H.R. 7613

ALERT Act

Sponsor: Sam Graves

87 cosponsors
Follow this bill

Official summary

Written by the Congressional Research Service.

Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency Act of 2026 or the ALERT Act

This bill addresses aviation safety by increasing requirements for aircraft tracking and communication using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology and expanding oversight. As background, ADS-B for broadcasting (Out) and receiving (In) transmits information (e.g., location and weather) among aircraft and air traffic control (ATC).

The bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) to enter into an agreement regarding the use of collision prevention technologies on DOD aircraft. The agreement must require the use of ADS-B Out as the default practice for DOD helicopters operating in the national airspace, unless such use would affect operational security. For DOD helicopters that are carrying out special missions in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area and are exempt from ADS-B Out transmission requirements, DOD must coordinate with DOT to conduct a safety risk assessment and implement appropriate mitigations.

By December 31, 2031, DOD aircraft (other than certain special mission aircraft) must be equipped with and operating integrated ADS-B In technology.

With respect to civil aircraft, by December 31, 2031, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must generally require aircraft that are currently required to be equipped with ADS-B Out to also be equipped with ADS-B In.

Additionally, among other requirements, the FAA must

  • establish time-on-position limits for supervisory ATC personnel;
  • establish a process to timely notify parties involved in certain near-miss incidents; and
  • evaluate and revise, as necessary, helicopter routes around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Text of the bill

Expand all

I Civil Aviation Matters

Sec. 115. Anti-blocking technology Changed · Apr 9

Where this section came from

  1. Feb 20, 2026 · Introduced in House Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Feb 20 Referred to House Committee on Armed Services, Feb 20
  2. Apr 9, 2026 · Reported in House Marked up by House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mar 26 Marked up by House Committee on Armed Services, Mar 26 Reported by House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Apr 9 Reported by House Committee on Armed Services, Apr 9 Committee members' individual votes aren't in our records.
What changed in the text

(a) Assessment. Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate an assessment on the feasibility , maturity, hazards, and maturity safety benefits of technology that serves to alert air traffic controllers or flight crews to instances of potentially blocked transmissions when simultaneous broadcasting occurs.

… 20 unchanged passages …

(2) a list of technologies the Administrator proposes that could serve the purpose described in subsection (a); (3) results of simulations and testing; and ( 3 4 ) a plan to implement the technologies listed under paragraphs (1) and (2 ), ) if the assessment under subsection (a) finds such technology can be safely implemented, including—

… 4 unchanged passages …

What is a markup?

A markup is a committee meeting where members go through a bill and vote on changes before sending it to the full chamber.

(a) Assessment. Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate an assessment on the feasibility, maturity, hazards, and safety benefits of technology that serves to alert air traffic controllers or flight crews to instances of potentially blocked transmissions when simultaneous broadcasting occurs.

(b) Considerations. In conducting the assessment under subsection (a), the Administrator shall, at minimum, consider—

(1) technologies currently in use domestically and internationally that alert an air traffic controller or flight crew to instances in which radio transmissions may have been blocked;

(2) the technical standards written for, and associated with, the use of such technologies identified under paragraph (1);

(3) existing and proposed technologies not in use that could alert an air traffic controller or flight crew to instances in which radio transmissions may have been blocked;

(4) the technical standards that would be needed to implement the technologies identified under paragraph (3);

(5) the potential benefits and enhanced awareness that the adoption of such technologies would provide;

(6) the technological limitations associated with such technologies;

(7) air traffic controller training requirements;

(8) the effort of the FAA to modernize the air traffic control system, including timelines, the incorporation of new technologies, and planned training; and

(9) any benefits and detriments to air traffic controller situational awareness, including availability of information, nuisance alerts, and human factors.

(c) Consultation. In conducting the assessment under subsection (a), the Administrator shall consult with stakeholders or standards organizations, including—

(1) the exclusive bargaining representatives of air traffic controllers certified under section 7111 of title 5, United States Code;

(2) the organization representing air traffic control operational supervisors and managers;

(3) the certified bargaining representative of aviation safety inspectors and engineers for the FAA;

(4) an organization representing manufacturers of air traffic management systems, equipment and technologies;

(5) an organization representing helicopter aviation operators and pilots;

(6) an organization representing general aviation operators and pilots; and

(7) any other organization or agency the Administrator determines appropriate.

(d) Report. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the results of the assessment under subsection (a) that includes—

(1) a list of technologies identified by the Administrator serving the purpose described in subsection (a);

(2) a list of technologies the Administrator proposes that could serve the purpose described in subsection (a);

(3) results of simulations and testing; and

(4) a plan to implement the technologies listed under paragraphs (1) and (2) if the assessment under subsection (a) finds such technology can be safely implemented, including—

(A) the scope of potential upgrades;

(B) predicted costs;

(C) a projected timeline; and

(D) how the potential upgrades to facilities and equipment within the scope of subparagraph (A) would be prioritized.

II Department of Defense Matters