Notice2026-07381
Unleashing American Drone Dominance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 16, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on additional means by which the Commission can continue to fulfill its public interest mandate and achieve American drone dominance. The Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology seek input on an array of reforms the Commission might take to unleash American drone dominance, including: alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens; ensuring that American drone manufacturers and users have sufficient spectrum for drone testing and operations; facilitating and encouraging American firms' investment in drone capabilities, infrastructure development, and innovative and advanced capabilities; ensuring regulatory clarity and technical access for United States- based manufacturers and trusted suppliers; coordinating more effectively with other federal agencies; streamlining the Commission's experimental licensing rules; and establishing additional dedicated drone innovation zones or testbeds in partnership with other entities.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20441-20446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07381]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[GN Docket No. 26-74; WT Docket Nos. 22-323 and 24-629; DA 26-314; FR
ID 340786]
Unleashing American Drone Dominance
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) seeks comment on additional means by which the
Commission can continue to fulfill its public interest mandate and
achieve American drone dominance. The Commission's Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology seek
input on an array of reforms the Commission might take to unleash
American drone dominance, including: alleviating unnecessary regulatory
burdens; ensuring that American drone manufacturers and users have
sufficient spectrum for drone testing and operations; facilitating and
encouraging American firms' investment in drone capabilities,
infrastructure development, and innovative and advanced capabilities;
ensuring regulatory clarity and technical access for United States-
based manufacturers and trusted suppliers; coordinating more
effectively with other federal agencies; streamlining the Commission's
experimental licensing rules; and establishing additional dedicated
drone innovation zones or testbeds in partnership with other entities.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before May 1, 2026;
and reply comments on or before May 18, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document. You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 26-
74, WT Docket No. 22-323, WT Docket No. 24-629, by any of the following
methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS): <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
[cir] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
[cir] Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
[[Page 20442]]
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96f0f5f5a3a6a2d6f0f5f5b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96f0f5f5a3a6a2d6f0f5f5b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice).
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Thomas Struble, Office of Engineering and
Technology, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c89ca0a7a5a9bbe69bbcbabdaaa4ad88aeababe6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75211d1a1814065b26010700171910351316165b121a03">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-7581 or John
Lockwood, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c18baea9afef8daea2aab6aeaea581a7a2a2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ade7c2c5c383e1c2cec6dac2c2c9edcbcece83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>
or (202) 418-0558.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public
Notice, in GN Docket No. 26-74; WT Docket No. 22-323; WT Docket No. 24-
629; DA 26-314, released on April 1, 2026. The full text of this
document is available for public inspection online at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/unleashing-american-drone-dominance">https://www.fcc.gov/document/unleashing-american-drone-dominance</a>.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of this Public Notice is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Ex Parte Status: The proceeding this Public Notice initiates shall
be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with
the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
1. President Trump is unleashing American drone dominance. In
furtherance of this Administration priority, President Trump has
directed all relevant federal agencies to support this initiative by
cutting red tape, modernizing obsolete regulations, and securing our
supply chain from foreign adversaries. The production, deployment, and
export of American unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones) and anti-
drone defense systems (Counter-UAS) have become core elements of our
economic and military superiority. In addition, emerging technologies
like electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft are
expected to enable new capabilities for transporting cargo and people,
including in hard to reach areas and in emergencies. By this Public
Notice, the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and Office
of Engineering and Technology (OET) seek comment on a range of actions
that the agency can take to further advance American drone dominance.
2. President Trump's coordinated national strategy to achieve U.S.
supremacy in drone technology, manufacturing, and operations is
anchored by two Executive Orders (EOs): Unleashing American Drone
Dominance and Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty. Together, these
EOs reflect a sweeping policy shift: one that frames U.S. drone
leadership not only as an economic imperative but as a cornerstone of
our national security, technological sovereignty, and global
competitiveness.
3. The FCC is taking aggressive action to implement President
Trump's policy of American drone dominance. Late last year, following
an Executive Branch national security determination, the FCC added
foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components to its Covered List.
Because such devices are now prohibited from receiving FCC equipment
authorization for importation, marketing, or sale in the United States,
the FCC will continue to advance consumer and business access to
trusted drone technology. Then, following a further specific
determination from the Department of War (DoW) that certain UAS and UAS
critical components did not pose ``unacceptable risks,'' the FCC
updated its Covered List to reflect that determination.
4. In this Public Notice, WTB and OET seek input on an array of
reforms the Commission might take to unleash American drone dominance,
including:
<bullet> Alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens that frustrate
drone deployment, including Commission rules or policies--such as
siting or device certification--that may create friction for the growth
of a competitive, secure, and innovative domestic drone ecosystem.
<bullet> Ensuring that American drone manufacturers and users have
access to sufficient spectrum for drone testing and operations,
including services to the public.
<bullet> Facilitating and encouraging American firms' investment in
drone capabilities, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative
and advanced capabilities.
<bullet> Ensuring that U.S.-based manufacturers and trusted
suppliers have the regulatory clarity and technical access needed to
scale production and secure investment.
<bullet> Coordinating more effectively with other federal agencies
to align spectrum policies with national security imperatives and
reduce the risk posed by untrusted foreign-origin UAS operating in U.S.
airspace.
[[Page 20443]]
<bullet> Streamlining the FCC's experimental licensing rules to
facilitate more agile testing of UAS communications systems--including
beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) links, command and control (C2)
systems, detect-and-avoid (DAA) technologies, and secure navigation
tools--across a broader range of spectrum bands.
<bullet> Establishing additional dedicated drone innovation zones
or testbeds, in partnership with federal, state, academic, or private
entities, and streamlining authorizations to help spur early-stage
experimentation and commercialization.
Background
5. U.S. Government Efforts on UAS Leadership. Two E.O.s underpin
the Administration's coordinated national strategy to achieve American
dominance in drone technology, manufacturing, and operations. These
E.O.s signal a profound policy transformation. UAS leadership now
represents more than an economic priority; it has become a critical
pillar of U.S. national security, technological independence, and
global competitiveness.
6. The first E.O., Unleashing American Drone Dominance, sets a
whole-of-government mandate to accelerate the commercialization of
drone technologies, scale up domestic production, and expand the export
of trusted, American-manufactured UAS. This E.O. directs federal
agencies--including the FCC and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA)--to prioritize spectrum access and
modernization efforts critical for the safe and scalable deployment of
autonomous and remotely piloted drones, particularly those operating
BVLOS. It also calls for the development of a national drone corridor
network and establishes interagency coordination mechanisms to
streamline certification, export approvals, and integration into the
national airspace system. The E.O. directed ``[a]ll agencies,''
including the Commission, to ``prioritize the integration of UAS
manufactured in the United States over those made abroad to the maximum
extent permitted by law.''
7. The second E.O., Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty,
tightens restrictions on foreign-manufactured drones operating in
sensitive or regulated environments and mandates a phased transition to
domestically produced or allied-nation UAS across federal and critical
infrastructure sectors. It builds on earlier security-oriented
directives, like E.O. 13981, but goes further by authorizing NTIA to
update federal procurement guidelines to reflect new security
benchmarks, and by directing several agencies, including the FCC, to
take all appropriate steps to implement the recommendations of the
March 2022 Feasibility Report to Congress regarding the creation of the
National Training Center for Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
8. Recent FCC Covered List Actions. Late last year, the FCC
received a specific determination from an interagency body with
appropriate national security expertise that found, among other things,
that UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country pose
an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and
to the safety and security of U.S. persons and should be included on
the FCC's Covered List, unless the DoW or the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) makes a specific determination that certain such UAS and
UAS critical components do not pose such risks. The Determination found
that:
UAS and UAS critical components must be produced in the United
States. This will reduce the risk of direct UAS attacks and
disruptions, unauthorized surveillance, sensitive data exfiltration,
and other UAS threats to the homeland. Furthermore, it will ensure our
domestic UAS and UAS critical component manufacturing is resilient and
independent, a critical national security imperative. UAS are
inherently dual-use: they are both commercial platforms and potentially
military or paramilitary sensors and weapons. UAS and UAS critical
components, including data transmission devices, communications
systems, flight controllers, ground control stations, controllers,
navigation systems, batteries, smart batteries, and motors produced in
a foreign country could enable persistent surveillance, data
exfiltration, and destructive operations over U.S. territory, including
over World Cup and Olympic venues and other mass gathering events. U.S.
cybersecurity and critical infrastructure guidance has repeatedly
highlighted how foreign-manufactured UAS can be used to harvest
sensitive data, used to enable remote unauthorized access, or disabled
at will via software updates.
9. As a result of this specific determination, the FCC updated its
Covered List to include ``UAS and UAS critical components produced in a
foreign country.'' Going forward, foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical
components may no longer receive authorization for importation,
marketing, or sale in the United States, although already-authorized
devices can continue to be used.
10. Then, following a further specific determination from DoW that
certain UAS and UAS critical components did not pose ``unacceptable
risks,'' the FCC again updated its Covered List to remove ``until
January 1, 2027, (a) UAS and UAS critical components included on the
Defense Contract Management Agency's (DCMA's) Blue UAS list,# and (b)
UAS and UAS critical components that qualify as `domestic end products'
under the Buy American Standard, 48 CFR 25.101(a).'' DoW also
established a process for individual entities to apply for DoW and DHS
to make further determinations that would exempt these entities'
otherwise-covered UAS and UAS critical components from the Covered
List. Such entities would have to provide information about their
corporate structure, manufacturing and supply chain, and their U.S.
manufacturing and onshoring plan. Following a third National Security
Determination that 4 UAS devices do not pose ``unacceptable risks,''
the FCC updated its Covered List once again on March 18, 2026, to
exempt ``devices which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW
or DHS.''
11. Non-Federal Spectrum for Drones. Most drones in the U.S. have
relied on unlicensed spectrum, or the same frequencies used by Wi-Fi
routers and other consumer devices, for their command-and-control
communications, including the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz ISM (Industrial,
Scientific, and Medical) bands. These frequencies include: 900 MHz band
(902-928 MHz); 2.4 GHz band (2400-2500 MHz); 5.2 GHz band (5000-5725
MHz); and 5.8 GHz band (5725-5875 MHz). Although these bands are
popular due to their relatively high power output capability and wide
bandwidth for high definition broadband transmission, these unlicensed
bands may be susceptible to interference from other users. We seek
comment on the ongoing viability of the unlicensed bands for UAS
operations.
12. With respect to licensed spectrum, the 2012 World
Radiocommunication Conference allocated the 5030-5091 MHz band for
aeronautical mobile route service to support UAS control links. The FCC
mirrored the international allocation of that band, and in August 2024,
it adopted service rules under a new Part 88 to allow operators to
obtain direct frequency assignments in a portion of the band for
nonnetworked operations. The 2024 decision adopted an interim access
mechanism providing temporary access to 20 megahertz (5040-5060 MHz)
through Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
[[Page 20444]]
coordination and FCC registration. As a medium-term solution, the FCC
specified use of a dynamic frequency management systems that would
provide requesting operators with temporary frequency assignments to
support UAS control link communications with a level of reliability
suitable for operations in controlled airspace and other safety-
critical circumstances. Longer term, the FCC anticipated a final band
plan including both networked and non-networked services.
13. In addition, the Commission is participating in a multi-agency
effort to accelerate the development and deployment of Advanced Air
Mobility (AAM) technologies, including eVTOL aircraft in the United
States. Through that effort, in December, 2025, the Advanced Air
Mobility Interagency Working Group released the Advanced Air Mobility
National Strategy, which recommends a number of actions the Federal
government can take to develop U.S. AAM technologies and facilitate
their rapid integration into the national airspace system. Among other
efforts, the strategy recognizes the need for modernization of
communications, navigation and surveillance technology to enable future
aviation operations, and recommends that the FCC, NTIA, FAA, and law
enforcement and security agencies should collaborate with standards
bodies and industry to evaluate the equipage and spectrum needs of the
aviation industry.
14. Relatedly, the Commission is currently considering proposals to
update its rules to permit UAS, including AAM, in specific frequency
ranges. One option under review is the 450 MHz band, pursuant to a
rulemaking petition by AURA Networks to support long-range links and
flexible use. The 24 GHz band is also under consideration for radar and
detection operations, enhancing situational awareness and public
safety, as are millimeter-wave bands for payload data and non-critical
communications over short ranges.
Discussion
15. The Commission intends to give U.S. innovators the resources
and regulatory clarity they need to develop a domestic UAS ecosystem
for commercial and military applications. The FCC's recent update to
the Covered List, prohibiting the authorization of almost all foreign-
produced UAS and UAS critical components, reflects that national
imperative. We now seek comment on additional means by which we can
fulfill our public-interest mandate and achieve American drone
dominance consistent with the directives set forth in President Trump's
recent EOs.
16. Modernizing UAS Licensing. Today, the FCC's experimental
licensing framework--while foundational to U.S. technological
leadership--was not designed with the scale, pace, and complexity of
modern UAS in mind. Experimental licenses are currently available
through OET to facilitate research, development, and testing of new
radio technologies. However, the current process can be time-consuming,
geographically limited, and administratively burdensome for developers
seeking to test emerging UAS capabilities, particularly those that rely
on multiple frequency bands, mobile operations, or beyond visual line
of sight (BVLOS) communications. These constraints can slow innovation
and disadvantage U.S. firms attempting to compete globally in the fast-
evolving drone sector.
17. We seek comment on ways to modernize and streamline the
experimental licensing process specifically for UAS-related testing.
Should the Commission consider establishing a dedicated UAS
experimental license category with flexible terms tailored to drone
developers, including longer durations, broader geographic coverage, or
expedited renewals? Would a tiered licensing structure--e.g.,
differentiating between academic, commercial prototype, and production-
scale testing--improve regulatory predictability and reduce
administrative burdens? We also seek comment on whether the Commission
should implement pre-cleared test ranges or corridors (in coordination
with FAA and NTIA) where licensees could conduct UAS experiments with
reduced paperwork and faster approvals.
18. We further seek comment on whether the Commission should
explore a blanket experimental authorization for qualified drone
developers operating within specified frequency bands and safety
parameters. Would a modular ``plug-and-play'' approach--where
applicants can select from a set of preapproved use cases, frequency
bands, and technical standards--streamline approvals while preserving
necessary safeguards against harmful interference? Should the
Commission also allow more flexible use of temporary and special
temporary authority (STA) grants for UAS innovation, particularly in
support of public-private testbeds and emerging drone corridors?
19. Finally, we seek comment on the utility of our Part 5
experimental licensing rules for the testing of certain Counter-UAS
technologies under controlled conditions. Our current rules limit
Counter-UAS to research and development purposes--not for operational
mitigation or enforcement. Do these restrictions unduly inhibit
commercial development of Counter-UAS? Commenters are invited to
propose reforms that might address such limitations, to the extent they
exist.
20. Releasing More Spectrum for UAS. We seek comment on any and all
non-Federal spectrum resources commenters believe are necessary to
achieve American drone dominance.
21. As an initial matter, we seek comment on permitting more
intensive UAS operations in flexible-use terrestrial bands typically
relied upon for mobile broadband. Some commercial drones and advanced
operators have used licensed commercial wireless networks (such as LTE/
4G/5G) where permitted, especially for non-safety-critical payload data
or in areas where FCC rules do not restrict airborne use of those
bands. We seek comment on the scope and scale of UAS deployment over
licensed flexible-use bands today and the extent to which these bands
can support more intensive aerial operations.
22. At the same time, the operation of UAS remains prohibited in
many flexible-use bands. For example, Parts 22 and 96 explicitly bar
airborne use of Cellular Radiotelephone Service and CBRS spectrum,
respectively, whereas the Table of Frequency Allocations prohibits
aeronautical mobile use for several other spectrum bands, including all
or portions of the 1670-1675 MHz, 1.4 GHz, 2.3 GHz, and 3.7 GHz bands.
As one specific example, while CBRS can technically support private
LTE/5G networks for drones, airborne use is currently prohibited under
Part 96 rules. Despite this, some operators use CBRS for ground-based
infrastructure supporting drone operations. We seek comment on the
viability of these bands for UAS, including interference and
coordination challenges to greater aerial flexibility.
23. We note that the Commission has previously considered some of
these bands for UAS. In 2023, the Commission sought comment on a range
of issues related to UAS operations in flexible-use bands. Its
subsequent 2024 decision in that proceeding did not resolve those
issues. We therefore seek comment and refresh the record on issues that
were raised initially in 2023 but were not subsequently resolved.
Should we remove or relax remaining airborne restrictions in bands like
800 MHz Cellular? To that end, should we
[[Page 20445]]
make a finding about the need for rules or best practices to avoid in-
band interference? Are existing rules appropriate to protect
terrestrial operations from a large number of potentially high-speed
airborne transmitters? If not, what protections might we consider?
Alternatively, would it be advisable for the Commission to provide more
certainty about the limits (or lack thereof) of carriers' spectrum
rights in vertical space? Finally, should the Commission permit UAS
pilots on the ground to obtain licenses in the aeronautical VHF band
(117.975-137 MHz) for communications with Air Traffic Control?
24. Next, we seek comment on all options to accelerate further UAS
deployment in the 5030-5091 MHz band. Although the FCC adopted initial
rules for the band in 2024, implementation work remains ongoing. We
seek comment on ways to expedite implementation so as to permit more
robust UAS operations in the band. For example, should the FCC
establish a multi-stakeholder group, setting the stage for proposals in
a future Further Notice proposing rules for accessing the entire band?
We note and seek comment on the relevance of RTCA's ongoing work on
these issues. Alternatively, should the FCC convene a Federal Advisory
Committee or other similar group to develop consensus on key policy,
technical, and operational issues in the band? Finally, are there steps
that the FCC could take beyond the adoption of the Interim Access
Mechanism to facilitate more imminent access to a portion of the band?
25. We also refresh the record on the possibility of allowing UAS
in the 960-1164 MHz band. Section 374 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 directed the FAA, NTIA, and the Commission, after consultation
with relevant stakeholders, to submit a report on, among other things,
whether UAS operations should be permitted in 960-1164 MHz and 5030-
5091 MHz. In a subsequent 2020 report, the Commission declined to
recommend moving forward with a proceeding to make the 960-1164 MHz
band available for UAS operations. The report instead recommended that
the Commission continue to study the use of this band for UAS purposes,
and to work with the FAA, NTIA, and other stakeholders regarding
appropriate UAS rules and policies in the event that circumstances
warrant initiating a rulemaking for this band. We seek comment on
whether new facts or circumstances exist to revisit the Commission's
2020 determination regarding the 960-1164 MHz band.
26. We also seek comment on steps the FCC can take to facilitate
UAS or Counter-UAS spectrum access in the context of any pending inter-
agency proceedings or efforts in which the FCC is involved. For
example, as mentioned above, Section 9 of the Restoring American
Airspace Sovereignty E.O. directs the Attorney General in coordination
with several agencies, including the FCC, to take all appropriate steps
to implement the recommendations of the March 2022 Feasibility Report
to Congress regarding the creation of the National Training Center for
Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems. We seek comment on steps the FCC can
take to help support the operations of this facility. In addition, the
AAM National Strategy recommended that the FCC and other agencies,
including NTIA and the FAA, should collaborate with standards bodies
and industry to evaluate the equipage and spectrum needs of the
aviation industry, to transition and enable communications, navigation,
and surveillance efficiency for future aviation operations, including
AAM. We seek comment on steps the FCC should take to engage with
Federal partners, standards bodies, and industry to assess the spectrum
needs of drones and AAM, to help enable their integration into the
national airspace system.
27. We also note that the recently-passed National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2026 NDAA) includes
provisions related to spectrum access for UAS and Counter-UAS
operations. In particular, Section 227 of the FY2026 NDAA directs the
Secretary of Defense to establish, as a demonstration project, a
Western Regional Range Complex capable of facilitating testing and
training in electromagnetic spectrum operations and electromagnetic
warfare, among other purposes. In addition, Section 1048 authorizes the
Secretary of Defense to develop an Eastern Regional Range Complex to
serve as a joint training, testing, and experimentation hub for various
operations including both UAS and Counter UAS operations. For both of
these ranges, Section 1048 further provides that the Secretary of
Defense may consult with the FCC and NTIA to recommend spectrum access
requirements in support of joint and service training, testing, and
experimentation. We seek comment on how the FCC can help facilitate
spectrum access in support of these purposes consistent with our
jurisdiction over non-federal spectrum access, and what actions or
requirements in connection with spectrum access the FCC should
recommend, if any, in this context.
28. Finally, we invite commenters to discuss proposals currently
before the Commission to open specific frequencies for UAS-related
activities, including AURA's petition to modify technical rules in the
450 MHz band and Echodyne's petition to use the 24.45-24.65 GHz band
for federal and non-federal radiolocation operations that would better
facilitate the detection of UAS. To what extent would adopting these
proposals ease the spectrum crunch, if any, that currently faces UAS
operators?
29. Creating New Testbeds and Innovation Zones. The FCC has
established Innovation Zones to provide opportunities for qualified
licensees to test new and advanced technologies and prototype networks
outside a traditional small campus or laboratory setting. Emerging
technologies ideal for Innovation Zones may include UAS, Open RAN, and
other experiments that maximize the still-untapped potential of 5G
networks.
30. In 2021, the FCC announced the expansion of its Innovation Zone
program when it established a new testbed at North Carolina State
University, known as the Aerial Experimentation and Research Platform
for Advanced Wireless (AERPAW). The AERPAW testbed was ``the first
platform to allow testing at scale of open 5G-and-beyond solutions in
unmanned aerial system verticals.'' As the Commission noted, ``AERPAW
will focus on how cellular networks and advanced wireless technologies
can enable beyond visual line-of-sight unmanned aerial systems to
accelerate development, verification, and testing of transformative
advances and breakthroughs in telecommunications, transportation,
infrastructure monitoring, agriculture, and public safety.''
32. We seek comment on the success of AERPAW to date with respect
to UAS deployment and testing. Does this site provide sufficient
flexibility or capacity to develop UAS technologies at meaningful
scale? We invite commenters to describe whether interagency
coordination has proven manageable given the urban location of this
Innovation Zone and the nature of the relevant federal equities. In
addition, we solicit feedback on the value of AERPAW for the defense
industry given that current Innovation Zones applicants are
universities that tend to be more focused on academic research.
33. To the extent commenters find gaps in the utility of AERPAW, we
seek
[[Page 20446]]
comment on the value of creating another type of Innovation Zone
license that is exclusively designed for defense companies or non-
academics who work on commercial or military UAS development. As one
example, would it be advisable to create an Innovation Zone over
waterways, in part to facilitate the interaction of UAS and ships and
submarines per Section 20002 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act? Should
we consider creating new testbeds in sparsely populated regions with
uninhabitable terrain, such as deserts or mountains, where the risk of
harmful interference is expected to be minimal? What eligibility
restrictions, if any, should govern use of an Innovation Zone for
aerial operations? To what extent would new Innovation Zones ease or
replicate challenges with respect to federal coordination at existing
testbeds, such as AERPAW?
34. Clarifying the Permissible Use of Counter-UAS. Counter-UAS
refers to technologies, systems, or operations designed to detect,
track, identify, and, where authorized, mitigate or disable UAS that
pose a threat to safety, security, or regulatory compliance. Although
the Commission's rules do not specifically regulate Counter-UAS as a
discrete category, the Communications Act and FCC regulations may
nonetheless pose barriers to Counter-UAS deployment. We seek comment on
any such barriers and reforms to address them, including Section 333 of
the Communications Act of 1934, which provides: ``No person shall
willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any
radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under
this chapter.''
35. Modernizing Coordination. Existing coordination or notification
procedures, which were designed to protect non-Federal or Federal
spectrum users from harmful interference, may nonetheless restrict the
use of UAS or Counter-UAS operations more than necessary today. We seek
comment on whether, and the extent to which, the Commission's rules are
overprotective in that regard. Would it be feasible for the FCC to
streamline its coordination or notification requirements to enable more
intensive use of aerial technologies while avoiding disruption to
spectrum-based operations that have greater priority? Commenters should
provide specific comment as to the nature of any existing burdens
created by coordination requirements and offer concrete proposals to
reduce those burdens without creating a significant risk of harmful
interference to protected services.
36. Creating Market-Based Incentives. The Commission has long
recognized that secondary markets can offer a win-win mechanism to
bring underused spectrum to more productive use. In special situations,
the Commission has affirmatively incentivized such private
transactions. For example, the Enhanced Competition Incentive Program
(ECIP) was designed to boost wireless competition and rural broadband
by incentivizing license holders to share spectrum with small carriers
and Tribal Nations, offering benefits like longer licenses and flexible
build-out rules for beneficial transactions like partitioning,
disaggregation, or leasing underutilized airwaves. Could we consider
similar inducements to promote UAS operations or other kinds of aerial
testing? Commenters are encouraged to provide specific proposals about
how to structure such market-based incentives.
37. Law Enforcement Use of UAS. While the Commission does not
directly procure UAS, the Commission does often coordinate with State,
Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) law enforcement agencies that
frequently procure UAS. SLTT law enforcement agencies often procure UAS
produced by foreign adversary entities. This seems especially
problematic, given the sensitivity of the law enforcement missions. We
seek comment on whether this is correct. If so, how can the Commission
work with SLTT law enforcement to encourage the use of U.S.-made UAS?
For example, should the Commission publish a trusted UAS list or issue
public safety guidance recommending our SLTT partners prioritize U.S.-
made drones? Should the Commission leverage its private sector
relationships to promote the use of U.S.-made drones?
38. We also broadly seek comment on any other way that the
Commission could--through rulemakings, enforcement, and public
statements--promote and accelerate the deployment of UAS and UAS
critical components.
39. Central UAS/C-UAS Information Resource. To foster investment
and expedite the deployment of UAS and Counter-UAS technology, we seek
comment on whether to establish a centralized ``one-stop shopping''
Commission web page for UAS and Counter-UAS operators. As the UAS and
Counter-UAS environment develops, providing a centralized information
resource to assist UAS and Counter-UAS operators with equipment
authorizations, spectrum licensing, and waiver processes could expedite
innovation. This resource could assist both commercial operators and
public safety entities by consolidating relevant information, links,
precedents, and Commission contacts related to the Commission's
national security, supply chain, equipment, and spectrum regulations.
We seek comment on whether, and if so how, the formation of a
centralized information resource can facilitate the rapid deployment of
UAS and Counter-UAS?
40. Supporting a Skilled U.S. Drone Workforce. We seek comment on
actions the Commission could take to support workforce development
needed for American drone dominance. Strengthening the American drone
industrial base will require a highly-skilled workforce to support
development, manufacturing, and operation of drones, including in the
fields of telecommunications and electrical engineering. How can the
Commission partner with industry and other Federal agencies to foster a
robust U.S. drone workforce?
Federal Communications Commission.
Amy Brett,
Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2026-07381 Filed 4-15-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js" defer></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 16, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.