Has Florida's Attorney General pressed the FAA over aircraft noise from NextGen flight paths over Florida?

Plain-English summary

This was not a traditional legal opinion. It was a letter, dated June 24, 2016, from Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. The Attorney General reported that her office had received "a number of complaints" from Florida citizens about aircraft noise at Tampa International Airport, and asked the FAA to give similar concerns at other Florida airports the attention they deserved.

The letter pointed at the FAA's NextGen program as the source of much of the new noise. NextGen replaced ground-based radar with GPS-based waypoints, which has the effect of concentrating many flights along the same narrow corridors. Communities that used to see scattered overflights began seeing repeated flights along the same line, sometimes over neighborhoods that had previously been quiet. The Attorney General told the FAA she understood the operational case for NextGen, then noted that the same shift has hit residents' property values and quiet enjoyment of their homes.

No legal analysis was offered, no Florida statute was cited, and no remedy under Florida law was identified. Aviation noise regulation is largely a federal matter, and the letter was a political and constituent-services intervention rather than an interpretation of state law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did this letter create any legal duty on the FAA or anyone else?
A: No. It was a request for attention from a state Attorney General to a federal agency administrator. It carried no statutory authority and no court order, and it did not bind the FAA to change anything.

Q: Why did the FL AG write to the FAA rather than addressing this through state law?
A: Aircraft routing, altitude, and operational noise are governed federally. The Federal Aviation Act and decades of case law preempt state and local efforts to directly regulate flight operations. A state official who wants something to change usually has to either persuade the FAA, work through Congress, or back local airport authorities in their own dealings with the FAA.

Q: What is NextGen and why has it caused noise complaints across the country?
A: NextGen is the FAA's satellite-based air traffic system, replacing the older ground-radar architecture. Because it uses GPS waypoints, aircraft fly far more predictable and concentrated paths. Many cities (Phoenix, Boston, New York, Tampa) saw legal and political fights after NextGen rollouts as overflight burdens shifted onto narrower bands of neighborhoods.

Q: Did the letter mention the Phoenix litigation?
A: Yes. It referenced "the litigation with the City of Phoenix," a reference to a 2017 D.C. Circuit decision (City of Phoenix v. Huerta) where Phoenix challenged FAA-imposed flight path changes. At the time of this letter the Phoenix case was still on appeal; the D.C. Circuit later partially sided with Phoenix on procedural grounds.

Q: Who got copies of this letter?
A: The letter was copied to a Tampa resident who had complained, the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, and U.S. Senators Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio. That distribution pattern (resident plus aviation authority plus the state's congressional delegation) is typical of constituent-services correspondence.

Background and statutory framework

The Attorney General has authority under § 16.01(3), Florida Statutes, to issue legal opinions to Florida state officials and agencies on questions about their official duties. This letter is not such an opinion. It is an informational letter signed by the Attorney General, and it was published on the AG's opinions page alongside formal opinions.

Federal preemption is the larger legal context. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 have been read to preempt most state and local regulation of aircraft operations, routing, and noise. The Supreme Court in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973), struck down a local curfew ordinance on preemption grounds. State officials therefore tend to use political and reputational pressure rather than statute when they push the FAA.

The letter does not mention any Florida statute it would invoke if persuasion failed. There is none available for the underlying complaint.

Citations and references

This letter cites no statutes and no cases by name. The reference to "litigation with the City of Phoenix" alludes to what would become City of Phoenix v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/airport-noise-pollution-faa-
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8060

Original opinion text

Mr. Michael P. Huerta

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

Dear Mr. Huerta:

This office has received a number of complaints from Florida citizens relating to noise pollution from aircraft operations at the Tampa International Airport. It is our understanding that you have received these complaints and that the FAA has been on notice of the controversy surrounding the existing Noise Abatement Program that governs the operation of noise pollution to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhoods.

The purpose of this letter is to call this issue to your attention as well as the similar concerns that have occurred at other Florida airports, so that you may give these concerns the attention they deserve.

We are aware that the FAA has for years now found itself facing considerable challenges in implementing the satellite-based Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). The objectives for NextGen have been identified as improvements to overall safety of the flying public and an increase in the efficiency of the National Airspace System. We understand that the primary feature of the NextGen program is a series of GPS-based waypoints, which result in the same or similar flightpaths for a large majority of all airport traffic. As a result, many localities have experienced increases in air traffic over previously less disturbed areas and noise has been identified as a primary area of concern in the implementation of NextGen.

While community opposition to these developments has presented a major challenge to implementation of NextGen, we know the FAA has made efforts nationally to resolve this opposition.

Whether it's issues similar to those raised in the litigation with the City of Phoenix or those now raised by the residents of Tampa, we trust the FAA understands the seriousness of these concerns. Changing the rules of the game impacts the overall quality of life of many Floridians from diminishing their property values to removing their quiet enjoyment.

We ask that you provide the much needed assistance to the residents surrounding Tampa International and all other Florida Airports. Please keep my office informed as to your progress on their behalf. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact my General Counsel, Kent Perez, at 850-245-0140.

Sincerely,

Pam Bondi

Attorney General

PB/tgh

cc: Barbara Couture

423 Royal Poinciana Drive

Tampa, FL  33609



Hillsborough County Aviation Authority

P. O. Box 22287

Tampa, FL  33622



The Honorable Bill Nelson

716 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC  20510



The Honorable Marco Rubio

284 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC  20510