FAI controller voiced concern regarding new facility policy classifying Tower as VFR only during late night operations; reporter alleges policy could result in unsafe practices.

Narrative

Background information: FAI ATCT is a combined Tower/TRACON. Approximately 1 week ago; staffing related issues caused the facility to begin operating as a VFR Tower; with only 1 Controller staffing the mid-shift. This drastic change was swift and nobody involved seemed to have been prepared. Additionally; it can be demonstrated that the staffing existed and continues to exist (through the judicious use of overtime and shift changes) for FAI to operate the TRACON on a 24 hour a day basis. An LOA between FAI and ZAN was hastily drafted and revised multiple times during the subsequent week. As a result; the procedures are completely new and Controllers at both facilities are largely figuring it out along the way. Due to ZAN's inability to vector aircraft to final at FAI; IFR aircraft must execute the full procedure when utilizing instrument approaches. The potential for delays as a result of the utilization of a full procedure instrument approach and ZAN's increased separation requirements above a TRACON are undeniable. Unfortunately; the potential for the compromise of the system's safety also exists -- as demonstrated to me by the following description of observed events. Observed situation: Working VFR tower on mid-shift. Weather was 7;500 FT broken; 7 SM visibility; light snow. ILS Runway 1L approach in use. A scheduled air carrier was inbound to FAI from the east-southeast. To my knowledge; the aircraft had been given instructions by ZAN to proceed to a fix and join the ILS Runway 1L Approach. A private Beechcraft King Air was inbound; but further out; to the south of the field. To my knowledge; at this point; this aircraft would also be flying the ILS Runway 1L approach. When the air carrier was approximately 6 NM south-southeast of FAI; I noticed on the DBRITE that the data tag went into 'coast.' I initially thought this was due to the aircraft beginning a turn to intercept the LOC outbound; however; on closer examination the aircraft seemed too far east of course to be initiating such a maneuver. The King Air then checked on my frequency on a visual approach for Runway 1L. I glanced back at the DBRITE and the air carrier data now indicated the aircraft was VFR; however; I had not received any official notification from ZAN. A moment later the air carrier checked on frequency on a base leg for landing Runway 1L; but without mention of a visual approach. On rollout; I queried the air carrier if they had canceled IFR with ZAN and they indicated that yes; they had canceled IFR. At this point the King Air's pilot thanked the air carrier. This transmission confirmed my suspicion that the air carrier had canceled IFR in order to minimize the delay to the King Air; which would have been forced into a hold by ZAN had the air carrier continued with a full procedure ILS Runway 1L approach. To summarize; in my opinion; our new procedures of operating as a VFR-only Tower during mid-shifts is potentially resulting in aircraft taking reduced levels of air traffic services in order to reduce delays to either themselves or other aircraft. In the years I have been at this facility; I had not seen an air carrier cancel IFR either inbound or outbound from FAI until this series of events. I do not believe it is safe to train pilots that it is better to reduce your level of air traffic services simply to avoid a delay.