DSPA Urges FAA To Use Section 2209 NPRM To Preempt 25 State Drone Airspace Laws

The Drone Service Providers Alliance is pressing the FAA to use its long-overdue Section 2209 rule to invalidate the patchwork of critical infrastructure airspace laws that 25 states wrote while the federal rule sat undone for nearly a decade. In a comment guide posted to the alliance’s website, DSPA President Vic Moss laid out a five-point framework for what working pilots should put in the docket before the comment window closes July 6, 2026. Federal preemption tops his list.

The proposed rule itself is, by Vic’s read, mostly reasonable. It creates a new 14 CFR Part 74 with two designation tiers: a Standard UAFR for sites like electrical substations and amusement parks, and a Special UAFR for sensitive federal facilities. Five operational parts can transit a Standard UAFR with Remote ID broadcast and notification. Recreational pilots flying under 49 U.S.C. 44809 are not on that list. DroneXL has been tracking Section 2209 since January 2023, when the rule was already six years past its statutory deadline.

DSPA’s Five-Point Comment Framework Targets The Operational Details

DSPA’s comment guide breaks the NPRM into five focus areas where industry input can shape the final rule: who can fly over UAFR sites, who can apply for designation, what the flight approval process looks like, whether Part 74 permits counter-drone authority, and how the rule handles federal preemption of state airspace law. The five buckets reflect the alliance’s working pilot membership.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2026 and opens a 60-day comment window under Docket No. FAA-2026-4558 at regulations.gov. Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 gave the agency 180 days from the July 15, 2016 enactment to set up this process. The NPRM landed nearly 3,600 days after that deadline.

Federal Preemption Is The Highest-Priority Fix In Vic’s Framework

Vic calls federal preemption “the single most important near-term issue that must be addressed in 14 CFR §74,” because 25 states have already written their own critical infrastructure drone laws while the federal rule sat undone for nearly a decade. The math is what drives his ranking. State legislatures filled the vacuum. Once Part 74 lands, those state rules will either survive or fall depending on what the agency writes.

Vic’s comment guide proposes adding a new § 74.240 titled “Federal Exclusivity and Preemption.” His suggested text would declare UAS airspace regulation an exclusive federal function. It would preempt any state, tribal, territorial, or local rule that restricts UAS operations based on proximity to critical infrastructure. It would also preserve traditional state authority over trespass, privacy, land use, and nuisance. That last carve-out matters because it neutralizes the most common state response to federal preemption claims.

Recreational Flyers Are Missing From The § 74.250 Transit List

Section 74.250 lets drones operating under Parts 91, 107, the upcoming 108, 135, and 137 transit a Standard UAFR if they broadcast Remote ID, move through in the shortest practicable time, and notify the facility, but recreational pilots flying under 49 U.S.C. 44809 are not on that list. Vic argues that gap matters more than it sounds.

His example is concrete. Electrical substations are everywhere. He notes two near his own house, with one adjacent to a park where drones are commonly flown. The same goes for cell towers. If every Standard UAFR around a substation locks out 44809 operators, the rule redraws suburban airspace block by block without any 44809 pilots having weighed in.

The Association of American Railroads asked the FAA to allow UAFRs over approximately 140,000 miles of track plus 50 feet of lateral right-of-way on each side. The FAA rejected that request in the preamble, writing that issuing UAFRs over 140,000 miles of track was not consistent with congressional direction. That rejection is proof of what industry comments can do. It is also Vic’s argument for why recreational operators need to file, not just Part 107 holders.

Counter-UAS Authority Must Stay Out Of Part 74

The NPRM describes Section 2209 as an airspace restriction mechanism rather than a mitigation authority, and DSPA wants that separation kept clean in the final rule so counter-drone authority stays under the SAFER SKIES Act rather than getting bundled into Part 74 itself. UAFR designations do not authorize geofencing, jamming, drone capture, or any other physical interdiction.

This is where the docket fight is hardest to predict. Critical infrastructure operators have spent years pushing for the right to defend their own airspace. The FAA held the line in the NPRM. Whether that holds through the final rule depends on what shows up in the docket from the security side versus the working pilot side. Vic’s view is that mitigation belongs in the SAFER SKIES framework, full stop.

DroneXL’s Take

Vic’s comment guide is the most useful piece of public guidance on Section 2209 I have seen since the NPRM dropped on May 5. His read on the rule is right. The proposal is mostly reasonable on its face. The Standard UAFR concept can work for substations and amusement parks if the application process is tight, the approval criteria are narrow, and the transit process operates more like LAANC than DroneZone. Once the rule is final, the docket is closed.

The federal preemption fight is the one that matters most to readers in any of the 25 states with their own critical infrastructure drone laws on the books. Florida and Texas have been the most active publicly, and others have followed. If Part 74 does not explicitly preempt those laws, drone operators will still be navigating a 50-state patchwork after the federal rule is final. That is not what nine years of delay was supposed to produce. The state preemption fights DSPA has worked on in Colorado and elsewhere exist precisely because the federal vacuum left them necessary.

Watch the docket between now and July 6 for two specific things: whether industry commenters build a record on the 44809 transit gap, and whether Vic’s proposed § 74.240 preemption language gets enough docket support to force the FAA to address state preemption in the final rule. The FAA’s rejection of the 140,000-mile AAR railroad request shows that targeted industry comment with specific facility-level data moves this agency. Whether the same is true on preemption is an open question. The NPRM does not currently address state preemption explicitly, and that silence is what makes the comment window the only remaining lever.

If you fly Part 107 or 44809, file a comment. If you have never filed one before, this is the rule to start with. Vic’s full guide is worth reading before you write yours, and his proposed § 74.240 text is worth pasting into your own comment if you agree with it. DSPA is carrying the right message at the right deadline, and DroneXL is behind it.

Sources: Vic Moss, “The 2209 NPRM. Why It’s Critical We Comment,” Drone Service Providers Alliance; Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-2026-4558; Federal Register, May 6, 2026; Public Law 114-190, Section 2209.

DroneXL uses automated tools to support research and source retrieval. All reporting and editorial perspectives are by Haye Kesteloo.