IB
Union Calendar No. 341
107TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3479
[Report No. 107–568]
To expand aviation capacity in the Chicago area.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 13, 2001
Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. RUSH,
Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. EVANS, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr.
DEFAZIO, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. PHELPS, Mr. RAHALL, Ms. HOOLEY of Or-
egon, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. FILNER, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr.
BAIRD, Mr. WU, Mr. BORSKI, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. BARCIA, Mr.
LATOURETTE, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr.
HOLDEN, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. HONDA, Mr. KIRK, Mr. NADLER, Ms.
BERKLEY, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. CARSON of
Oklahoma, Mr. HORN, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. ENGEL, Mr.
BALDACCI, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr.
SAWYER, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr.
MENENDEZ, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. DICKS, Mr. HOYER, Mr. BRADY of Penn-
sylvania, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. RODRIGUEZ,
Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr.
SMITH of Washington, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COYNE, Mr.
ETHERIDGE, Mr. MEEHAN, Ms. VELA´ZQUEZ, Mr. MICA, Mr. COOKSEY,
Mr. MASCARA, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. PASTOR, and Mr.
SERRANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
JULY 12, 2002
Additional sponsors: Mr. CRAMER, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. QUINN, Ms. KAPTUR,
Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr.
FROST, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr.
RANGEL, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. HAYES, Mr.
REYES, Mr. BERRY, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. OTTER, Mr. TURNER, Mr.
HALL of Texas, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. BEREUTER,
Mr. NEY, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. REHBERG, Mr.
MCGOVERN, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. MORAN of
Kansas, Mr. GANSKE, Mr. PETRI, Ms. HART, and Mr. BAKER
Deleted sponsors: Mr. SMITH of Washington (added December 13, 2001; de-
leted June 4, 2002) and Mr. KUCINICH (added December 19, 2001; de-
leted April 11, 2002)
JULY 12, 2002
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on December 13, 2001]
A BILL
To expand aviation capacity in the Chicago area.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Aviation Ca-
pacity Expansion Act of 2002’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) O’Hare International Airport consistently
ranks as the Nation’s first or second busiest airport
with 
nearly 
34,000,000 
annual 
passengers
enplanements, almost all of whom travel in inter-state
or foreign commerce. The Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration’s most recent data, compiled in the Airport
Capacity Benchmark Report 2001, projects demand
at O’Hare to grow by 18 percent over the next decade.
O’Hare handles 72,100,000 passengers annually, com-
pared with 64,600,000 at London Heathrow Inter-
national Airport, Europe’s busiest airport, and
36,700,000 at Kimpo International Airport, Korea’s
busiest airport, 7,400,000 at Narita International
Airport, Japan’s busiest airport, 23,700,000 at
Kingsford-Smith International Airport, Australia’s
busiest airport, and 6,200,000 at Ezeiza Inter-
national Airport, Argentina’s busiest airport, as well
as South America’s busiest airport.
(2) The Airport Capacity Benchmark Report
2001 ranks O’Hare as the third most delayed airport
in the United States. Overall, slightly more than 6
percent of all flights at O’Hare are delayed signifi-
cantly (more than 15 minutes). On good weather
days, scheduled traffic is at or above capacity for 31⁄2
hours of the day with about 2 percent of flights at
O’Hare delayed significantly. In adverse weather, ca-
pacity is lower and scheduled traffic exceeds capacity
for 8 hours of the day, with about 12 percent of the
flights delayed.
(3) The city of Chicago, Illinois, which owns and
operates O’Hare, has been unable to pursue projects
to increase the operating capability of O’Hare run-
ways and thereby reduce delays because the city of
Chicago and the State of Illinois have been unable for
more than 20 years to agree on a plan for runway
reconfiguration and development. State law states
that such projects at O’Hare require State approval.
(4) On December 5, 2001, the Governor of Illi-
nois and the Mayor of Chicago reached an agreement
to allow the city to go forward with a proposed capac-
ity enhancement project for O’Hare which involves re-
design of the airport’s runway configuration.
(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 air-
port improvement grant requests for the project, or by
improperly administering the State implementation
plan process under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
et seq.) to prevent construction and operation 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 in-
vestment 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 Fed-
eral Aviation Administration have an opportunity to
be considered for Federal approval and possible fund-
ing, that the city’s requests for changes to the State
implementation plan to allow such projects not be de-
nied 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 evaluated
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 Federal
airport improvement program funds for O’Hare be
administered to require continued operation of Mer-
rill 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 roadway
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 important
first step in the process by which the Government
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 Illinois
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 Aviation Ad-
ministration. Like the O’Hare expansion proposal,
the Peotone proposal should receive full consideration
by the Federal Aviation Administration under stand-
ard procedures for approving and funding an airport
improvement project, including all applicable safety,
utility and efficiency, and environmental 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 Avia-
tion Administration under standard procedures for
approving and funding an airport capacity improve-
ment project, including all applicable safety, utility
and efficiency, and environmental reviews.
SEC. 3. 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 Aviation
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 con-
struction of runway improvements at O’Hare International
Airport, the State of Illinois, and any instrumentality or
political subdivision of the State, are prohibited from exer-
cising authority under sections 38.01, 47, and 48 of the Illi-
nois Aeronautics Act (620 ILCS 5/) to prevent, or have the
effect of preventing—
(1) further consideration by the Federal Aviation
Administration of an O’Hare airport layout plan di-
rectly related to the agreement reached by the State
and the city on December 5, 2001, with respect 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.—Notwith-
standing any other provision of law, the city of Chicago
is authorized to submit directly to the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration without the approval of the State of Illinois,
applications for Federal airport improvement program
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, re-
ceive, and disburse such funds without the approval of the
State of Illinois.
(c) LIMITATION.—If the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion determines that an O’Hare airport layout plan directly
related to the agreement reached on December 5, 2001, will
not be approved by the Administration, subsections (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 December
5, 2001, agreement referred to in subsection (a), the fol-
lowing 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 con-
struction phase of the runway redesign plan, subject
to Administration guidelines and specifications of
general applicability. The Administrator may not ap-
prove the runway redesign plan unless the city pro-
vides the Administrator with information sufficient 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 cal-
endar year 2000.
(B) The Administrator shall make the deter-
mination described in subparagraph (A)—
(i) using, to the extent practicable, the pro-
cedures specified in part 150 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations;
(ii) using the same method for calendar
year 2000 and for each forecast year; and
(iii) by determining noise impact solely in
terms of the aggregate number of square miles
and the aggregate number of single-family houses
and schools exposed to 65 or greater decibels
using the DNL metric, including only single-
family houses and schools in existence on the last
day of calendar year 2000. The Administrator
shall make such determination based on informa-
tion provided by the city of Chicago, which shall
be independently verified by the Administrator.
(C) The conditions described in this subsection
shall be enforceable exclusively through the submission
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 De-
cember 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 simulta-
neous independent visual aircraft arrivals in both di-
rections, and all associated taxiways, navigational fa-
cilities, and other related facilities; and
(2) closure of existing runways 14L–32R, 14R–
32L and 18–36 at O’Hare.
SEC. 4. 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 regu-
lating emissions associated with activity at commercial
service airports. The State shall not deviate from its cus-
tomary practices under the Clean Air Act for the purpose
of interfering with the construction of a runway pursuant
to the redesign plan or the south surburban airport. At the
request of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency shall, in consultation with the Adminis-
trator of the Federal Aviation Administration, determine
that the foregoing condition has been satisfied before ap-
proving 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 Fed-
eral Aviation Administration determines that the construc-
tion and operation will include, to the maximum extent fea-
sible, the best management practices then reasonably avail-
able to and used by operators of commercial service airports
to mitigate emissions regulated under the implementation
plan.
SEC. 5. 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 withhold
all Federal airport grant funds respecting O’Hare
International Airport, other than grants involving
national security and safety, unless the Administrator
is reasonably satisfied that the following conditions
have been met:
(A) Merrill C. Meigs Field in Chicago either
is being operated by the city of Chicago as an
airport or has been closed by the Administration
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 permit.
(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 withholding
of such funds would create an unreasonable burden on
interstate commerce.
(4) The Administrator shall not enforce the con-
ditions listed in paragraph (1) if the State of Illinois
enacts a law on or after January 1, 2006, authorizing
the closure of Meigs Field.
(5) Net operating losses resulting from operation
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 International Air-
port for the preceding calendar year. Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the city of Chicago may
use airport revenues generated at O’Hare Inter-
national Airport to fund the operation of Meigs Field.
SEC. 6. 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 Decem-
ber 5, 2001.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON QUIET AIRCRAFT TECH-
NOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Office of Envi-
ronment and Energy of the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion should be funded to carry out noise mitigation pro-
gramming and quiet aircraft technology research and devel-
opment at a level of $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and
$47,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
Union Calendar No. 341
107TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3479
[Report No. 107–568]
A BILL
To expand aviation capacity in the Chicago area.
JULY 12, 2002
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
and ordered to be printed