Designation: Restrict the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft in Close Proximity to a Fixed Site Facility

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it would allow factory farms to hide environmental violations and animal cruelty from public scrutiny. They contend that there is no evidence of drone threats to these facilities and that aerial photojournalism is a vital tool for public interest.

Percepto, a UAS manufacturer and operator, supports the FAA's proposed rulemaking to restrict unmanned aircraft operations near fixed site facilities. They advocate for a risk-based, facility-specific approach that balances national security with continued access for authorized commercial operators.

Rory Johnson, founder of UUAS and a graduate student at Middle Tennessee State University, supports the proposed rule but recommends specific evidentiary standards. He argues that the FAA should adjudicate "aviation safety necessity" based on site-specific evidence rather than assumed national trends, and that operator density should not be used as a proxy for hazard.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it creates a patchwork of permanent no-fly zones without proving that existing FAA authorities are insufficient. They express concern that the rule will burden law-abiding operators, reduce public transparency, and hinder the work of journalists and researchers.

The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) supports the FAA's authority to protect critical infrastructure but argues that the proposed rule lacks sufficient transparency and procedural safeguards. They urge the FAA to include requirements for public notice, a searchable database of restricted areas, documented findings for each designation, and protections for confidential newsgathering information.

The commenter, an owner of a small environmental engineering company and retired Air Force pilot, opposes the proposed unmanned aircraft flight restriction. They argue that the FAA lacks the manpower to enforce additional rules and that such restrictions may inadvertently signal "bad actors" to critical areas.

The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), representing the U.S. fertilizer industry, supports the FAA's proposed rule to restrict unmanned aircraft operations near critical infrastructure. They advocate for a risk-informed, practical framework that allows for facility-specific boundaries, clarifies Remote ID standards, and streamlines the application process to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Electronic Privacy Information Center submitted a joint comment regarding drone flight restrictions near fixed site facilities. While acknowledging security concerns, the organizations argue that the proposed rule lacks sufficient protections for First Amendment-protected newsgathering and urge the FAA to explicitly weigh press freedom interests against security claims.

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) supports the proposed rule to restrict drone operations near fixed site facilities but urges the FAA to ensure that legitimate construction activities are not disrupted. They specifically request amendments to allow for non-transitory drone operations and more predictable, project-wide authorization processes to maintain construction efficiency.

Red Cat Holdings, Inc. supports the FAA's proposal to establish facility-specific Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restrictions (UAFRs) to protect sensitive sites. However, they argue the final rule must be narrowly tailored to ensure that federal authority over airspace is preserved, private site managers do not gain veto power, and lawful UAS operations—such as infrastructure inspection and defense contractor support—are not unnecessarily restricted.