Part 108/146 NPRM Comment Review

Beyond the Buzz (episode 17) - Part 108/146 NPRM Comment Reviews  

November 13, 2025 

Danielle Miller  

Hello everyone and welcome to Beyond the Buzz where this month, we're going to be talking about the part 108/146 NPRM comments that were submitted during the recent public comment period. I am Danielle Miller, director of safety at the Northern Plains UAS Test Site. And with me is Josh Peters. Josh, can you say hi and introduce yourself?  

Josh Peters 

Yeah, good morning everyone. My name is Joshua Peters. I'm the regulatory and data specialist here at the test site and I'm happy to start talking about this new comments and everything.  

Danielle  

Thanks Josh. All right we will jump right in. So the part 108/146 notice of proposed rulemaking. In other words this is the proposed rule for normalizing unmanned aircraft systems beyond visual line of sight operations. This proposed rule is primarily made up of two parts. Part 108, the rule for operations of unmanned aircraft systems beyond visual line of sight as well as part 146, the rule for automated data service providers or providers of UTM services, DAA services, surveillance services, etc. So the development and release of this NPRM as well as the recent public comment period were significant milestones in working toward a regulation that provides supportive and predictable pathway to BVLOS drone operations. Know this collaboration through the public comment period the collaboration with the FAA was greatly appreciated. It's also this collaboration that's going to help us really create and help the FAA create the best possible final rule . 

There was over 3,000 comments submitted during the public comment period. Josh and I have gone through several of them and today we're going to talk to you about some different themes and perspectives that we saw emerge throughout the public comments. So, first off, some areas of support that we saw throughout the public comments. First off, there was support for the utilization of industry standards and performance-based requirements that can be tailored to specific operator needs. There was also support for the airworthiness acceptance process rather than airworthiness certification. This airworthiness acceptance process really takes a declaration of compliance approach rather than the traditional type certificate or DNR type certificate process that have proven to be ineffective in the past. There was support for two operational or operator categories permitted, permitted operations and certificated operations. There was support for part 146, the automated data service provider regulation that establishes a scalable path to ADSB certification and authorization of services necessary for BVLOS operations.  

There was also support for the rules intent for more efficient use of airspace, whether that be thanks to the development of part 146 or the intent to more fully integrate UAS into the national airspace through the proposed changes in right of way equipage and many more. We're going to dive into some of these details further in the coming slides. But all that being said, there were several areas or recommendations for improvement that we found throughout the public comments. So, we will get into those here in a minute. But kind of before we dive in, a common theme that we saw is the goal to develop a successful rule that will enable the integration of safe, scalable, cost-effective drone operations in the national airspace that maximize the societal benefits achieved through drones, such as critical infrastructure inspections, life-saving public safety operations and delivery operations, ag. operations and so on. A successful rule will really maintain operations that are occurring today as well as provide a framework for growth and innovation in the future. So, with that said, we're going to dive into the recommendations for improvement that we saw from industry throughout the public comments. Josh, I will pass it off to you.  

Josh  

All right. Thanks, Danielle. So, as Daniel said, we're going to be talking about the recommendations. So, the first recommendation today is accounting for all the costs and benefits for these provisions that are being provided. There's been multiple proposed provisions throughout that do not show a clear benefit or justified rationale for the additional costs inherent with its application such as some of the DAA system requirements, the electronic and specuity requirements, data collection, registration, battery backup requirements, etc. So, there's plenty of ones there that need to be worked on and looked at.  

Secondly, recordkeeping reporting requirements. These record keeping and reporting requirements seem more focused on pure data collection rather than actually identifying and mitigating the risks. The cost to obtain, retain, and report all of this data has no clear benefit to long-term success for the actual operators that are tasked with collecting this. 

Next, a common recommendation we also saw was to create a pathway for less than 55 lb operations, which would maintain the same level of training operations normally found on part 107, saving the more detailed level of requirements and training for the more complex operations and heavier aircraft that will be involved with larger aircraft. 

So, and then lastly on here, as you see is when it comes to training requirements, there is an important question to consider. Can we trust the operators to determine what constitutes sufficient training or should the FAA establish specific standards or experience levels? Right now and with the provisions, the FAA does not mandate specific training requirements, leaving that responsibility to the industry and the operator. However, many operators and some of the comments that we saw have suggested that a defined minimum number of training hours or experience requirements would help ensure greater consistency and safety across the BVLOS operations. So, there is a little give and take push and pull through all that, and it's obviously the FAA's responsibility to try and find where that middle ground is going to be. 

Danielle  

Very good points Josh. Thank you. Another common theme that we saw across the public comments was with regard to the TSA security requirements. There was a call to scale back security requirements to ensure that they're realistic, scalable, and appropriately risk based. As drafted now, 108335 would require that all covered persons undergo a TSA level three security threat assessment. And by definition in the proposed rule, a covered person includes not only operation supervisors and flight coordinators, but also anyone with unescorted access to the UAS, it's related cargo or flight paths. So, this can include retail staff, restaurant workers, or package recipients. Typically, currently, a level three SDA is required of airport workers with unescorted access to secure areas in airports, those who handle hazardous materials and so on. 

Thus the industry feels this approach is really disproportionate to the actual threat imposed by UAS operations and also would impose enormous costs, delays and administrative burdens on an industry that has a proven track record of many years of safe and secure operations. Also, the regulation as written, we don't feel would meet what we believe to be the security intent. Assuming the security intent here is to mitigate bad actors of interfering with part 108 operations, the regulation as written will not meet this intent. The fact of the matter is that anyone can go buy a consumer drone today and use it for good or bad purposes. So the industry recommendation that we're seeing throughout the public comments here is really to focus on enabling operations. The industry is asking to limit SDA requirements to key roles such as operation supervisors and flight coordinators and exclude individuals already vetted through other programs, certificates or government employment. We feel that this would really meet the security intent and protect the public. 

Josh  

All right. And so next we're going to talk about autonomy, and really with autonomy, it's really focusing on the risk identification and management. The proposed removal of BVLOS waivers under part 107 represents a significant step backward from the progress the industry has achieved. Current commercial and public BVLOS operations have been conducted safely through established alternative mitigations maintaining the same level of safety as operations conducted within the established regulations. If these operations are considered safe today, why does part 108 suddenly make them unsafe? The requirement for fully autonomous operations removes BVLOS capability from over half a million operators and countless BVLOS waivers and authorizations already being conducted safely without all the additional part 108 requirements being introduced. Approximately 25% of waivers in 2024 were for BVLOS and essentially FAA saying taking them all away. Everyone has to switch to part 108. 

Industry recommends that's not the pathway we should be taking. We should retain part 107 BVLOS waivers and or integrate non-autonomous BVLOS operations under part 108. We need that capability to still be able to fly our aircraft beyond visual line of sight and still have manual control of those UAS. 

Danielle  

Absolutely. Thanks Josh. Another common theme that we've seen throughout the public comments is with regard to the airworthiness acceptance process. As written currently in subparts G&H, which is the airworthiness procedures as well as the design and test requirements, the airworthiness acceptance process is overly rigid and more appropriate for manned aircraft operations. It mirrors the outdated certification methods such as the D&RTC and would render much of the drone industry non-compliant by requiring costly redesigns and retesting. It's also uniformly applied to nearly all aircraft proposed to operate under the rule from aircraft to about one pound to up to 1320 lbs. Additionally, it largely fails to consider airworthiness as a mitigation alongside the proposed operational requirements which imposes for example population overflight limitations on operators flying airworthy aircraft. So, what we're seeing throughout the public comments with regard to industry recommendations is the request to adjust part 108; operations over people operating categories to better account for an airworthy aircraft to simplify compliance and enable operators to leverage proven mitigations.  

More specifically, the industry is looking for credit for an airworthy aircraft achieved through the air within it acceptance process. Additionally, they're looking to simplify the operator or population density categories simplify them from five down to three. And finally, they're also requesting a nonpopulated area category that would include areas where either are restricted or the public is just not expected to be. This could be within right of way, easements, private property, critical infrastructure areas, things like that. Additionally, the industry is recommending that the FAA consider the one-size fits-all approach to assessing airworthiness to allow for a simpler, more streamlined path in the declaration of compliance process. This is extremely critical for small UAS operators such as public safety agencies, those who are inspecting critical infrastructure, etc.  

Josh 

All right. So, next we're going to focus some more on the actual operational requirements that are being introduced. First is some of this population density requirements, which from our perspective is not really based on current operations or most of the industry's current capabilities in terms of frequency utilization, DAA system requirements, and general population information availability. If anyone has gone on to the ORNL maps, it's outdated. You can't download some of the newest information and it's not this year's information. So, with that, many question the need for the PDA to be utilized at all. It's an unproven safety value. The standoff distances required seem excessive and some of the established part 107 BVLOS operations today had no mention of PDA before. So what's changed? Why is this suddenly going to be required for all operations?  

And on the topic of new mitigation requirements, the FAA should also avoid prescribing specific mitigations such as battery backups, PDA limitations, etc., and instead allow for the use of proven industry standard mitigations, many of which are already effectively employed in current operations such as parachute system integration, clearly defined flight profiles, propeller safety mitigations, and kinetic impact limitations. Everything that part 107 was known for basically thrown out the window. The FAA should establish the expectation and standard and allow the industry to continue finding new and acceptable mitigations that maintain that standard. So overall, the industry recommendation is to propose separation between operations typically performed under 107, currently less than 55 pounds, and those larger platforms with increased risk, which allows operators who previously performed under 107 to continue those same types of operations under 108 with the same acceptable mitigations that have already been proven. And some of those incrementations as you see it's not from what was recommended but what we are thinking of is something along the lines of about 55 to 300 pounds 300 to 1320 pounds something to delineate these different types of operations from the risk that's involved sort of a best of both worlds scenario. 

Danielle 

absolutely thanks Josh. All right, another big topic within the NPRM public comments was with regard to right of away. So currently the proposed rule gives UAS operating under part 108 right of way over non-cooperative aircraft below 400 ft except when they are operating in class B or C airspace or over a category 5 population density area which is those areas as currently written greater than 2500 people and in these cases in B or C airspace or category 5 population densities The UAS is required to be equipped with non-cooperative DAA technology in these circumstances. So there's agreement within both the manned and unmanned communities that this approach is not suitable though there is debate over the solution. So an industry recommendation is that the FAA should do all of the following. number one that they should remove the requirement for unmanned aircraft operated in B or C airspace to have a means to detect and avoid non-cooperative aircraft. Why is this? in B or C airspace with manned aircraft are required to have ADSB out and on top of that ADSB in as a mitigation for a UAS operation has proven to be a safe and effective methods to detect and void. Number two, the industry is requesting that the FAA apply updated right-of-way changes to be consistent across all airspace regardless of the class of airspace or population density being overflown. It's impractical and unsafe to expect a man aviator to adapt to changing right of way rules while mid-flight. Number three, the industry is asking that the FAA require manned aircraft operating below 500 ft to be fully conspicuous through the use of ADSB or other electronic conspicuity devices. In turn, drones would be required to equip with a broadcast remote ID as well as a method for receiving ADSB and electronic conspicuity. Number four, the industry is asking that then to require UAS to give way to all conspicuous manned air traffic. 

Ultimately, our low altitude airspace is increasingly becoming a shared airspace among the general and public safety aviation communities, commercial drones, as well as recreational aviators of all kinds. Together, we feel these changes would create a consistent set of right-of-away rules for low altitude airspace users and thus simplify compliance and ultimately increase the overall safety of the NAS. 

Josh 

All right. So, next we're talking about registration process and some of the proposed provisions is a clear step backward. It's the FAA moving away from the current and efficient online registration for UAS established back in 2015 and towards the outdated manual approach that's really more geared towards manned aviation. The industry believes that registration should remain online as reverting to manual processing would unnecessarily increase the workload costs and processing times. In addition, many commenters also raised concerns about compliance and administrative burdens. Given the large number of drones already registered and the likelihood that many operators will fly the same aircraft under both parts 107 and 108, it remains unclear whether each drone will need to display two separate registration numbers or whether the current end number systemin accommodate the anticipated surge in UAS registrations. And then lastly, it is noted that the FAA did specifically request assistance in finding alternative solutions to part one registration. So really all we can do is hope that there is enough other members other comments that can help find acceptable solution to address these concerns. 

Danielle 

Thanks Josh. Alright. Another common theme that we saw throughout the public comments was regarding spectrum. The prohibition on a C2 link using part15 radio frequency is overly prescriptive and really gates alternative approaches that successfully mitigate interference. Many UAS operations utilize ISM bands and would not be able to comply with this requirement. This will lead to the discontinuation of many widely used systems with proven safety records. So a common industry recommendation we're seeing here is to permit ISM when additional mitigations to control interference are utilized. These mitigations can include conducting a site survey to verify C2 performance using redundant C2 links or leveraging automation to ensure that in the event of a C2 loss, the UAS would either continue mission or return home.  

Josh 

So, an overall theme that's come from these comments is that in order for the operators and the industry to be able to actually operate under 108, there's going to need to be a sort of a transition time period, that magic number is different depending on who you're talking to it seems to be around that 2 to 5 years where basically they're just giving the giving the industry time to allow current operations to continue while working towards that part one compliance and which is really essential to give operators, manufacturers, service providers and standards bodies time to adapt and comply with all the new regulatory framework without disrupting their current operations. 

Danielle 

Absolutely agreed Josh. So it's going to be critical, and the ask is to really retain approvals and approval pathways for BVLOS operations under part 107 and 91 during this transition period.  

Okay, as we wrap up here, here's a summary and just a list of topics that we covered today. We discussed some pros of these topics as well as some recommendations for improvement to be considered for the final rule. The FAA now has the huge task of reviewing and adjudicating over 3,000 comments submitted by the public. Not only will they be reviewing adjudicating these comments, but our hope is that they're also considering over a decade's worth of safe waiver based BVLOS operations and all of the lessons learned that were gathered throughout that time. So we, you know, at the test, we really commend the FAA, the TSA, as well as industry for all of the hard work and dedication that has gone into this effort so far, everything from the development of the rule to the release of the rule to the public comment period and all of the work that industry put in to reviewing and providing comments back to the FAA. Again, I'll hit on this. Our hope is that we'll achieve a successful rule that will enable integration of safe, scalable, cost-effective drone operations in the NAS that maximize the societal benefits we can achieve through drones. We hope that the final rule will maintain operations occurring today as well as provide a framework for growth and innovation in the future. With that, if we have any questions, we are happy to take those. 

So, if there are no questions, we thank everyone who is able to join us in person today and we also thank everyone who takes the time to watch online. If you do have questions after watching online, please reach out. We are happy to discuss any of the various topics further. Thank you so much.