After more than 3,000 comments, many around its right-of-way proposals, the FAA has reopened the BVLOS rulemaking for a short, 14-day round of input focused on ADS-B Out, electronic conspicuity and detect-and-avoid.

The FAA has reopened the comment period on its landmark Part 108 BVLOS rulemaking, but only for two weeks and only on a tightly defined set of questions about electronic conspicuity, ADS-B Out and collision-avoidance responsibilities between crewed and uncrewed aircraft.

In a notice published January 28 in the Federal Register, the agency said it is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations,” first issued on August 7, 2025. Comments on the new notice are due by February 11, 2026, and must be filed under docket FAA-2025-1908. 

The move effectively gives industry and other stakeholders a second, limited opportunity to shape some of the most controversial elements of the proposal: right-of-way rules, equipage expectations for manned aircraft operating at low altitudes, and the role of alternative electronic conspicuity (EC) devices versus ADS-B Out.

From broad BVLOS framework to a narrow follow-up

The original BVLOS NPRM laid out a new Part 108 framework intended to enable “performance-based regulations” for routine, scalable BVLOS operations at mostly low altitudes, plus third-party services such as UAS Traffic Management. 

A central objective, FAA reiterates in the new notice, is to ensure deconfliction between new BVLOS operations and existing users of the National Airspace System. To do that, the NPRM proposed: 

• New right-of-way provisions in §108.195(a)(2), with aligned amendments to §91.113, that would give Part 108 UAS operators presumptive right-of-way over manned aircraft except in four situations:
  • when the crewed aircraft is broadcasting its position via ADS-B Out or an approved alternate EC device;
  • in Class B or C airspace;
  • when the crewed aircraft is taking off or landing; or
  • over Category 5 population areas.
• Detect-and-avoid requirements in §108.180(b) and §108.185(d)(5)(ii) for unmanned aircraft operating in Class B and C airspace or over Category 5 areas, including the ability to detect non-cooperative aircraft that are not broadcasting ADS-B or EC.

The docket drew approximately 3,100 comments, more than half touching in some way on the right-of-way proposal. Many commenters argued that the new framework would create confusing, location-dependent rules and raised concerns about requiring manned aircraft to yield to unmanned systems. Others questioned the cost and maturity of detect-and-avoid technology, particularly for smaller operators. 

At the same time, a separate set of commenters supported broader use of ADS-B or alternate EC to improve situational awareness in low-altitude airspace, and some called mandatory equipage for manned traffic the only viable way to integrate high-density BVLOS operations safely. 

What the FAA is asking for now

The new notice does not reopen the entire NPRM. Instead, FAA says it is seeking “additional comments on the electronic conspicuity and right-of-way topics identified in this notice” and will treat comments outside that scope as out of bounds. 

To focus the discussion, the agency poses seven specific questions: 

• Which alternate EC devices capable of meeting proposed §108.195(a)(2)(ii) exist today, who makes them, where are they approved, and can they alert the user when they fail?
• Are current EC devices approved for the same purposes as ADS-B Out, and do they offer additional benefits, such as anonymity?
• If suitable EC devices are not yet available, how quickly could they reach the U.S. market once a standard is in place?
• Would the ADS-B Out performance requirements in §91.227 be appropriate for EC devices as well, and why or why not?
• Is RTCA’s DO-282C EC standard appropriate for U.S. use, and are there other EC standards FAA should consider?
• What are the downsides, if any, of requiring EC devices to have a visual or audio indicator showing the device is not working properly?
• Are there other ways for manned aircraft to be electronically detectable besides ADS-B Out and alternate EC devices?

FAA emphasizes that previously submitted comments will still be considered in developing the final rule and that resubmitting identical comments will not increase their weight. 

Listening sessions and industry pressure

The narrow reopening follows two FAA listening sessions held January 6 with UAS manufacturers and trade associations, where the agency heard divided views on ADS-B, alternate EC and detect-and-avoid requirements. Some industry representatives favored ADS-B and EC as the primary mitigation for collision risk, while others warned that prescriptive technology mandates could lock in today’s approaches and penalize emerging systems. 

Legal and industry analysts note that this second bite at the apple comes after FAA and TSA previously denied requests to extend the original comment period before its October 6, 2025 deadline, citing statutory timelines under the 2024 reauthorization and the length of the NPRM. 

Since then, stakeholders including AUVSI, DRONERESPONDERS and the New York City Bar Association have submitted detailed Part 108 comments, flagging issues ranging from right-of-way and equipage costs to accountability for certificate holders and public-safety use cases. 

The reopened period now gives those groups, and the broader BVLOS community, a chance to sharpen their positions on EC, ADS-B and detect-and-avoid in particular.

What it means for BVLOS operators

The notice does not change the overall structure of the proposed Part 108 framework, but it does underscore where the FAA is still wrestling with trade-offs:

• How far to go in shifting right-of-way in low-altitude airspace toward Part 108 UAS when crewed aircraft are not electronically visible.
• How much of the integration burden should be borne by manned aircraft equipage versus UAS detect-and-avoid systems.
• Whether lower-cost, portable EC devices can substitute for ADS-B Out in a way that is technically sound, certifiable and usable by the GA community.

With only 14 days on the clock and questions limited to EC and right-of-way, the reopened period is unlikely to rewrite the entire BVLOS proposal. But it is likely to shape the final rule’s approach to “see and avoid” responsibilities and electronic visibility—issues that will determine whether Part 108 is workable for high-tempo DFR operations, low-altitude logistics, infrastructure inspection and other advanced concepts.

Stakeholders who want to weigh in can file comments on or before February 11, 2026, via Regulations.gov under docket FAA-2025-1908, or by the other methods listed in the Federal Register notice.