Public comments on the FAA's proposed permanent airspace rule close Friday, October 2, 2026 at 11:59 PM Eastern.18 days left.File your comment →
Palm Beach Quiet Skies Coalition

Take Action: Comment Before October 2

Ten minutes of your time, in the FAA's public comment file, is the most effective thing you can do this month.

18days left to comment
You do not need to be an expert. Say where you live, what has changed since October 2025, and what you want the FAA to do. Ten minutes is enough.

File your comment

Comments close Friday, October 2, 2026 at 11:59 PM Eastern. The FAA has committed to consider the comments it receives by that deadline, so file before it. Comments go into the FAA's public comment file for this proposal, called the docket (number FAA-2026-10827).

If the form above does not load, you can file your comment directly on regulations.gov instead. Docket number: FAA-2026-10827.

Pick your points

Choose one or two and say them in your own words. Each number leads to the evidence behind it. Our form asks for your name, email and ZIP code. The FAA publishes comments on regulations.gov with the commenter’s name and whatever the comment itself contains, so give your neighborhood rather than your street address if you prefer, and keep anything you do not want public out of the comment text. If you would rather not give your name at all, file directly on regulations.gov, which allows anonymous comments.

  1. Close the airspace to 1,000 feet, as the Secret Service originally asked. New York got that ceiling. Before the restriction, 99.3% of the departures that crossed the circle were above 1,000 feet; at that ceiling they could use their old routes again if the FAA restored them.1
  2. Ask for the environmental assessment. As we read the FAA’s own procedures, a written review is called for when an action changes where aircraft fly over noise-sensitive neighborhoods or is in litigation. Ask the FAA to prepare an assessment that compares the 1,000-foot ceiling the Secret Service requested with the 2,000-foot ceiling it chose.2
  3. Ask the FAA to share the analysis it says it has. In court the FAA said its own data supported the higher ceiling, and that it reviewed the January 2026 flight paths. Ask that those records be placed in the docket so residents can read and respond to them.3
  4. Require the rule to be re-justified at fixed intervals: a fresh Secret Service statement of what size is still needed, published for comment. The FAA reduced the Crawford, Texas, restriction in 2010 after just such a review; we are asking that the review be regular.4
  5. Count the people on the ground. The proposal’s cost analysis counts costs to aircraft operators only, and takes the temporary restriction as its starting point rather than life before October 2025.5

Then say what it costs you: sleep, the yard, the windows, a conversation outdoors, a child’s schooling. Specific details help most.6

An example of what a comment might say

I have lived in El Cid since 2009. Until October 2025 we rarely noticed the airport. Since then departures pass over our house every few minutes from early morning until late evening, and we can no longer use our back porch or keep the windows open. Our youngest wakes up when the early flights start.

I ask the FAA to set the ceiling at 1,000 feet, which is what the Secret Service originally asked for and what New York received. I also ask the FAA to prepare an environmental assessment of this rule that compares the two ceilings and looks at the neighborhoods under the flight paths, before it makes anything permanent.

This one is illustrative, not a filed comment. Write yours in the same spirit; a few sentences is plenty.

More detail

Why now, even if you doubt the FAA will listen

  • The FAA says it may change the rule “in light of the comments received.” Specific, respectful comments give it a reason and a record to do so.
  • Objections not raised now may not be heard by a court later.7
  • Your account is evidence no one else can supply. Many specific, individual comments show the FAA the real scope of the problem in a way no petition can.

After you comment

  • Share this page with neighbors. Many affected residents may not know about the deadline.
  • Ask your building, HOA or civic association to file its own comment. An organization can file its own comment, which does not replace its members’, through the form or on regulations.gov.
  • Stay in touch. After the comment period, the work moves to the FAA’s final rule and, if needed, the courts.

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 circle on October 1–19, 2025, 99.3% stayed above 1,000 feet throughout the crossing; restoring the old routes would be a separate FAA decision, which the lower 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: Why 2,000 Feet?. ↩

  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 words “resident” and “noise” do not appear in the proposal. 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. ↩

Back to the comment form ↑

Want to hear what happens next? Join our mailing list.