PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 7, 2016
FAA Community Accountability Act of 2016
This bill requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in considering flight paths or procedures as part of the implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, to limit negative impacts on the human environment near airports. The FAA may give preference to overlays of existing flight paths or procedures to ensure compatibility with land use.
The FAA shall appoint an FAA Community Ombudsman for each of its regions to:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
act as a liaison with communities regarding problems related to the impact of commercial aviation on the human environment;
monitor the impact of System implementation on communities near affected airports;
make recommendations to address community concerns and improve the use of community comments in FAA decisionmaking; and
report periodically on the impact of commercial aviation on the human environment and on FAA responsiveness to community concerns.
The FAA, in implementing the System, may not treat the establishment or revision of a flight path or procedure as covered by a categorical exclusion if an Ombudsman or airport operator submits notification that: (1) extraordinary circumstances exist, or (2) the establishment or revision will have a significant adverse impact on the human environment near such airport. The FAA, before treating such establishment or revision as covered by a categorical exclusion, shall provide notice and an opportunity for comment to persons affected.
The bill requires the FAA to: (1) reconsider a flight path or procedure established or revised after February 14, 2012, as part of the implementation of the System if an Ombudsman or airport operator submits written notification that the establishment or revision is resulting in a significant adverse impact on the human environment near the airport, (2) provide notice of such reconsideration and an opportunity for public comment, (3) assess the impacts on the human environment, and (4) report on comments received, assessment results, and changes to be made.
People & committees
Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 S.2761 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 S.2761 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 S.2761 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 S.2761 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.