PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 3, 2016
This bill directs the Department of Transportation (DOT), by six months after completion of a safety risk management panel conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration for the Leesburg, Virginia, project, to establish a pilot program under which DOT shall install, operate, and assess the benefits of the technology of up to six remote air traffic control towers.
DOT must complete a safety risk management process for a participating airport before air traffic is actively controlled by a remote air traffic control tower at such airport.
An operator of a public-use airport may apply to participate in the pilot program. DOT: (1) shall establish a list of benefits of remote tower technology to the National Airspace System and criteria that facilities should meet in order to best achieve those benefits; and (2) may select for the pilot program, based on such criteria, one nonhub primary airport, two reliever airports without existing air traffic control towers, one primary airport for the purpose of augmenting the capabilities of an existing air traffic control tower, and two airports classified as local or basic in the national plan of integrated airport systems.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A selected airport shall be eligible for participation in, and funding from, the control tower contract program.
A remote air traffic control tower and ancillary equipment installed with federal funds under this bill shall be considered an air navigation facility.
The pilot program shall terminate five years after this bill's enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4449 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4449 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4449 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4449 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.