volves redesign of the airport’s runway configura-
tion.
(5) In furtherance of such agreement, the city,
with approval of the State, applied for and received
a master-planning grant from the Federal Aviation
Administration 
for 
the 
capacity 
enhancement
project.
(6) The agreement between the city and the
State is not binding on future Governors of Illinois.
(7) Future Governors of Illinois could stop the
O’Hare capacity enhancement project by refusing to
issue a certificate required for such project under
the Illinois Aeronautics Act, or by refusing to submit
airport improvement grant requests for the project,
or by improperly administering the State implemen-
tation plan process under the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) to prevent construction and op-
eration of the project.
(8) The city of Chicago is unwilling to continue
to go forward with the project without assurance
that future Governors of Illinois will not be able to
stop the project, thereby endangering the value of
the investment of city and Federal resources in the
project.
(9) Because of the importance of O’Hare to the
national air transportation system and the growing
congestion at the airport and because of the expendi-
ture of Federal funds for a master-planning grant
for expansion of capacity at O’Hare, it is important
to the national air transportation system, interstate
commerce, and the efficient expenditure of Federal
funds, that the city of Chicago’s proposals to the
Federal Aviation Administration have an oppor-
tunity to be considered for Federal approval and
possible funding, that the city’s requests for changes
to the State implementation plan to allow such
projects not be denied arbitrarily, and that, if the
Federal 
Aviation 
Administration 
approves 
the
project and funding for a portion of its cost, the city
can implement and use the project.
(10) Any application submitted by the city of
Chicago for expansion of O’Hare should be evalu-
ated by the Federal Aviation Administration and
other Federal agencies under all applicable Federal
laws and regulations and should be approved only if
the application meets all requirements imposed by
such laws and regulations.
(11) As part of the agreement between the city
and the State allowing the city to submit an applica-
tion for improvement of O’Hare, there has been an
agreement for the continued operation of Merrill C.
Meigs Field by the city, and it has also been agreed
that, if the city does not follow the agreement on
Meigs Field, Federal airport improvement program
funds should be withheld from the city for O’Hare.
(12) To facilitate implementation of the agree-
ment allowing the city to submit an application for
O’Hare, it is desirable to require by law that Fed-
eral airport improvement program funds for O’Hare
be administered to require continued operation of
Merrill C. Meigs Field by the city, as proposed in
the agreement.
(13) To facilitate implementation of the agree-
ment allowing the city to submit an application for
O’Hare, it is desirable to enact into law provisions
of the agreement relating to noise and public road-
way access. These provisions are not inconsistent
with Federal law.
(14) If the Federal Aviation Administration ap-
proves an airport layout plan for O’Hare directly re-
lated to the agreement reached on December 5,
2001, such approvals will constitute an action of the
United States under Federal law and will be an im-
portant first step in the process by which the Gov-
ernment could decide that these plans should receive
Federal assistance under chapter 471 of title 49,
United States Code, relating to airport development.
(15) The agreement between the State of Illi-
nois and the city of Chicago includes agreement that
the construction of an airport in Peotone, Illinois,
would be proposed by the State to the Federal Avia-
tion Administration. Like the O’Hare expansion pro-
posal, the Peotone proposal should receive full con-
sideration by the Federal Aviation Administration
under standard procedures for approving and fund-
ing an airport improvement project, including all ap-
plicable safety, utility and efficiency, and environ-
mental review.
(16) Gary/Chicago Airport in Gary, Indiana,
and the Greater Rockford Airport, Illinois, may al-
leviate congestion and provide additional capacity in
the greater Chicago metropolitan region. Like the
O’Hare airport expansion proposal, expansion efforts
by Gary/Chicago and Greater Rockford airports
should receive full consideration by the Federal
Aviation Administration under standard procedures
for approving and funding an airport capacity im-
provement project, including all applicable safety,
utility and efficiency, and environmental reviews.
SEC. 103. STATE, CITY, AND FAA AUTHORITY.
(a) PROHIBITION.—In furtherance of the purpose of
this Act to achieve significant air transportation benefits
for interstate and foreign commerce, if the Federal Avia-
tion Administration makes, or at any time after December
5, 2001 has made, a grant to the city of Chicago, Illinois,
with the approval of the State of Illinois for planning or
construction of runway improvements at O’Hare Inter-
national Airport, the State of Illinois, and any instrumen-
tality or political subdivision of the State, are prohibited
from exercising authority under sections 38.01, 47, and
48 of the Illinois Aeronautics Act (620 ILCS 5/) to pre-
vent, or have the effect of preventing—
(1) further consideration by the Federal Avia-
tion Administration of an O’Hare airport layout
plan directly related to the agreement reached by the
State and the city on December 5, 2001, with re-
spect to O’Hare;
(2) construction of projects approved by the Ad-
ministration in such O’Hare airport layout plan; or
(3) application by the city of Chicago for Fed-
eral airport improvement program funding for
projects approved by the Administration and shown
on such O’Hare airport layout plan.
(b) APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.—Not-
withstanding any other provision of law, the city of Chi-
cago is authorized to submit directly to the Federal Avia-
tion Administration without the approval of the State of
Illinois, applications for Federal airport improvement pro-
gram funding for planning and construction of a project
shown on an O’Hare airport layout plan directly related
to the agreement reached on December 5, 2001, and to
accept, receive, and disburse such funds without the ap-
proval of the State of Illinois.
(c) LIMITATION.—If the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration determines that an O’Hare airport layout plan di-
rectly related to the agreement reached on December 5,
2001, will not be approved by the Administration, sub-
sections (a) and (b) of this section shall expire and be of
no further effect on the date of such determination.
(d) WESTERN PUBLIC ROADWAY ACCESS.—As pro-
vided in the December 5, 2001, agreement referred to in
subsection (a), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall not consider an airport layout plan
submitted by the city of Chicago that includes the runway
redesign plan, unless the airport layout plan includes pub-
lic roadway access through the existing western boundary
of O’Hare to passenger terminal and parking facilities lo-
cated inside the boundary of O’Hare and reasonably acces-
sible to such western access. Approval of western public
roadway access shall be subject to the condition that the
cost of construction be paid for from airport revenues con-
sistent with Administration revenue use requirements.
(e) NOISE MITIGATION.—As provided in the Decem-
ber 5, 2001, agreement referred to in subsection (a), the
following apply:
(1) Approval by the Administrator of an airport
layout plan that includes the runway redesign plan
shall require the city of Chicago to offer acoustical
treatment of all single-family houses and schools lo-
cated within the 65 DNL noise contour for each
construction phase of the runway redesign plan, sub-
ject to Administration guidelines and specifications
of general applicability. The Administrator may not
approve the runway redesign plan unless the city
provides the Administrator with information suffi-
cient to demonstrate that the acoustical treatment
required by this paragraph is feasible.
(2)(A) Approval by the Administrator of an air-
port layout plan that includes the runway redesign
plan shall be subject to the condition that noise im-
pact of aircraft operations at O’Hare in the calendar
year immediately following the year in which the
first new runway is first used and in each calendar
year thereafter will be less than the noise impact in
calendar year 2000.
ures sufficient for compliance with this subsection in
accordance with procedures under such part 150.
The United States shall have no financial responsi-
bility or liability if operations at O’Hare in any year
do not satisfy the conditions in this subsection.
(f) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—If the runway redesign
plan described in this section has not received all Federal,
State, and local permits and approvals necessary to begin
construction by December 31, 2004, the Administrator
shall submit a status report to the Committee on Com-
merce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives within 120 days of such date
identifying each permit and approval necessary for the
project and the status of each such action.
(g) JUDICIAL REVIEW.— An order issued by the Ad-
ministrator, in whole or in part, under this section shall
be deemed to be an order issued under part A of subtitle
VII of title 49, United States Code, and shall be reviewed
in accordance with the procedure in section 46110 of such
title.
(h) DEFINITION.—In this section, the terms ‘‘airport
layout plan directly related to the agreement reached on
December 5, 2001’’ and ‘‘such airport layout plan’’ mean
a plan that shows—
(1) 6 parallel runways at O’Hare oriented in
the east-west direction with the capability for 4 si-
multaneous independent visual aircraft arrivals in
both directions, and all associated taxiways, naviga-
tional facilities, and other related facilities; and
(2) closure of existing runways 14L–32R, 14R–
32L and 18–36 at O’Hare.
SEC. 104. CLEAN AIR ACT.
(a) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—An implementation
plan shall be prepared by the State of Illinois under the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) in accordance with
the State’s customary practices for accounting for and
regulating emissions associated with activity at commer-
cial service airports. The State shall not deviate from its
customary practices under the Clean Air Act for the pur-
pose of interfering with the construction of a runway pur-
suant to the redesign plan or the south surburban airport.
At the request of the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration, the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, de-
termine that the foregoing condition has been satisfied be-
fore approving an implementation plan. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to affect the obligations of the
State under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7506(c)).
(b) LIMITATION ON APPROVAL.—The Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration shall not approve
the runway redesign plan unless the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration determines that the con-
struction and operation will include, to the maximum ex-
tent feasible, the best management practices then reason-
ably available to and used by operators of commercial serv-
ice airports to mitigate emissions regulated under the im-
plementation plan.
SEC. 105. MERRILL C. MEIGS FIELD.
The State of Illinois and the city of Chicago, Illinois,
have agreed to the following:
(1) Until January 1, 2026, the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration shall with-
hold all Federal airport grant funds respecting
O’Hare International Airport, other than grants in-
volving national security and safety, unless the Ad-
ministrator is reasonably satisfied that the following
conditions have been met:
(A) Merrill C. Meigs Field in Chicago ei-
ther is being operated by the city of Chicago as
an airport or has been closed by the Adminis-
tration for reasons beyond the city’s control.
(B) The city of Chicago is providing, at its
own expense, all off-airport roads and other ac-
cess, services, equipment, and other personal
property that the city provided in connection
with the operation of Meigs Field on and prior
to December 1, 2001.
(C) The city of Chicago is operating Meigs
Field, at its own expense, at all times as a pub-
lic airport in good condition and repair open to
all users capable of utilizing the airport and is
maintaining the airport for such public oper-
ations at least from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
7 days a week whenever weather conditions per-
mit.
(D) The city of Chicago is providing or
causing its agents or independent contractors to
provide all services (including police and fire
protection services) provided or offered at Meigs
Field on or immediately prior to December 1,
2001, including tie-down, terminal, refueling,
and repair services, at rates that reflect actual
costs of providing such goods and services.
(2) If Meigs Field is closed by the Administra-
tion for reasons beyond the city of Chicago’s control,
the conditions described in subparagraphs (B)
through (D) of paragraph (1) shall not apply.
(3) After January 1, 2006, the Administrator
shall not withhold Federal airport grant funds to the
extent the Administrator determines that with-
holding of such funds would create an unreasonable
burden on interstate commerce.
(4) The Administrator shall not enforce the
conditions listed in paragraph (1) if the State of Illi-
nois enacts a law on or after January 1, 2006, au-
thorizing the closure of Meigs Field.
(5) Net operating losses resulting from oper-
ation of Meigs Field, to the extent consistent with
law, are expected to be paid by the 2 air carriers at
O’Hare International Airport that paid the highest
amount of airport fees and charges at O’Hare Inter-
national Airport for the preceding calendar year.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the city
of Chicago may use airport revenues generated at
O’Hare International Airport to fund the operation
of Meigs Field.
SEC. 106. APPLICATION WITH EXISTING LAW.
Nothing in this Act shall give any priority to or affect
availability or amounts of funds under chapter 471 of title
49, United States Code, to pay the costs of O’Hare Inter-
national Airport, improvements shown on an airport lay-
out plan directly related to the agreement reached by the
State of Illinois and the city of Chicago, Illinois, on De-
cember 5, 2001.
SEC. 107. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON QUIET AIRCRAFT TECH-
NOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Office of En-
vironment and Energy of the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration should be funded to carry out noise mitigation pro-
gramming and quiet aircraft technology research and de-
velopment at a level of $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2004
and $47,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
TITLE 
II—AIRPORT 
STREAM-
LINING APPROVAL PROCESS
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ‘‘Airport Streamlining
Approval Process Act of 2002’’.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that—
(1) airports play a major role in interstate and
foreign commerce;
(2) congestion and delays at our Nation’s major
airports have a significant negative impact on our
Nation’s economy;
(3) airport capacity enhancement projects at
congested airports are a national priority and should
be constructed on an expedited basis;
(4) airport capacity enhancement projects must
include an environmental review process that pro-
vides local citizenry an opportunity for consideration
of and appropriate action to address environmental
concerns; and
(5) the Federal Aviation Administration, airport
authorities, communities, and other Federal, State,
and local government agencies must work together
to develop a plan, set and honor milestones and
deadlines, and work to protect the environment while
sustaining the economic vitality that will result from
the continued growth of aviation.
SEC. 203. PROMOTION OF NEW RUNWAYS.
Section 40104 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(c) AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
AT CONGESTED AIRPORTS.—In carrying out subsection
(a), the Administrator shall take action to encourage the
construction of airport capacity enhancement projects at
congested airports as those terms are defined in section
47179.’’.
SEC. 204. AIRPORT PROJECT STREAMLINING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 471 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 47153
the following:
‘‘SUBCHAPTER III—AIRPORT PROJECT
STREAMLINING
‘‘§ 47171. DOT as lead agency
‘‘(a) AIRPORT PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS.—The
Secretary of Transportation shall develop and implement
a coordinated review process for airport capacity enhance-
ment projects at congested airports.
‘‘(b) COORDINATED REVIEWS.—The coordinated re-
view process under this section shall provide that all envi-
ronmental reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses,
and approvals that must be issued or made by a Federal
agency or airport sponsor for an airport capacity enhance-
ment project at a congested airport will be conducted con-
currently, to the maximum extent practicable, and com-
pleted within a time period established by the Secretary,
in cooperation with the agencies identified under sub-
section (c) with respect to the project.
‘‘(c) IDENTIFICATION
OF JURISDICTIONAL AGEN-
CIES.—With respect to each airport capacity enhancement
project at a congested airport, the Secretary shall identify,
as soon as practicable, all Federal and State agencies that
may have jurisdiction over environmental-related matters
that may be affected by the project or may be required
by law to conduct an environmental-related review or anal-
ysis of the project or determine whether to issue an envi-
ronmental-related permit, license, or approval for the
project.
‘‘(d) STATE AUTHORITY.—If a coordinated review
process is being implemented under this section by the
Secretary with respect to a project at an airport within
the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent with State
law, may choose to participate in such process and provide
that all State agencies that have jurisdiction over environ-
mental-related matters that may be affected by the project
or may be required by law to conduct an environmental-
related review or analysis of the project or determine
whether to issue an environmental-related permit, license,
or approval for the project, be subject to the process.
‘‘(e) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The co-
ordinated review process developed under this section may
be incorporated into a memorandum of understanding for
a project between the Secretary and the heads of other
Federal and State agencies identified under subsection (c)
with respect to the project and the airport sponsor.
‘‘(f) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—
‘‘(1) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS AND CEQ.—
If the Secretary determines that a Federal agency,
State agency, or airport sponsor that is participating
in a coordinated review process under this section
with respect to a project has not met a deadline es-
tablished under subsection (b) for the project, the
Secretary shall notify, within 30 days of the date of
such determination, the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of Represent-
atives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality, and the agency or sponsor in-
volved about the failure to meet the deadline.
‘‘(2) AGENCY REPORT.—Not later than 30 days
after date of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1),
the agency or sponsor involved shall submit a report
to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Trans-
portation of the Senate, and the Council on Environ-
mental Quality explaining why the agency or sponsor
did not meet the deadline and what actions it in-
tends to take to complete or issue the required re-
view, analysis, opinion, license, or approval.
‘‘(g) PURPOSE AND NEED.—For any environmental
review, analysis, opinion, permit, license, or approval that
must be issued or made by a Federal or State agency that
is participating in a coordinated review process under this
section with respect to an airport capacity enhancement
project at a congested airport and that requires an anal-
ysis of purpose and need for the project, the agency, not-
withstanding any other provision of law, shall be bound
by the project purpose and need as defined by the Sec-
retary.
‘‘(h) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS.—The Secretary shall
determine the reasonable alternatives to an airport capac-
ity enhancement project at a congested airport. Any other
Federal or State agency that is participating in a coordi-
nated review process under this section with respect to the
project shall consider only those alternatives to the project
that the Secretary has determined are reasonable.
‘‘(i) SOLICITATION AND CONSIDERATION OF COM-
MENTS.—In applying subsections (g) and (h), the Sec-
retary shall solicit and consider comments from interested
persons and governmental entities.
‘‘§ 47172. Categorical exclusions
‘‘Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment
of this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall de-
velop and publish a list of categorical exclusions from the
requirement that an environmental assessment or an envi-
ronmental impact statement be prepared under the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) for projects at airports.
‘‘§ 47173. Access restrictions to ease construction
‘‘At the request of an airport sponsor for a congested
airport, the Secretary of Transportation may approve a
restriction on use of a runway to be constructed at the
airport to minimize potentially significant adverse noise
impacts from the runway only if the Secretary determines
that imposition of the restriction—
‘‘(1) is necessary to mitigate those impacts and
expedite construction of the runway;
‘‘(2) is the most appropriate and a cost-effective
measure to mitigate those impacts, taking into con-
sideration any environmental tradeoffs associated
with the restriction; and
‘‘(3) would not adversely affect service to small
communities, adversely affect safety or efficiency of
the national airspace system, unjustly discriminate
against any class of user of the airport, or impose
an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce.
‘‘§ 47174. Airport revenue to pay for mitigation
‘‘(a) 
IN
GENERAL.—Notwithstanding 
section
47107(b), section 47133, or any other provision of this
title, the Secretary of Transportation may allow an airport
sponsor carrying out an airport capacity enhancement
project at a congested airport to make payments, out of
revenues generated at the airport (including local taxes on
aviation fuel), for measures to mitigate the environmental
impacts of the project if the Secretary finds that—
‘‘(1) the mitigation measures are included as
part of, or are consistent with, the preferred alter-
native for the project in the documentation prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
‘‘(2) the use of such revenues will provide a sig-
nificant incentive for, or remove an impediment to,
approval of the project by a State or local govern-
ment; and
‘‘(3) the cost of the mitigation measures is rea-
sonable in relation to the mitigation that will be
achieved.
‘‘(b) MITIGATION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE.—Mitigation
measures described in subsection (a) may include the insu-
lation of residential buildings and buildings used primarily
for educational or medical purposes to mitigate the effects
of aircraft noise and the improvement of such buildings
as required for the insulation of the buildings under local
building codes.
‘‘§ 47175. Airport funding of FAA staff
‘‘(a) 
ACCEPTANCE
OF
SPONSOR-PROVIDED
FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may
accept funds from an airport sponsor, including funds pro-
vided to the sponsor under section 47114(c), to hire addi-
tional staff or obtain the services of consultants in order
to facilitate the timely processing, review, and completion
of environmental activities associated with an airport de-
velopment project.
‘‘(b) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION.—Instead of pay-
ment from an airport sponsor from funds apportioned to
the sponsor under section 47114, the Administrator, with
agreement of the sponsor, may transfer funds that would
otherwise be apportioned to the sponsor under section
47114 to the account used by the Administrator for activi-
ties described in subsection (a).
‘‘(c) RECEIPTS CREDITED AS OFFSETTING COLLEC-
TIONS.—Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, any
funds accepted under this section, except funds trans-
ferred pursuant to subsection (b)—
‘‘(1) shall be credited as offsetting collections to
the account that finances the activities and services
for which the funds are accepted;
‘‘(2) shall be available for expenditure only to
pay the costs of activities and services for which the
funds are accepted; and
‘‘(3) shall remain available until expended.
‘‘(d) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—No funds may be
accepted pursuant to subsection (a), or transferred pursu-
ant to subsection (b), in any fiscal year in which the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration does not allocate at least the
amount it expended in fiscal year 2002, excluding
amounts accepted pursuant to section 337 of the Depart-
ment of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropria-
tions Act, 2002 (115 Stat. 862), for the activities de-
scribed in subsection (a).
‘‘§ 47176. Authorization of appropriations
‘‘In addition to the amounts authorized to be appro-
priated under section 106(k), there is authorized to be ap-
propriated to the Secretary of Transportation, out of the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund established under section
9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
9502), $2,100,000 for fiscal year 2003 and $4,200,000
for each fiscal year thereafter to facilitate the timely proc-
essing, review, and completion of environmental activities
associated with airport capacity enhancement projects at
congested airports.
‘‘§ 47177. Judicial review
‘‘(a) FILING AND VENUE.—A person disclosing a
substantial interest in an order issued by the Secretary
of Transportation or the head of any other Federal agency
under this part or a person or agency relying on any deter-
mination made under this part may apply for review of
the order by filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for
the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal
place of business. The petition must be filed not later than
60 days after the order is issued. The court may allow
the petition to be filed after the 60th day only if there
are reasonable grounds for not filing by the 60th day.
‘‘(b) JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.—When a petition is
filed under subsection (a) of this section, the clerk of the
court immediately shall send a copy of the petition to the
Secretary or the head of any other Federal agency in-
volved. The Secretary or the head of such other agency
shall file with the court a record of any proceeding in
which the order was issued.
‘‘(c) AUTHORITY OF COURT.—When the petition is
sent to the Secretary or the head of any other Federal
agency involved, the court has exclusive jurisdiction to af-
firm, amend, modify, or set aside any part of the order
and may order the Secretary or the head of such other
agency to conduct further proceedings. After reasonable
notice to the Secretary or the head of such other agency,
the court may grant interim relief by staying the order
or taking other appropriate action when good cause for
its action exists. Findings of fact by the Secretary or the
head of such other agency are conclusive if supported by
substantial evidence.
‘‘(d) REQUIREMENT FOR PRIOR OBJECTION.—In re-
viewing an order of the Secretary or the head of any other
Federal agency under this section, the court may consider
an objection to the action of the Secretary or the head
of such other agency only if the objection was made in
the proceeding conducted by the Secretary or the head of
such other agency or if there was a reasonable ground for
not making the objection in the proceeding.
‘‘(e) SUPREME COURT REVIEW.—A decision by a
court under this section may be reviewed only by the Su-
preme Court under section 1254 of title 28.
‘‘(f) ORDER DEFINED.—In this section, the term
‘order’ includes a record of decision or a finding of no sig-
nificant impact.
‘‘§ 47178. Definitions
‘‘In this subchapter, the following definitions apply:
‘‘(1) AIRPORT
SPONSOR.—The term ‘airport
sponsor’ has the meaning given the term ‘sponsor’
under section 47102.
‘‘(2) CONGESTED
AIRPORT.—The term ‘con-
gested airport’ means an airport that accounted for
at least 1 percent of all delayed aircraft operations
in the United States in the most recent year for
which such data is available and an airport listed in
table 1 of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air-
port Capacity Benchmark Report 2001.
‘‘(3) 
AIRPORT
CAPACITY
ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT.—The term ‘airport capacity enhancement
project’ means—
‘‘(A) a project for construction or exten-
sion of a runway, including any land acquisi-
tion, taxiway, or safety area associated with the
runway or runway extension; and
‘‘(B) such other airport development
projects as the Secretary may designate as fa-
cilitating a reduction in air traffic congestion
and delays.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis for
chapter 471 of such title is amended by adding at the end
the following:
‘‘SUBCHAPTER III—AIRPORT PROJECT STREAMLINING
‘‘47171. DOT as lead agency.