FAA Reopens BVLOS Comment Period With Tight Two-Week Deadline

The FAA is reopening the comment period for its Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) rulemaking, but operators have just two weeks to respond. Comments open January 28 and close February 11, 2026.

The reopened comment period focuses specifically on electronic conspicuity — the technology that allows aircraft to see and be seen in shared airspace. The FAA received over 3,100 comments on the original NPRM, with more than half addressing the controversial right-of-way provisions.

• Comment Period: January 28 – February 11, 2026 (14 days)
• Focus: Electronic conspicuity and right-of-way
• Docket Number: FAA-2025-1908
• How to Comment: regulations.gov or email 9-FAA-UAS-BVLOS-Rule@faa.gov

Why the FAA is reopening comments

The original Part 108 NPRM, published August 7, 2025, proposed giving BVLOS drone operators presumptive right-of-way over manned aircraft — except when the manned aircraft broadcasts its position via ADS-B Out or an approved alternate electronic conspicuity device.

That proposal generated significant pushback. Commenters raised concerns about complexity, confusion, and the cost of detect-and-avoid technology. Others argued that universal electronic conspicuity for manned aircraft is the only viable collision mitigation strategy.

The FAA held listening sessions with industry on January 6, 2026, and decided it needs more targeted input before finalizing the rule.

The FAA’s seven questions

The agency is asking for comments on these specific topics:

1. What alternate EC devices exist today that could comply with the proposed rules? Who makes them, and where are they approved?
2. Do these alternate EC devices provide benefits beyond ADS-B Out? Can they provide anonymity?
3. How quickly could alternate EC devices reach the U.S. market once standards are approved?
4. Should the performance requirements for ADS-B Out (§ 91.227) also apply to alternate EC devices?
5. Is the RTCA DO-282C standard appropriate for alternate EC devices in the U.S.? Are there other standards the FAA should consider?
6. What are the downsides of requiring EC devices to include malfunction indicators?
7. Are there other technologies besides ADS-B Out or alternate EC that should be allowed for electronic detection?

Industry should submit individual comments

Greg Reverdiau of Pilot Institute recommends that companies submit their own comments rather than relying solely on industry associations.

“We recommend individual companies submit comments as well, providing input on the importance of universal conspicuity in the airspace and how it ultimately improves safety and reduces costs for you,” Reverdiau wrote.

Comments unrelated to these seven questions will be considered out of scope and won’t be reviewed.

DroneXL’s Take

The FAA is clearly trying to resolve a fundamental tension in BVLOS integration: who bears the cost of airspace safety technology — drone operators or manned aircraft pilots?

The original proposal put the burden on manned aircraft to broadcast their position or yield right-of-way to drones. That didn’t sit well with the aviation community. Now the FAA needs data on whether affordable, effective alternatives to ADS-B actually exist.

If you manufacture or operate EC devices, this is your moment to shape the final rule. Two weeks isn’t much time, but the FAA is listening.

Editorial Note: This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI to ensure technical accuracy and archive retrieval. All insights, industry analysis, and perspectives were provided exclusively by Haye Kesteloo and our other DroneXL authors, editors, and YouTube partners to ensure the “Human-First” perspective our readers expect.

Last update on 2026-01-27 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API