The Federal Aviation Administration has reopened the comment period for its proposed Part 108 rule governing beyond visual line of sight drone operations, seeking additional feedback on electronic conspicuity and right-of-way provisions. The notice of proposed rulemaking, titled “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations,” was originally published Aug. 7, 2025, with a 60-day comment window that closed Oct. 6.
The FAA said the reopening will allow new comments until Feb. 11, 2026, and applies only to the limited topics outlined in the notice.
Focus on Electronic Conspicuity Devices
These include input on the availability, capabilities, standards, and potential performance requirements of alternate electronic conspicuity devices, including how they compare to ADS-B Out and whether existing international or industry standards could be applied in the U.S. The FAA is also looking for feedback on Part 108 implementation considerations such as timelines to market, pilot alerting features, anonymity, and whether other technologies could allow manned aircraft to be electronically detectable.
Proposed Right-of-Way Changes Under Part 108
The Part 108 proposal would establish a new regulatory framework for low-altitude BVLOS drone operations and supporting services, including UAS traffic management.
Central to the proposal are changes to right-of-way rules that could, in some cases, potentially give unmanned aircraft priority over crewed aircraft unless the manned aircraft is broadcasting ADS-B Out or using an otherwise approved alternate electronic conspicuity device.
The FAA said that more than half of comments submitted during the original comment period addressed the right-of-way provisions. The FAA previously denied earlier requests to extend the initial comment deadline.
Industry Feedback and Next Steps
Industry comments and FAA-hosted listening sessions with the UAS manufacturing community held Jan. 6 highlighted differing views on how unmanned and manned aircraft should share airspace below 400 feet AGL. Portable electronic conspicuity devices were raised as a potential option for aircraft not equipped with installed ADS-B Out, particularly for low-altitude operations.
The FAA stated that comments already submitted will still be considered and that duplicative submissions will not receive additional weight as the agency works toward finalizing the rule.
ADS-B needs a third party arbitration system. If the FAA says you violated ADS-B rules, there is no real defense that you can mount. They’ve made the penalties real extreme, and you have no effective recourse.
“Portable electronic conspicuity devices were raised as a potential option for aircraft not equipped with installed ADS-B Out, particularly for low-altitude operations.” There it is. The first hint of forced participation through liability. Like telling us all we had a choice over taking the covid shot, but we may not be able to shop, worship or be employed util we bend.
ADS-B was supposed to replace the transponder, then they took away the option of turning it off. I foresee them making it your responsibility to evade drones unless you buy a portable choice.
A means of mediation for perceived infractions must be included in any expansion of rules or participation. There are already reports of passing aircraft reported as landing by ADS-B and hit with landing fees. A means of mediation must be in the rewrite of the application.