Pilot Institute analysis finds 98.6% of readable filings opposed the proposed restrictions as writte
Review of 3,824 readable filings finds 3,770 opposed the FCC proposal as written, as commenters raise concerns about economic impact, public safety, agriculture and commercial drone operations
The comment period has closed on a Federal Communications Commission proposal that could restrict the future import and sale of certain foreign-produced drones. A new analysis from Pilot Institute finds overwhelming opposition among those who submitted comments.
Pilot Institute reviewed the public record in FCC PS Docket No. 26-189. Of 3,824 filings with readable text, the organization classified 3,770 as opposing the proposal as written and 16 as supporting it. That means about 98.6% of the analyzed comments opposed the proposal.
The results do not represent a scientific survey of the drone industry or the general public. They show the positions of individuals and organizations that chose to participate in the FCC proceeding. Pilot Institute also filed comments opposing the proposal. But the analysis provides a detailed look at the record the FCC now has before it as the agency considers its next steps.
What Commenters Told the FCC
Pilot Institute categorized each filing according to a defined rubric, including the commenter’s overall position, type of filer, responses to the FCC’s questions and arguments raised. Questions that a commenter did not address were not inferred.
The analysis is especially notable because the FCC specifically asked for evidence about the potential economic effects of its proposal.
The FCC had tentatively concluded that the proposed restrictions would not have substantial economic and supply-chain impacts, reasoning that the targeted equipment represents a minority of the market for non-federal users. At the same time, the agency asked commenters whether those impacts would be “relatively minor and contained” and encouraged them to submit data on potential economic costs.
According to Pilot Institute’s analysis, only one commenter who addressed that question agreed with the FCC’s tentative conclusion.
Greg Reverdiau, Co-founder and Head of Training at Pilot Institute, said the filings illustrate the potential effects at the operator level.
“We train the people this rule actually lands on: the sheriff’s deputy flying a thermal camera on a night search, the farmer spraying their own fields, the one-person mapping business. The record is damning: small businesses say they will close, public safety agencies say lives will be lost, and the agriculture sector says this will hit crops and yield. Out of 3,824 comments, exactly one agreed with the FCC that the economic impact would be minor and contained.”
A Proposal With Broad Commercial Implications
The FCC released the proposal in July and set a September 2 comment deadline. The proceeding concerns previously authorized foreign-produced UAS and critical components on the FCC Covered List that meet one or more of seven proposed “military-grade” categories.
Those categories include aircraft with thermal imaging or LiDAR, docking stations, certain swarming capabilities, agricultural dispensing systems, aircraft weighing 55 pounds or more, and systems designed to incorporate a defense article.
The proposal concerns continued importation and marketing of affected equipment. It would not prohibit operators from continuing to use equipment they already own.
Industry organizations had sought additional time to respond to the proposal, but the FCC declined to extend the deadline. DRONELIFE covered the proposal and the deadline decision in more detail before comments closed.
DJI Challenges the Proposal
DJI, whose products could be significantly affected by the proceeding, submitted a 26-page comment to the FCC on September 2.
The company argues that many of the capabilities included in the FCC’s proposed definition have widespread civilian applications. DJI points specifically to thermal imaging, LiDAR, docking systems and agricultural spraying, which are used for missions ranging from search and rescue to infrastructure inspection and agriculture.
DJI also challenges the FCC’s assessment of the potential economic consequences. The company notes that the FCC offered a tentative conclusion that economic and supply-chain effects would not be substantial while simultaneously asking commenters to provide data about those effects.
Its filing makes broader legal arguments as well. DJI contends that the proposal exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority, does not meet requirements under the Commission’s own regulations and lacks sufficiently specific definitions of the affected equipment. These remain DJI’s arguments before the agency, rather than findings by a court or the FCC.
DJI’s filing also points to comments submitted by public safety organizations and commercial operators describing their use of thermal imaging, LiDAR and docking technologies. Other comments cited by DJI address infrastructure inspection, real estate, mapping and surveying.
DJI asks the FCC to rescind the proposal. If the agency instead moves forward with a new notice, DJI proposes several alternatives, including product- or class-specific national security determinations, an 18-month transition period, continued access for state and local public safety agencies, and objective technical thresholds for any capability-based categories.
What Happens Next
The comment period is now closed, leaving the FCC to consider a record containing thousands of responses from individual operators, businesses, public safety agencies, manufacturers and industry organizations.
The number of comments opposing a proposal does not determine the outcome of an FCC proceeding: however, the agency must consider the substance of the record as it decides whether to adopt, modify or abandon the proposed restrictions.
That makes the details behind Pilot Institute’s headline numbers particularly important. The FCC asked commenters for information about economic costs, supply-chain effects and whether the proposed categories accurately identify equipment that should be considered “military-grade.” The docket now contains thousands of responses to those questions.
Pilot Institute’s analysis offers one way to examine that record at scale. The next question is how the FCC will weigh the evidence and arguments it received as it determines whether, and in what form, the proposal moves forward.
Read more:
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
