PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Mar 16, 2026
Airport Regulatory Relief Act of 2025
This bill reduces the requirements for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow a state to use its state highway standards, instead of federal standards, for airfield pavement projects at certain smaller commercial aviation airports. The bill also requires the FAA to act within a certain time period.
Under current law, airports are generally required to meet FAA standards for Airport Improvement Program-funded construction. For certain nonprimary commercial service airports (i.e., airports that have 2,500 to 10,000 passenger boardings annually) that serve aircraft that do not exceed 60,000 pounds gross weight, the FAA must instead use the state highway standards. A state must request the use of the state standards, and the FAA must determine that their use (1) will not negatively affect safety, and (2) will not result in a shorter life for the pavement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Under the bill, the FAA must use state highway standards for airfield pavement projects at these airports if (1) the state provides notice to the FAA that nonprimary airports intend to use the state standards, and (2) the FAA determines that the state standards will not negatively affect safety.
The bill also requires the FAA to make a safety determination within six months of a state providing notice. The FAA may extend the time period by six months if the six months is insufficient to make the determination. For each six-month extension, the FAA must notify the state and provide a justification for the extension.
People & committees
Rep. Begich, Nicholas J. [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2658)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6427.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2658-2659)
Mr. Taylor moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 475.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-552.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-552.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Aviation Discharged
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.6427 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.6427 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.6427 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.6427 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.