I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 592

To expand aviation capacity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. KIRK, Mr. COSTELLO, 

Mr. EMANUEL, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. 

SHIMKUS, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. EVANS, and Mr. BOSWELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To expand aviation capacity.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Aviation Ca5 pacity Expansion Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) O’Hare International Airport consistently 

9 ranks as the Nation’s first or second busiest airport 

10 with nearly 34,000,000 annual passengers 
2

•HR 592 IH 

1 enplanements, almost all of whom travel in inter2 state or foreign commerce. The Federal Aviation Ad3 ministration’s most recent data, compiled in the Air4 port Capacity Benchmark Report 2001, projects de5 mand at O’Hare to grow by 18 percent over the next 

6 decade. O’Hare handles 72,100,000 passengers an7 nually, compared with 64,600,000 at London 

8 Heathrow International Airport, Europe’s busiest 

9 airport, and 36,700,000 at Kimpo International Air10 port, Korea’s busiest airport, 7,400,000 at Narita 

11 International Airport, Japan’s busiest airport, 

12 23,700,000 at Kingsford-Smith International Air13 port, Australia’s busiest airport, and 6,200,000 at 

14 Ezeiza International Airport, Argentina’s busiest 

15 airport, as well as South America’s busiest airport. 

16 (2) The Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 

17 2001 ranks O’Hare as the third most delayed air18 port in the United States. Overall, slightly more 

19 than 6 percent of all flights at O’Hare are delayed 

20 significantly (more than 15 minutes). On good 

21 weather days, scheduled traffic is at or above capacity for 31 22 ⁄2 hours of the day with about 2 percent 

23 of flights at O’Hare delayed significantly. In adverse 

24 weather, capacity is lower and scheduled traffic ex-
3

•HR 592 IH 

1 ceeds capacity for 8 hours of the day, with about 12 

2 percent of the flights delayed. 

3 (3) The city of Chicago, Illinois, which owns 

4 and operates O’Hare, has been unable to pursue 

5 projects to increase the operating capability of 

6 O’Hare runways and thereby reduce delays because 

7 the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois have 

8 been unable for more than 20 years to agree on a 

9 plan for runway reconfiguration and development. 

10 State law states that such projects at O’Hare re11 quire State approval. 

12 (4) On December 5, 2001, the Governor of Illi13 nois and the Mayor of Chicago reached an agree14 ment to allow the city to go forward with a proposed 

15 capacity enhancement project for O’Hare which in16 volves redesign of the airport’s runway configura17 tion. 

18 (5) In furtherance of such agreement, the city, 

19 with approval of the State, applied for and received 

20 a master-planning grant from the Federal Aviation 

21 Administration for the capacity enhancement 

22 project. 

23 (6) The agreement between the city and the 

24 State is not binding on future Governors of Illinois. 
4

•HR 592 IH 

1 (7) Future Governors of Illinois could stop the 

2 O’Hare capacity enhancement project by refusing to 

3 issue a certificate required for such project under 

4 the Illinois Aeronautics Act, or by refusing to submit 

5 airport improvement grant requests for the project, 

6 or by improperly administering the State implemen7 tation plan process under the Clean Air Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) to prevent construction and op9 eration of the project. 

10 (8) The city of Chicago is unwilling to continue 

11 to go forward with the project without assurance 

12 that future Governors of Illinois will not be able to 

13 stop the project, thereby endangering the value of 

14 the investment of city and Federal resources in the 

15 project. 

16 (9) Because of the importance of O’Hare to the 

17 national air transportation system and the growing 

18 congestion at the airport and because of the expendi19 ture of Federal funds for a master-planning grant 

20 for expansion of capacity at O’Hare, it is important 

21 to the national air transportation system, interstate 

22 commerce, and the efficient expenditure of Federal 

23 funds, that the city of Chicago’s proposals to the

24 Federal Aviation Administration have an oppor25 tunity to be considered for Federal approval and 
5

•HR 592 IH 

1 possible funding, that the city’s requests for changes 

2 to the State implementation plan to allow such 

3 projects not be denied arbitrarily, and that, if the 

4 Federal Aviation Administration approves the 

5 project and funding for a portion of its cost, the city 

6 can implement and use the project. 

7 (10) Any application submitted by the city of 

8 Chicago for expansion of O’Hare should be evalu9 ated by the Federal Aviation Administration and 

10 other Federal agencies under all applicable Federal 

11 laws and regulations and should be approved only if 

12 the application meets all requirements imposed by 

13 such laws and regulations. 

14 (11) As part of the agreement between the city 

15 and the State allowing the city to submit an applica16 tion for improvement of O’Hare, there has been an 

17 agreement for the continued operation of Merrill C. 

18 Meigs Field by the city, and it has also been agreed 

19 that, if the city does not follow the agreement on 

20 Meigs Field, Federal airport improvement program 

21 funds should be withheld from the city for O’Hare. 

22 (12) To facilitate implementation of the agree23 ment allowing the city to submit an application for 

24 O’Hare, it is desirable to require by law that Fed25 eral airport improvement program funds for O’Hare 
6

•HR 592 IH 

1 be administered to require continued operation of 

2 Merrill C. Meigs Field by the city, as proposed in 

3 the agreement. 

4 (13) To facilitate implementation of the agree5 ment allowing the city to submit an application for 

6 O’Hare, it is desirable to enact into law provisions 

7 of the agreement relating to noise and public road8 way access. These provisions are not inconsistent 

9 with Federal law. 

10 (14) If the Federal Aviation Administration ap11 proves an airport layout plan for O’Hare directly re12 lated to the agreement reached on December 5, 

13 2001, such approvals will constitute an action of the 

14 United States under Federal law and will be an im15 portant first step in the process by which the Gov16 ernment could decide that these plans should receive 

17 Federal assistance under chapter 471 of title 49, 

18 United States Code, relating to airport development. 

19 (15) The agreement between the State of Illi20 nois and the city of Chicago includes agreement that 

21 the construction of an airport in Peotone, Illinois, 

22 would be proposed by the State to the Federal Avia23 tion Administration. Like the O’Hare expansion pro24 posal, the Peotone proposal should receive full con25 sideration by the Federal Aviation Administration 
7

•HR 592 IH 

1 under standard procedures for approving and fund2 ing an airport improvement project, including all ap3 plicable safety, utility and efficiency, and environ4 mental review. 

5 (16) Gary/Chicago Airport in Gary, Indiana, 

6 and the Greater Rockford Airport, Illinois, may al7 leviate congestion and provide additional capacity in 

8 the greater Chicago metropolitan region. Like the 

9 O’Hare airport expansion proposal, expansion efforts 

10 by Gary/Chicago and Greater Rockford airports 

11 should receive full consideration by the Federal 

12 Aviation Administration under standard procedures 

13 for approving and funding an airport capacity im14 provement project, including all applicable safety, 

15 utility and efficiency, and environmental reviews. 

16 SEC. 3. STATE, CITY, AND FAA AUTHORITY. 

17 (a) PROHIBITION.—In furtherance of the purpose of 

18 this Act to achieve significant air transportation benefits 

19 for interstate and foreign commerce, if the Federal Avia20 tion Administration makes, or at any time after December 

21 5, 2001 has made, a grant to the city of Chicago, Illinois, 

22 with the approval of the State of Illinois for planning or 

23 construction of runway improvements at O’Hare Inter24 national Airport, the State of Illinois, and any instrumen25 tality or political subdivision of the State, are prohibited 
8

•HR 592 IH 

1 from exercising authority under sections 38.01, 47, and 

2 48 of the Illinois Aeronautics Act (620 ILCS 5/) to pre3 vent, or have the effect of preventing—

4 (1) further consideration by the Federal Avia5 tion Administration of an O’Hare airport layout 

6 plan directly related to the agreement reached by the 

7 State and the city on December 5, 2001, with re8 spect to O’Hare; 

9 (2) construction of projects approved by the Ad10 ministration in such O’Hare airport layout plan; or 

11 (3) application by the city of Chicago for Fed12 eral airport improvement program funding for 

13 projects approved by the Administration and shown 

14 on such O’Hare airport layout plan. 

15 (b) APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.—Not16 withstanding any other provision of law, the city of Chi17 cago is authorized to submit directly to the Federal Avia18 tion Administration without the approval of the State of 

19 Illinois, applications for Federal airport improvement pro20 gram funding for planning and construction of a project 

21 shown on an O’Hare airport layout plan directly related 

22 to the agreement reached on December 5, 2001, and to

23 accept, receive, and disburse such funds without the ap24 proval of the State of Illinois. 
9

•HR 592 IH 

1 (c) LIMITATION.—If the Federal Aviation Adminis2 tration determines that an O’Hare airport layout plan di3 rectly related to the agreement reached on December 5, 

4 2001, will not be approved by the Administration, sub5 sections (a) and (b) of this section shall expire and be of 

6 no further effect on the date of such determination. 

7 (d) WESTERN PUBLIC ROADWAY ACCESS.—As pro8 vided in the December 5, 2001, agreement referred to in 

9 subsection (a), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

10 Administration shall not consider an airport layout plan 

11 submitted by the city of Chicago that includes the runway 

12 redesign plan, unless the airport layout plan includes pub13 lic roadway access through the existing western boundary 

14 of O’Hare to passenger terminal and parking facilities lo15 cated inside the boundary of O’Hare and reasonably acces16 sible to such western access. Approval of western public 

17 roadway access shall be subject to the condition that the 

18 cost of construction be paid for from airport revenues con19 sistent with Administration revenue use requirements. 

20 (e) NOISE MITIGATION.—As provided in the Decem21 ber 5, 2001, agreement referred to in subsection (a), the 

22 following apply: 

23 (1) Approval by the Administrator of an airport 

24 layout plan that includes the runway redesign plan 

25 shall require the city of Chicago to offer acoustical 
10

•HR 592 IH 

1 treatment of all single-family houses and schools lo2 cated within the 65 DNL noise contour for each 

3 construction phase of the runway redesign plan, sub4 ject to Administration guidelines and specifications 

5 of general applicability. The Administrator may not 

6 approve the runway redesign plan unless the city 

7 provides the Administrator with information suffi8 cient to demonstrate that the acoustical treatment 

9 required by this paragraph is feasible. 

10 (2)(A) Approval by the Administrator of an air11 port layout plan that includes the runway redesign 

12 plan shall be subject to the condition that noise im13 pact of aircraft operations at O’Hare in the calendar 

14 year immediately following the year in which the 

15 first new runway is first used and in each calendar 

16 year thereafter will be less than the noise impact in 

17 calendar year 2000. 

18 (B) The Administrator shall make the deter19 mination described in subparagraph (A)—

20 (i) using, to the extent practicable, the pro21 cedures specified in part 150 of title 14, Code 

22 of Federal Regulations; 

23 (ii) using the same method for calendar 

24 year 2000 and for each forecast year; and 
11

•HR 592 IH 

1 (iii) by determining noise impact solely in 

2 terms of the aggregate number of square miles 

3 and the aggregate number of single-family 

4 houses and schools exposed to 65 or greater 

5 decibels using the DNL metric, including only 

6 single-family houses and schools in existence on 

7 the last day of calendar year 2000. The Admin8 istrator shall make such determination based on 

9 information provided by the city of Chicago, 

10 which shall be independently verified by the Ad11 ministrator. 

12 (C) The conditions described in this subsection 

13 shall be enforceable exclusively through the submis14 sion and approval of a noise compatibility plan 

15 under part 150 of title 14, Code of Federal Regula16 tions. The noise compatibility plan submitted by the 

17 city of Chicago shall provide for compliance with this 

18 subsection. The Administrator shall approve meas19 ures sufficient for compliance with this subsection in 

20 accordance with procedures under such part 150. 

21 The United States shall have no financial responsi22 bility or liability if operations at O’Hare in any year 

23 do not satisfy the conditions in this subsection. 

24 (f) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—If the runway redesign 

25 plan described in this section has not received all Federal, 
12

•HR 592 IH 

1 State, and local permits and approvals necessary to begin 

2 construction by December 31, 2004, the Administrator 

3 shall submit a status report to the Committee on Com4 merce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 

5 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

6 House of Representatives within 120 days of such date 

7 identifying each permit and approval necessary for the 

8 project and the status of each such action. 

9 (g) JUDICIAL REVIEW.— An order issued by the Ad10 ministrator, in whole or in part, under this section shall 

11 be deemed to be an order issued under part A of subtitle 

12 VII of title 49, United States Code, and shall be reviewed 

13 in accordance with the procedure in section 46110 of such 

14 title. 

15 (h) DEFINITION.—In this section, the terms ‘‘airport 

16 layout plan directly related to the agreement reached on 

17 December 5, 2001’’ and ‘‘such airport layout plan’’ mean 

18 a plan that shows—

19 (1) 6 parallel runways at O’Hare oriented in 

20 the east-west direction with the capability for 4 si21 multaneous independent visual aircraft arrivals in 

22 both directions, and all associated taxiways, naviga23 tional facilities, and other related facilities; and

24 (2) closure of existing runways 14L–32R, 14R–

25 32L and 18–36 at O’Hare. 
13

•HR 592 IH 

1 SEC. 4. CLEAN AIR ACT. 

2 (a) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—An implementation 

3 plan shall be prepared by the State of Illinois under the 

4 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) in accordance with 

5 the State’s customary practices for accounting for and 

6 regulating emissions associated with activity at commer7 cial service airports. The State shall not deviate from its 

8 customary practices under the Clean Air Act for the pur9 pose of interfering with the construction of a runway pur10 suant to the redesign plan or the south surburban airport. 

11 At the request of the Administrator of the Federal Avia12 tion Administration, the Administrator of the Environ13 mental Protection Agency shall, in consultation with the 

14 Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, de15 termine that the foregoing condition has been satisfied be16 fore approving an implementation plan. Nothing in this 

17 section shall be construed to affect the obligations of the 

18 State under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 

19 U.S.C. 7506(c)). 

20 (b) LIMITATION ON APPROVAL.—The Administrator 

21 of the Federal Aviation Administration shall not approve 

22 the runway redesign plan unless the Administrator of the 

23 Federal Aviation Administration determines that the con24 struction and operation will include, to the maximum ex25 tent feasible, the best management practices then reason26 ably available to and used by operators of commercial serv-
14

•HR 592 IH 

1 ice airports to mitigate emissions regulated under the im2 plementation plan. 

3 SEC. 5. MERRILL C. MEIGS FIELD. 

4 The State of Illinois and the city of Chicago, Illinois, 

5 have agreed to the following: 

6 (1) Until January 1, 2026, the Administrator 

7 of the Federal Aviation Administration shall with8 hold all Federal airport grant funds respecting 

9 O’Hare International Airport, other than grants in10 volving national security and safety, unless the Ad11 ministrator is reasonably satisfied that the following 

12 conditions have been met: 

13 (A) Merrill C. Meigs Field in Chicago ei14 ther is being operated by the city of Chicago as 

15 an airport or has been closed by the Adminis16 tration for reasons beyond the city’s control. 

17 (B) The city of Chicago is providing, at its 

18 own expense, all off-airport roads and other ac19 cess, services, equipment, and other personal 

20 property that the city provided in connection 

21 with the operation of Meigs Field on and prior 

22 to December 1, 2001. 

23 (C) The city of Chicago is operating Meigs 

24 Field, at its own expense, at all times as a pub25 lic airport in good condition and repair open to 
15

•HR 592 IH 

1 all users capable of utilizing the airport and is 

2 maintaining the airport for such public oper3 ations at least from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. 

4 7 days a week whenever weather conditions per5 mit. 

6 (D) The city of Chicago is providing or 

7 causing its agents or independent contractors to 

8 provide all services (including police and fire 

9 protection services) provided or offered at Meigs 

10 Field on or immediately prior to December 1, 

11 2001, including tie-down, terminal, refueling, 

12 and repair services, at rates that reflect actual 

13 costs of providing such goods and services. 

14 (2) If Meigs Field is closed by the Administra15 tion for reasons beyond the city of Chicago’s control, 

16 the conditions described in subparagraphs (B) 

17 through (D) of paragraph (1) shall not apply. 

18 (3) After January 1, 2006, the Administrator 

19 shall not withhold Federal airport grant funds to the 

20 extent the Administrator determines that with21 holding of such funds would create an unreasonable 

22 burden on interstate commerce. 

23 (4) The Administrator shall not enforce the 

24 conditions listed in paragraph (1) if the State of Illi-
16

•HR 592 IH 

1 nois enacts a law on or after January 1, 2006, au2 thorizing the closure of Meigs Field. 

3 (5) Net operating losses resulting from oper4 ation of Meigs Field, to the extent consistent with 

5 law, are expected to be paid by the 2 air carriers at 

6 O’Hare International Airport that paid the highest 

7 amount of airport fees and charges at O’Hare Inter8 national Airport for the preceding calendar year. 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the city 

10 of Chicago may use airport revenues generated at 

11 O’Hare International Airport to fund the operation 

12 of Meigs Field. 

13 SEC. 6. APPLICATION WITH EXISTING LAW. 

14 Nothing in this Act shall give any priority to or affect 

15 availability or amounts of funds under chapter 471 of title 

16 49, United States Code, to pay the costs of O’Hare Inter17 national Airport, improvements shown on an airport lay18 out plan directly related to the agreement reached by the 

19 State of Illinois and the city of Chicago, Illinois, on De20 cember 5, 2001. 

21 SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON QUIET AIRCRAFT TECH22 NOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. 

23 It is the sense of the Congress that the Office of En24 vironment and Energy of the Federal Aviation Adminis25 tration should be funded to carry out noise mitigation pro-
17

•HR 592 IH 

1 gramming and quiet aircraft technology research and de2 velopment at a level of $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 

3 and $47,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.

Æ