La FAA ha propuesto hacer permanente la restricción del espacio aéreo de Mar-a-Lago.
Usted tiene hasta el 2 de octubre para hacerse oír.

Fuentes y detalles (en inglés)

1. Docket FAA-2026-10827, published September 2, 2026. The proposed rule makes the airspace restriction permanent; the flight paths came from separate FAA procedures (new headings in October 2025, redesigned procedures in January 2026). U.S. Rep. Lois Frankel has put the number affected at more than 11,000 homes and 21,000 residents, up from about 2,200 and 5,000 (House testimony, Jan. 14, 2026); her method is not stated. Complaints to the airport rose from 58 in the first ten months of 2025 to 622 between October 20, 2025 and the first week of January 2026, both figures from the airport's spokesperson as reported by WLRN, Jan. 22, 2026; a later court filing by Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach cited more than 6,000, against fewer than a dozen a month before (CBS12, Sept. 2, 2026). We do not question that a restriction should exist; the Secret Service asked for one in writing. Our questions are about its size and about the environmental assessment we believe the rule should have. We would like to work with the FAA to find solutions. ↩
2. June 14 to September 11, 2026, 90 nights: 926 aircraft noise events between midnight and 6 a.m. peaked at 65 A-weighted decibels or more, measured outdoors at one of six resident-funded monitors in Palm Beach and West Palm Beach, on 77 of the 90 nights (counting a night if any monitor recorded one). Counting every aircraft event, however quiet, the figure is 84 of 90 nights. For scale, the National Institutes of Health puts normal conversation at 60–70 dBA and motorcycles at 80–110 (NIDCD); the loudest overnight events reached the low 80s. Not every monitor recorded every night; summer is the airport's quieter season. What It Sounds Like. ↩
3. One Secret Service letter (September 16, 2025, docket item FAA-2026-10827-0003) requested one nautical mile, surface to 1,000 feet above the ground, at both of the President's residences. The FAA's two temporary restrictions were issued in the same minute on October 18, 2025: Trump Tower at 1,000 feet (NOTAM FDC 5/2811), Mar-a-Lago at 2,000 (NOTAM FDC 5/2809). New York's became permanent at 1,000 feet as Prohibited Area P-75 (91 Fed. Reg. 48255, July 31, 2026), effective October 29, 2026. The full comparison. The proposal states that the two agencies later "agreed to a 2,000 feet AGL altitude ceiling"; it cites no document for the agreement, and the only Secret Service request in the docket asks for 1,000 feet. ↩
4. Measured over October 1–19, 2025, the 19 days before the restriction took effect: of the 2,181 departures that crossed the one-nautical-mile circle with usable altitude data, 2,166 (99.3%) stayed above 1,000 feet throughout the crossing (Coalition analysis of FlightAware records; counts and method on The 2,000-Foot Question). In our February–July 2026 records, departures are 76% of the flights crossing the circle below 2,000 feet; arrivals (20%) cross low and would need a different remedy. ↩
5. The proposal's environmental paragraph invokes a categorical exclusion (FAA Order 1050.1G, paragraph B-2.6(f)) and concludes that the FAA "has not identified any extraordinary circumstances"; it cites no study or data. The order lists factors that "may warrant" documenting such a determination (section 1.4(f)(3)(ii)), including changes to the routine routing of aircraft over noise-sensitive areas, known controversy on environmental grounds, and anticipated litigation; as we read them, all three apply here. As of September 15, 2026, the docket holds three documents: the proposed rule, the temporary restriction's notice (NOTAM FDC 5/2809) and the Secret Service–FAA memo. In court the FAA has said the noise comes from the flight procedures it redesigned around the restriction, which it screened separately in January 2026, finding increases of 5 decibels or more in parts of Palm Beach that it judged below its threshold, and that the 2,000-foot ceiling was its own "independent judgment" (AR 159–60). Two of the neighborhoods under those paths, Historic El Cid and Prospect Park–Southland Park, are National Register historic districts, with our monitors inside them. The environmental review: questions for the FAA. ↩
6. The proposed rule (91 Fed. Reg. 56380, September 2, 2026) contains no expiration or review provision, and restates the restriction with the ceiling given above sea level and the permitted operations spelled out. Its regulatory analysis counts costs to aircraft operators only, and the proposal never mentions noise, or the people who live under the flight paths. The FAA applied a categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement was prepared. The FAA did separately model noise for the January 2026 flight-path changes; see What It Sounds Like. Its cost analysis, prepared under Executive Order 12866 rather than the environmental law, takes as its baseline "the continuation of the existing SSI flight restriction" (Section IV.A.1), so that analysis does not weigh the permanent rule against the neighborhoods as they were before October 2025. The only environmental analysis we have seen, the FAA's January 2026 screening of the flight procedures, did use pre-restriction flight tracks as its baseline; we have seen no environmental analysis of this rule itself. ↩
7. Petition on change.org; signature count as of September 2026. ↩
8. A court may not hear an objection later unless it was raised with the FAA now. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(d), a court reviewing an FAA order may consider an objection only if it was raised in the FAA's proceeding, or there was a reasonable ground for not raising it. The FAA may also consider late comments that do not significantly delay the rulemaking (14 CFR 11.45(b)). Neither exception is something to rely on. ↩