FAA Part 108 BVLOS and Part 74 Drone Rules: Full Report (FAA-2025-1908, FAA-2026-4558)

Bottom line up front

The two rules are written to depend on each other. Under , a Part 108 flight inside a UAFR follows Part 74, and Part 74 lets it cross a standard UAFR only with and a notice to the site manager before each flight. A special UAFR stays closed to outside operators without the .

The per-flight notice in § 74.255 is the provision most likely to change in practice, because the FAA itself floated a and the delivery companies and drone trade groups that filed in both dockets, joined by Florida Power & Light, say a flight-by-flight notice cannot keep up with . We expect the duty to stay in the rule text. Whether the FAA names an automated way to meet it is a roughly even chance, and either path helps operators less than an exemption would. The open risk sits where the FAA has put no price, as Disney, IAAPA and the electric utility associations ask to remove or condition commercial access to their sites, ask the FAA to say Part 74 does not preempt state laws on drones near critical sites, and the cost analysis states the FAA on what detours cost operators.

Key judgments

Every underlined item opens the passage it comes from. Likelihood words follow ICD 203 and are analyst judgments. Each judgment names the outcome we forecast and what would confirm or refute it, so it can be scored when the final rules publish.

Five judgments

The final Part 74 will likely keep a per-flight notice duty in its text. Whether the FAA names an automated way to meet it is a roughly even chance.

Section 74.255 asks for eight items before each flight and sends them to the site manager That phrase lets the FAA automate the notice without new rule text, though a one-time list alone would not supply the date, time and area each notice must carry. The preamble already describes a of certificate and Remote ID numbers. Operators give the scale. Florida Power & Light flies about , Zipline says the notice is and asks to exempt Part 135 and Part 108 holders, and DoorDash proposes an FAA in place of notice. Facility owners split. The American Chemistry Council asks for for flights the facility owns or authorizes, and the railroads ask for written notice before transit.

Roughly even chance Text keeps the per-flight duty, and the FAA says it will accept an automated or system-generated notice.

Unlikely Text exempts Part 135 and Part 108 holders, or replaces the notice with an FAA list.

Very unlikely Text keeps the per-flight duty and the FAA names no automated path.

Confirmed if the final § 74.255 still requires notice of each operation. The automation forecast is confirmed if the preamble, advisory circular or UAFR Module accepts automated submission. Refuted if the final text exempts certificated operators or drops per-operation notice.
Moderate confidence
91 FR 24678, 24690; comments 1531, 1527, 1684, 1630, 1636, 1660, 1639, 1681.
Part 107, Part 108 and Part 135 transit through standard UAFRs will likely survive in § 74.250.

This judgment covers standard UAFRs only. The preamble says nothing in the rule gives site managers power to Airline pilots back that line, asking that facility operators Against it, Disney asks the FAA to strike routine Part 107 flights and commercial flights from § 74.250, met senior FAA officials on , four weeks after comments closed, and IAAPA asks at minimum for the . The electric utility associations want commercial flights over defense-critical electric and nuclear sites , and air medical operators want UA . Amazon asks the FAA to open special UAFRs at private sites with an FAA-run access path, which would move some sites into the closed regime.

Likely § 74.250(c) to (e) keep Part 107, 108 and 135 operations as allowed in standard UAFRs.

Unlikely The final rule adds a consent requirement, an advance-notice period or a category removal for venues, hospitals or electric sites.

Confirmed if final § 74.250(c), (d) and (e) carry these categories with no sector exception. Refuted if any of them is removed, or made subject to facility consent, for any sector.
Low confidence
91 FR 24678, 24690; comments 1638, 1627, 1644, 1616, 1559, 1663; memo FAA-2026-4558-1691.
Roughly even chance that the final Part 74 stops citing TSA threat assessments as part of its basis for letting Part 108 operators in.

The Part 74 summary rests allowed operations on two grounds, The safety ground does not depend on TSA. The security ground does, and the drone industry asked TSA to drop it from Part 108. Amazon asked TSA to , and Wing the security threat assessment in § 108.335. In the Part 74 docket Wing calls the tie between access and those assessments , while the refiners warn that Part 108 and should not justify access. TSA says its roundtables on the security program will meet . If the final Part 108 narrows or delays the TSA layer, the FAA can still rest § 74.250(d) on safety, and facility owners already asking to remove Part 108 access will point to the missing security ground.

Confirmed if the final Part 74 preamble drops the TSA assessment from its stated basis for Part 108 access. Refuted if it keeps the TSA ground of 91 FR 24652. A separate security condition for Part 108 operators would be a related change, scored on its own.
Low confidence
91 FR 24652, 24676; comments FAA-2025-1908-2872, -2986; FAA-2026-4558-1645, -1665; TSA notice FR Doc. 2026-18124.
Food and agriculture will likely stay without criteria in the final Part 74.

The FAA left § 74.90 after it could not find a farm or food site that another sector did not already cover or that would reach a national-level debilitating impact. The largest public response in either docket answers that question. In a random sample of the 1,439 comments that name no organization, oppose UAFRs for food and agriculture. That share describes the sample's population, not all 1,669 records. Friends of the Earth filed one comment carrying by its attachment's count, 16,434 by its cover note. Pork, cattle, poultry and meat groups ask for eligibility, the Pork Producers for farms, feed mills and plants Volume does not decide this. The FAA's own finding does, and the farm letters we read argue from biosecurity, harassment and the food supply, which the FAA would have to fit to its national-impact test.

Confirmed if final § 74.90 reads "[Reserved]" or the FAA says it will propose criteria separately. Refuted if the final rule sets criteria that farms, feedlots or processing plants can meet.
Moderate confidence
91 FR 24669, 24688; sample of 120 (seed 20261026); comments 1666, 0565, 1669, 1672.
The final Part 74 will likely say nothing new on preemption, leaving operators and states to fight over state drone laws site by site.

The preamble already states that state rules on aviation safety and airspace efficiency , and the federalism section finds the rule has . Both sides asked for more. Amazon wants an and names Nevada and Texas laws that could expose an FAA-compliant Part 135 operator to criminal charges, and CTIA, NRF, the U.S. Chamber and the Small UAV Coalition ask for the same. Ten state attorneys general ask the FAA to say the rule state laws on drones near state-defined critical infrastructure. Writing either answer into the rule would draw a challenge from the other side, and the FAA has an existing preemption position it can repeat. For a delivery operator, the practical exposure is the gap between a route the FAA allows and a state statute that criminalizes the same overflight.

Likely No express preemption clause in the final regulatory text.

Likely The FAA keeps its finding of no federalism implications, though the AG letter is the comment that most directly tests it.

Confirmed if the final Part 74 text has no preemption section and the E.O. 13132 statement is unchanged in substance. Refuted if the text adds a preemption or savings clause, or the FAA finds federalism implications.
Low confidence
91 FR 24656, 24683; comments 1663, 1596, 1628, 1622, 1633, 1659.

The record in numbers

What each docket holds

posted records, BVLOS docket

of them in 26 near-duplicate campaigns, 20.3%

posted records, Part 74 docket

of them in 9 campaigns, 22.2%

attachment files read in full, both dockets

organizations that filed in both dockets

Window	Posted	In campaigns	Share	What the window asked
BVLOS proposal, Aug. 7 to Oct. 6, 2025 -0023	3,101	568	18.3%	The full Part 108 and 146 proposal and the TSA security program
Reopening, Jan. 28 to Feb. 11, 2026 -3135	827	231	27.9%	Seven questions on alternate EC devices under § 108.195(a)(2)(ii)
Denial of further extension -3488	1	0	0%	A July 9, 2026 letter from twelve manned aviation groups on detect-and-avoid
Part 74 proposal, May 6 to Aug. 5, 2026 -0001	1,669	371	22.2%	Eligibility in 16 sectors, access, notification, the cost analysis

The reopening drew people back for a narrow question. By exact organization name, 52 organizations filed in both BVLOS windows and 73 filed only in the reopening. The largest single block in the reopening is a 126-copy answer to the device questions from the powered paragliding community, which says no compliant EC device is on the U.S. market. That claim is contested inside the record. The Drone Service Providers Alliance names , and Wing finds no marketed device that both fully meets it and fits the low-cost, portable design the FAA had in mind.

The Part 74 extension tripled the record. Of the 1,669 posted comments, 560 arrived by the original July 6 deadline and 1,109 came in the 30 days the FAA added at the New York Attorney General's request. The campaign count understates organized opposition to food and agriculture UAFRs. Thirty-four of the 71 sampled comments opposing those UAFRs sit outside the nine detected clusters, written in people's own words around the same talking points. None of the 22 sampled rail workers fall in a cluster at all.

Comments that name no organization are not all individuals. Seven of the 120 sampled Part 74 comments came from state transportation agencies, a city utility, a police department, a spaceport authority and a state emergency office that left the organization field blank, and two more came from small private firms. Utilities use "right of way" for their land corridors, so lexicon counts of right-of-way mentions in the BVLOS docket run high for the infrastructure sector.

Who is commenting

Pilots fill one record, farm critics and rail workers the other

BVLOS docket, selected organization types (683 of 3,929 records name one)

UAS operators and tech226

Helicopter operators75

General aviation38

Agricultural aviation36

Sport aviation35

Infrastructure owners34

Drone trade groups27

Drone delivery23

Part 74 docket, selected organization types (230 of 1,669 records name one)

UAS operators and tech25

Counter-UAS and security tech25

Farm producers18

Chemical and energy18

Animal advocacy16

Labor, mostly rail14

Press and media13

Venues and events13

Part 74 random sample, 120 of 1,439 comments naming no organization	n	Share	Wilson 95%
Opposes UAFRs for food and agriculture facilities	71		50.2 to 67.5
Rail worker asking limits on management drones over yards	22		12.4 to 26.2
Opposes the rule or asks narrower restrictions or more access	14	11.7%	7.1 to 18.6
Supports the rule or broader restrictions, other sectors	8	6.7%	3.4 to 12.6
No position in the text, or mixed	5	4.2%	1.8 to 9.4

The rail workers are the record's sleeper. They write one at a time, none of them in a campaign, and they describe managers flying drones over switching crews to run operating tests. They ask for limits on drones in rail yards, and the Teamsters Rail Conference says a UAFR to fly over occupied work areas. Part 74 sets the same access rules for every drone in a UAFR and says nothing about why an owner flies, so the workers' complaint sits outside what the proposal addresses. Southern California Edison and the American Chemistry Council push the other way and ask for an exemption for the owner's own flights.

In the BVLOS docket the manned aviation side keeps its priority claim. In a random sample of 120 of the 1,958 comments that mentioned right of way when we drew it, want manned aircraft to keep priority (Wilson 63.9 to 79.7), and among the 95 that take a position the share is 91.6%.

Arguments requiring the strongest agency response

Strongest first, with the side that pushes back

Ranked by how much each comment demands of the FAA's written response, the duty under 5 U.S.C. 553(c) to answer significant comments and explain its choices. Comments that bring operating data, cite the FAA's own findings or come from a party aligned with the FAA on the rest of the rule rank higher, and splits inside a camp rank highest. This ranking is not a forecast of how a court would rule. Our judgments on judicial review sit in the risk register and are analyst judgments, not legal opinions.

§ 74.255 notice before every flight

Operating data · FAA's own alternative

Zipline, DoorDash, AUVSI, Skydio, CDA, FPL

Zipline calls the notice "burdensome but achievable for an individual operation" and unachievable at scale, and asks to exempt Part 135 and Part 108 holders. DoorDash cites in 2026. Skydio estimates AUVSI asks to . The burden lands on compliant flyers, and the FAA concedes a UAFR those who ignore the rules.

Railroads, helicopter operators, the FAA's own text

AAR wants written notice . VAI says notification alone does not ensure coordination. The FAA already offered the , which weakens any defense of the per-flight design.

§ 74.250(a)(2) transit "in the shortest amount of time practicable"

Split inside the drone camp

Amazon, AUVSI, Skyports, NAB, News Media Coalition, Georgia DOT, ALDF

Amazon asks that count as compliant. The News Media Coalition asks that news drones face . Utilities and state DOTs need dwell time for inspection.

DroneUp, facility owners

DroneUp as a security measure and asks the FAA to explain it. The FAA itself weighed bans on hovering and landing before choosing the time standard.

Preemption of state drone laws

Not in the proposed text

Amazon, Small UAV Coalition, CTIA, NRF, U.S. Chamber

Amazon wants an and names Nevada and Texas laws that would expose an FAA-compliant Part 135 operator to criminal charges. CTIA asks the FAA to state laws over critical infrastructure.

Attorneys General of NY, AZ, CA, CO, DE, IL, MN, NJ, NC, VT

The AGs ask the FAA to say the rule state laws on drones near state-defined critical infrastructure. The preamble says state rules on aviation safety and airspace efficiency , and the federalism section finds . The AG letter is the comment that most directly tests that finding.

Who may enter a standard UAFR, § 74.250(b) to (f)

Split inside the security camp

Disney, IAAPA, EEI and the public power groups, AMOA

Disney would and commercial Part 108, 135 and 137 flights. EEI wants commercial overflight of defense-critical electric sites .

ALPA, AUVSI, the FAA preamble

ALPA, a manned aviation voice, says facility operators . The preamble says site managers get .

The cost analysis leaves operators out

FAA's own finding

The regulatory impact analysis

The FAA It expects small detours to cost little and to cost more. Its example of operators kept out names "part 107 operators, permitted operators under part 108," which appears inconsistent with § 74.250(c) and (d) for standard UAFRs.

What an answer would need

A reasoned response would reconcile the example with the text and give some measure of route exposure. No commenter we read supplied a national detour figure, which leaves the FAA room to answer qualitatively.

§ 108.195 low-altitude right of way

Split inside the drone camp

AOPA, EAA, NAAA, ALPA, VAI, GAMA

AOPA is to EC as the sole test of right of way. GAMA asks that the change align with , which binds only the 44807 authority. DroneUp, a delivery operator, asks the FAA to giving drones priority over unequipped aircraft in Class G.

Wing, Zipline, Amazon, Small UAV Coalition, NBAA

The drone side asks for EC on all manned aircraft below 500 ft. NBAA, a manned aviation group, backs with drones yielding to everyone below 500 ft. We read the FAA's choice to reopen only on devices as a sign it means to keep an EC-based structure.

TSA security program and Part 146

APA procedure

Amazon, Wing, NRF, Boeing

Amazon says TSA should and that Part 146 for meaningful comment under 5 U.S.C. 553.

Twelve UTM providers and operators

They are of strategic deconfliction and the Part 146 path.

Where the two rules meet

The cross-docket findings

The text ties the rules together. Proposed bars Part 108 flights inside a UAFR "unless allowed pursuant to part 74," and the BVLOS preamble promises to if Part 74 comments change the requirement. Part 74 expects delivery now flown under Part 135 to on the BVLOS rule's compliance dates. The Small UAV Coalition called § 108.220 for a rule it expected to finish alongside Part 108. Part 108 reached OIRA on July 10, 2026. Part 74 has not.

Role changes position. The electric utility associations wrote to the BVLOS docket as operators and asked for around infrastructure. In Part 74 they write as site owners and ask that outside commercial flights over their most critical sites be . Florida Power & Light stays on the access side in both, asking the FAA to from § 108.205(a) and to automate Part 74 notice.

The operators carried their Part 108 case into Part 74. Wing, Zipline, DoorDash, Skyports, AUVSI, the CDA, the Small UAV Coalition and the Drone Service Providers Alliance filed in both dockets, and each asked Part 74 for automated, listed or standing notice. Amazon pressed transit and preemption. DroneUp is the exception. It rejects drone priority over unequipped aircraft in Part 108 and supports the Part 74 transit limit.

Part 146 as the notice channel. The Commercial Drone Alliance proposes certifying to carry automated UAFR notices. Wing asks for exchange, AUVSI and the CDA ask to extend LAANC, and South Dakota's DOT asks for a if FAA approval is required.

Avoidance against fast transit. Skydio asks for a safe harbor so that , weather avoidance and lost-link procedures inside a UAFR do not count as violations of § 74.250 or § 74.255. The Nevada UAS Test Site asks that the notice accept . The agricultural aviators raise the overlap the other way. A substation could be both a Part 108 shielded area and a UAFR, which they say would let drones fly there , and they ask the FAA to keep UAFRs out of shielded-area eligibility. Helicopter operators ask that a final Part 108 come first, since without it they cannot test

Scale a commenter gives	Source	Notice model that commenter proposes
About 80 flights a day, one utility (14,697 in the first half of 2026)		Standing access for owners and their contractors without per-mission notice
About 500 flights a day, one utility		Automated, streamlined notice
Thousands of orders a day, one delivery operator		Exempt Part 135 and 108 holders, or network Remote ID as compliance
More than 1,000,000 delivery operations in 2026, nationwide		FAA database of qualified operators in place of notice
About 30,000 public safety flights a day, nationwide estimate		Unencumbered access for public safety

Commenters place the breaking point above a single flight, which Zipline calls manageable, and at or below hundreds a day, without naming a threshold. The Southern California Edison rate is our division of its half-year total by 181 days.

Risk register

Contested provisions, by likelihood of change

Likelihood and confidence are separate analyst judgments under ICD 203. "Survives unchanged" means the final rule text keeps the proposal's substance, and a change made only through guidance or systems counts as unchanged. A blank cell means the record does not support a judgment.

Provision	Survives unchanged	Survives review if challenged	Confidence	Strongest argument against, impact if it changes
§ 74.255 per-flight notice to site manager	Likely		Moderate	Operators' scale data and the FAA's own whitelist. We expect the duty to stay and automation to arrive through guidance or the UAFR Module. An exemption in the text, which we judge unlikely, would cut operator overhead at every site.
§ 74.250(a)(2) shortest-time transit	Unlikely		Moderate	Inspection, delivery and news need dwell time. A change opens inspection contracts inside UAFRs.
§ 74.250(c) to (e), Part 107, 108 and 135 transit	Likely	Likely	Low	Disney, IAAPA, EEI and AMOA seek removal or consent. A change would close routes over venues, hospitals or grid sites.
Access justified by TSA threat assessments, 91 FR 24652	Roughly even chance		Low	The basis depends on a TSA layer the industry asked to drop. Loss of it invites narrower access for Part 108.
Silence on preemption; no federalism implications	Likely		Low	Industry wants express preemption, ten AGs want the reverse. Either answer sets the legal exposure of an FAA-compliant flight over a state-listed site.
§ 74.90 food and agriculture reserved	Likely		Moderate	Farm groups seek eligibility. A change would put CAFOs and plants behind UAFRs and draw press and animal welfare challenges.
Cost analysis without operator costs	Likely		Moderate	The FAA says it has no data on avoidance cost, and its example appears inconsistent with § 74.250. A fuller analysis would not by itself change the text.
§ 108.195 EC-based right of way	Unlikely	Likely	Low	Manned groups, GAMA and DroneUp. We judge the EC-based structure likely to survive with changed exceptions. A move toward manned priority would raise detect-and-avoid cost for every BVLOS operator.
§ 108.205 shielded areas at 50 ft with owner permission	Unlikely		Low	Utilities want 200 ft, FPL wants no permission, NAAA calls it its .
§ 108.335 TSA threat assessment and § 108.565(f) security program	Unlikely		Low	Amazon, Wing, NRF and Boeing. TSA's roundtables after the final rules point to more detail later.
Part 146 data service providers	Roughly even chance		Low	Amazon's 5 U.S.C. 553 argument. Added detail in a final rule beyond the proposal invites a logical-outgrowth claim.

What it costs, by sector

The FAA prices the sites and leaves the operators blank

Part 74, annualized cost to applicants and government at 7%, 2024 dollars

facilities the FAA assumes apply, of 52,121 eligible

assumed cost of one application

Part 108 benefits, per the FAA

The Part 74 numbers cover what facilities and the FAA spend. Each applicant pays an assumed $5,000 to $10,000 to apply, $2,800 for a Remote ID receiver and $1,000 a year to run it, and the FAA spends about per review. Over five years the present value runs $87.8 to $125.3 million at a 7% discount rate and $98.7 to $140.6 million at 3%. The FAA says the program covers "over 9,000" facilities in its scenario and warns that the breadth of the sectors A narrower alternative of six sectors and 6,536 facilities would cost $7.2 to $13.7 million a year at 7%. Notification work is set aside as , and operator detours carry no number at all.

Part 108 has no total. The FAA calls the benefits "significant" and unquantified, expects "few incremental costs," and says the cost to unequipped Part 91 operators of losing right of way is Those are projections, and they leave the largest money question in both rules, what scaled access is worth and what it costs manned operators, without a federal estimate.

The operator exposure model below names its parameters. We fill only the ones a commenter or the FAA gives. Notices a day equal flights a day (F) times the share of flights that cross a standard UAFR (s) times UAFRs crossed per flight (k). The record gives F for several operators and nothing for s or k. If every FPL flight crossed one UAFR, FPL would send 500 notices a day, and that ceiling is all the record supports. Minutes per notice, added route length, energy per detour and lost service area have no value in either docket. The calculator lets a reader enter its own values. It starts from Florida Power & Light's reported volume and leaves every other field empty, because the record supplies nothing for them.

Sector	What the record shows	What is priced
Delivery and logistics	Notice volume, transit time limits, state criminal laws on overflight, TSA vetting of staff	Nothing for operators
Medical delivery	Air medical groups want UA kept off hospital helipads unless the hospital authorizes them; one drone operator supports hospital UAFRs	Nothing
Electric utilities	Buyers of inspection in Part 108, owners asking for control in Part 74	Application and receiver costs
Oil, gas and chemical sites	Want own and contracted flights carved out, standing lists, confidentiality	Application and receiver costs
Railroads	Want permission or 7-day notice; workers object to management drones; RIA flags rail detours as harder	Transport counted at 3,285 facilities, rail secure areas excluded
Water and wastewater	No criteria proposed; the Small UAV Coalition asks for a supplemental proposal for more than 100,000 possible sites	"To be determined" in the RIA
Data centers and IT	Ask for eligibility and confidentiality	100 assumed applicants in IT
Agricultural operators	Aerial applicators oppose shielded areas and want DAA inside UAFRs; farm groups want UAFRs over farms	Food and agriculture counted as zero eligible facilities
Manned aviation	Right-of-way loss without EC; detect-and-avoid; hospital approaches	"Very difficult to estimate"
Manufacturers and UTM providers	Part 146 detail; automated notice as a new service line	Small Part 108 manufacturer costs only
State and local agencies	Carve-outs for government flights; single prison application; preemption	Applicant costs for 800 emergency services sites, plus federal review
Press	Dwell time for news drones; public notice of every UAFR	Nothing
Insurers and investors	No filing from either group in what we read	Nothing

Scenarios and signposts

Where this goes next

Scenario for Part 74 access	Likelihood	Signposts	What it means
Same text, automation later. § 74.255 stays; the FAA uses "form and manner" to move to a portal or list after the rule	Roughly even chance	Final preamble points to the UAFR Module or an advisory circular for notice; no new rule text on lists	Per-flight duty stays in law; operators depend on FAA systems arriving on time
Lists in the rule. Part 135 and 108 holders exempted from per-flight notice or listed once with the FAA	Unlikely	Final § 74.255 names a list, Remote ID serials or network Remote ID	Scaled delivery and inspection cross UAFRs at near-zero marginal cost
Facility control creeps in. Consent, advance-notice periods or removal of commercial categories for some site types	Unlikely, and can occur alongside either of the others	More post-close ex parte meetings with venue, utility or hospital groups; preamble language on "meaningful control"	Route planning around venues, grid sites and hospitals; higher cost for urban delivery

For Part 108 we judge it likely (55 to 80%) that the final rule keeps an EC-based right-of-way structure in some form and unlikely that it returns full priority to unequipped manned aircraft, with low confidence. The signposts with dates follow.

Any dayOIRA concludes review of 2120-AL82, received July 10, 2026. The FAA has said it hopes to publish by year end.
About Dec. 7, 2026Statutory deadline for the final BVLOS rule, 16 months after the proposal under . The EO 14307 target of Feb. 1, 2026 has passed.
At publicationThe final text of § 108.195, the EC standard adopted, § 108.220 and the TSA security sections.
After publicationTSA's closed technical roundtables on the security program, which meet .
Not yet scheduledOIRA receipt of a final Part 74 rule, the final text of §§ 74.250 and 74.255, and the first UAFR public notices.
WatchAny petition for review in the D.C. Circuit, and state laws taking effect on drones near critical sites, such as New York's, effective Aug. 25, 2026 per the New York Attorney General.

Recommended actions

What readers could do, and when

Delivery operatorsWhile Part 108 sits at OIRA, request an EO 12866 meeting on § 108.220 and the TSA layer, since Part 74 access leans on both. Map routes against candidate UAFR sectors in the RIA, rail terminals, substations, chemical sites, prisons and parks first.
Utilities and energyDecide which role leads. A request for facility consent in Part 74 cuts against the access your own inspection contractors need. Design a standing-authorization list for recurring inspection now.
Venues and hospitalsExpect the FAA to hold that site managers cannot approve or deny. Plan on detection, Remote ID logging and Special UAFR requests where a federal partner exists.
Manned operatorsPlan EC equipage below 500 ft before the final § 108.195 text. Helicopter and agricultural operators should track whether UAFRs and shielded areas can overlap.
UTM and data providersBuild to the CDA proposal, an ADSP-carried UAFR notice. It fits the FAA's "form and manner" language without new rule text.
State agenciesPrepare for the preemption answer either way, and file one statewide prison application if the FAA allows it.
PressWatch § 74.250(a)(2) and public notice of each UAFR. Food and agriculture criteria, if the FAA writes them later, would need a new proposal.

Agency response matrix

What to check in each final preamble

Issue	Strongest comment	Check the preamble for
Part 108 right of way, § 108.195	AOPA reopening; GAMA on 44807(c)(4)(A); DroneUp	Why EC sets priority; how 44807 approvals fit; what unequipped operators pay
EC device availability	DSPA versus Wing and the 126-copy template	Which devices meet § 108.195(a)(2)(ii) and from when
Shielded areas, § 108.205	NAAA; EEI coalition; FPL	Distance, permission, and any UAFR overlap
TSA program, §§ 108.335 and 108.565(f)	Amazon; Wing	Scope of staff vetting; whether TSA proposes separately
Part 146	Amazon on 5 U.S.C. 553	Detail added beyond the proposal
Part 74 notice, § 74.255	Zipline; DoorDash; AUVSI; AAR	List, feed or exemption; timing of notice
Transit time, § 74.250(a)(2)	Amazon; NMC; NAB; GDOT	Non-transitory access for inspection and news
Allowed categories, § 74.250(b) to (f)	Disney; IAAPA; EEI; AMOA	Sector limits; the TSA rationale after the final Part 108
Preemption and federalism	Ten state AGs; Amazon; CTIA	Whether the FAA revisits its E.O. 13132 finding
Food and agriculture, § 74.90	NPPC; Mercy For Animals; Friends of the Earth	Reserved, criteria, or a new proposal
Cost analysis	The RIA's own avoidance gap	Any operator cost estimate; the Part 107 and 108 example fixed

Method, sources and limits

How we built this report

Collection. The Rulemaking Observatory pulled every posted record in both dockets through the Regulations.gov API, with detail and text, and we downloaded attachments for every "see attached" record, every organization and every record whose text points to an attachment. We read 1,008 files from 889 BVLOS comments and 271 files from 257 Part 74 comments, using text extraction and OCR. Three of those BVLOS comments yielded no extractable text. Four BVLOS placeholders and one Part 74 placeholder had no downloadable file. One Part 74 record has no receive date and is counted by its posting date.

Coding. Provision tags come from regular-expression lexicons per docket. Campaigns are groups of comments with nearly identical text, and changing how close two texts must be to count as copies moves the shares in this report by only a few points. Hand-coded random samples of 120 use seed 20261026, with Wilson 95% intervals. One analyst coded each sample, and we report no inter-coder agreement measure. Samples estimate shares of their stated populations only, never of every participant in a docket. We name organizations only after reading their filing, and report individuals only in aggregate.

Status checks. The FAA filed the final Part 108 rule with OIRA on July 10, 2026, as VAI Daily reported on July 15, and an external reviewer of this report confirmed the July 10 receipt on reginfo.gov. Our own tools could not open the RegInfo review page for the final rule on Oct. 26. No final rule for either docket appeared in the Federal Register as of our cutoff.

Limits. Posting dates are day-level and say nothing about when the agency read a comment. Lexicon counts mark mentions, not positions. The posted record cannot speak for anything the FAA received and did not post. We read the draft Part 74 advisory circular only where commenters cite it. Counter-UAS rules from DHS and DOJ are context only, and Part 74 grants no mitigation authority, as the FAA states .

Data files. BVLOS campaigns, Part 74 campaigns, BVLOS provision mentions, Part 74 provision mentions, BVLOS senders, Part 74 senders, BVLOS right-of-way sample, Part 74 sample, BVLOS letters read, Part 74 letters read, organizations in both dockets. Sample IDs are withheld for individuals, and names in campaign opening texts are redacted. All files are snapshots of the Oct. 26, 2026 database.

Appendix

Documents cited

Federal Register. 90 FR 38212, Aug. 7, 2025. 91 FR 3695, Jan. 28, 2026. FR Doc. 2026-02649. 91 FR 24650, May 6, 2026. FR Doc. 2026-13126. TSA notice FR Doc. 2026-18124.

Agency analysis. Part 74 Regulatory Impact Analysis. Memorandum on the Disney meeting.

BVLOS comments. FAA-2025-1908 2872 Amazon, 2986 Wing, 2616 DroneUp, 1886 NBAA, 3482 AOPA, 2940 GAMA, 1842 NAAA, 3434 DSPA, 3960 EEI coalition, 2682 FPL, 2892 Small UAV Coalition, 2544 UTM providers, 3964 manned aviation groups.

Part 74 comments. FAA-2026-4558 1663 Amazon, 1645 Wing, 1527 Zipline, 1684 DoorDash, 1676 DroneUp, 1660 AUVSI, 1639 CDA, 1681 Skydio, 1627 Disney, 1644 IAAPA, 1616 EEI coalition, 1531 FPL, 1636 AAR, 1630 ACC, 1665 AFPM, 1559 AMOA, 1515 VAI, 1566 NAAA, 1638 ALPA, 0565 NPPC, 1669 Mercy For Animals, 1666 Friends of the Earth, 1643 News Media Coalition, 1626 NAB, 1596 CTIA, 1659 state AGs, 1624 Teamsters Rail Conference, 0218 Nevada UAS Test Site, 0471 South Dakota DOT, 1599 SCE, 1564 DRONERESPONDERS.

Other. 49 U.S.C. 44811; 49 U.S.C. 44807; DroneLife correction, July 1, 2026; VAI Daily, July 15, 2026.

About this report

Who made it, and how to correct it

Authors. Vanessa Panitz and John Panitz, ComtIQ. The collection runs on the Rulemaking Observatory.

Independence. No client, funder or party to either rulemaking paid for or reviewed this report. ComtIQ takes no side between drone operators, manned aviation, facility owners or the press.

Corrections. If a number or quote is wrong, tell us through comtiq.com. We fix errors in a new version and list each change.

Version history. 1.0, October 26, 2026, first release. 1.1, October 26, 2026, after external review. Judgments restated as testable outcomes with confirm and refute conditions, and rule-text change separated from automation; standard and special UAFRs distinguished in the summary; the counter finding moved to the record section and replaced by a judgment on preemption; argument ranking renamed and separated from judicial review; campaign threshold sensitivity, code and lexicons published; a notice workload calculator added; print layout and links fixed. 1.2, November 4, 2026. Code, lexicon and threshold sensitivity files withdrawn from the data files, and the campaign method described without its parameters.