S-3700-119
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Sponsored by Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
What it does
The FAA SMS Compliance Review Act of 2026 would require the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct reviews of how airlines and other regulated aviation entities comply with Safety Management System (SMS) requirements. SMS is a formal, structured framework for managing safety risks in aviation operations. The bill would establish a process for the FAA to assess whether regulated parties are meeting their SMS obligations under federal aviation law.
Who benefits
The flying public would benefit from potentially stronger oversight of airline and aviation safety practices. Aviation safety advocates and labor unions representing pilots and flight crew would benefit from a more structured federal review process. Smaller airlines that already have strong SMS programs in place would benefit from a level playing field if competitors are held to the same compliance standards. Passengers on domestic and international routes served by U.S. carriers would benefit from any resulting improvements in safety culture.
Who is hurt
Airlines, regional carriers, and other FAA-regulated aviation entities would face increased compliance costs and administrative burdens associated with review processes. Smaller aviation operators — such as charter companies and regional carriers — may be disproportionately affected if compliance review requirements demand resources they have less capacity to provide. FAA itself would require additional staffing or funding to conduct reviews, potentially diverting resources from other oversight activities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Safety Management Systems are only effective when compliance is actively verified, not merely self-reported. They contend that recent high-profile aviation safety incidents have revealed gaps between what airlines report to the FAA and what is actually practiced on the ground. A structured compliance review process would give the FAA the tools to identify systemic safety failures before they result in accidents, holding all regulated entities to the same standard. Supporters further argue that the bill strengthens congressional oversight of the FAA by creating a clear statutory mandate for reviews, reducing reliance on the agency's discretion alone — a particularly important check given recent court decisions limiting agency authority.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that adding a new layer of federal compliance review duplicates oversight mechanisms already built into the SMS framework itself, which is designed to be a self-correcting, data-driven safety system. They contend that prescriptive government audits can undermine the voluntary safety reporting culture that makes SMS effective, as aviation workers may become less willing to report near-misses if their disclosures feed into a punitive compliance process. Opponents further argue that the bill imposes unfunded mandates on smaller aviation operators and the FAA alike, without clear evidence that additional reviews would produce measurable safety improvements beyond what current oversight already achieves.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate aviation safety rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8), as aviation is quintessentially interstate commerce — affirmed broadly under Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and refined in United States v. Lopez (1995), which requires a substantial nexus to interstate commerce. The Federal Aviation Act grants the FAA broad regulatory authority, but post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts no longer defer to the FAA's own interpretation of ambiguous statutory mandates, meaning any compliance review framework must be clearly authorized by statute. Under West Virginia v. EPA (2022), major new regulatory programs require explicit congressional authorization — a bill like this, which creates a statutory mandate rather than delegating rulemaking, is structured to address that concern directly.
Checks and balances
The bill would shift authority toward Congress by creating a statutory mandate for FAA compliance reviews, reducing the executive branch's discretion over whether and how to conduct such reviews. The FAA (executive branch) would gain operational authority to conduct reviews, but within a framework defined by Congress. Post-Loper Bright, courts would independently interpret the scope of any review authority granted, rather than deferring to the FAA's reading of the statute.
Historical precedent
The Aviation Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 and the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 both expanded SMS requirements for U.S. air carriers, establishing the regulatory baseline this bill would build upon. The 2018 Act mandated SMS implementation for Part 121 air carriers, making this bill a follow-on compliance enforcement measure.