The Federal Aviation Administration plans to revamp how commercial drones operate beyond visual range. For nearly ten years, companies seeking to fly drones outside what a pilot can see have required individual waivers from the FAA, treating expanded operations as exceptions rather than standard procedure. This approach may soon change with Part 108, a proposed rule published in August 2025 that would replace the waiver system with standardized flight rules for beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) operations.
This update represents the most significant revision to drone regulations since 2016, when the FAA first established specific rules for unmanned aircraft. The proposal introduces a two-tier system: a faster “permitted operations” track for lower-risk missions and a stricter “operational certificate” track requiring advanced safety measures, including detect-and-avoid technology. Public feedback overwhelmed the FAA, prompting it to reopen discussions in January 2026 over collision-avoidance requirements and right-of-way protocols.
Over 1 million drones are now registered across tens of thousands of operators, most of which await clearer guidance on legally expanding their operations. The delay stems not only from bureaucracy but also from broader debates about how drones and crewed aircraft will coexist in low-altitude airspace. A June 2025 executive order from President Donald J. Trump aimed to accelerate the process, yet technical disagreements over safety standards have postponed the final rule.
Read Also: Judge Halts Trump’s Golf Course Demolition Plan in D.C.
The two-tier structure seeks to align oversight with risk levels, mirroring how crewed aviation certifies operators. Under this system, smaller firms conducting routine missions—such as terrain mapping or construction site inspections—could use the permitted track, while high-risk operations would demand full certification. However, the operational certificate track imposes substantial costs: specialized personnel, real-time collision-avoidance systems, and integration with FAA-approved traffic management providers. These expenses could create barriers that only well-funded companies can overcome.
The need for BVLOS flights is already evident in critical applications. Infrastructure inspections, agricultural monitoring, and large-scale construction tracking all depend on drones covering areas beyond what a ground-based pilot can observe. The permitted operations track was designed for these uses, but only if the FAA tailors requirements to fit them. If the rule defaults to stricter oversight for even routine flights, the result could be industry consolidation under the guise of safety.
Two-Tier System Risks Excluding Smaller Operators
Operators are making long-term investments, purchasing equipment, hiring staff, and bidding on contracts, without certainty about which regulatory path they will follow. A delayed rule that accurately reflects risk levels will cause less disruption than one hastily finalized to meet political deadlines, even if it arrives late. The FAA’s challenge is to avoid treating the operational certificate track as the default while relegating the permitted track to an afterthought. Most current waiver requests involve the exact kind of lower-risk, commercial BVLOS flights the permitted track was intended to serve. If the final rule fails to match this reality, it risks excluding the operators who need these capabilities the most.
Read Also: Bill threatens state water quality control powers
The permitted operations track under Part 108 imposes specific limits on aircraft size, fleet size, and population density to reduce risk further. Operators using this tier would be restricted to drones weighing under 25 kilograms, approximately the size of a large backpack, unless they meet additional safety criteria. The rule also caps fleet sizes at 25 aircraft per operator, allowing smaller teams to participate without scaling to enterprise levels. Population density restrictions would limit flights over densely populated areas, addressing public safety and noise concerns.
Detect-and-avoid technology remains the most contentious requirement for the operational certificate track, with no single industry-standard solution yet approved by the FAA. Current proposals include radar-based systems, onboard cameras with AI processing, and third-party traffic management platforms providing real-time airspace data. The agency has not yet certified any of these options, leaving operators in uncertainty. This deadlock forces operators to speculate whether they must retrofit existing drones or purchase new models, adding unpredictability to equipment planning.
FAA Debates Mandatory Drone Tracking Technology
The FAA reopened the public comment period in January 2026 to address electronic conspicuity measures, which would require drones to broadcast their position and flight path to other aircraft and air traffic control. The agency sought input on whether existing ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) technology or alternative methods like UAS-specific transponders should be mandatory. Industry groups have pushed for flexibility, arguing that retrofitting millions of drones with new hardware would impose financial strain.
Read Also: LA Bans Oil Drilling, Becomes Largest City to Do So
Smaller operators, who make up the majority of registered drone users, have expressed frustration over the lack of clarity in the proposed rule. Many have already invested in equipment and training under the assumption they would qualify for the permitted operations track, only to find the FAA’s definitions of “low-risk” may not match their actual use cases. For instance, a company flying drones over a single construction site to monitor progress might face the same scrutiny as one conducting high-altitude surveying for power lines, despite the differing risks. This inconsistency risks pushing marginal operators out of the market or forcing them into costly compliance measures they cannot justify.
Air Traffic Control vs. Drone-Specific Solutions
The former argues that BVLOS operations must integrate seamlessly with existing air traffic control systems to prevent disruptions, while the latter emphasizes drone-specific solutions that do not overwhelm crewed-aircraft controllers. These divisions have slowed the finalization process, as the two branches negotiate responsibility for low-altitude airspace management. Without resolution, the rule could impose conflicting requirements, further complicating compliance for operators.