...Is a Good Thing:

To get to where the information is, or to comment, go to this link, and type in, 11580. Then you, too, can participate in the great democracy of totalitarian rule. Your comments are requested until April 22 (after which time they won't be given any more consideration than your arguments already have...).

[Federal Register: February 19, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 33) Page 7537-7545]
14 CFR Part 91; [Docket No. FAA-2002-11580; SFAR 94]

The FAA says, "This action is being taken to restore aircraft operations at these airports while attempting to counter possible terrorist threats to the National Capital region." In fact, this action is being taken to prohibit aircraft operations.

Here's the FAA-speak version, liberally spiced with our translation:

Background

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against four U.S. commercial aircraft resulting in the tragic loss of human life at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in southwest Pennsylvania, the FAA immediately prohibited all aircraft operations within the territorial airspace of the United States, with the exception of certain military, law enforcement, and emergency related aircraft operations. This general prohibition was lifted in part on September 13, 2001...

Although many of the restrictions on operations in the Washington, DC area have been eliminated, NOTAM 1/3354 continues to prohibit aircraft operations under part 91 at College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field. In 2000, approximately 89,000 part 91 operations were conducted from these airports. The current restrictions have caused significant economic hardship for these airport operators, aircraft owners and operators based at the airports, and businesses located on, or dependent upon, the continued operation of the airports. These operational restrictions have remained in effect longer than the restrictions imposed in other areas because of the proximity of the airports to the significant number of critical government assets in the National Capital region and the continuing threat to that area. [The "continuing threat" by whom? Even the FAA knows that the September 11 damage was caused by commercial aircraft, not GA, and that last year's "demonstrations" of what GA aircraft can do to bank buildings showed how little damage can actually be made by such airplanes.]

After discussions with the National Security Council, the United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, and the Office of Homeland Security, it was determined that national security concerns regarding operations at College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field could be addressed by permitting operations at these airports in accordance with the air traffic and security procedures set forth in this SFAR. [Yet the restrictions, while allowing the locals to fly, under heavy restriction, and at great inconvenience, fail to address the very survival of those airports, which cannot be supported by local users alone.]

'Justification' for Emergency Final Rule

Because flight operations at airports affected by this SFAR have been prohibited since September 11, 2001, and in recognition of the need to restore operations at these airports in a manner that responds to the current [unspecified, and unknown] security threat, the FAA is adopting this SFAR as an emergency final rule pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Section 553(b)(B) of the APA permits an agency to forego notice and comment rulemaking when "the agency for good cause finds * * * that notice and public procedures thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest." The FAA finds that the use of notice and public procedures for this SFAR is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. [Promulgation of a law wouldn't be good practice -- the natives might get organized, and resist.] The use of notice and comment procedures prior to issuing this final rule would only delay the relief provided by this SFAR to airport operators, aircraft operators, and businesses affected by the prohibition on operations at the affected airports. [They could always enact it for a shorter period of time, if they wanted to actually provide 'relief.'] A delay would significantly increase the economic burden on persons conducting operations that have been prohibited under previous actions enacted without notice and public comment and possibly result in the permanent closure of affected airports. [In fact, the FAA's built-in two year delay virtually assures the demise of these airports. The FAA must know of some threat so severe, that these airports must be put out of business, a threat so confined, that other airports haven't yet been snuffed out. That'll come later, after the precedent's set with "the DC-3."]

[By the way,] The disqualifying criminal offenses are as follows--

(1) Forgery of certificates, false marking of aircraft, and other aircraft registration violation; 49 U.S.C. 46306.
(2) Interference with air navigation; 49 U.S.C. 46308.
(3) Improper transportation of a hazardous material; 49 U.S.C. 46312.
(4) Aircraft piracy; 49 U.S.C. 46502.
(5) Interference with flight crew members or flight attendants; 49 U.S.C. 46504.
(6) Commission of certain crimes aboard aircraft in flight; 49 U.S.C. 46506.
(7) Carrying a weapon or explosive aboard aircraft; 49 U.S.C. 46505.
(8) Conveying false information and threats; 49 U.S.C. 46507.
(9) Aircraft piracy outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States; 49 U.S.C. 46502(b).
(10) Aircraft lighting violations involving transporting controlled substances; 49 U.S.C. 46315.
(11) Unlawful entry into an aircraft or airport area that serves air carriers or foreign air carriers contrary to established security requirements; 49 U.S.C. 46314.
(12) Destruction of an aircraft or aircraft facility; 18 U.S.C. 32. (13) Murder.
(14) Assault with intent to murder.
(15) Espionage.
(16) Sedition.
(17) Kidnapping or hostage taking.
(18) Treason.
(19) Rape or aggravated sexual abuse. [?]
(20) Unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, or manufacture of an explosive or weapon.
(21) Extortion.
(22) Armed or felony unarmed robbery.
(23) Distribution of, or intent to distribute, a controlled substance. [?]
(24) Felony arson.
(25) Felony involving a threat.
(26) Felony involving--
  (i) Willful destruction of property;
  (ii) Importation or manufacture of a controlled substance;
  (iii) Burglary; [?]
  (iv) Theft;
  (v) Dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation; 
  (vi) Possession or distribution of stolen property; 
  (vii) Aggravated assault;
  (viii) Bribery; or
  (ix) Illegal possession of a controlled substance punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year.
(27) Violence at international airports; 18 U.S.C. 37.
(28) Conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the criminal acts listed in this paragraph.

[Note that the TSA can already blacklist any pilot, for ANY reason, or for no reason at all -- all of the above is simply redundant, at best.]

[TSA, not FAA, is Really Running Things]

Additionally, TSA or other delegated law enforcement authorities may impose specific requirements for the conduct of operations to or from the affected airports, such as a requirement for the collection of fingerprints to facilitate the completion of a background investigation. [MAY impose? It already has!]

As an alternative, the FAA considered eliminating the personnel verification requirements set forth above. In view of the current [unspecified, unknown] threat and the need to help preclude the possibility of persons with hostile intent from conducting operations at these airports, it has been determined that the absence of a personnel verification requirement would impose too significant a risk to the critical governmental assets contained within the National Capital region.

[There are tons of additional restrictions and requirements alluded to in this document. What they basically all contain is language like, "to be approved by the Administrator." That means that, whenever the TSA tells Marion Blakey to "jump," we'll get another procedure or mandate or prohibition. Your illusion of due process should be dispelled by now. This isn't 'just' about flying -- dangerous precedents are being set, broader than any of us can imagine. The only question is, do you plan to make something of it? --ed.]

FMI: that link again (remember to type in, 11580, in the search box)