Comente antes del 2 de octubre

Footnotes

1. One Secret Service letter, dated September 16, 2025 (docket item FAA-2026-10827-0003), requested one nautical mile and a ceiling of 1,000 feet above the ground at both of the President’s residences. New York received that ceiling (NOTAM FDC 5/2811, made permanent as Prohibited Area P-75, 91 Fed. Reg. 48255, effective October 29, 2026); Palm Beach received 2,000 feet (NOTAM FDC 5/2809), issued the same minute. Of the departures that crossed the restricted circle on October 1–19, 2025, 99.3% stayed above 1,000 feet throughout the crossing; restoring the former procedures would be a separate FAA decision, which a 1,000-foot ceiling would make possible. Departures are about three-quarters of the flights now crossing the circle below 2,000 feet; arrivals cross low and need a different remedy. Counts, method and caveats: The 2,000-Foot Question. ↩

2. 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. 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. 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.” ↩

3. 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 higher ceiling on operations (Section III). The FAA’s brief also says the January 2026 procedures received “a noise screening analysis, a categorical exclusion determination, a Section 106 consultation, and a Section 4(f) evaluation. AR 1999-2053” (pp. 34–35). Those administrative-record items are not in the rulemaking docket. ↩

4. The proposal contains no expiration or review provision. In 2010 the FAA reduced the restriction over President George W. Bush’s ranch at Crawford, Texas (Prohibited Area P-49) from 3 nautical miles and 5,000 feet to 2 nautical miles and 2,000 feet after a Secret Service security review found the larger area no longer necessary (75 Fed. Reg., March 31, 2010, FAA rule 2010-7242); the proposal itself recounts the reduction. That review was a one-time decision issued without public comment. We are asking that such a review be regular, and that its result be published for comment. The proposal’s preamble also recounts that several earlier restrictions over presidential residences were revoked when the conditions that justified them changed. ↩

5. The regulatory analysis counts costs to aircraft operators only. Its primary baseline is the restriction already in place since October 2025, and it also evaluates an alternative in which that restriction expires without replacement (proposed rule, Sections IV.A.1 and IV.A.6); on either basis it counts only operators’ costs and finds “no incremental cost relative to current operating conditions for operators.” The proposal never mentions noise, or the people who live under the flight paths. Our own measurements: What It Sounds Like. ↩

6. The FAA’s own guidance in the proposal: the most helpful comments “reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.” ↩

7. 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 if 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. ↩