The proposed framework lets fixed site operators request restricted airspace up to 400 feet above ground level, but the FAA's explicit bar on jamming or capturing drones leaves security operators with a paper shield — a fault line between site security and commercial drone…
The FAA's proposed drone no-fly zone framework would let refineries, chemical plants, prisons, and amusement parks ask the agency to wall off their airspace — but the rule explicitly bars those facilities from jamming, capturing, or otherwise disabling intruding aircraft, leaving security operators with a detection-and-report toolkit rather than an enforcement mechanism.
That gap is the rule's most consequential feature. A UAFR designation does not authorize facility operators to jam, capture, or otherwise interfere with the drone, as the agency has stated explicitly in the proposal text. In practical terms, an oil refinery or a state prison could request that the FAA mark a chunk of airspace as restricted, but if an aircraft entered that volume, the facility would have no statutory ground to disable it. Detection, reporting, and a request that the FAA itself enforce the restriction would be the available toolkit. Legal and trade analysis has characterized this as a paper shield.
The proposal creates a two-tier system called Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restrictions, or UAFRs, that fixed-site facility operators could request from the FAA. The base tier is the "Standard UAFR," scoped to the applicant's property boundaries and generally capped at 400 feet above ground level, unless a taller structure forces a higher ceiling. The proposal also leaves room for a second tier, the "Special UAFR," for sites needing broader or higher protection, although the rule does not yet spell out in operational terms what triggers that escalation (FAA newsroom explainer).
The list of eligible facilities is unusually broad. The agency names critical infrastructure sites, energy facilities, oil refineries, chemical facilities, amusement parks, railroad facilities, and state prisons. State prisons are the most striking inclusion, since their security posture routinely involves counter-drone concerns, but pairing them with refineries and theme parks signals how porous the boundary between "critical site" and "soft target" has become in FAA's draft thinking. The proposal text itself describes the facility list as illustrative, which means the final rule's categories could shift in response to public comments.
That gap is where the industry friction lives. On one side, security-minded operators of chemical plants, refineries, and prisons have argued, in legal and trade analysis, that airspace restriction without an enforcement mechanism is a paper shield. On the other side, commercial drone operators, represented by trade groups including the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), are wary of any framework that quietly grants facilities the power to bring down aircraft, regardless of whether the proposed rule explicitly forbids it. Client-side legal analysis has noted that the no-jamming line is the rule's most contested feature, with security-side stakeholders already signaling they want the final rule to permit some form of mitigation response.
The framework sits on Section 2209 of federal aviation law, the statutory provision directing the agency to build a process for fixed-site operators to ask for airspace restrictions. The eligible-facility list and the standard/special split are FAA's answer to that mandate, and the comment period extension signals that the agency expects significant industry pushback before settling on a final shape.
What the FAA does with the comments will tell the industry whether the gap between "declared" and "enforced" airspace is closing or widening. Comments close at the end of the August 5 window. Public comment on the proposed rule is the next concrete signal that security-side operators, commercial drone operators, and the FAA's own counter-drone enforcement posture will be watching closely.