[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Page 21365]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          SECTION 189 OF THE FAA CONFERENCE REPORT, H.R. 2115

  Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to engage the Senator from Mississippi in a 
colloquy regarding section 189 of the conference report in order to 
clarify the intent of the conferees.
  Mr. LOTT. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. It is my understanding that this section is a very 
limited, temporary funding restriction that will not affect noise 
mitigation funding in any significant way. Federal airport improvement 
program monies from the ``Noise set aside'' have not normally supported 
noise mitigation projects below a Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 
of less than 65. This is because under the FAA's system of ranking 
projects for the use of the noise set aside, projects to reduce higher 
levels of noise having funding priority and projects below 65 DNL have 
not normally ranked high enough to get such funding. I further 
understand that nothing in this section or any other provision of the 
FAA conference report would prohibit an airport from using either 
passenger facility charges, PFC, or other locally generated monies to 
fund noise mitigation projects below a DNL of 65. It is also my 
understanding that the provision is not intended to change the FAA's 
current approach of not disapproving an airport's entire part 150 noise 
program, where there is only a portion or portions of the program that 
are problematic. The FAA would continue to be able to disapprove 
portions of a port 150 program, while approving other portions, as they 
do today. Furthermore, the provision would not affect noise set-aside 
funding that would not require part 150 approval, such as school 
soundproofing or noise mitigation for an airport expansion project in 
an FAA environmental record of decision.
  Mr. LOTT. The Senator is correct. The intent of this provision is a 
narrow one and does not affect the use of non-AIP funds by any airport. 
Nothing in this section or any other provision of the FAA conference 
report would prohibit an airport from using either passenger facility 
charges, PFC, or other locally generated monies to fund noise 
mitigation projects below a DNL of less than 65. It is my understanding 
that the FAA agrees with this interpretation of the effect of the 
provision.

                          ____________________