The Tactien Group outlines key considerations for critical infrastructure operators following the close of the FAA’s Section 2209 NPRM comment period, including future airspace restrictions, Remote Identification requirements, and counter-UAS planning.
The FAA closed the public comment period for its Section 2209 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 5. A final rule may still be six to twelve months away at best, but operators can begin preparing for several elements already contained in the proposal.
Section 2209 would create two designations under Part 74: Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restriction (UAFR) and Special Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restriction (SUAFR).
Neither would physically prevent a drone intrusion or provide counter-UAS mitigation authority. Instead, the designations would establish legally restricted airspace around qualifying property, with violations subject to civil penalties and, in some cases, criminal liability.
UAFR and SUAFR
A standard UAFR would remain in effect for five years and require Remote ID receiving capability and basic physical security. Vetted commercial operators could still transit the restricted airspace with notice.
A SUAFR would impose tighter restrictions and is intended for facilities with a credible federal security sponsor. Violations may also carry criminal liability under 49 U.S.C. 46307.
Neither designation would allow an infrastructure operator to jam, spoof, net, or shoot down a drone. Counter-UAS mitigation authority is governed separately from the proposed Part 74 airspace restriction framework.
Requirements Still Being Defined
Remote ID receiving capability is expected to be required for every UAFR or SUAFR applicant, but acceptable implementation remains unresolved. It is not yet clear whether a phone application would be sufficient or whether the FAA will expect a commercial sensor system.
Security documentation is also disputed. The FAA’s draft language calls for a “drone security plan,” while industry commenters have supported a narrower “drone response plan” and alternatives that would reduce disclosure of broader physical security information.
Eligibility thresholds have also drawn criticism, with industry groups supporting a more risk-based or case-by-case approach.
Preparing Before the Final Rule
Operators can begin assembling information that may support a future application, including throughput figures, chemical inventories, and records of drone activity near a facility.
The NPRM requests up to 24 months of activity data “where available.” Facilities can also begin evaluating Remote ID receiving technologies before final requirements are published.
Future Counter-UAS Considerations
The significance of Section 2209 may extend beyond the airspace designation itself.
The source analysis suggests that holding a UAFR or SUAFR could become relevant if mitigation authority is later extended to critical infrastructure operators. This is not established by the proposed Part 74 rule, and any future relationship between the two frameworks remains uncertain.
