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.

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.

Censys Technologies Corporation, a drone manufacturer and operator, supports the FAA's proposed rule to establish Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restrictions (UAFRs) around critical infrastructure. They advocate for specific clarifications to ensure authorized operators can remain in UAFRs for necessary tasks, suggest a "whitelist" process for recurring operations to reduce administrative burden, and emphasize that private entities lack the authority to interdict aircraft.

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 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 National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) supports the FAA's proposed rule to establish a process for Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restrictions (UAFRs) at fixed site facilities to protect critical energy infrastructure. They recommend clarifying how state-level risk assessments and existing state laws will interact with the federal designation process.

A Part 107 certified remote pilot opposes the proposed "advanced notice" transit requirement for drones, arguing that it creates unnecessary administrative burdens for commercial operators. The commenter suggests that the FAA should instead use Remote ID technology to broadcast verified professional status to ground security teams.

The International Association of Venue Managers (IAVM) supports the proposed rule to establish unmanned aircraft flight restrictions (UAFR) for critical infrastructure but urges the FAA to lower the eligibility thresholds. They specifically request lowering the annual attendance requirement from 2.5 million to 200,000 and the public opening requirement from 120 days to 60 days to include more venues.

The FPV Freedom Coalition opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it lacks sufficient data to support its restrictions and unfairly burdens recreational flyers. They specifically advocate for removing requirements that force fixed-site facility operators to monitor and report Remote ID signals, citing excessive liability and "rulemaking via Advisory Circular."