of
the size of such aircraft. The FAA did, however, indicate that it has undertaken a safety review to
determine whether certain small, slow-moving unmanned aircraft could be safely operated under
a similar set of guidelines without requiring a special airworthiness certificate. At present, all such
aircraft, except those flown by aircraft model hobbyists, must obtain a special airworthiness
certificate as a means of FAA approval for UAV flight operations.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill includes a provision requiring the 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 the 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.
Congressional Research Service
46
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill includes a provision requiring the FAA to develop a plan for accelerating
the integration of UASs into the NAS 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,
flight standards, and air traffic requirements; encourage the leveraging and coordination of
research with NASA and the 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 the 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 the 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 require the 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 FAA would also be required to assess the potential for
using regulations governing ultralight aircraft as the regulatory basis for regulations pertaining to
lightweight UASs. The bill would set a deadline of April 30, 2010 for the FAA and other federal
agencies to have initiated all rulemaking activity pertaining to UAS design, airworthiness, and
operational requirements, and operator certification necessary for integrating UASs into the NAS.
Wake Turbulence Prediction, Detection, and Avoidance
Large transport aircraft generate powerful wingtip vortices that can create turbulence, referred to
as wake turbulence, for trailing aircraft. While wake turbulence can be encountered during any
phase of flight, it presents a particular constraint on capacity in the airport environment because it
is a principal factor in establishing separation standards for landing and departing aircraft. Wake
turbulence is therefore a prominent issue with regard to both safety and capacity in the airport
environment.
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 authorizes such sums as may be necessary from FY2009 through
FY2012 for development and analysis of wake vortex mitigation technologies and systems,
including advisory systems. The bill specifies slightly more than $10 million in each of FY2010
through FY2012 specifically for wake turbulence research.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill specifies that, within 60 days of enactment, the FAA shall initiate an
evaluation of proposals to increase capacity by reducing aircraft spacing, including research on
wake vortices. The bill also calls for research on volcanic ash avoidance through a warning and
Congressional Research Service
47
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
notification system, and research projects on deicing of ice pellets and freezing drizzle, oceanic
weather and other hazards, and en route turbulence prediction and detection.
Safety of Airline Maintenance Practices
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.
House-passed H.R. 1586
With regard to airline maintenance, the House-passed bill includes a provision 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.
The bill also requires the 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. The FAA would be
required to certify to Congress that these inspections have been carried out. The bill 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. However, 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 between the United States and the
European Union (EU).28 Under that agreement, the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) and aviation safety oversight organizations from EU member countries work
collaboratively to certify and inspect repair stations. If the provision is enacted, EU officials have
indicated that they may respond by similarly requiring European inspections of repair stations in
the United States.29
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would also require the FAA to carry out inspections of foreign repair
stations. The bill requires the FAA to put in place a safety assessment system for all certified
repair stations, whether foreign or domestic, within one year of enactment, that is based on the
stations type, scope, and complexity of work performed. The system would be required to ensure
28 Daniel Michaels, “Airline Rule Threatens Pact With EU.”
The Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2009.
29 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
48
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
that foreign repair stations are subject to appropriate inspections based on risk and existing FAA
requirements for domestic repair stations. The bill explicitly allows for and directs the FAA to
consider maintenance safety and maintenance implementation agreements with foreign civil
aviation authorities to oversee foreign repair stations, but stipulates that any such agreements
must provide an opportunity for the FAA to conduct independent assessments of overseas repair
stations when warranted by safety concerns. Additionally, the bill would require biannual FAA
inspections of certified foreign repair stations as well as domestic repair stations in a manner
consistent with the terms of international agreements. The FAA would be required to notify
congressional oversight committees within 30 days of initiating any formal negotiations with
foreign governments regarding maintenance safety or maintenance implementation agreements,
and would be required to report annually on improvements in its ability to track where airline
maintenance work is performed, and provide a model of maintenance inspector staffing
placement needs and maintenance inspector training requirements, and an assessment of the
quality of monitoring and surveillance of foreign repair stations by FAA and foreign inspectors.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 also addresses drug and alcohol testing for maintenance workers and
other safety sensitive positions, including employees of foreign repair stations. The bill would
require the DOT and the State Department to request foreign countries to establish international
standards for drug and alcohol testing. It would also require the FAA to impose drug and alcohol
testing standards on foreign, as well as domestic, repair stations in a manner consistent with the
laws of the country in which the repair station is located.
The Senate-passed bill would also require the FAA to regulate non-certificated maintenance
providers, stipulating that contract personnel working on airliners must: do so under the
supervision of an air carrier or certificated repair station; meet the same standards and
requirements as air carrier or certificated repair station personnel; and carry out the work in
accordance with the air carrier’s maintenance manual.
Safety Oversight of Airline Operations
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 the FAA’s oversight of air carriers, and programs established to encourage airlines and
airline employees to come forward with information regarding possible regulatory violations and
safety deficiencies.
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 336 of the House-passed bill seeks to improve the FAA’s Voluntary Disclosure Reporting
Program (VDRP) that 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 in the bill 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 the FAA to establish a process for FAA supervisory inspectors to review
Congressional Research Service
49
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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 the program is improving the detection and correction of safety violations and
compliance with safety 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 that they had oversight or inspection
responsibility over for a period of two after holding such a position at the FAA. The bill would
also limit the length of time a principal supervisory inspector would be allowed to oversee the
operations of a single air carrier to a term of five years or less.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
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 bill also directs the 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 also authorizes the FAA to hire an additional 200 safety inspectors. The Senate-
passed bill also requires a headquarters’ level review within the FAA of the ATOS database on a
monthly basis to ensure that trends in regulatory compliance issues are adequately identified and
corrective actions are 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 the 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 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
Congressional Research Service
50
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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 the FAA or other federal entity from Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure requirements. The 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. The NTSB would also be allowed to reference such data in issuing its safety
recommendations.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would also require the 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 FAA inspectors from accepting positions representing air carriers before the FAA
that they were responsible for inspecting and overseeing for a period of three years after leaving
the FAA.
Occupational Safety and Health
The FAA, under its broad authority and responsibility for regulating aviation safety, has asserted
its responsibility for regulating matters pertaining to the occupational safety and health of aircraft
crewmembers including pilots and flight attendants.30 In August 2000, the FAA entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) to determine whether certain OSHA requirements could be applied to working
conditions in the airline environment without compromising aviation safety and in a manner that
would maintain the FAA’s “complete and exclusive jurisdiction over aviation safety.”31 OSHA’s
role in airline occupational safety, under this arrangement, remains strictly advisory in nature.
Under the MOU, the FAA and OSHA established a joint Aviation Safety and Health Team. That
team sought to identify occupational hazards in the airline setting and assess the feasibility of
complying with OSHA requirements to mitigate those hazards. The team finalized an action plan
in June 2002 for establishing voluntary Aviation Safety and Health Partnership (ASHP) programs
with air carriers, but work has not been completed to implement these initiatives.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill would establish new statutory requirements for occupational safety and
health standards for flight attendants onboard aircraft. The FAA, in consultation with OSHA,
would be required to issue and enforce standards and regulations for air carriers within three
years of enactment “to provide for an environment in the cabin ... that is free from hazards that
could cause physical harm to a flight attendant.” The FAA would be specifically required to
conduct rulemaking to address record keeping; blood-borne pathogens; noise; sanitation; hazard
communication; anti-discrimination; access to employee exposure and medical records; and
setting a standard for aircraft cabin temperature. The FAA would also be required to employ
30 See Federal Aviation Administration, “Occupational Safety or Health Standards for Aircraft Crewmembers,”
Federal
Register, 75-17859, July 9, 1975.
31 MOU, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
51
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
qualified Cabin Occupational Safety and Health Inspectors to oversee regulatory compliance
among air carriers.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would require the FAA, in consultation with OSHA, to establish
milestones for completing the work begun under the August 2000 MOU. The FAA would also be
required to initiate development of a policy statement setting forth circumstances under which
OSHA requirements may be applied to crewmembers onboard an aircraft. The policy statement
would be required within 18 months of enactment and would establish a coordinating body,
similar to the Aviation Safety and Health Joint Team established under the August 2000 MOU.
The coordinating body would be responsible for examining the applicability of current and future
OSHA regulations on aircraft, make recommendations regarding the training of FAA inspectors,
and make recommendations regarding inspection and enforcement of safety and health standards.
The bill also includes a provision that would require flight attendants serving on domestic flights
and flights to and from the United States to demonstrate proficiency in English sufficient to
provide direction to and answer questions from English speakers; to write up incident reports, log
entries, and statements; and to carry out written and oral instructions regarding the proper
performance of their duties.
Airline Pilot Training and Certification
The February 12, 2009, crash of a regional airline turboprop near Buffalo, NY, has raised policy
questions about the selection and training of pilots at regional airlines, particularly pilots hired
from civilian flight schools. The investigation has also raised questions about pilot records, airline
access to these records to assess new hires, and remedial actions taken when pilots repeatedly fail
to demonstrate required proficiency during flight evaluations.
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 would require the FAA to establish regulations requiring air carriers to
implement methods for ensuring that flight crewmembers are properly qualified and have
appropriate operational experience. Under these regulations, pilot applicants would be required to
undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening including assessments of skills, aptitude,
airmanship, and suitability for functioning effectively in the air carrier operational environment.
The House-passed bill would also require all flight crewmembers, both captains and first officers,
to have obtained an airline transportation pilot (ATP) certificate effective within three years after
enactment. Currently, only captains are required to have ATP certificates, which require a total of
1,500 hours of flight experience under 14 CFR Part 61 rules, while first officers can be hired with
a commercial pilot certificate, which, by comparison, requires just 250 hours of total flight time.
Section 830 of the House-passed bill would require GAO to conduct a study of commercial
airline pilot training and certification programs. The study would examine training hour
requirements, training on new technologies introduced in the cockpit, remedial actions for
repeated unsatisfactory evaluations (check-rides), and training on stall warning systems. The
study would also be required to assess the disclosure requirements for pilot job applicants and the
ability of airlines to verify information provided by applicants. GAO would be required to
Congressional Research Service
52
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
examine both FAA and international standards regarding commercial airline pilot training and
certification programs.
The House bill also seeks to establish a task force on air carrier safety and pilot training made up
of representatives from air carriers, pilot unions, and aviation safety experts with knowledge of
foreign and domestic regulatory requirements for flight crew education and training. The task
force would be responsible for evaluating best practices in the air carrier industry and providing
recommendations on air carrier management responsibilities for flight crew education and
support; flight crew professional standards; flight crew training standards and performance; and
mentoring and information sharing between air carriers. The task force would be required to
submit a progress report to Congress within 180 days of enactment and to complete its work by
September 30, 2012, and would be terminated on that date.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 557 of the Senate-passed bill would establish a requirement the FAA to issue new
rulemaking to require that pilots hired by airlines operating under 14 CFR Part 121 to have at
least 800 hours of total flight time, including experience in difficult conditions that may be
encountered in air carrier operations. The pilot would also be required to demonstrate the ability
to function effectively in a multi-pilot environment, in the air carrier operational environment, in
high altitude operations, and under adverse weather conditions such as icing conditions. If the
FAA does implement such rulemaking by 2012, then the Senate bill would require all pilots to
obtain an ATP as a condition for operating as a required flight crewmember for a Part 121 air
carrier. http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/z?d111:S.1451:
Implementation of NTSB Flight Crewmember Training
Recommendations
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 would require the FAA to proceed with rulemaking establishing
regulatory requirements for airline flight crew training on airplane stall and upset recognition,
avoidance, and recovery. The bill would also require regulations establishing remedial training
requirements for airline flight crew members who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or
experienced failures during airline training. The FAA would be required to publish proposed rules
within 180 days and finalize these rules with 24 months of enactment.
The bill would also require the FAA to convene a multidisciplinary panel to study and report on
methods for increasing pilot familiarity with and improving pilot response to stick pusher systems
that activate in response to impending aircraft stall conditions, aircraft icing conditions, and
microburst and windshear weather events. The panel would be required to issue a report of its
findings, and the FAA would be required to implement the recommendations of the panel
regarding stick pusher systems.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Without specifically noting the pending NTSB recommendations, the Senate-passed bill would
require rulemaking to implement air carrier remedial training programs for flight crewmembers
Congressional Research Service
53
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced failures in the training
environment. Like the House bill, the Senate bill would require the FAA to convene a
multidisciplinary panel to study and report on stick pusher systems training and weather event
training, including icing conditions, microbursts, and windshear.
More broadly, the Senate-passed bill includes a provision that would require the Secretary of
Transportation to complete an annual report detailing the DOT’s plans and actions to respond to
outstanding NTSB safety recommendations pertaining to air carrier safety.
FAA Pilot Records Database
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 seeks to amend the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) to establish
a centralized FAA-maintained database of pilot employment records. The bill would require
airlines to evaluate the contents of the records maintained in this database before allowing a new
hire to serve as a pilot, but would require, prior to accessing such records, air carriers to obtain
written consent from the individual. The bill would also allow airlines to obtain a release from
liability for any claim arising from the access or use of such records by the air carrier. Air carriers
would be restricted to using the database records solely for the purpose of making hiring
decisions and would be required to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the records. In
general, the FAA would be prohibited from publicly releasing database records except that it may
issue de-identified summary data to explain the need for policy changes, provide information to
correct a condition that compromises safety, provide information for a criminal investigation or
prosecution, provide information regarding identified security threats to civil aviation, and
provide other information determined necessary to carry out the safety responsibilities of the
FAA.
The database would be required to include FAA records regarding pilot certificates and medical
certifications; FAA testing records, including any failed attempt to pass practical tests taken to
obtain a pilot certificate or aircraft type rating; summaries of any legal enforcement action taken
by the FAA against the pilot; and air carrier records pertaining to drug and alcohol testing and
treatment, pilot performance (including comments and evaluations by check airmen), disciplinary
actions, and any release, resignation, termination, or disqualification from employment. Air
carriers would be required to provide such data in a timely fashion to the FAA for inclusion in the
database. The database would also be required to contain records from the National Driver
Register (NDR) concerning motor vehicle driving records of the individual. The FAA would be
required to maintain the database record of each pilot until death, and pilots would have the right,
upon written request, to review their database records and submit written comments to correct
inaccuracies. FAA would be required to conduct an initial review within 18 months of enactment
and periodic reviews every three years thereafter assessing whether there is a need for any
changes to the records required to be included in the database.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would require the FAA to establish and maintain a centralized database of
pilot employment, training, and testing records. The database would be required to include
information on pilot certifications, medical certifications, type ratings, and any limitations placed
on a pilot. The database would also be required to include information regarding any failed
Congressional Research Service
54
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
attempt to pass a practical test for a pilot certificate or rating, and summaries of any legal
enforcement actions taken by the FAA against the pilot so long as such actions were not
subsequently overturned. The database would also be required to include records from air carriers
and other entities, such as charter operators or flight schools, that employed an individual as a
civilian pilot or the pilot of a public aircraft pertaining to the individual’s performance as a pilot,
training, qualifications, proficiency, and professional competence. Such records are to include
comments made by check airmen; any disciplinary action taken against the pilot that was not
subsequently overturned; and documentation of any release from employment, resignation,
termination, or disqualification with respect to employment. The centralized database is also to
include National Driver Register (NDR) records from each state. Pilots would have the right to
review their information and correct any inaccuracies in the database, and airlines must take steps
to protect the privacy and confidentiality of any records they obtain for the purpose of making
hiring decisions. The FAA would be required to assess any developments in the aviation industry
that may warrant changes to the contents of the records maintained in the central database, and
report to Congress on its recommendations for change or its rationale for retaining the database as
is. Prior to beginning service as a pilot for an airline, the air carrier would be required to request
and review the pilot’s complete records. To expedite the records review process, the FAA may
designate certain air carrier representatives to have electronic access to these records solely for
the purposes of making hiring decisions. Under the proposal, air carriers may refuse to hire any
applicants who do not consent to a review of their records, and airlines would be afforded specific
protection against any legal claims arising from a refusal to hire such individuals.
Air Carrier Safety Management Systems
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill would require the FAA to submit a report to congressional oversight
committees detailing the utilization of voluntary safety programs, including ASAP, FOQA,
LOSA, and airline Advanced Qualification Programs (AQPs), throughout the airline industry. The
report is to detail which airlines have implemented these various programs, and if some airlines
have not implemented these programs, the reason why they have not been implemented. The
study is also to include a discussion of the benefits and challenges of utilizing each of these
programs, how the data from these programs are being used to perform safety analysis or develop
accident and incident prevention tools, and how the FAA intends to expand the data analysis
aspects of these programs. As part of the study, the FAA would be required to provide an
explanation of data storage, data protection and security, and data analysis processes under these
programs. The study would also be required to examine the extent to which FAA aviation safety
inspectors are able to review data collected under these programs and utilize such data to enhance
their air carrier oversight responsibilities, and a description of how the FAA plans to incorporate
data trends derived from these safety programs into its Air Transport Oversight System (ATOS)
and other surveillance databases.
In addition to requiring a detailed examination of the voluntary use of various airline safety
programs, the House-passed bill would require the FAA to develop and implement a plan to
facilitate establishing ASAP and FOQA programs at all air carriers. In developing the plan, the
FAA would be required to consider how to assist small airlines to derive benefits from
establishing FOQA programs, how airlines with existing FOQA programs can quickly begin
inputting data into the aviation safety information analysis sharing database, and how such data
can be better utilized to develop accident and incident prevention tools.
Congressional Research Service
55
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
The House-passed bill would also require the FAA to issue rulemaking requiring all airlines to
implement a safety management system (SMS). The SMS would be required to include ASAP,
FOQA, a line operation safety audit (LOSA) program, and an advanced qualification program
(AQP). The FAA would be required to issue proposed rulemaking to this effect within 90 days
after enactment and publish a final rule within 24 months.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would similarly require the FAA to complete rulemaking requiring 14
CFR Part 121 air carriers to include ASAP, FOQA, LOSA, and flight crew fatigue risk
management programs as part of their SMS.
Air Carrier Flight Crew and Dispatcher Training
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill would require the FAA to issue a final rule regarding its proposed
regulatory changes for air carrier flight crew and dispatcher training published on January 12,
2009.32 The bill would also require the FAA to convene a multidisciplinary expert panel to review
training curricula and training hours among Part 121 and Part 135 operators to assess and make
recommendations regarding best methods and optimal time needed to master aircraft systems,
flight maneuvers, procedures, takeoffs and landings, and crew coordination. The panel would also
be required to assess the optimal scheduling and time between initial training and subsequent
recurrent training events, and determine the best methods to reliably evaluate mastery of training
course content. The panel would be required to submit a report detailing its finding to the FAA,
the NTSB, and congressional oversight committees within one year of enactment.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Similarly, the Senate-passed bill would require the FAA to finalize its proposed rulemaking on air
carrier flight crew and dispatcher training. Like the House-passed bill, the Senate bill would also
require an expert panel review of, and report on, air carrier flight crew training hours and training
requirements.
FAA Oversight and Surveillance of Air Carriers
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 would require the DOT OIG to review FAA oversight of air carriers.
The review is to include recommendations to ensure equivalent oversight of all air carriers, and
provide assessments of the number and level of experience of air safety inspectors assigned to air
carriers, inspector assignment procedures and policies, oversight of safety inspectors, the
adequacy of operations research analyst staffing, safety inspector surveillance responsibilities,
32 Federal Aviation Administration, “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers,” 74
Federal Register 1280-1453, January 12, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
56
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
and whether various data sources, such as the Safety Performance Analysis System and ATOS are
being effectively used to target air carrier oversight and surveillance operations. The DOT OIG is
also to provide an assessment of the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive repository of FAA
data currently contained across multiple FAA data sources as a means to improve air carrier
oversight. The DOT OIG would have nine months after enactment to complete this review.
Within 90 days after the DOT OIG issues the report detailing its findings and recommendations,
the FAA would be required to submit a report to congressional oversight committees detailing
how it will implement any policy changes recommended by the DOT OIG that it intends to adopt,
and providing explanation for any decisions not to adopt any recommendations made by the DOT
OIG.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would require the FAA to conduct random, unannounced audits of
regional carriers that provide air transportation under contract arrangement with other air carriers
at least once a year.
Flight Crew Mentoring, Professional Development, and Leadership
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 would require the FAA to carry out rulemaking to require all air carriers
to establish flight crew mentoring programs. Under these mentoring programs, airlines would pair
highly experienced flight crewmembers designated as mentor pilots with newly employed pilots.
Mentor pilots would receive formal instruction on techniques for instilling and reinforcing the
highest standards of technical performance, airmanship, and professionalism among newly
employed flight crewmembers. Airlines and pilot unions would be required to participate in flight
crewmember professional development committees to oversee these formal mentoring programs.
Airlines would also be required to establish or modify training programs to accommodate
substantially different types and levels of flight experience among new pilot hires, and ensure that
captain upgrade programs and recurrent captain training include specific training on leadership
and command.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would similarly require the FAA to work with industry stakeholders,
through aviation rulemaking committee proceedings, to develop air carrier flight crew mentoring
programs pairing experienced pilots with newly employed pilots. Like the House-passed bill, the
Senate-passed bill also calls for the creation of flight crewmember professional development
committees. The bill would also require recurrent leadership and command training for all pilots,
and formal training programs for pilots seeking to qualify as captains. Leadership and command
training is to include instruction on compliance with sterile cockpit rules that prohibit non-
pertinent conversations below 10,000 feet.
The Senate bill also contains a separate provision that would explicitly prohibit flight
crewmembers from using personal wireless communications devices or laptop computers on the
flight deck during aircraft operations except for reasons directly related to aircraft operations,
Congressional Research Service
57
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
emergency procedures, flight safety, or for employment-related communications in accordance
with FAA and air carrier approved procedures.
Oversight of Flight Training Schools
Another central issue stemming from the February 2009 regional airline crash near Buffalo, New
York, is the adequacy of initial training received by pilots being trained in civilian flight training
schools, particularly those schools offering zero flight time and low flight time pilots the
opportunity to complete accelerated flight training programs to qualify them for regional airline
jobs.
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 would require a comprehensive GAO study of flight schools, flight
education, and academic requirements for obtaining pilot certification. The study is to include an
assessment of FAA oversight of flight schools, FAA academic requirements, and a comparison of
these requirements to flight education provided at accredited two-year and four-year universities
and the requirements established by other countries. The study would also be required to identify
any improvements that may be needed in FAA’s academic training requirements for pilots, an
assessment of financial aid and loan options for flight school students, and an assessment of
compliance with English-speaking requirements for issuing pilot certificates.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would similarly require a comprehensive GAO study of flight schools.
It would also require the FAA to submit a plan to Congress within one year detailing its plan for
conducting oversight of flight training schools. Oversight activities would be required to include
reviews to ensure that curriculum and course outline requirements specified in regulation were
being met, and onsite inspections of flight school facilities at least once every two years.
Flight Crewmember Pairing and Crew Resource Management
Techniques
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 would require the FAA to conduct a study on aviation industry best
practices regarding crewmember pairing and crew resource management (CRM) techniques and
report its findings to congressional oversight committees within one year of enactment.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Senate-passed H.R. 1586 would also require the FAA to conduct a study on crewmember pairing
and CRM best practices.
Congressional Research Service
58
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Addressing Safety Concerns over Wind Turbines
With growing interest in the deployment of renewable energy technologies, there has been
increasing concern over the potential impacts of wind turbine farms used for electric power
generation on aviation safety. In particular, concerns have been raised that tall wind turbines can
be a hazard to low-flying aircraft, and the motion of their fan blades may interfere with FAA
surveillance radars that monitor air traffic. Both the FAA and the U.S. Air Force have been
studying the issue of radar interference, and have been working with local authorities and power
companies on a case-by-case basis to address concerns and identify suitable sites for wind turbine
farms that will not interfere with radars or air traffic patterns. However, advocates for renewable
energy regard these concerns over aviation safety as a potential impediment to expeditious
approval and construction of wind turbine farms.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House-passed bill would require the FAA to conduct a study addressing the impact of
renewable energy technologies, and planning for the installation of such technologies, on FAA
radar signals. The provision would also require the FAA to establish an administrative process for
relocating FAA radars, when appropriate, and deploying alternative solutions as necessary to
accommodate the construction of wind turbine farms and other renewable energy technologies.
The bill also includes a provision that would require the FAA to study wind turbine lighting
systems that warn pilots regarding the presence of tall obstructions. The study would specifically
require the FAA to examine the effect of the lights on residential areas, and the feasibility,
potential energy savings, and safety issues associated with alternative lighting options.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed measure would require the FAA to develop an inventory of leases for critical
FAA facilities, including a list of such facilities located in or near areas suitable for the
construction of wind farms, as determined by the Department of Energy, and provide
congressional oversight committees with its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The bill
also calls for a GAO study of the potential impact of wind farms on the NAS, including NextGen
technologies and aids to navigation. GAO would be required to assess necessary resources to
mitigate obstructions to navigation attributable to wind farms, improvements to current FAA
approaches to resolving potential conflicts between navigational aids and wind farms, with an
emphasis on early involvement in the planning of wind farm projects. GAO would also be
required to develop a matrix indicating how close wind farms could be placed to navigational
aids, and the number of wind turbines that could be placed in the vicinity of such facilities. Based
on the GAO findings, the FAA would be required to publish guidelines for the construction and
location of wind farms specifying height and density limits, and other design requirements or
recommendations, for zones around FAA navigational facilities.
Congressional Research Service
59
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Environmental and Energy Issues
Aviation and airport operations have air quality, water quality, waste, and community noise
impacts.33 Within the context of FAA reauthorization, options for researching and mitigating these
impacts are being considered. To address issues associated with environmental impacts, and to
assist airport operators with complying with local, state, and federal regulations related to those
impacts, House-passed and Senate-passed H.R. 1586 both include provisions that would
• require research into technology or processes that would reduce noise, air
emissions, water quality impacts, and energy use;
• provide grants for programs or projects intended to mitigate or minimize
regulated environmental impacts;
• specify changes applicable to airport environmental compliance requirements;
and
• specify requirements to address airport and aircraft air and noise emission issues
(including modifications to the Air Tour Management Program).
In addition to the categories listed above, both the House and Senate proposals include provisions
regarding airport sustainability practices.34 Senate-passed H.R. 1586 directs FAA to establish an
airport sustainability planning working group (§ 221). The working group would, among other
functions, develop “best practices and metrics for the sustainable design, construction, planning,
maintenance, and operation of an airport.” The Senate proposal specifies that no funds are
authorized to carry out the provision. Under the House proposal (§ 511), FAA would be required,
to the maximum extent possible, to implement “sustainable practices” in the construction and
major renovation of air traffic control facilities in order to reduce energy use and improve
environmental performance at those facilities.
Both the House and Senate proposals also include provisions intended to reduce waste generation
at airports (House, § 132 “Solid Waste Recycling Plans,” Senate, § 714, “Recycling Plans for
Airports”). Each proposal would amend the definition of “airport planning”35 to include planning
to minimize the generation airport solid waste in a manner that is consistent with applicable state
and local recycling laws. Both proposals would also amend the list of conditions under which an
airport improvement grant application may be approved.36 Under those conditions, airports
required to 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.
33 For additional background see CRS Report RL33949,
Environmental Impacts of Airport Operations, Maintenance,
and Expansion, by Linda Luther.
34 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.
35 49 U.S.C. § 47102(5).
36 49 U.S.C. § 47106(a).
Congressional Research Service
60
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Also, under § 202, the House proposal specifies certain environmental-related responsibilities of
the JPDO. Included is a directive to establish specific quantitative goals for, among other factors,
the environmental impacts of each phase of NextGen Air Transportation System. In establishing
the environmental goals, the FAA is required to take into account noise pollution reduction
concerns of affected communities, to the greatest extent practicable.
Environmental-related Research Funding and Requirements
House-passed H.R. 1586
Under § 907, House-passed H.R. 1586 would permanently authorize the Airport Cooperative
Research Program (ACRP ).37 Of funding amounts made available under § 101 (“Airport
Planning and Development and Noise Compatibility Planning and Programs”), $15 million for
each of the FY2010 through FY2012 may be used for carrying out the ACRP. Further, under §
104 (“Research, Engineering, and Development”),38 additional environmental-related funding
authorizations for FY2010 through FY2012 include approximately $91.8 million for
“environment and energy” projects and approximately $60 million for “NextGen—
Environmental Research—Aircraft technologies, fuels, and metrics.”
The bill would require FAA, in coordination with NASA, to enter into a cooperative agreement
with another institution or consortium to develop Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise
(CLEEN) engine and airframe technology over the next ten years (§ 507). The House proposal
requires that, by September 30, 2016, the following performance objectives shall be established:
• development of aircraft technology that reduces fuel burn by 33% compared to
current technology, reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions;
• development of engine technology that reduces nitrogen oxide emissions during
landing and takeoff;
• development of aircraft technology that reduces noise levels by 32 Effective
Perceived Noise Level (EPNL), in cumulative decibels, relative to Stage 4
standards;
• determination of the feasibility of the use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems,
including successful demonstration and quantification of the benefits of such
fuels; and
• determination of the extent to which new engine and aircraft technologies may be
used to retrofit or re-engine aircraft to increase the integration of retrofitted and
re-engined aircraft into the commercial fleet.
Funding for the program from FY2010 through FY2012, under the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund Authorization, would be $108 million.
37 The ACRP was authorized as a four-year pilot program under Vision 100 (49. U.S.C. § 44511(f)). Funds for the
program are authorized under the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations, under the Airport Planning and
Development and Noise Compatibility Planning and Programs.
38 Projects specified under § 104 of H.R. 915 amend the Research and Development section of the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund Authorizations at 49 U.S.C. § 48102.
Congressional Research Service
61
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Under Title IX—Federal Aviation Research and Development, House-passed H.R. 1586 includes
the following additional environmental-related research and development requirements (except
where noted, the bill does not specifically authorize funds for this research):
•
Interagency research initiative on the impact of aviation on the climate (§
903)—directs the FAA Administrator, in coordination with NASA and the U.S.
Global Climate Change Science Program, to establish a research initiative to
assess the impact of aviation on climate and to evaluate approaches to mitigate
that impact.
•
Aviation gas research and development program (§ 910)—would require the
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). The bill
would authorize $750,000 to be appropriated for each of the FY2010 through
FY2012.
•
Research reviews and assessments (§ 911)—would require the 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.
•
Research program on alternative jet fuel technology for civil aircraft
(§ 913)—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. Funds for the program would be
authorized from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate proposal would also permanently authorize the Airport Cooperative Research
Program (§ 601). The bill specifies that not more than $15 million per year for FY2010 and
FY2011 may be appropriated for the program. The Senate proposal 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.”
Similar to § 507 of the House proposal, § 602 of the Senate proposal (“Reduction of Noise,
Emissions, and Energy Consumption From Civilian Aircraft”) would establish a research
program, funded through grants or other measures,39 related to reducing civilian aircraft source
noise and emissions. 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. Similar to the House proposal, the Senate proposal would establish a
“Consortium for Aviation Noise, Emissions, and Energy Technology Research” to perform
39 Available under the Research and Development section of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund at 49 U.S.C.
§ 48102(a).
Congressional Research Service
62
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
research in coordination with NASA and other relevant agencies. The five performance objectives
of the research programs specified in the Senate proposal are essentially identical to the
performance objectives specified in the House proposal.
Similar to § 913 of the House proposal, the Senate proposal would establish research programs
related to developing jet fuel from natural gas, and biomass and other renewable sources (§ 603)
and clean coal (§ 604). The research programs would be funded through grants or other
measures.40
Additional environmental-related research and development requirements specified under Title
VI—Aviation Research of Senate-passed H.R. 1586 include the following (the bill does not
specifically authorize funds for this research):
•
Pilot program for zero emission airport vehicles (§ 609)—would establish a
pilot program under which certain public-use airports may use funds41 to acquire
and operate zero emission vehicles. The federal share of the costs of a project
carried out under the program would be 50%.
•
Reduction of emissions from airport power sources (§ 610)—would amend
the “Airport ground support equipment emissions retrofit pilot program”42 to
establish a program that 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.43
•
Research Improvement for Aircraft (§ 216)–would amend “Facility, Personnel,
and Research” requirements with regard to “improved aircraft, aircraft engines,
propellers, and appliances”44 to require the Administrator to conduct or supervise
research to “support programs designed to reduce gases and particulates
emitted.”
Mitigation Grants
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 509 of the House proposal would establish a trial program to provide grants for up to six
environmental mitigation demonstration projects. Eligible projects would include those that
would reduce or mitigate aviation impacts on noise, air quality, or water quality in the vicinity of
40 Funds for each research program would be from those made available under the Research and Development section
of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund at 49 U.S.C. § 48102(a).
41 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.
42 49 U.S.C. § 47140.
43 49 U.S.C. § 48103.
44 49 U.S.C. § 44504(a).
Congressional Research Service
63
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 213 of the Senate proposal is similar to Section 509 of the House proposal.
Grants and Procedural Changes to Assist with Environmental
Compliance
Both the House and Senate bills include almost identical proposals that would amend the state
block program, address methods of expediting compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and amend certain noise compatibility program requirements.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House proposal would amend the state block grant program45 to specify that federal, state,
and local environmental requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA,
42 U.S.C. § 4321
et seq.),46 would apply to the program (§ 502). The proposal specifies that any
federal agency that must grant any 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.
Under § 503, 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.47 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 15048
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.
Also with regard to environmental compliance assistance, the House proposal (§ 504) would
amend the existing noise compatibility program requirements49 to allow grants to airport
operators to assist them in completing environmental review50 requirements for proposals to
45 49 U.S.C. § 47128.
46 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 online at
http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/environmental_5050_4/.
47 49 U.S.C. § 47173.
48 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning requirements are specified under 14 C.F.R. Part 150 and are, hence, commonly
referred to as “Part 150” requirements.
49 49 U.S.C. § 47504.
50 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
64
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
implement flight procedures. Further, the proposal would allow a project sponsor to provide FAA
with funds to hire additional staff as necessary to expedite completion of the environmental
review necessary to implement flight procedures.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Provisions of §§ 209 (“State Block Grant Program”), 210 (“Airport Funding of Special Studies or
Reviews”), and 211 (“Grant Eligibility for Assessment of Flight Procedures”) of the Senate
proposal are essentially identical to §§ 502, 503, and 504, respectively, of the House proposal.
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, 1999.51 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. For example, the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) reported that at the L.G.
Hanscom Field in Bedford, MA, non-Stage 3 aircraft accounted for less than one percent of the
airport’s annual traffic in 2005, yet were responsible for 23 percent of the noise energy produced
by civil aircraft.52 Also, some airport operators have reported that between 50 and 80% of noise
complaints lodged with the airport have been related to non-Stage 3 aircraft.53 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 proposals include provisions to address issues
associate Stage 1 and 2 aircraft.
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 508 of the House proposal would prohibit the operation of aircraft under 75,000 pounds,
with certain exceptions, not complying with Stage 3 noise levels. The prohibition would take
effect January 1, 2014.
The following sections of the House proposal also deal with issues associated with airport and
aircraft noise or air emissions:
(...continued)
environmental law applicable to a given project.
51 Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508).
52 Massport December 19, 2006, press release: “Massport Endorses Congressional Efforts To Ban Stage 2 Aircraft;
Less than one percent of Hanscom Field’s traffic accounts for 23 percent of aircraft noise,” at
http://www.massport.com/about/press06/press_news_hanst.html.
53 See the statement of Mr. Robert L. Bogan, Deputy Director of the Morristown Municipal Airport on behalf of “The
Sound Initiative,” presented to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Aviation
hearing on “The FAA’s Airport Improvement Program,” March 28, 2007, at http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/
hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=59.
Congressional Research Service
65
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
•
Determination of Fair Market Value of Residential Properties (§ 505)—
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.
•
Soundproofing of Residences (§ 506)—amends the list of potential projects that
may receive grant funding for “Soundproofing and Acquisition of Certain
Residential Buildings and Properties” under Aviation Noise Compatibility
Programs.54 This section would also require FAA to establish certain grant
criteria that must be met before a grant can be awarded.
•
Aircraft Departure Queue Management Pilot Program (§ 510)—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 $5 million may be
expended under the trial program at any single public-use airport. Also, a report
to Congress on the effectiveness and potential benefits of the program must be
made not later than three years after enactment of the program.
•
Regulatory Responsibility for Aircraft Engine Noise and Emissions
Standards (§ 512)—directs the FAA, in consultation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), to make arrangements with the National Academy of
Public Administration (or another qualified entity) to review whether it is
desirable to locate the regulatory responsibilities regarding the establishment of
engine noise and air emission standards within one of the agencies (i.e., FAA or
EPA). The review would be required to consider, among other factors, the degree
to which those standards could be evaluated and addressed in an integrated
manner.
•
Sense of Congress (§ 514)—specifies 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.
•
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Study, Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey (§ 515)—specifies that it is the sense of the House that the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey undertake an airport noise compatibility
planning study55—with particular attention to the impact of noise on affected
neighborhoods, including homes, businesses, and places of worship surrounding
LaGuardia Airport and JFK Airport.
•
GAO Study on Compliance With FAA Record of Decision (§ 516)—directs
GAO to determine whether the FAA and the Massachusetts Port Authority are
54 49 U.S.C. § 47504(c)(2)(D).
55 Pursuant to Airport Noise Compatibility Planning requirements under 14 C.F.R. 150.
Congressional Research Service
66
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
complying with the requirements of the FAA’s August 2, 2002 record of decision
regarding the Boston Airport Noise Study.
•
Westchester County Airport, New York (§ 517)—requires FAA to conduct a
rulemaking proceeding to determine whether Westchester County Airport should
be authorized to limit aircraft operations between the hours of 12 a.m. and 6:30
a.m.
•
Aviation Noise Complaints (§ 518)—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 one or more complaints, 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 print and electronic means.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate proposal also proposes to phase out Stage 1 and 2 aircraft. Provisions under § 710 of
the Senate-passed H.R. 1586 are essentially identical to § 508 of House-passed H.R. 1586, except
that the Senate proposal would allow airport operators to opt out of the prohibition under certain
conditions. The provisions in the Senate proposal would take effect five years after enactment of
the law.
Under § 104, the Senate proposal amends the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations to
include a total of $8.1 billion for airport planning and development and noise compatibility
planning and programs for FY2010 and FY2011.
Section 712 of Senate-passed H.R. 1586 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. Provisions in this section would also
amend the list of allowable noise compatibility measures56 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.
56 49 U.S.C. 47504(a)(2).
Congressional Research Service
67
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
The Air Tour Act final rule57 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 over 106
of the 392 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.58 Development of an ATMP requires an environmental
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370f).
The FAA and NPS currently are developing their first ATMPs for several park units. A January
2006 Government Accountability Office (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.59
House-passed H.R. 1586
House-passed H.R. 1586 includes provisions affecting commercial air tours over park units
(codified in 49 U.S.C. §40128) that seek to expedite and streamline agency actions, in part due to
the difficulty in completing ATMPs. One change would allow that in lieu of an ATMP, the NPS
Director and FAA Administrator (hereinafter in this section “the Administrator”) could enter into
a voluntary agreement with a commercial air tour operator that would govern commercial air
tours over a park unit. An agreement would address protection of park resources and visitor use of
the park in the context of aviation safety and the air traffic control system, and could provide for
fees for air tour operations. It would be prepared with an opportunity for public review and
consultation, and implemented “without further administrative or environmental process” (e.g.,
NEPA) beyond that described in the legislation. The NPS and FAA heads could terminate a
voluntary agreement if it did not adequately protect park resources, visitor experiences, aviation
safety, or the national aviation system. A second change would exempt park units with 50 or
fewer annual air tour flights from the development of an ATMP or voluntary agreement and other
requirements covering air tour operations over park units. However, the NPS Director is to
withdraw the exemption for any park unit for which an ATMP or voluntary agreement would be
necessary to protect park resources and values or park visitor use and enjoyment. Other
provisions in the bill could provide more interim operating authority “without further
environmental review” beyond that described, because interim conditions have prevailed for
longer than had been anticipated. Still other provisions would require commercial air tour
operators to report to the agencies on their operations. Some of the changes in the House-passed
bill could be opposed as lessening public participation in the decision making process and/or
weakening environmental analysis of agency decisions.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 1586 also contains provisions pertaining to commercial air
tours over park units. It would require each ATMP to be approved by the Administrator and the
Director. It would allow “appropriate representatives of the national park” and a commercial air
57 67
Fed. Reg. 65661 (October 25, 2002).
58 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.
59 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
68
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
tour operator to instead develop a voluntary agreement to govern air tours over a national park
unit. Unlike the House bill, it does not exempt parks with 50 or fewer annual flights from the
requirement to develop an ATMP or a voluntary agreement. It also would allow the agencies to
modify interim operating authority “without further environmental process.” Other provisions
would allow an air tour operator that obtains operating authority for commercial air tours to
transfer that authority to another air tour operator. The bill also would establish reporting
requirements for commercial air tour operators, rescind the operating authority of a commercial
air tour operator that does not report, and require the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation to audit the reports. Other provisions would require the Secretary of the Interior to
assess a fee on commercial air tour operators, and the Administrator is to revoke the operating
authority of a tour operator that does not pay the fee. In setting the fee, the Secretary is to collect
sufficient revenue to pay for the cost of developing ATMPs, and is to use the revenues for that
purpose.
Airline Industry Issues
A wide array of aviation industry issues are being considered in the context of FAA
reauthorization. Modifications to the Essential Air Service (EAS) program that provides subsidy
incentives to airlines for servicing small, rural, or otherwise isolated communities are contentious
issues in every reauthorization debate. House-passed H.R. 1586 seeks increased funding and
other program enhancements. Also, the House-passed bill seeks to clarify foreign ownership
issues related to operational control of U.S. flag airlines, a central issue for potentially expanding
“Open Skies” arrangements with the European Union (EU) in the future. Also, the House-passed
bill includes a provision addressing union issues among express carriers in language that would
limit applicability of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to employees engaged in airline operations,
placing other employees under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Another
ongoing issue is the consideration of legislation regarding airline passenger rights, particularly
with respect to flights that experience extreme delays or flights that are chronically late. These
issues are further discussed below.
The Essential Air Service Program
The Essential Air Service Program (EAS) is a DOT-managed program that subsidizes air carrier
service to small and, in some cases, isolated communities. Over time the scope of the EAS
program has been modified by statute and regulation. The program, however, remains popular,
especially in rural areas of the Nation.
The EAS program 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.
During its years in office, the George W. Bush Administration routinely suggested limiting annual
EAS funding to $50 million and requiring local cost-sharing as a condition for a community’s
continued participation in the program. The program nonetheless has grown as Congress has
provided additional funding for EAS.
Congressional Research Service
69
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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 also included a somewhat controversial provision that 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.
House-passed H.R. 1586
As passed by the House the bill makes several modifications to the EAS program. Most notable is
a significant increase in funding. The bill would reserve $50 million annually in overflight fee
collections for the EAS program and provides for an overall authorization of $150 million. The
bill also would make $150 million available annually for appropriation from the airport and
airway trust fund. Funds available from overflight fee collections in excess of $50 million for
EAS, would be split between EAS and the Small Community Air Service Program.
Other provisions in the EAS section of the legislation include a repeal of the never-used EAS
local participation program; a provision allowing state or local subsidy of EAS routes that would
otherwise lose their eligibility for service, providing that per-passenger subsidy caps are not
exceeded (approval of the Secretary is required); and a new DOT Office of Rural Transportation
charged with keeping the Secretary informed as to the state of rural air service.
The House bill encourages the use of financial incentives and long-term contracts as part of the
EAS program. In light of problems experienced by the program in 2008, the bill would allow
EAS subsidy caps to be adjusted to account for rapid fluctuations in fuel prices. The bill also
provides for rapid adjustment to EAS subsidies to account for other rapid cost increases that if not
addressed might jeopardize the continuation of service. The bill also reauthorizes the somewhat
related, but separate, Small Community Air Service program for the life of the legislation.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill also would modify the EAS program. The bill would raise funding in the same
manner as that found in the House language, except that fund collected from oversight fees in
excess of $50 million would be reserved solely for EAS activities. The Senate bill would also
allow state and local governments, working with the Secretary, to maintain service at locations
where the existing per-passenger subsidy cap would be exceeded, providing that some party
(government and/or private) was willing to subsidize the additional cost of the service. In
addition, the bill includes a new provision would allow state/local governments to designate a
preferred air carrier for EAS service, which would not necessarily be the lowest bidder for the
service.
The bill also provides for the establishment of an Office of Rural Aviation within DOT and gives
the office several duties beyond those included in the House provision, for example, the
development of model four year EAS contracts. The Senate bill also allows for longer-term
service contracts and includes a provision that disregards fuel cost subsides in the calculation of
subsidy caps.
Congressional Research Service
70
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Airline Ownership
Existing law specifically limits non-U.S. ownership of United States certificated airlines.60 These
provisions are viewed by many as exclusionary, preventing all but limited foreign investment in
the U.S. domestic airline industry, and absolutely preventing any real non-U.S. control over an
airline’s business decisions. These laws are seen by proponents of the industry’s
internationalization as major barriers to a fully open international aviation market. A recent
initiative by the Bush Administration to lift some of the existing ownership and control
restrictions through the regulatory process was opposed by Congress and ultimately abandoned
by the Bush Administration. A recently concluded “Open Skies” agreement with the European
Union (EU) suggests that the discussion about airline ownership and control issues could be
reopened at some later date.
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill addresses this issue by including language to be inserted in Title 49, U.S.C.
Section 40102(a)(15) that further defines the legal meaning “actual control.”
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Contains no similar provision.
Airline Alliances/Antitrust Exemptions
Several domestic airlines have been partners in the three major international airline alliance
groups for many years. United and US Airways, for example, have been part of the “Star
Alliance,” Continental, Delta, and Northwest have been part of “Skyteam,” and American has
participated in “Oneworld.” Alliances allow partner airlines to jointly market their collective
brand internationally, to code share in certain instances, and to otherwise provide air travelers
with coordinated services to the many destinations served by each of the partner airlines. In order
to participate in an alliance a domestic airline must receive approval, which is essentially an
antitrust exemption, from DOT. Over time airlines have changed partner groups. Continental, for
example, is currently in the process of moving to the Star Alliance after having received tentative
DOT approval for the move in April 2009.
Airlines view these alliances quite favorably and believe they afford each airline with significant
competitive advantages. There are other observers, however, who view alliances as being
anticompetitive in nature. In this view, the alliance can become a monopoly operator on certain
international, especially multinational, routes and can use its market power to preclude new
competition, raise fares, and engage in other uncompetitive practices.
60 For a full discussion of airline ownership issues, see CRS Report RL33255,
Legal Developments in International
Civil Aviation, by Todd B. Tatelman.
Congressional Research Service
71
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
House-passed H.R. 1586
Some Members of Congress have long questioned the necessity and/or desirability of alliances
for the traveling public. Section 426 of the House bill reflects these concerns and requires that
GAO conduct a one-year study of the competitiveness of alliances and the grants of antitrust
immunity they receive from DOT. The provision would require that GAO make specific
recommendations on the alliance approval process and that the Secretary of Transportation
consider these recommendations vis-à-vis possible policy changes to the existing process. The
provision sets out certain deadlines for this policy review process. Further, the provision provides
for the sunset of all existing alliances three years after enactment of this legislation and requires
that future renewal of antitrust immunity not be granted until the Secretary has responded to
Congress as to whether and how policy will be changed based on the GAO recommendations.
This provision is of considerable concern to U.S. airlines and to many U.S. trading partners who
favor the alliance process. They, and Members of Congress who share their view, see this
provision as an unwarranted congressional intrusion into existing international alliance process.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Contains no similar provision.
Air-rail Codeshare Study
House-passed H.R. 1586
Contains no similar provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate-passed bill would require the GAO to conduct a study of the feasibility and
desirability of providing for code-sharing between airlines and intercity passenger rail services
(primarily those currently provided by Amtrak). The GAO is to provide its conclusions within
one year after passage of this legislation.
Airline Passenger Rights Issues
Recent incidents where passengers were held in aircraft for eight or more hours awaiting takeoff,
as well as reports of deterioration of on-time arrival performance by airlines, have led to
increasing interest in airline passenger consumer issues. Currently, most passenger rights are set
forth in the airlines’ “contract of carriage” language. The contract of carriage is the legal contract
between the airline and the ticket holder which describes the rights and responsibilities of both
the air carrier and the passenger. Passengers may take legal action in federal courts based on these
contracts. Historically, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) role in consumer protection is
limited. The existing law does provide procedures and compensation rules for “bumping” and lost
or damaged baggage, however. The main power DOT has to protect consumers is the
department’s power to take action against air carriers for “deceptive trade practices.” The
definition and interpretation of deceptive trade practices can significantly impact the scope of
Congressional Research Service
72
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
DOT’s enforcement authority. Staffing of DOT’s Office for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings, however, has been an issue in the past. This DOT office also deals with passenger
discrimination issues.
DOT Regulatory Action on Airline Passenger Rights
On December 18, 2009, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood issued a final rule, “Enhancing
Airline Passenger Protections.”61 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 an 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 an 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 an airline employee 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.
• Air carriers must adopt customer service plans and audit their own compliance
with the plans.
61 Department of Transportation, “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections,” 74
Federal Register, No. 249, 68983-
69004, December 30, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
73
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
• Air carriers are prohibited from applying changes to their contracts of carriage
retroactively.
As the reauthorization process continues, some observers would argue that many of the following
passenger rights provisions as moot given the DOT action. Others, however, may wish to broaden
or narrow 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
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 407) 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill (Section 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 on-board 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
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
Congressional Research Service
74
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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 required to submit a contingency plan 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
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 420 of the House bill would require the Secretary of DOT is to establish an eight-member
committee for aviation consumer protection to advise the Secretary in carrying out passenger
service improvements.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 404 of the Senate bill includes a similar provision, except that the advisory committee
would have only four members.
Monthly Air Carrier Reports/Publication of Customer Service data
and Flight Delay History
House-passed H.R. 1586
The bill (Section 402) 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill (Section 402) 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 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
Congressional Research Service
75
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 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. 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill also includes this provision (Section 403).
Consumer Complaint Hotline Telephone Number
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill (Section 407) 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 the carrier website, ticket confirmation, or boarding pass issued by the carrier:
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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill (Section 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 the Secretary of Transportation to publicize the number.
Musical Instruments
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 427 of the House 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
Congressional Research Service
76
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 713 of the Senate bill would allow passengers to carry small instruments into the cabin of
an aircraft as carry-on luggage if the instrument can be stowed in a suitable baggage compartment
in the cabin or under a passenger seat and there is space for such stowage at the time the
passenger boards the aircraft. Air carriers are to permit a passenger to carry a musical instrument
that is too large to meet the above requirements for a small instrument if the instrument is
contained in a case, does not exceed 165 pounds in weight (including case), can be secured by a
seat belt, does not restrict access to or view of an exit or aisle, does not contain an otherwise
illegal object, and the passenger has purchased an additional seat for the instrument. Air carriers
are to transport as baggage, without charge, the instrument of a traveling passenger on the flight
that may not be carried in the cabin, if the sum of the length, width, and height, including the case
does not exceed 150 inches, it weight does not exceed 165 pounds, and it can be stowed in
accordance with the requirements for the stowage of baggage or cargo.
Disclosure of the Operating Air Carrier Name for Each Flight
Segment
House-passed H.R. 1586
No provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 406 declares 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 of the air carrier providing the air transportation for each flight
segment. For Internet offers, the disclosure must be on the first display of the website.
Disclosure of Passenger Fees
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill does not include a provision on this issue.
Congressional Research Service
77
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 405 of the Senate bill 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
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.
Notification Requirements in Regard to Passenger Taxes and Fees
House-passed H.R. 1586
No provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 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 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.
Transparency in Passenger Tax Disclosures
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill does not include a provision on this issue.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 807 appears to prevent the mixing of non-tax fees or charges with the federal tax totals
disclosed on tickets for air transportation or in advertising for such tickets.
Congressional Research Service
78
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
DOT Inspector General (IG) Review of Air Carrier Flight Delays,
Cancellations, and Associated Causes
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 418 of the bill would order the IG to update its 2000 report “Audit of Air Carrier Flight
Delays and Cancellations.” In conducting the review the IG would be directed to assess: 1) the
need for an update on delay and cancellation statistics such as chronically delayed flights and
taxi-in and taxi-out times; 2) air carrier scheduling practices; 3) the need to reexamine the FAA’s
airport capacity benchmarks; 4) the impact of flight delays and cancellations on passengers and
recommendations to address these impacts; and 5) the effect that limited air carrier service
options on routes have on the frequency of delays and cancellations on such routes.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Notification of Flight Status by Text Message or Email
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 407 would require the Secretary of Transportation, within 180 days, to issue regulations
to require air carriers having 1% of the total domestic scheduled-service passenger revenue to
provide each passenger an option to receive a text message, email or other comparable electronic
service, subject to any fees applicable under the contract of the passenger for the electronic
service, with notification of any change in the status of the flight before the boarding process
begins.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Denied Boarding Compensation
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 421 would require that, not later than May 19, 2010, 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Congressional Research Service
79
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Delayed Baggage Compensation
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 422 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Study of European Union Rules for Passenger Rights
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 419 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Insecticide Use on Passenger Aircraft
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 407 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Congressional Research Service
80
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Prohibitions Against Cell Phone or Other Voice
Communication Devices
House-passed H.R. 1586
The bill would prohibit use by an individual, other than members of the flight crews or federal
law enforcement officers, of a mobile communications device in an aircraft during a flight in
scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation. “Voice communications using a
mobile communications device” includes a commercial mobile radio service or other wireless
communications device; a broadband wireless device or other wireless device that transmits data
packets using the Internet Protocol or comparable technical standard; or a device having voice
override capability.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Airport Master Plans
House-passed H.R. 1586
In Section 153 of the bill, the Secretary of Transportation is to encourage airport sponsors and
state and local officials to consider customer convenience, airport ground access, and access to
airport facilities in airport master plans.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Smoking Prohibition
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 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.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
The Senate bill does not include this provision.
Congressional Research Service
81
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Study of Air Quality in Aircraft Cabins
House-passed H.R. 1586
The House bill does not include a similar provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 564 requires the 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.
Study of Air Cleaning Technology
House-passed H.R. 1586
Section 513 would require the FAA to initiate research and development work, to begin not later
than 180 days after enactment, for air cleaning technology, including research of sensor
technology for engine and passenger unit bleed air (regarding aircraft cabin air quality). The FAA
must transmit a report on the results of the program to Congress not later than three years after the
date of enactment.
Senate-passed H.R. 1586
Section 613, added to the introduced version of the bill during mark-up by the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, would require a new FAA research program (similar to
the work described above in the House bill) be established for air cleaning technology, including
research of sensor technology for engine and passenger unit bleed air (regarding aircraft cabin air
quality). The Senate bill, however, sets a 60-day initiation target date (rather than the 180 days set
in the House bill) and requires a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure within one year
rather than within three years as is required in the House bill.
Congressional Research Service
82
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
Author Contact Information
Bart Elias, Coordinator
Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov, 7-9662
John W. Fischer
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
jfischer@crs.loc.gov, 7-7766
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
Robert S. Kirk
Jon O. Shimabukuro
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Legislative Attorney
rkirk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7769
jshimabukuro@crs.loc.gov, 7-7990
Linda Luther
Todd B. Tatelman
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Legislative Attorney
lluther@crs.loc.gov, 7-6852
ttatelman@crs.loc.gov, 7-4697
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651
Congressional Research Service
83
FAA Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th 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
John Fischer
FAA Financing and Aviation Taxes
RSI 7-7766
Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF)
Essential Air Service and Small Community Air Service
Development Programs
Airline Economic Issues
Bob Kirk
FAA Financing and Aviation Taxes
RSI 7-7769
Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF)
Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Airport Finance
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
84