S-1759-119
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Sponsored by Ted Budd (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would require the FAA to issue or revise regulations within one year to permit civil aircraft to fly faster than the speed of sound (Mach 1+) over the United States without special authorization, as long as the aircraft operates in a manner that prevents any sonic boom from reaching the ground. It would repeal or modify the current blanket ban on overland civil supersonic flight found in FAA regulation 14 CFR 91.817.
Who benefits
Aerospace manufacturers developing "boomless" supersonic aircraft (such as companies working on low-boom or boom-mitigated designs), airlines that might eventually offer faster domestic and transoceanic routes, business travelers and passengers seeking shorter flight times, and U.S. aerospace engineering and manufacturing workers whose employers compete in this emerging market.
Who is hurt
Communities near flight paths who could be exposed to noise or disturbances if boom-mitigation technology underperforms in practice, environmental groups concerned about increased fuel consumption and emissions from supersonic travel, and airlines or manufacturers who have invested in subsonic aircraft and may face new competition. The FAA would also bear implementation and enforcement costs to verify boom-free operation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that current regulations, written in 1973 based on Concorde-era technology, categorically ban overland supersonic flight regardless of noise impact, blocking newer aircraft designed to prevent sonic booms from reaching the ground. They contend updating the rule would let American aerospace companies pioneer a new industry, cut cross-country flight times significantly, and create high-skill manufacturing and engineering jobs, while the no-boom condition still protects communities from the noise concerns that justified the original ban.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a one-year mandate may pressure the FAA to finalize rules before boom-mitigation technology is fully proven at scale, risking situations where booms reach the ground unexpectedly due to weather, altitude changes, or aircraft malfunction. They contend that expanded supersonic flight could increase aircraft fuel burn and emissions per passenger-mile compared to subsonic travel, and that communities under new flight corridors have little recourse if enforcement of the "no boom" standard proves difficult to monitor in real time.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate civil aviation rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and the delegation of rulemaking authority to the FAA raises questions under the nondelegation doctrine, though courts have historically upheld similarly detailed aviation delegations. Because the mandate here is narrowly defined (boom-free operation) rather than a sweeping policy determination, it is unlikely to trigger major questions doctrine scrutiny under West Virginia v. EPA (2022), though post-Loper Bright courts would independently review whether the FAA's implementing regulations match the statute's boom-free standard.
Checks and balances
Congress directs the FAA (an executive branch agency) to issue new rules within a fixed deadline, narrowing agency discretion by specifying the boom-free standard, while courts retain the power to review the resulting regulations for consistency with the statute.
Historical precedent
The FAA's 1973 ban on overland civil supersonic flight (14 CFR 91.817) was itself a regulatory response to Concorde-era sonic boom complaints, and this bill would be the first legislative directive to revisit that rule in light of newer low-boom aircraft technology.