Passed
396 Yea10 Nay25 Not voting2/3 required
HR-7613-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Sam Graves (R-MO)
What it does
This bill would require the FAA to mandate collision avoidance technology (ACAS Xa/Xr and ADS-B-based collision prevention systems) on airliners, rotorcraft, and other covered aircraft through a series of rulemakings with set deadlines. It would also require new air traffic controller training, staffing limits, helicopter route reviews near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, restrictions on using ADS-B tracking data for revenue collection, and various reports and briefings to Congress on implementation, responding to NTSB findings from the January 2025 midair collision near DCA.
Who benefits
Airline passengers, helicopter passengers, and pilots who would benefit from improved collision-avoidance technology and safer air traffic procedures; air traffic controllers who would receive additional training and workload limits; families of the January 2025 DCA crash victims seeking accountability; aircraft owners protected from having ADS-B tracking data used against them for revenue purposes (e.g., red-light-camera-style enforcement or tolling).
Who is hurt
Airlines, cargo carriers, general aviation operators, and rotorcraft operators who would bear equipment retrofit and certification costs for new collision avoidance systems; avionics manufacturers and modification service providers facing compressed certification timelines; the FAA and Department of Transportation, which would face new statutory deadlines, reporting burdens, and oversight; smaller operators and owners of older aircraft who may face proportionally higher compliance costs relative to larger carriers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this bill directly responds to NTSB's 74 findings and 50 safety recommendations following a collision that killed 67 people, closing documented gaps such as inadequate collision alerting, controller overwork, and unreviewed helicopter routes near a major airport. They contend mandatory collision avoidance technology and stricter controller training and staffing limits would meaningfully reduce the risk of another midair collision, citing the NTSB's determination that existing systems and procedures were causal factors in the crash.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill imposes costly, tightly-timed equipment mandates on airlines, rotorcraft operators, and general aviation owners that may outpace the certification and manufacturing capacity of the aerospace supply chain, potentially raising costs passed on to passengers or grounding smaller operators. They contend the numerous rulemaking committees, reports, and deadlines could burden the FAA's limited resources without guaranteeing that the underlying safety benefits materialize as quickly as the statutory timelines assume.
Constitutional context
Congress's regulation of aircraft equipment and air traffic procedures falls under the Commerce Clause power over interstate transportation, and the bill's detailed rulemaking deadlines and mandatory content requirements are designed to survive post-Loper Bright judicial review by clearly specifying the scope of delegated FAA authority rather than leaving broad discretion to the agency.
Checks and balances
Congress directs the FAA (an executive branch agency) to issue specific rules on fixed timelines and requires regular reporting and briefings to congressional committees, preserving legislative oversight while delegating technical rulemaking authority to the agency.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously mandated aviation safety equipment following high-profile accidents, such as requiring TCAS after prior midair collisions and ADS-B Out equipage under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.
Passed