On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:39:17 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more. To wit:

1: The FAA is required to "consider" the points being raised. To me
this means "to rebut them before enacting the rule anyway". (Ok, the
cynic in me!). In any case, what would their likely rebuttals be, so I
can anticipate them in the letter itself?

As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the
FAA's reason for not adopting it:

Alternative 1: Rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853,
and the DC ADIZ/FRZ immediately—
This alternative would provide
immediate relief to these airports by
removing security provisions and
restoring former air traffic control
procedures and air space configurations.
Implementation of this alternative
would facilitate the return of pilots who,
for the sake of operating simplicity and
reduced flying costs, relocated to other
airports. This would be the least costly
option. The FAA believes that the threat
of terrorists using aircraft as missiles
must be guarded against, and this option
would not adequately achieve that goal.

Conclusion: Rescinding these actions
would increase the vulnerability and
diminish the level of protection now in
place to safeguard vital national assets
located within the National Capital
Region. This alternative is rejected
because it would compromise the
security of vital national assets and
increase their vulnerability.


2: Does it matter how many people sign such a letter? i.e. does it
make sense to make a petition out of it?

I don't know. But my feeling is, that the more comments from
different individuals the FAA receives that echo your point, the more
credence it will carry.

3: Would it make sense to get an organization like MoveOn.org to read
it and perhaps generate an action item?

I don't see how it could hurt. At least it will make the general
public aware of the NPRM.