Section by Section Analysis of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1998

SEC. 1. This section provides that the Act may be cited as the " Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1998," and contains the table of contents for the bill.

SEC. 2. This section provides that, except where otherwise expressly provided, any references to sections or provisions are made to title 49, United States Code.

Title I--Authorizations

SEC. 101. This section provides an authorization for the FAA Operations account for fiscal year 1999 and authorizes such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002.

SEC. 102. This section provides an authorization for the FAA Facilities and Equipment (F&E) program for fiscal year 1999 and authorizes such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.

SEC. 103. This section provides an authorization for the FAA Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D) program for fiscal year 1999 at a level above that provided in Pub. L. 105-155 (Feb. 11, 1998) because the Presidents FY99 Budget proposes funding for FAAs Flight 2000 program. This section also authorizes such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.

SEC. 104. This section extends contract authority through FY 2002 for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants and provides authorization levels for the grants. This section also extends the authority to make AIP grants from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund through FY 2002.

Title IIAmendments to Aviation Law

SEC. 201. With the enactment of FAA procurement reform in 1996, there is some question whether the FAA still has the flexibility it previously had under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) to enter into contracts for procurement of severable services that begin in one fiscal year and end in another. See 41 U.S.C. 253l. The FAA uses this authority, particularly with regard to air traffic services, to enter into numerous contracts for a 12-month period that do not necessarily coincide with the 12 months of a single fiscal year. This flexibility dramatically reduces the administrative work of having all contracts expire at the end of a fiscal year. This section would add a new provision to title 49 that expressly provides this authority to the FAA Administrator.

SEC. 202. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) provided a limited waiver, under certain conditions, from the December 31, 1999, compliance date for air carriers to meet stage 3 noise levels. While both domestic and foreign carriers are subject to the Acts compliance requirements, only domestic air carriers are eligible for the waiver. Foreign air carriers view this disparate treatment as a violation of the Chicago Convention and have raised this issue in their comments on ANCA rulemakings. This section would amend title 49 to make foreign carriers eligible for the waiver.

SEC. 203. This section codifies a provision from the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 (Pub. L. No. 104-208, section 5501, H.R. REP. No. 104-863, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 529 (1996)) that allows FAA to establish consortia of government and aviation industry representatives at individual airports to provide advice on aviation security and safety. It would allow the FAA to continue and expand this successful program, which has provided invaluable local input for enhancements to aviation security. Under the program, FAA has established approximately 70 consortia at airports around the country. Given the success of the program, FAA plans to expand the program to include approximately 200 airports. Because the original provision was part of an appropriations bill, it is desirable to clarify that the authority extends beyond the term of the appropriations Act. Codification of the provision as part of title 49 will do this.

SEC. 204. In order to provide airports with another means of increasing investment for needed improvements, this section would permit an increase in passenger facility fees (PFC) from the current cap of $3 to $4. Current rules would apply to the increase, with one exception. If an airport elects to impose a PFC of $4, the airport would lose up to 100 percent of its AIP passenger entitlement funds for that year, depending on when the increase became effective for that year. That revenue would instead, in accordance with current requirements, be divided among other funds, i.e. with 87.5 percent directed to funds benefiting small airports and the remainder to the AIP discretionary fund.

SEC. 205. This section provides the legislative authority to implement what is known as Article 83 bis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 7 December 1944, 61 Stat. 1180, T.I.A.S. No. 1591, 15 U.N.T.S. 295, (the Chicago Convention). When the Convention was drafted in 1944, no one envisioned the international leasing and chartering of aircraft on the large scale that exists today. Safety oversight of aircraft based outside their state of registry is a growing problem. Many foreign-registered aircraft are based and operated in the United States. Many more U.S.-registered aircraft are based and operated abroad. The result is that perhaps tens of thousands of aircraft are located far from the aeronautical authority that has responsibility for their safety oversight under the Convention.

In 1980, the Twenty-Third Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) unanimously adopted a proposed solution to this growing problem, Article 83 bis of the Convention. (The suffix bis means that the new article is inserted between existing Articles 83 and 84.) The United States was a leading force in promoting ratification of the Article and deposited its ratification with ICAO on February 15, 1982. After sufficient number of member states ratified the amendment, it went into effect on June 20, 1997.

Article 83 bis permits States to enter into bilateral agreements to transfer oversight authority for aircraft leased or chartered abroad. States could do that before the amendment went into effect, but such transfers must now be recognized by third States. Article 83 bis specifically authorizes transfer of the duties and functions of States under Articles 12 (Rules of the Air), 30 (Aircraft Radio Equipment, an area that falls under FCC responsibility), 31 (Certificates of Airworthiness), and 32a (Licenses of Personnel) of the Convention. Implementation of the amendment is entirely discretionary, and States may impose any conditions they deem necessary.

Legislation is necessary for the United States to implement Article 83 bis, because the duties and functions to be exchanged under it are vested by current law in the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator, and may not currently be transferred to, or assumed on behalf of, a foreign government. Section 205 of the bill provides implementing legislation for Article 83 bis by amending section 44701, General Requirements, to add a new subsection. It would permit the FAA, through bilateral agreement, to relinquish responsibility for the U.S.-registered aircraft for which safety oversight responsibility is transferred abroad, and accept responsibility for the foreign-registered aircraft whose oversight is transferred to the United States. The transferred aircraft would be treated, for all practical safety oversight purposes only, as if they were on the registry of the other State.

SEC. 206. This section is consistent with the Presidents Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the FAA by providing a source of user-provided revenue to finance the FAA starting in Fiscal year 2000. This change to 49 U.S.C. 48104 will allow expenditure of user-provided funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to finance all operations of the FAA, including safety and security activities and the indirectly ascribed administrative charges associated with these activities. Currently, only a portion of the FAA operations costs can be funded from the Trust Fund. The Administration is separately proposing that the FAA be supported in the future largely by user fees (see companion proposal for a Performance Based Organization for FAA air traffic services). Until such fees are in place, this amendment will allow similar treatment by providing increased support of FAA operations from the Trust Fund.

SEC. 207. Subsection (a) clarifies the FAAs authority to collect fees for foreign aviation services provided by the FAA, such as those provided at foreign repair stations and for other foreign activities, by specifically authorizing the collection of fees through an amendment to 49 U.S.C. 45301. The FAA has collected such fees since 1995. However, this explicit authorization is needed given subsequent revisions to section 45301 that caused some confusion over the FAAs authority in this area, as well as the restriction contained in the current FY 1998 Appropriations Act that the FAA cannot impose any new fees without specific authorization.

Subsection (b) would allow for full recovery of the costs of overflight and related services provided by the FAA, by allowing the use of generally accepted accounting principles and internationally accepted economic principles in determining the costs of such services and in establishing overflight fees. FAAs authority requires clarification because of a recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision that invalidated the methodology that the FAA used to establish overflight fees.

SEC. 208. This section would provide broader authority to the Administrator to determine what circumstances warrant a criminal history record check for persons performing security screening of passengers and cargo. The Administrator has indicated to the general public and to industry the importance of having reliable and trustworthy individuals performing security screening functions. Currently the law sets out four criteria to be used to determine when a criminal history record check may be conducted. The criteria are based on those contained in regulations applicable to persons seeking unescorted access to secured areas of an airport. While these criteria are appropriate, there may be other instances (e.g. conviction for lesser crimes than those listed) where it would be necessary to conduct a check. This section would provide the Administrator the flexibility to require a record check as appropriate to ensure air transportation security.

The section also makes two technical improvements to the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, as amended in 1997 by Pub. L. No. 105-142. First, the section clarifies that the records that air carriers or other persons are required to provide in response to a request are those records that relate to the individuals performance as a pilot. Second, the section provides that an air carrier may permit an individual to begin service as a pilot, notwithstanding the fact that otherwise-required records from a foreign government or foreign entity have not been received, if the air carrier has made a documented good faith attempt to obtain the information.

SEC. 209. Subsection (a) proposes an amendment that would avert a potential problem in the aviation insurance program by helping ensure prompt payment in the event of a loss. It is possible that an air carrier who has obtained aviation insurance from the FAA under chapter 443 may sustain a physical damage loss that is covered by that insurance but exceeds the amount available for repayment in the aviation insurance revolving fund. In such event, FAAs full payment of the carriers claim would need to await congressional action to appropriate a sufficient amount into the revolving fund. Because of the possibility of delays in the appropriations process, the carrier may wish to obtain prompt payment insurance from a commercial insurer, to ensure that the carrier receives payment in a timeframe commensurate with its financial obligations. The prompt payment insurance contract between the carrier and the commercial insurer would, in that case, provide that the commercial insurer would be subrogated to the air carriers rights against the U.S. Government under the chapter 443 insurance. After the necessary funds have been appropriated to the revolving fund, FAA would reimburse the commercial insurer for its payment to the carrier, provided that the payment was for a loss covered by the chapter 443 insurance and that the payment had been approved by the FAA.

It is not clear under current law that the commercial insurer has a right of action against the Government to recover an approved payment for a covered loss, when an appropriation to the Revolving Fund is delayed. The amendment made by this section would clarify that right. This amendment will make it easier for air carriers to obtain prompt payment insurance.

Subsection (b) extends the authorization of the aviation insurance program through December 31, 2003. The program is now authorized through December 1998.

SEC. 210. This section makes several changes to the civil penalty provision of chapter 463. The first would delete reference to sections 46302 (False information) and 46303 (Carrying a weapon). These sections provide for a maximum civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation, as did their predecessor sections, 901(c) and (d) of the FAA Act, before the 1994 recodification project. Section 46301(a)(1)(A) sets a maximum penalty of $1,000 for a variety of violations. Deleting references to these sections would correct a recodification error.

The second change would replace a reference to individual with person, a term that would include not only individuals but also entities such as air carriers or airports. Section 46301(d)(2) gives the Administrator authority to impose civil penalties for violations of the provisions specified. Paragraph (d)(2) does not limit this authority to individuals. It follows that the authority includes civil penalty cases against all persons, not just individuals. Therefore, section 46301(d)(7)(A) should be amended to include actions against entities other than individuals.

The third amendment adds a reference in the judicial review section to orders of the Administrator. This would be consistent with section 46301(d)(2), which gives the Administrator specific authority to assess administratively civil penalties not exceeding $50,000.

Title III-Airport Improvement Program Amendments

SEC. 301. This section repeals the provision that imposes a $300 million cap on the discretionary fund and therefore increases the amount of discretionary funds available to the FAA for grants for major airport capacity projects. Discretionary grants can often be targeted to the most promising projects available to enhance the capacity of the overall system.

SEC. 302. The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Pub.L. No. 104-264, section 148, 110 Stat. 3213, October 9, 1996) authorized a demonstration program to permit the FAA to make grants of AIP funds for up to 10 projects to test and evaluate three innovative financing mechanisms. The three techniques were: payment of interest, credit enhancements (such as municipal bond insurance), and flexible non-federal matching requirements. This successful demonstration program expires on September 30, 1998. This section would codify the program as part of title 49, remove the programs expiration date, and expand the number of projects eligible for the program from 10 to 20. In addition to the three financing techniques previously authorized to be tested, this section would permit the FAA to test additional innovative financing techniques, including a revolving loan fund for interested participants in the State block grant program, which is closely modeled on a loan fund available for highway construction (see 23 U.S.C. 129).

SEC. 303. This section would permit a more flexible Federal/State/local matching share ratio for projects under the State block grant program (i.e. those at non-primary airports) by modifying the current Federal-State match requirement to one that allows not more than a 90 percent Federal share of the total costs of all projects funded by a State with a grant from the FAA under the program. With this flexibility, a State, for example could fund one project at a 50/50 match and another at a 95/5 ratio. As long as the total program ratio overall is not more than a 90 percent Federal share, the State can use its grant funds as its priorities dictate. Funding for projects at non-primary airports outside of the State block grant program would remain at a 90/10 match share.

SEC. 304. This section increases from 31 percent to 35 percent the apportionment from the discretionary fund for grants for airport noise compatibility planning and for carrying out airport noise compatibility programs. The Administration wants to ensure that there is an adequate level of funding for noise mitigation. This provision will provide a modest but necessary increase in the overall funding for noise compatibility planning and projects at the nations most seriously noise impacted airports.

SEC. 305. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. This section makes numerous technical changes to the AIP statutory language in part to correct inadvertent errors due to amendments and recodification changes to title 49 and to improve the implementation of the AIP program.

Subsection (a) amends the apportionment provision (section 47114) to correct a reference to a now repealed provision of title 49 (§47117(e)(1)(C)). The original intent was to allow the use of state-apportioned funds at certain grandfathered airports in Alaska and at all public airports in Puerto Rico. The revised language is more flexible in that it not only restores the intent of the statute with respect to Puerto Rico, but also allows the use of the funds for any public airport in Alaska. It also amends the section to allow state apportioned funds to Hawaii to be used on primary airports. Normally such funds are restricted to use at non-primary airports. However, unlike most states, Hawaii does not have a broad range of airport types and activity levels. The amendment will allow more efficient use of funds allocated to Hawaii.

Subsection (b) amends section 47114(e) to restore the meaning of the provision prior to recodification of title 49 in 1994. Section 47114(e) provides a method of apportioning funds for airports in Alaska which historically has been interpreted as authorizing a supplemental apportionment, not an alternative apportionment as the recodification characterized it. Currently the supplemental amounts to approximately $10.6 million annually and is available to nonprimary airports and certain grandfathered airports. This section would further amend 47114(e) to provide greater flexibility by allowing the funds to be used at any public airport in Alaska.

Subsection (c) repeals a 110 percent limitation on the supplemental apportionment to any single commercial airport in Alaska. The intent of the provision has been unclear and its implementation has caused confusion. In the interest of providing greater financial flexibility to Alaska in the use of the supplemental apportionment, the limitation is removed, thereby allowing more funds to be directed to airports with costly but important projects.

Subsection (d) amends the definition of the discretionary fund to remove the portion of the fund known as the small hub fund and add that amount to the small airport fund. This change will put the small hub fund in a more appropriate place because its funds are derived from the same source (AIP funds not apportioned to large and medium hub airports because they collect PFCs) and have similar restrictions. Also, removing the small hub fund from the calculation for the maximum and minimum levels for the discretionary fund is a fairer approach, given the limited use of the small hub fund.

Subsection (e) would permit more flexibility in the use of funds apportioned to states with respect to integrated airport system planning. Currently these funds apportioned under section 47114(d) to States may not be used at primary airports. This limits the use of these funds for system planning that may involve a primary airport. Planning by its nature often involves multiple airports in the same geographic region. This amendment would enable States to use their apportioned funds for integrated planning, which may include a primary airport as well as other airports.

Subsection (f) adds a new paragraph to section 47108 that provides that a multiyear development project at a primary airport that is funded through a multiyear agreement would retain eligibility for funding to complete the project even if the airport loses its status as a primary airport. Such a project would be eligible for discretionary funds, subject to funding availability. Projects in this circumstance are relatively low-cost and few in number; however, this provision will help avoid potential for default or abandonment of projects resulting from changes in airport status beyond the control of the sponsor.

Subsection (g). The FAA plans in the near future to revise its administrative guidance for the designation of reliever airports. This will tighten the eligibility criteria. There are 22 privately-owned airports that now qualify for federal aid as reliever airports. Subsection (g) would grandfather these airports into the program so that they may remain eligible for federal aid and continue to play an effective role in the national airport system.

Subsection (h) removes projects at reliever airports from eligibility for Letters of Intent (LOI) under section 47110(e). With this change, only projects at primary airports will be eligible for LOIs. FAAs financial ability to issue LOIs is very limited and narrowing the categories of eligible projects will target this program to the greatest need. This change is consistent with GAO findings, which questioned the use of LOIs at reliever airports.

Subsection (i) codifies a current regulation (14 CFR 158.11) that allows public airport operators to waive PFC collections for certain classes of air carriers, such as air taxis, provided that each class constitutes no more than 1 percent of the total number of passengers enplaned annually at the airport at which the PFC is imposed. This limited waiver has been successful and is intended to provide financial relief for air carriers enplaning very small numbers of passengers and administrative relief to airport operators, while avoiding significant impact on total PFC collections at an airport. This section also provides the Secretary the authority to expand the current regulation so that primary airports can take advantage of PFCs but not adversely affect air service to isolated communities, like many in Alaska, with few or no alternatives to air travel.

Subsection (j) amends the provisions of Subchapter II--Surplus Property for Public Airportsof chapter 471 to restore the original intent of the provisions prior to the recodification of title 49. Subchapter II is the restatement of section 13(g) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944. This section restores the use of the terms convey or conveyance instead of gift. Over time, the former terms were understood to include the concept that there are terms and conditions as a quid pro quo for the cost-free transfer of property. Even though this subchapter sets out the terms of transfer of property, the agency has found that, in practice, the use of the term gift has led to some confusion by recipients of property about the commitments required. Also, this section expressly provides that priority consideration be given to requests from public agencies for surplus Government property to be used for public airport purposes. Such priority is based on long-standing FAA interpretation of section 13(g) which was not reflected in the restatement of Subchapter II. Such priority is particularly important during this time of numerous base closures by the Defense Department.

SEC. 306. Section 125 of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 provided that certain provisions of chapter 471 (the airport development chapter of title 49) that were amended by the 1996 Act would revert to their unamended form as of September 30, 1998. These provisions involve sections 47114 (Apportionments), 47115 (Discretionary Fund), 47117 (Use of apportioned amounts), and 47118 (Designating current and former military airports). Section 306 would repeal this sunset provision. The amendments made by the 1996 Authorization Act, together with the changes proposed for the AIP program by this bill, provide for a strong and effective AIP program with a strategic distribution of the federal investment for airport improvements. Therefore, a return to pre-1996 formulas and requirements is unwarranted.

Title IVTitle 49 Technical Corrections

SEC. 401. The original enactment that created the Department of Transportation in 1966 (P.L. 89-670; October 15, 1966) contained a provision (paragraph 6(c)(1)) stating the Federal Aviation Administrator's duty to carry out aviation safety functions in certain sections and certain titles of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA Act). By referring to titles of the FAA Act in some cases rather than specific sections, paragraph 6(c)(1) had the effect of being a "container"--that is, whenever a new section was added to titles VI, VII, IX, and XII of the FAA Act, the new section was automatically included in the listing of the Administrator's aviation safety duties.

In 1983, paragraph 6(c)(1) of the 1966 DOT Act was replaced by 49 U.S.C. 106(g) as part of a recodification project. The new section 106(g) restated the original language closely and referred to the same list of titles of the FAA Act (and thus retained the same "containers"). In 1994, the recodification project was completed by enactment of P.L. 103-272 (July 5, 1994). As part of the project, the FAA Act was repealed in its entirety and its provisions were enacted into positive law as a portion of title 49. This meant that the 106(g) references to titles of the FAA Act no longer functioned, and the 1994 restatement took the conservative approach of restating 106(g) by listing every section found in the listed titles on the date of enactment. This ensured precision in the restated text of 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

This approach to restatement of section 106(g) without reliance on "containers" has produced an unintended anomaly. In its aviation safety enactments subsequent to July 1994, Congress has added new safety provisions to Part A of Subtitle VII of title 49 (which restates the FAA Act of 1958). As just noted, merely including a new provision in a particular title of the FAA Act (for example, title VI) would, in the past, have had the effect of also including it within the coverage of section 106(g). In contrast, inclusion in title VI's counterpart (chapter 447) no longer does this automatically because of the changed drafting approach in 106(g). An example of a provision recently added to chapter 447 (but not included in section 106(g)'s coverage, as would have likely been the case in the past) is 49 U.S.C. 44724 (Manipulation of flight controls).

The Department believes that Congress intended inclusion of section 44724 and several other recently enacted safety provisions in the coverage of section 106(g). The Department also believes that future drafting of new safety provisions for inclusion in selected chapters of title 49 would be simplified by returning to the "container" approach to section 106(g). Accordingly, this section of the bill contains a proposed restatement of section 106(g) to accomplish this result. Subsection (b) ensures that the change cannot be construed to change substantive law in any respect.

SEC. 402. Section 46306 of title 49 establishes criminal penalties for aircraft registration and related violations. As restated in 1994 (P.L. 103-272; July 5, 1994), section 46306 covers only violations involving aircraft not providing air transportation (i.e., general aviation aircraft) and not commercial aircraft. It is not clear that omission of commercial aircraft was intended by Congress. This potential problem originated in the amendments made to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA Act) by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Subtitle E of P.L. 100-690, Nov. 18, 1988). Section 7214 of the 1988 Act stated with regard to the Subtitle E anti-drug abuse provisions applicable to aircraft:

"This subtitle (including any amendments made by this subtitle) shall only apply to aircraft which are not used to provide air transportation (as defined in section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958)."

A question arises because one of the 1988 amendments "overwrote" existing criminal penalties for aircraft registration violations that applied to both commercial and general aviation aircraft. Specifically, section 7209 of the 1988 Act replaced existing criminal penalty language at sections 902(b) and 902(q) of the FAA Act that applied to all aircraft types. With regard to this change, the language of section 7214 could be read to mean that the amendment only affected general aviation aircraft and that commercial aircraft penalties were unchanged, although no longer expressed on the face of the statute. The recodification took the other approach, that section 7214 should be read to mean that Congress intended to end criminal penalties for commercial aircraft certification violations, because the violation language was replaced by an amendment clearly applicable only to non-commercial aircraft.

The Department believes that Congress did not intend to disturb the existing criminal penalties for commercial aircraft that existed in 1988 at the time of the amendments. The 1988 enactment was directed at stemming drug abuse and the drug trafficking that occurred involving non-commercial aircraft. It does appear likely that Congress intended the new, stiffer 1988 penalties to apply only to general aviation aircraft, which were viewed as the primary source of drug-trafficking violations. Congress did not discuss the subject of criminal penalties for commercial aircraft, and it is unlikely Congress intended to repeal these penalties without discussion. Drug smuggling violations have occurred involving commercial aircraft, and it is important to have criminal penalty authority remain available for these cases (as well as non-drug violations). We conclude that Congress intended to leave the existing, lower penalty levels for commercial aircraft violations undisturbed, and that that the amendatory language that "overwrote" existing law had an unintended effect. Accordingly, this section would revise section 46306 to incorporate the commercial aircraft penalties for certification violations that appeared at sections 902(b) and (q) of the FAA Act prior to the 1988 amendments. Specifically--

(1) Subsection 46306(a) (governing applicability of the section) would be broadened so that parts of the section apply to all registered aircraft.

(2) As a result, the three "pre-1988" violations that applied to all registered aircraft (found at 46306(b)(1)-(3)) would once again explicitly apply to all registered aircraft.

(3) The stiffer 1988 criminal penalties (found at revised 46306(c)(2)(A) and (c)(3)) would be limited to cases involving an aircraft not used to provide air transportation.

(4) The 1988 penalties that had been "overwritten" would be restored for commercial aircraft violations (at revised 46306(c)(2)(B)).

(5) The section heading would be revised to reflect its broader applicability.

Subsection (b) of this section would ensure that the changes cannot be construed to change substantive law in any respect.

SEC. 403. Section 44909 of title 49 specifies that an air carrier shall provide a "passenger manifest" (a list of passengers aboard a flight) for its international flights, and that the manifest "shall" include certain information. However, the original enactment (now repealed) provided that the manifest "should" include certain information, making explicit the flexibility afforded the Secretary of Transportation in specifying the information included in the manifest requirement (see section 203 of Pub. L. 101-604, November 16, 1990). In order to make this flexibility clearer, and in recognition that the 1994 recodification expressly stated that it made no substantive change in law, the proposed technical correction would replace the word "shall" with the original word "should" in 49 U.S.C. 44909(a)(2).

SEC. 404. This section consists entirely of technical changes to title 49, United States Code, that are of a nonsubstantive nature and correct typographical errors noted in the text of the title.

Title VInternal Revenue Code Amendments

SEC. 501. This section makes the necessary amendments to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (26 U.S.C. 9502) to authorize the continued use of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund through Fiscal Year 2002. This section would also authorize the expenditure of funds from the Trust Fund beginning in Fiscal Year 2000 to support the aviation data-collection responsibilities of the Department, which are carried out by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of Airline Information. Since the shift of this Office to BTS, these activities have been supported by appropriations from the Highway Trust Fund, which is the primary BTS funding mechanism. The Departments Inspector General has questioned this use of funds and advocates the shift of funding responsibility for the Office of Airline Information to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. This proposal would accomplish the shift.