99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–496

SMALL AIRPORT SAFETY, SECURITY, AND AIR SERVICE 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2002

JUNE 6, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1979] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 1979) to amend title 49, United States 

Code, to provide assistance for the construction of certain air traffic 

control towers, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Airport Safety, Security, and Air Service Improvement Act of 2002’’. 

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF TOWERS IN AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT. 

Section 47102(3) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(M) constructing an air traffic control tower or acquiring and installing 

air traffic control, communications, and related equipment at an air traffic 

control tower under the terms specified in section 47124(b)(4).’’. 

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 47124(b)(4) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(4) CONSTRUCTION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS.—

‘‘(A) GRANTS.—The Secretary may provide grants to a sponsor of—

‘‘(i) a primary airport—

2

‘‘(I) from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(1) and 

47114(c)(2) for the construction or improvement of a nonapproach 

control tower, as defined by the Secretary, and for the acquisition 

and installation of air traffic control, communications, and related 

equipment to be used in that tower; 

‘‘(II) from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(1) and 

47114(c)(2) for reimbursement for the cost of construction or improvement of a nonapproach control tower, as defined by the Secretary, incurred after October 1, 1996, if the sponsor complied with 

the requirements of sections 47107(e), 47112(b), and 47112(c) in 

constructing or improving that tower; and 

‘‘(III) from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(1) 

and 47114(c)(2) for reimbursement for the cost of acquiring and installing in that tower air traffic control, communications, and related equipment that was acquired or installed after October 1, 

1996; and 

‘‘(ii) a public-use airport that is not a primary airport—

‘‘(I) from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(2) and 

47114(d) for the construction or improvement of a nonapproach 

control tower, as defined by the Secretary, and for the acquisition 

and installation of air traffic control, communications, and related 

equipment to be used in that tower; 

‘‘(II) from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(2) and 

47114(d)(3)(A) for reimbursement for the cost of construction or improvement of a nonapproach control tower, as defined by the Secretary, incurred after October 1, 1996, if the sponsor complied with 

the requirements of sections 47107(e), 47112(b), and 47112(c) in 

constructing or improving that tower; and 

‘‘(III) from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(2) 

and 47114(d)(3)(A) for reimbursement for the cost of acquiring and 

installing in that tower air traffic control, communications, and related equipment that was acquired or installed after October 1, 

1996. 

‘‘(B) ELIGIBILITY.—An airport sponsor shall be eligible for a grant under 

this paragraph only if—

‘‘(i)(I) the sponsor is a participant in the Federal Aviation Administration contract tower program established under subsection (a) and 

continued under paragraph (1) or the pilot program established under 

paragraph (3); or 

‘‘(II) construction of a nonapproach control tower would qualify the 

sponsor to be eligible to participate in such program; 

‘‘(ii) the sponsor certifies that it will pay not less than 10 percent of 

the cost of the activities for which the sponsor is receiving assistance 

under this paragraph; 

‘‘(iii) the Secretary affirmatively accepts the proposed contract tower 

into a contract tower program under this section and certifies that the 

Secretary will seek future appropriations to pay the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s cost of the contract to operate the tower to be constructed under this paragraph; 

‘‘(iv) the sponsor certifies that it will pay its share of the cost of the 

contract to operate the tower to be constructed under this paragraph; 

and 

‘‘(v) in the case of a tower to be constructed under this paragraph 

from amounts made available under section 47114(d)(2) or 

47114(d)(3)(B), the Secretary certifies that—

‘‘(I) the Federal Aviation Administration has consulted the State 

within the borders of which the tower is to be constructed and the 

State supports the construction of the tower as part of its State airport capital plan; and 

‘‘(II) the selection of the tower for funding is based on objective 

criteria, giving no weight to any congressional committee report, 

joint explanatory statement of a conference committee, or statutory 

designation. 

‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of 

construction of a nonapproach control tower under this paragraph may not 

exceed $1,100,000.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 47124(b) of such title is amended—

3

(1) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ‘‘Level I air traffic control towers, as defined by the Secretary,’’ and inserting ‘‘nonapproach control towers, as defined 

by the Secretary,’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (3)(E) by striking ‘‘Subject to paragraph (4)(D), of’’ and inserting ‘‘Of’’. (c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Notwithstanding the amendments made by this section, the 

2 towers for which assistance is being provided on the day before the date of enactment of this Act under section 47124(b)(4) of title 49, United States Code, as in effect on such day, may continue to be provided such assistance under the terms of 

such section. 

SEC. 4. NONAPPROACH CONTROL TOWERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may 

enter into a lease agreement or contract agreement with a private entity to provide 

for construction and operation of a nonapproach control tower as defined by the Secretary of Transportation. 

(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—An agreement entered into under this section— (1) shall be negotiated under such procedures as the Administrator considers 

necessary to ensure the integrity of the selection process, the safety of air travel, and to protect the interests of the United States; 

(2) may provide a lease option to the United States, to be exercised at the 

discretion of the Administrator, to occupy any general-purpose space in a facility covered by the agreement; 

(3) shall not require, unless specifically determined otherwise by the Administrator, Federal ownership of a facility covered under the agreement after the 

expiration of the agreement; 

(4) shall describe the consideration, duties, and responsibilities for which the 

United States and the private entity are responsible; 

(5) shall provide that the United Sates will not be liable for any action, debt, 

or liability of any entity created by the agreement; 

(6) shall provide that the private entity may not execute any instrument or 

document creating or evidencing any indebtedness with respect to a facility covered by the agreement unless such instrument or document specifically disclaims any liability of the United States under the instrument or document; and 

(7) shall include such other terms and conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate.

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

The reported bill (H.R. 1979) was introduced by Mr. Wicker. It 

would allow a small airport to use its Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant money to build or equip an air traffic control 

tower that would be operated under the FAA’s contract tower program. New tower construction and equipment purchases would be 

eligible for funding using AIP entitlements and the AIP State apportionment. Reimbursement for past construction or equipment 

purchases would be available only from an airport’s AIP entitlement. To be eligible for this funding, airports would have to qualify 

for the contract tower program and pay a 10% local share. The bill 

would also allow FAA to contract with a private company to both 

build and operate the tower. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

It is well established that safety is enhanced when air traffic controllers guide a plane through the skies and onto the runway. However, many smaller airports lack an air traffic control tower. As a 

result, passengers and pilots do not benefit from the safety enhancements provided by air traffic controllers. Pilots are on their 

own, responsible for seeing and avoiding other planes. 

Currently, the FAA is responsible for building the towers that 

house the controllers. However, FAA’s Facilities and Equipment 

(F&E) construction budget is not large enough to pay for the construction of towers at many smaller airports. Yet many of these 

4

smaller airports have commercial passenger service or are very active general aviation airports. Passengers flying there may be coming from big cities where air traffic control is commonplace. In any 

case, passengers and pilots in the small cities are entitled to the 

same level of safety as those using the larger airports. 

Recognizing that FAA’s facilities and equipment (F&E) control 

tower construction budget is limited, many smaller airports are 

willing to use their Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant 

money (49 U.S.C. Chapter 471) to build the tower. However, under 

current law (49 U.S.C. section 47102(3)) contract tower construction is not listed as eligible for funding under the AIP program. 

This bill would change the law to allow small airports to use 

their AIP money to build a new or replacement FAA contract 

tower. The FAA could then contract with a private company to actually operate the tower. The FAA now contracts with private companies to staff visual flight rule (VFR) towers at 217 airports in 46 

States. This contract tower program has benefited from consistent 

bipartisan backing in Congress. Its track record at small airports 

shows that it improves air safety, efficiency and security as well as 

enhancing regional airline service opportunities in rural areas, providing significant savings to the FAA in air traffic control costs, 

and increasing economic productivity in smaller communities nationwide. Further, the program’s track record has been validated in 

several comprehensive audits by DOT’s Inspector General and is 

endorsed by participating airports and aviation system users. 

Given the benefits and support for the contract tower program, 

additional actions to enhance it are warranted. By opening up another source of funding for tower construction, this bill will enhance the existing contract tower program and increase safety at 

small airports. It does not cost the Federal government any additional money because the AIP grant money is already provided for 

in AIR 21 (Public Law 106–181, 114 Stat. 65). The reported bill 

merely gives the airport and the FAA another purpose (tower construction) for which this grant money can be used. 

While this bill allows Federal grant money to be used for tower 

construction, the Committee believes that FAA should continue its 

current practice of allowing airports to build their towers to FAA 

contract tower specifications instead of the specifications used 

when towers are built with funds derived from the FAA’s facilities 

and equipment (F&E) account. The approximately 20 airports that 

have built towers themselves and are now in the contract tower 

program constructed these towers for about $1 million by using 

FAA contract tower specifications. Similar towers built in the past 

by the FAA through the F&E program cost about $4 million. Allowing contract tower specifications to be used is consistent with past 

practice and will ensure that AIP money is used wisely and costeffectively. 

The authority in the reported bill to utilize AIP funds applies not 

only to the construction of FAA contract air traffic control towers 

but also to the equipage of those tower facilities. AIP funds may 

be used to purchase all performance-based tower equipment such 

as communications and weather-related equipment, voice switching 

devices, radios, wind speed and direction systems, altimeter indication equipment, voice recorders, ATC light guns, stand alone terminal radar displays (TRDs), and other related equipment. 

5

In particular, the committee believes TRDs, as supported by 

NTSB’s April 27, 2001 recommendation, A–01–09, greatly enhance 

safety at VFR control towers. The determination of whether a TRD 

may be purchased and utilized should be based on the performance 

of the equipment. If a TRD is generating verifiable accurate information and performing in compliance with the manufacturer’s 

specifications then it should be considered for use in contract towers. 

Terminal radar displays (TRD) are a form of radar that gives the 

controllers another set of eyes to make sure planes are where the 

pilots say they are. These displays are strongly supported by the 

airports and controllers because they allow them to verify pilots’ positions and take corrective action when needed. The controllers 

in VFR non-approach control towers (such as those in the contract 

tower program) cannot use these tower displays to give enroute instructions to pilots (i.e. ‘‘turn right heading 180 degrees’’). It simply 

gives the controllers another set of eyes to see what is going on 

within their area of responsibility near the airport. There have 

been a few accidents at both contract towers and FAA-operated 

VFR towers that might have been prevented if they had had a 

TRD.

As a matter of fairness, the reported bill also allows for limited 

reimbursement of costs incurred after October 1, 1996 for tower 

construction and equipment purchases. As explained above, building air traffic control towers enhances safety. At large airports, the 

FAA will build the tower. But many smaller airports have to build 

the towers themselves. Some smaller airports took the initiative 

and built towers at their airports to enhance safety without waiting 

for Congress to act. Airports that did so should be applauded for 

their actions, not penalized. Prohibiting reimbursement would effectively penalize these small airports for taking the initiative and 

building air traffic control towers themselves. It would not be fair 

if those airports that delayed tower construction were rewarded 

with Federal grants while those that acted before the reported bill 

was enacted were denied similar Federal grants. 

The reported bill allows reimbursement only from an airport’s 

AIP entitlement. This is money that the airport has a right to as 

a matter of the formula in the law (49 U.S.C. section 47114). The 

Committee has determined that in this case an airport should not 

be prevented from using its own money for any eligible airport purpose, including reimbursement. 

Allowing reimbursement here does not set a new precedent. 

There are at least three other sections of the AIP chapter (49 

U.S.C. Chapter 471) where this is done. Two (sections 47119 and 

47135(c)(2)(D)) involve reimbursement for terminal development 

and one (section 47110(b)(2)(C)) allows reimbursement generally for 

any project built after 1996 at a primary airport (an airport with 

at least 10,000 passengers). 

Reimbursement here will not take away money from capacity enhancing or other important projects. The bill only allows reimbursement from money allocated by law to these small airports. No 

money is taken away from other airports to pay this reimbursement. 

Airports seeking reimbursement will not be able to avoid the 

statutory and administrative requirements that apply to other airVerDate jun 06 2002 07:36 Jun 08, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR496
6

ports receiving Federal AIP grants. This bill explicitly requires that 

airports will get reimbursement only if they complied with certain 

requirements that existed when the tower was built. 

SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

The title of this Act is the ‘‘Small Airport Safety, Security, and 

Air Service Improvement Act of 2002.’’

Section 2. Inclusion of towers in airport development 

This section makes constructing and improving a FAA contract 

air traffic control tower and acquiring equipment for that tower eligible for Federal funding under the Airport Improvement Program. 

Section 3. Construction of air traffic control towers 

Subsection (a) amends the section of the law governing the FAA’s 

contract tower program. 

Subparagraph (A) sets forth the rules for making AIP grants for 

the construction and equipage of air traffic control towers. 

Subparagraph (i) sets forth the rules for making such grants to 

primary airports (those airports with more than 10,000 passengers 

per year). 

Subparagraph (I) allows a primary airport to use its passenger 

or cargo entitlement for the construction or equipage of air traffic 

control towers. 

Subparagraph (II) allows a primary airport to use its passenger 

and cargo entitlements to be reimbursed for costs incurred after 

October 1, 1996 in building an air traffic control tower as long as 

it complied with the existing specified statutory and administrative 

requirements. 

Subparagraph (III) allows a primary airport to use its passenger 

or cargo entitlement for reimbursement for the cost of acquiring air 

traffic control equipment that was acquired or installed after October 1, 1996. 

Subparagraph (ii) sets forth the rules for making AIP grants to 

general aviation airports and small commercial service airports to 

fund the construction and equipage of air traffic control. 

Subparagraph (I) states that these airports can use their general 

aviation entitlement as well as state apportionment funding for the 

construction or improvement of an air traffic control tower and for 

the acquisition and installation of air traffic control equipment. 

Subparagraph (II) allows these airports to use their general aviation entitlement to receive reimbursement for the costs of constructing an air traffic control tower if those costs were incurred 

after October 1, 1996 and the airport complied with the specified 

statutory and administrative requirements. 

Subparagraph (III) allows these airports to use their general 

aviation entitlement to receive reimbursement for the cost of acquiring and installing air traffic control equipment if that equipment was acquired or installed after October 1, 1996.

Subparagraph (B) states that an airport will be eligible for the 

AIP grants described above only if it (1) is a participant in the 

FAA’s contract tower program or building the tower would qualify 

it to participate in that program; (2) the airport will pay a 10% 

7

local share for the cost of constructing or equipping the tower; (3) 

the Secretary accepts the proposed tower into the contract tower 

program and certifies that funding will be sought to pay the costs 

of operating the tower; (4) the airport certifies that it will pay its 

share of the cost of the operation of the tower, if any, and (5) where 

state apportionment funds will be used to build a tower, the Secretary certifies that the FAA has consulted with the state in which 

the tower will be located and the state supports the construction 

of the tower as part of the state’s airport capital plan and selection 

of the tower for funding is based on objective criteria rather than 

on a congressional earmark. 

Subparagraph (C) limits the Federal share for the cost of constructing a tower to $1.1 million. 

Subsection (b) describes the type of control towers that could benefit from the funding opportunities in the reported bill. They were 

formally known as Level I air traffic control towers but are now 

known as non-approach control towers in the FAA’s airway manual. Non-approach control towers are towers where controllers authorize aircraft to land or takeoff at the airport where the tower 

is located or to transit Class D airspace. The primary function of 

a non-approach control tower is the sequencing of aircraft in the 

traffic pattern and on the landing area. Non-approach control towers also separate aircraft operating under instrument flight rule 

clearances from approach controls and centers. They provide 

ground control services to aircraft, vehicles, personnel, and equipment on the airport. 

Subsection (c) makes clear that the two towers that were made 

eligible for funding under section 131 of Air 21 (P.L. 106–181, 114 

Stat 78, 49 U.S.C. 47124(b)(4)) may continue to be funded under 

the terms of that section. 

Section 4. Non-approach control towers 

As an alternative to the approach described in Section 3, this section allows the FAA to enter into an arrangement with a private 

entity where that entity would both construct and operate an air 

traffic control tower at a small airport. This section is based on section 3 of Public Law 106–407, 114 Stat. 1758. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

H.R. 1979 was introduced by Congressman Wicker on May 23, 

2001 and referred to the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure. The Committee’s Subcommittee on Aviation met on April 

18, 2002 and adopted, by voice vote, an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute offered by Subcommittee Chairman Mica. Subsequently, by voice vote, the Subcommittee approved and ordered the 

bill reported to the full Committee. The full Committee approved 

the bill and favorably reported it to the House, by voice vote on 

April 24, 2002, with a quorum present after defeating an Oberstar 

amendment to strike the reimbursement provisions. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives requires 

each committee report to include the total number of votes cast for 

and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to report and on any 

8

amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the names of 

those members voting for and against. There was one rollcall vote 

to strike the reimbursement provisions which follows.

Bill No.: H.R. 1979. 

Short title: Contract Towers. 

Amendment or matter voted on: Oberstar Amendment. 

Total votes: 34 yeas; 35 nays.

Representative Yeas Nays Present Representative Yeas Nays Present 

Mr. Young, Chairman ........... ........... X ............. Mr. Oberstar ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Petri ................................ ........... X ............. Mr. Rahall ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Boehlert .......................... ........... ........... ............. Mr. Borski ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Coble .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Lipinski .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Duncan ........................... ........... ........... ............. Mr. DeFazio .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Gilchrest ......................... ........... ........... ............. Mr. Clement ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Horn ................................ ........... X ............. Mr. Costello .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Mica ................................ ........... X ............. Ms. Norton ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Quinn .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Nadler ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Ehlers ............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Menendez ....................... X ........... .............

Mr. Bachus ........................... ........... X ............. Ms. Brown ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. LaTourette ....................... ........... X ............. Mr. Barcia ............................ X ........... .............

Mrs. Kelly .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Filner .............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Baker .............................. ........... X ............. Ms. Johnson ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Ney .................................. ........... X ............. Mr. Mascara ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Thune .............................. ........... ........... ............. Mr. Taylor ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. LoBiondo ......................... ........... X ............. Ms. Millender-McDonald ...... X ........... .............

Mr. Moran ............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Cummings ..................... X ........... .............

Mr. Pombo ............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Blumenauer ................... X ........... .............

Mr. DeMint ............................ ........... X ............. Mr. Sandlin .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Bereuter .......................... ........... ........... ............. Ms. Tauscher ........................ X ........... .............

Mr. Simpson .......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Pascrell .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Isakson ........................... ........... X ............. Mr. Boswell .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Hayes .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. McGovern ....................... X ........... .............

Mr. Simmons ......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Holden ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Rogers ............................ ........... X ............. Mr. Lampson ........................ X ........... .............

Mrs. Capito ........................... ........... X ............. Mr. Baldacci ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Kirk ................................. ........... X ............. Mr. Berry .............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Brown ............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Baird .............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Johnson ........................... ........... X ............. Ms. Berkley ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Kerns .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Carson ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Rehberg .......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Matheson ....................... X ........... .............

Mr. Platts .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Honda ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Ferguson ......................... ........... ........... ............. Mr. Larsen ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Graves ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Otter ............................... ........... X .............

Mr. Kennedy .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Culberson ....................... ........... X .............

Mr. Shuster ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Boozman ......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Sullivan .......................... ........... X .............

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

9

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee references the 

report of the Congressional Budget Office included below. 

2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objective of this legislation are to facilitate the construction of 

air traffic control towers at small airports. 

3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

following cost estimate for H.R. 1979 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, June 4, 2002. 

Hon. DON YOUNG, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House 

of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1979, the Small Airport 

Safety, Security, and Air Service Improvement Act of 2002. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel Milberg. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN LIEBERMAN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1979—Small Airport Safety, Security, and Air Service Improvement Act of 2002

Summary: H.R. 1979 would allow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide some airport operators with grants to construct and equip certain types of control towers. Based on information from the FAA and historical spending patterns for this program, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1979 would cost $47 

million over the 2003–2007 period, subject to appropriation of the 

necessary amounts. H.R. 1979 would not affect direct spending or 

receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 

H.R. 1979 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Public airports that participate in the contract tower program 

would be required to provide 10 percent of the costs covered under 

the grant; such costs would be incurred voluntarily. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1979 is shown in the following table. For this 

estimate, we assume that the bill will be enacted near the start of 

2003 and that the necessary amounts will be provided each year. 

10

The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400 (transportation).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 1

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................................... 1 5 6 7 7

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... 5 13 12 9 8

1 A portion of the estimated outlays would come from contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) already provided to FAA under current law. Use of that authority, however, is subject to approval in annual appropriations acts. 

Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1979 would cost $47 million over the 2003–2007 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. CBO estimates that providing 

federal grants for control tower construction would cost about $22 

million over the 2003–2007 period. In addition, CBO estimates that 

federal assistance for operating these towers would cost an additional $25 million over this period. 

Control Towers 

H.R. 1979 would authorize the FAA to provide grants to airport 

operators to construct and equip control towers. Such grants could 

be no more than $1.1 million per tower. Based on information from 

the FAA and the American Association of Airport Executives, CBO 

estimates that the FAA would provide grants for about 20 control 

towers over the next five years. Under the bill, grants would be 

made from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which is funded with contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) 

through 2003. H.R. 1979 would not increase the total amount of 

contract authority available to the Airport Improvement Program. 

Expenditures from AIP contract authority are governed by obligation limitations contained in annual appropriation acts, and are 

considered discretionary spending. Assuming appropriation acts increase the obligation limitation for this program by the necessary 

amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision of H.R. 

1979 would cost about $22 million over the 2003–2007 period. 

Operation of Control Towers 

Additional towers constructed under the bill would be eligible to 

participate in the FAA’s Contract Tower program. Under that program, the FAA shares the cost of operating towers with airport operators. The FAA spends an average of $350,000 a year to support 

each contract tower in this program. CBO estimates that supporting 20 additional towers would cost about $7 million a year. 

Because the FAA would incur operating costs only after the towers 

are constructed and equipped, CBO estimates that the FAA would 

spend about $25 million over the 2003–2007 period to support additional towers, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1979 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. Public airports that participate in the contract tower program would be required to provide 10 percent of the costs covered 

under the grant; such costs would be incurred voluntarily. 

Previous CBO estimate: On September 4, 2001, CBO transmitted 

a cost estimate of S. 633, the Aviation Delay Prevention Act, as orVerDate jun 06 2002 07:36 Jun 08, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR496.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR496
11

dered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation on August 2, 2001. S. 633 has provisions similar to the grants program that would be authorized by H.R. 1979, 

and CBO estimates that the cost of this grant program would be 

the same under both bills. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Rachel Milberg; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg Tompkins; and 

Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Talarico. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific 

powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

measure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

finds that Congress has the authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

(Public Law 104–4). 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1994 requires the 

report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local or tribal law. The Committee states 

that H.R. 1979 does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1).

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

12

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * *

PART B—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE 

CHAPTER 471—AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * *

§ 47102. Definitions 

In this subchapter— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) ‘‘airport development’’ means the following activities, if 

undertaken by the sponsor, owner, or operator of a public-use 

airport: 

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(M) constructing an air traffic control tower or acquiring 

and installing air traffic control, communications, and related equipment at an air traffic control tower under the 

terms specified in section 47124(b)(4).

* * * * * * *

§ 47124. Agreements for State and local operation of airport 

facilities 

(a) * * *

(b) AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CONTRACT PROGRAM.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) CONTRACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER PILOT PROGRAM.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot 

program to contract for air traffic control services at 

øLevel I air traffic control towers, as defined by the Secretary,¿ nonapproach control towers, as defined by the Secretary, that do not qualify for the contract tower program 

established under subsection (a) and continued under 

paragraph (1) (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘‘Contract Tower Program’’). 

* * * * * * *

(E) FUNDING.—øSubject to paragraph (4)(D), of¿ Of the 

amounts appropriated pursuant to section 106(k), not more 

than $6,000,000 per fiscal year may be used to carry out 

this paragraph. 

ø(4) CONSTRUCTION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS.—

ø(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

of this subchapter, the Secretary may provide grants under 

this subchapter to not more than two airport sponsors for 

the construction of a low-level activity visual flight rule 

13

(level 1) air traffic control tower, as defined by the Secretary. 

ø(B) ELIGIBILITY.—A sponsor shall be eligible for a grant 

under this paragraph if— ø(i) the sponsor would otherwise be eligible to participate in the pilot program established under paragraph (3) except for the lack of the air traffic control 

tower proposed to be constructed under this subsection; and 

ø(ii) the sponsor agrees to fund not less than 25 percent of the costs of construction of the air traffic control tower. 

ø(C) PROJECT COSTS.—Grants under this paragraph 

shall be paid only from amounts apportioned to the sponsor under section 47114(c)(1). 

ø(D) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of 

construction of an air traffic control tower under this paragraph may not exceed $1,100,000.¿

(4) CONSTRUCTION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS.— (A) GRANTS.—The Secretary may provide grants to a 

sponsor of— (i) a primary airport— (I) from amounts made available under sections 

47114(c)(1) and 47114(c)(2) for the construction or 

improvement of a nonapproach control tower, as 

defined by the Secretary, and for the acquisition 

and installation of air traffic control, communications, and related equipment to be used in that 

tower; 

(II) from amounts made available under sections 

47114(c)(1) and 47114(c)(2) for reimbursement for 

the cost of construction or improvement of a nonapproach control tower, as defined by the Secretary, incurred after October 1, 1996, if the sponsor complied with the requirements of sections 

47107(e), 47112(b), and 47112(c) in constructing or 

improving that tower; and 

(III) from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(1) and 47114(c)(2) for reimbursement for the cost of acquiring and installing in 

that tower air traffic control, communications, and 

related equipment that was acquired or installed 

after October 1, 1996; and 

(ii) a public-use airport that is not a primary airport—

(I) from amounts made available under sections 

47114(c)(2) and 47114(d) for the construction or 

improvement of a nonapproach control tower, as 

defined by the Secretary, and for the acquisition 

and installation of air traffic control, communications, and related equipment to be used in that 

tower; 

(II) from amounts made available under sections 

47114(c)(2) and 47114(d)(3)(A) for reimbursement 

for the cost of construction or improvement of a 

14

nonapproach control tower, as defined by the Secretary, incurred after October 1, 1996, if the sponsor complied with the requirements of sections 

47107(e), 47112(b), and 47112(c) in constructing or 

improving that tower; and 

(III) from amounts made available under sections 47114(c)(2) and 47114(d)(3)(A) for reimbursement for the cost of acquiring and installing in 

that tower air traffic control, communications, and 

related equipment that was acquired or installed 

after October 1, 1996. 

(B) ELIGIBILITY.—An airport sponsor shall be eligible for 

a grant under this paragraph only if—

(i)(I) the sponsor is a participant in the Federal 

Aviation Administration contract tower program established under subsection (a) and continued under paragraph (1) or the pilot program established under paragraph (3); or 

(II) construction of a nonapproach control tower 

would qualify the sponsor to be eligible to participate 

in such program; 

(ii) the sponsor certifies that it will pay not less than 

10 percent of the cost of the activities for which the 

sponsor is receiving assistance under this paragraph; 

(iii) the Secretary affirmatively accepts the proposed 

contract tower into a contract tower program under 

this section and certifies that the Secretary will seek future appropriations to pay the Federal Aviation Administration’s cost of the contract to operate the tower 

to be constructed under this paragraph; 

(iv) the sponsor certifies that it will pay its share of 

the cost of the contract to operate the tower to be constructed under this paragraph; and 

(v) in the case of a tower to be constructed under this 

paragraph from amounts made available under section 

47114(d)(2) or 47114(d)(3)(B), the Secretary certifies 

that—

(I) the Federal Aviation Administration has consulted the State within the borders of which the 

tower is to be constructed and the State supports 

the construction of the tower as part of its State 

airport capital plan; and 

(II) the selection of the tower for funding is 

based on objective criteria, giving no weight to any 

congressional committee report, joint explanatory 

statement of a conference committee, or statutory 

designation. 

(C) LIMITATION ON FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share 

of the cost of construction of a nonapproach control tower 

under this paragraph may not exceed $1,100,000. 

* * * * * * *

(15)

MINORITY VIEWS 

Although we support the concept of making contract air traffic 

control towers eligible for federal assistance under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), we cannot support the reported bill because it includes provisions that would undermine our federal programs to enhance airport safety, security, and efficiency. 

The major problem with the reported bill is that it makes AIP 

funds available to reimburse airports for towers they have already 

built. The federal government is not indifferent to the benefits of 

these towers. It is giving assistance to these towers by paying the 

costs of operating them. As a condition of this assistance, the airports agreed that, although the federal government would pay the 

costs of operating the towers, the government would not pay the 

costs of constructing the towers. The bill ordered reported by the 

Committee would allow airports to abandon their side of the agreement and obtain reimbursement for construction. 

Moreover, use of limited AIP funds for reimbursement of work already done would make these funds unavailable for safety and security needs. Funds used for reimbursement would not be available 

for the $252 million in safety, security, and capacity needs currently requested by the 26 airports potentially eligible for reimbursement. The needed improvements include airport enhancements to augment security in response to September 11; improvements to bring runway safety areas up to full Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards; improvements to protect aircraft and passengers in the event an aircraft inadvertently leaves 

the runway; runway and taxiway construction to reduce the incidence of runway incursions; reconstruction of critical airfield pavements to maintain existing airport capacity; and construction of 

new or expanded runways and taxiways to increase capacity. 

A further problem with the report bill is that it does not require 

airports seeking reimbursement to have complied with all of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to an AIP 

project. This means that, under the bill, there can be reimbursement for construction that did not comply with such laws as the 

Fair Labor Standards Act or the Uniform Relocation Act. The result will be two classes of contract towers: those that were built in 

compliance with federal law, and those that were not, but get a 

windfall nonetheless. 

No precedent exists for reimbursement for projects that were not 

eligible for AIP when they were constructed. Reimbursement for 

towers establishes a terrible precedent when we are faced with 

enormous security, safety, and capacity needs, and available resources are limited by the pressures on the federal budget created 

by reduced revenues and the added expenses of the war on terrorism. 

16

1The reported bill also permits the use of AIP entitlement funds to reimburse airport sponsors 

for the cost of acquiring and installing air traffic control, communications and related equipment 

that was installed after October 1, 1996. Because equipment was an ineligible AIP-project, FAA 

has no records or projections on the amount of entitlement funds necessary to reimburse those 

costs. Nevertheless, it would be an additional drain on the AIP program that would prevent security, safety, and capacity-enhancements to the NAS. 

In Committee, Congressman Oberstar offered an amendment to 

strike the reimbursement provisions and correct the flaws in the 

overall bill. The amendment was rejected 35 to 34, on a party-line 

vote. 

1. REIMBURSEMENT FOR PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED PROJECTS

UNDERMINES THE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The Airport Improvement Program was designed to enhance the 

safety, security, and efficiency of our National Airport System 

(NAS). It is a forward-looking program that encourages airports to 

grow in a manner that benefits local communities as well as the 

NAS. Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have a responsibility not only to their constituent airports, 

but also to the NAS as a whole. Improvements, or the lack thereof, 

of one airport impact the security, safety, and efficiency of the 

NAS. 

The reported bill, however, would undermine the purpose of AIP 

and, as a result, delay security, safety and efficiency enhancements 

to the NAS. The reported bill allows scarce AIP resources to be 

used to provide reimbursement to airport sponsors that built or 

equipped contract towers between October 1, 1996, and the 

present—when these towers were not AIP eligible and the airports 

did not have any reasonable expectations of reimbursement. The 

funds used to reimburse airports for non-eligible AIP projects will 

not be available for new projects that would enhance security, safety, and capacity, including necessary projects already identified by 

the airport sponsors seeking reimbursement. 

A. TWENTY-SIX AIRPORTS, $252 MILLION IN AIRPORT SPONSOR- IDENTIFIED NEEDS

Under the reimbursement provision of the reported bill, 26 airports would be eligible to seek reimbursement for the costs of contract towers previously built and paid for. The FAA has advised 

that, on average, the federal share of each of these towers would 

reach the $1.1 million ceiling specified in the bill. If all 26 airports 

applied for reimbursement, a total of $28.6 million would be used 

for work already completed.1 These funds would be unavailable to 

finance future security, safety, and capacity-enhancing airport capital projects at the 26 airports potentially eligible for reimbursement for contract towers built since 1996. 

Indeed, these 26 airports have identified and requested from the 

FAA a total of $252 million in federal funding for future AIP-eligible projects in the National Plan for Integrated Airports (NPIAS). 

The NPIAS lists the infrastructure development projects eligible for 

federal aid that will be required over a five-year period to meet the 

needs of all segments of civil aviation. 

Among the 26 airports’ requests are $6.3 million in AIP-eligible 

security projects, including access control, perimeter fencing, patrol 

17

vehicles, infrared cameras, closed circuit monitors, terminal modifications, blast analyses and berm construction—all needed in the 

wake of the horrific events of September 11. Necessary safety enhancements for which these 26 airports are seeking future funding 

include the installation and rehabilitation of lighting systems, acquisition of deicing systems and snow removal equipment, installation of weather reporting equipment, installation of wildlife fencing, beacon replacement, rehabilitation and relocation, and installation of runway visual guidance systems. Capacity-enhancing 

projects for which future funding is requested by the 26 airport 

sponsors include runway extensions, taxiway rehabilitations, apron 

expansions, and construction of cargo aprons and GA taxiways. 

The majority (17) of the 26 airports receive a maximum of 

$150,000 per year in entitlement funds, authorized by our Committee in AIR 21, etc. If these airports seek full reimbursement of 

$1.1 million for building their towers, they will be using their entitlement funds for the next seven years. During this time, the entitlement funds will not be available for new projects to enhance 

safety and security. 

B. NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF REIMBURSEMENT

Under the contract tower program, the FAA pays the cost of operating the tower. At the time the 26 towers were built, FAA did 

not have authority to use AIP funds to reimburse the airports for 

the costs of constructing the towers. When airports entered the contract tower program, they agreed that funding for construction of 

the contract tower was not part of the deal; thus, they had no expectation of reimbursement. 

The contract for the program expressly stated that construction 

of a tower was not part of the Contract Tower program. When the 

individual airport sponsor applied to participate in the Contract 

Tower program, it received a letter that stated:

The program provides for air traffic control (ATC) services only; tower construction is outside the scope of the 

program.

Once accepted into the Contract Tower program, these airports 

signed a ‘‘Contract Airport Traffic Control Tower Operating Agreement’’ that plainly stated:

In consideration of the air traffic control (ATC) service 

being provided to the Airport Sponsor by the Government 

at [the airport], the Airport Sponsor agrees to the following 

terms and conditions at no cost to the Government: 1. The 

Airport Sponsor shall provide an airport traffic control 

tower (ATCT) structure meeting all applicable state and 

local standards * * * (emphasis added)

Thus, 26 airport sponsors had full knowledge that the contract 

towers were ineligible for AIP funding when the towers were built. 

If Congress were to pass the reported bill, which would be contrary 

to the unambiguous agreements between the airport sponsor and 

the FAA Contract Tower Program, we would call into question any 

contract or agreement the FAA has entered or will enter into with 

any airport sponsor. During the next AIP reauthorization debate, 

18

we would be likely to find ourselves debating reimbursement for 

other types of non-eligible AIP projects or for the non-federal share 

of an AIP-project that a sponsor agreed to pay. 

The supporters of reimbursement argue that, by failing to reimburse the airports for the non-AIP-eligible contract towers, Congress will ‘‘penalize’’ them for taking the risk to build contract towers, which have enhanced air safety. While we applaud the airports 

for their foresight and proactive steps to enhance safety, federal 

funding is limited and cannot be expected to fund every safety, security, and capacity-enhancement project. It is not a ‘‘penalty’’ to 

ask an airport to live up to the terms of an agreement it entered 

into voluntarily, to obtain federal funding for the costs of operating 

a tower. 

The continued success of the United States aviation system is dependent on a partnership between the airport sponsors, local authorities, and the federal government—with each party contributing its fair share. By providing reimbursement for these non-eligible projects, Congress will undermine the willingness of airport 

sponsors to enhance safety and security without an expectation of 

federal funding. Federal funds are not infinite; some burden must 

continue to fall on airport sponsors to fund projects and ensure 

safety and security for their communities and users. 

C. SOME TOWERS FAILED TO MEET BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS FOR FULL

FEDERAL FUNDING OF CONTROLLERS

At least five of the Contract Towers potentially eligible for reimbursement do not meet the benefit/cost ratio for full funding of the 

expenses of operating the tower. These airports agreed not only to 

build the tower but to also pay some of the costs of the controllers 

because the benefits from safety and efficiency were less than the 

upfront investment and on-going operating costs for the expense of 

operating the tower. If the benefits of the tower are limited such 

that the federal government is unwilling to pay the entire cost of 

operation, why should the government retroactively pay the cost of 

constructing the tower? 

2. THE REPORTED BILL EXEMPTS PROJECTS FROM AIP STATUTORY

AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

The reported bill only requires an airport to demonstrate that it 

complied with Davis Bacon, Small Business, and Veterans Preference requirements, but not the rest of the statutory and administrative requirements, which govern AIP projects, including the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act, National Historic Preservation 

Act, Age Discrimination Act, Copeland Antikickback Act, and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. This means that contract towers constructed prior to becoming AIP-eligible would be reimbursed with AIP funds, but subject to lower standards than all 

other AIP projects, including new contract towers built pursuant to 

the reported bill. 

19

3. THE REPORTED BILL INCLUDES NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE

REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS BE USED FOR AN AIP-ELIGIBLE PROJECT

The reported bill places no restriction or requirement on the use 

of the reimbursement funds. With the 26 airports potentially eligible for reimbursement having identified and sought funding for 

$252 million in future AIP work, it would be irresponsible for this 

Committee and for Congress as a whole to permit airport sponsors 

to use $28.6 million in federal reimbursement funds for anything 

other than their identified safety, security, and capacity needs.

CONCLUSION

There is no precedent in existing law for providing reimbursements with AIP funds for projects that were ineligible for AIP 

funding at the time of construction. Some may try to find a precedent in statutory language added in 1996 (49 U.S.C. 

47110(b)(2)(C)), but that provision looked forward, not backward, to 

ensure that future airport improvement projects, begun after the 

date of enactment, would not be stalled in the event Congress were 

delayed in reauthorizing the AIP program. 

Moreover, the provision in existing law requires the project to 

have been an eligible project at the time the cost was incurred, and 

it requires airport sponsors to have complied with all statutory and 

administrative requirements applicable to AIP projects. Again, the 

reported bill only requires compliance with three of numerous statutory and administrative requirements, and provides reimbursement for towers that were not eligible at the time the cost was incurred without requiring the reimbursement funds to be used for 

future AIP-eligible projects. 

We agree with the forward-looking aspect of the reported bill, 

which permits new construction and equipage of contract towers 

with primary, cargo, and General Aviation entitlement funds, and 

with limited use of state apportionment discretionary funds. 

But, no precedent exists for reimbursement of non-AIP-eligible 

projects, and it is a precedent we are unwilling to establish in an 

era of enormous security, safety and capacity needs, and with federal resources limited by reduced revenues and the expenses of the 

war on terrorism and related domestic security needs. 

We, therefore, oppose the reported bill.

JIM OBERSTAR. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI. JERRY F. COSTELLO. ROBERT MENENDEZ. 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS. 

MICHAEL M. HONDA. 

SHELLEY BERKLEY. 

RICK LARSEN. 

FRANK MASCARA. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

NICK RAHALL. 

CORRINE BROWN. 

BRIAN BAIRD. 

TIM HOLDEN. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. 

20

BOB CLEMENT. LEONARD L. BOSWELL. JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD. MARION BERRY. BOB BORSKI. BILL PASCRELL, Jr. 

BRAD CARSON. NICK LAMPSON. JOHN BALDACCI. ELLEN TAUSCHER. JIM MCGOVERN. MAX SANDLIN. BOB FILNER. ELEANOR H. NORTON. JIM MATHESON. JIM BARCIA.

Æ