Unleashing American Drone Dominance

[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20441-20446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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:
    •  Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    •  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.
    •  People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 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 Thomas.Struble@fcc.gov or (202) 418-7581 or John 
Lockwood, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at John.Lockwood@fcc.gov 
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 https://www.fcc.gov/document/unleashing-american-drone-dominance.
    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 https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
    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:
    •  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.
    •  Ensuring that American drone manufacturers and users have 
access to sufficient spectrum for drone testing and operations, 
including services to the public.
    •  Facilitating and encouraging American firms' investment in 
drone capabilities, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative 
and advanced capabilities.
    •  Ensuring that U.S.-based manufacturers and trusted 
suppliers have the regulatory clarity and technical access needed to 
scale production and secure investment.
    •  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]]

    •  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.
    •  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