Palm Beach Quiet Skies CoalitionEspañol

The Environmental Review: Questions for the FAA

The FAA did not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for its permanent Mar-a-Lago rule. It preliminarily determined that the rule qualified for a Categorical Exclusion and identified no extraordinary circumstances. As we read its own procedures, a written determination appears to be warranted, and we have seen no assessment of the 2,000-foot height of the restricted zone.

This page summarizes the Coalition's understanding of the FAA's environmental-review procedures and the questions we have asked the FAA to address. If we have any of it wrong, we would welcome the correction. We support protecting the President, and would like to work with the FAA to find solutions that bring back the peace and quiet in our neighborhoods.

The short version

Before making this rule permanent, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had to decide what environmental review it required. It prepared no environmental assessment and no environmental impact statement, preliminarily determining that the rule qualified for a categorical exclusion for “regulations, standards, and exemptions,” and concluding in one sentence that it “has not identified any extraordinary circumstances.”1

As we read the FAA’s own procedures, it must consider a list of circumstances before relying on that exclusion, including adverse effects on historic properties, effects on noise levels in noise-sensitive areas, and substantial dispute over an action’s environmental effects.2 Those procedures also say a written record may be warranted where an action changes the routing of aircraft over noise-sensitive areas, where there is known controversy on environmental grounds, or where litigation is anticipated.3 All three seem to us to apply here. The proposal cites no such record; if one exists, we ask that it be shared.

The FAA has told a court that the noise comes not from the restriction but from the flight procedures it redesigned to fit it, and that it screened those procedures separately in January 2026.4 That screen found increases of 5 decibels or more in parts of Palm Beach, which the FAA’s own rules call “reportable” and which it has elsewhere treated as likely to be controversial; it judged them below its significance threshold.5 Two of the neighborhoods under those paths are National Register historic districts, with our monitors inside them.6

We understand the FAA’s position that the procedures, not the rule, produce the noise, and that the procedures were reviewed. Our question is narrower: whether increases the FAA’s own rules call reportable, in neighborhoods it agrees are historic, deserve the closer look those rules describe, and we would like to understand how the FAA reached the opposite view.

Whatever the answer for the restriction’s existence, which the Secret Service requested, the 2,000-foot height of the restricted zone is, in the FAA’s own words, its independent judgment.7 As we understand it, that height affects which former routes could practicably be restored and therefore can affect where aircraft noise is concentrated. That is the choice we would like to work through with the FAA: to understand why 2,000 feet rather than the 1,000 the Secret Service originally requested, and whether the difference can be assessed before it becomes permanent.

What the County’s comment adds

Palm Beach County, which runs the airport, filed its own comment on the proposal, and on the environmental review it goes further than we did.8

  • The County disputes the choice of exclusion. The exclusion the FAA used sits among those for regulatory actions. The County reads this rule as an airspace action, which the FAA’s order lists separately, and says none of the exclusions for airspace actions covers it. The order’s own introduction describes regulatory actions broadly, so we ask the FAA to explain why its chosen exclusion fits this rule.9
  • One plan, not two. The FAA has told the court that the noise comes from the flight procedures, which it reviewed separately. But the FAA Administrator’s own letter of October 10, 2025 laid out the temporary restriction, the redesigned procedures and this permanent rule as steps of one plan. The County asks that they be reviewed together.10
  • The FAA’s own staff saw it coming. A November 2025 FAA briefing said the new paths would concentrate traffic over noise-sensitive areas, and that skipping the environmental review could be challenged in court.11
  • This is the time. In court, the FAA defended skipping a review because the order was temporary, and said any permanent restriction would come through rulemaking. This is that rulemaking.12

As we read the FAA’s brief, its main defense is that it could not have declined a restriction the Secret Service required. That leaves a question we would like answered: the 2,000-foot height was the FAA’s own choice, so how did it weigh the environmental effects of 2,000 feet against the 1,000 feet the Secret Service originally requested?12

The full record

A categorical exclusion is a class of actions an agency has decided in advance normally has no significant environmental effect, so no environmental assessment or impact statement is prepared. Using one is a form of compliance with the environmental law, not an exemption from it, and most FAA regulations are handled this way; the New York rule for Trump Tower was.1 The exclusion the FAA invoked here covers regulations “excluding those that if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment,” so the FAA had to reach a view about impact, and the order requires it to consider the circumstances listed in paragraph B-1(b) before relying on the exclusion.2 The order does not require that review to be printed in a proposal, and says a determination is not deficient for lack of documentation if the circumstances were considered; it does say a written record may be warranted where routing over noise-sensitive areas changes, where there is known controversy, or where litigation is anticipated.3

Those are the facts of this case. The three local governments are in court over the restriction and the procedures. The FAA’s own screening of the procedures found increases of 5 decibels or more in parts of Palm Beach already at 45–60 decibels, which its rules call reportable; in 2017 the D.C. Circuit set aside FAA flight-path changes over Phoenix in part because the agency had elsewhere treated increases of that size as likely to be controversial and did not explain why Phoenix was different.13 And the FAA’s cost analysis takes the temporary restriction as its starting point, so the permanent rule is never compared with conditions before October 20, 2025.14

We do not claim what an assessment would conclude. We are asking that it be done, and that the neighborhoods under the paths be in it. We may be wrong about what the procedures require. We are confident about what the records show, and we would rather work with the FAA on both than argue about either.

What we are asking the FAA to do

  • We ask the FAA to place in the docket the categorical-exclusion determination for this rule and the January 2026 review of the procedures (AR 1999–2053), so the public can read and comment on them before the rule is final.
  • We ask the FAA to review the restriction and the January 2026 flight procedures together, as the single plan its own documents describe.
  • We ask the FAA to prepare an environmental assessment of the rule that treats the 1,000-foot height the Secret Service originally requested as an alternative to the 2,000-foot height the FAA chose, and measures both against the neighborhoods as they were before October 20, 2025.
  • We ask the FAA to address, in the final rule’s extraordinary-circumstances finding, the opposition on environmental grounds of Palm Beach County, the City of West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, which its own order says should be considered.

We would welcome the chance to meet with the FAA, with our data, to look for a solution that meets the Secret Service’s requirement with less effect on the neighborhoods below.

The full list of what we urged residents to ask for is on Stay Involved. The size of the restriction is a separate question, on The 2,000-Foot Question.

Every legal characterization on this site is our reading; every quotation and figure is sourced. Where the FAA’s reading differs, we will publish its view alongside ours.

Footnotes

  1. Proposed rule, “Environmental Analysis”: one paragraph stating that the FAA “has preliminarily analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed rule,” invoking FAA Order 1050.1G, Appendix B, paragraph B-2.6(f), “Regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those that if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment),” and concluding that the FAA “does not anticipate any significant environmental impacts, and has not identified any extraordinary circumstances present in connection with the action described in this NPRM.” No study, screen or data is cited. The New York rule for Trump Tower was categorically excluded the same way (paragraph B-2.6(d), 91 Fed. Reg. 48255). ↩ ↩2

  2. FAA Order 1050.1G, Appendix B, paragraph B-1(b) (the order): an extraordinary circumstance exists if a proposed action involves any of a list of circumstances and has the potential for a significant effect. The list includes an adverse effect on cultural resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act (b)(1), an effect on resources protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (b)(2), an effect on noise levels of noise sensitive areas (b)(7), and effects likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds (b)(10), which the order defines as “a substantial dispute regarding the analytical outcomes of the environmental review,” adding that “mere opposition is not sufficient” and that opposition on environmental grounds by a Federal, state or local government agency “should be considered.” Paragraph B-2.6 says the responsible official “must also review Paragraph B-1” before categorically excluding a regulatory action. Under paragraph B-1(a), an extraordinary circumstance requires further analysis and may, but does not always, rule the exclusion out. ↩ ↩2

  3. FAA Order 1050.1G, section 1.4(f)(3). Subparagraph (ii) lists factors that “may warrant the preparation of additional documentation” of a categorical-exclusion determination, including actions “(B) That would result in changes to the routine routing of aircraft that have the potential to result in significant increases in noise over noise sensitive areas; … (D) Involving known controversy on environmental grounds or significant public opposition relating to the nature of the project’s effects; or (E) For which litigation is anticipated.” Subparagraph (iii) adds that a determination “is not considered deficient due to lack of documentation provided that extraordinary circumstances have been considered,” and paragraph B-1(a) says the FAA “may” publish such a determination; so our request is that the record be placed in the docket, not that the proposal was required to print it. ↩ ↩2

  4. FAA brief in Palm Beach County v. FAA, D.C. Cir. Nos. 25-1282 et al., filed August 11, 2026 (printed pp. 34–35): “The direct effect of restricting airspace within one nautical mile of Mar-a-Lago is the removal of aircraft from that space, which means less noise over the restricted area, not more. Every noise impact Petitioners allege flows from the rerouting of traffic around the restriction, that is, from the modified flight procedures. And the FAA subjected that action to environmental review before the enduring procedures issued in January 2026, including a noise screening analysis, a categorical exclusion determination, a Section 106 consultation, and a Section 4(f) evaluation. AR 1999-2053.” ↩

  5. The same brief (pp. 37–40): the screening of the January 2026 procedures, using 59 days of pre-restriction track data, “did identify reportable noise increases in certain locations, including 5+ decibel increases in areas exposed to 45–60 decibels in Palm Beach, and 3+ decibel increases in areas exposed to 60–65 decibels northeast of the Airport,” which the FAA found “fall below the FAA’s significance threshold of 1.5+ decibel increase at 65 decibels or higher” (AR 2001, 2042–43); it also found decreases along the former Runway 28R path and inside the restricted area (AR 2044–45). Order 1050.1G, Appendix C, calls increases of 5 dB or more in areas at 45–60 dB “reportable.” The screening is a model, not a measurement, and it concerns the flight-path changes, not the proposed rule. ↩

  6. El Cid Historic District, West Palm Beach (National Register of Historic Places reference 95001064, listed August 31, 1995) and Prospect Park–Southland Park Historic District, West Palm Beach (reference 11000181, listed April 8, 2011). Our Historic El Cid and Prospect Park–Southland Park monitors sit inside them. The FAA’s brief says its January 2026 review found no adverse effect on historic properties because the districts are valued for their architecture rather than a quiet setting, and that the State Historic Preservation Office concurred (AR 2001, 2050–53). ↩

  7. The same brief (printed pp. 25–26): “Although the Secret Service requested a restriction at 1,000 feet, the FAA imposed it at 2,000 feet, concluding that the higher altitude provided materially better response time without materially increasing the number of affected operations. AR 159-60,” and “the FAA was exercising its own statutory responsibilities and technical judgment, not merely ratifying the Secret Service’s request.” The proposal itself says the FAA “determined” the effect of the greater height on operations (Section III). ↩

  8. Palm Beach County Department of Airports, comment FAA-2026-10827-1196 on the proposed rule, signed October 1, 2026 by Executive Director Laura M. Beebe, with three attachments from the court record. The County operates the airport and is also a petitioner in the court case over the restriction. Readings of the law in this section are the County’s or, where stated, ours. ↩

  9. FAA Order 1050.1G, Appendix B. Paragraph B-2.6, which contains the exclusion the proposal invokes (B-2.6(f)), covers “FAA actions involving compliance with, or exemptions to, regulatory programs or requirements.” Paragraph B-2.5 covers “FAA actions involving the establishment, modification, or application of airspace and air traffic procedures.” The County’s comment, pp. 7–8. The order’s introduction to Appendix B, however, describes the regulatory category more broadly, as “Actions involving establishment of, compliance with, or exemptions to, regulatory programs or requirements.” B-2.5(b) does list certain security actions under 14 CFR part 99, the authority the temporary restriction used; the permanent rule would be under part 93. The exclusion in B-2.6(f) itself excludes regulations “that if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment.” ↩

  10. Letter from FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford to Secret Service Director Sean M. Curran, October 10, 2025 (County Attachment 3, AR 00224–228): Step 1, a temporary restriction with “a maximum altitude limit of 2,000 feet AGL”; Steps 2–3, redesigned procedures published by January 22, 2026; Step 4, “a Special Air Traffic Rule (part 93) making the Mar-a-Lago restrictions permanent.” The County’s comment, p. 8. The letter’s Step 5 is to “extend Runway 14/32 and reduce reliance on Runway 10L for commercial operations.” ↩

  11. FAA Southern Region briefing, “Mar-a-Lago Temporary Flight Restriction and Future Airspace Constraints,” November 2025 (County Attachment 1, AR 00345–347): “The current vectoring and upcoming changes to instrument flight procedures route and concentrate air traffic over noise sensitive areas that previously experienced this level of noise only occasionally”; on treating the changes as outside environmental review, “While there is precedent for forgoing NEPA review, this has the potential to be challenged through litigation.” ↩

  12. FAA brief in Palm Beach County v. FAA, D.C. Cir. Nos. 25-1282 et al., filed August 11, 2026 (printed pp. 36–37): the order issuing the restriction “is a temporary, one-year emergency measure”; the FAA “will pursue any permanent restriction through APA rulemaking”; and “the FAA could not realistically have declined a restriction the Secret Service deemed a ‘critical layer’ to the President’s safety.” The brief does not promise an environmental review at the rulemaking stage. That the 2,000-foot height was the FAA’s own choice: the same brief, printed pp. 25–26 (“the FAA was exercising its own statutory responsibilities and technical judgment”). The County’s comment, p. 8. ↩ ↩2

  13. City of Phoenix v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The court vacated FAA flight-path changes over Phoenix, holding that the FAA’s finding that the changes were “not likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds” was arbitrary, in part because the FAA had elsewhere treated an increase of five or more decibels in areas at 45–60 decibels as likely to be controversial and did not explain why Phoenix was different. The FAA’s screening here found increases of that size in parts of Palm Beach (AR 2042–43). Phoenix involved flight procedures adopted with no advance public notice; this rule has a comment period, and the order now defines controversy narrowly, so the case supports asking for an explanation, not a verdict. ↩

  14. Proposed rule, Section IV.A.1: “For this primary analysis, the baseline is the continuation of the existing SSI flight restriction that is currently in effect in the vicinity of Palm Beach, Florida until October 20, 2026.” Section IV.A.6 adds an alternative baseline in which the temporary restriction expires without replacement; on either basis the analysis counts only costs to aircraft operators, finding “no incremental cost relative to current operating conditions for operators” against the first and “minimal incremental costs to operators” against the second. This is the cost analysis under Executive Order 12866, not an environmental document; the FAA’s separate screening of the January 2026 procedures used pre-restriction flight tracks as its baseline (brief, p. 41). ↩

Join the Coalition

Sign up to be counted as a supporter of our mission: peace and quiet for our neighborhoods, and security for the President. We count supporters, not names: your name is never published. We'll also email you when there is news that matters, such as the FAA's decision or a public meeting. Email is all we need; texts are optional.