It is recommended that after reading these BFA opinions, that you write a response to the NPRM before October 6, 2025, after which your response will not be counted. Our strength must be shown by the number of responses sent to the FAA, but as previously mentioned, any response that appears to be simply copied from another response is disregarded by the FAA and all responses that appear to be copied are counted as one response. For this reason, we recommend that you take the time to make a personal response to the NPRM.

Included with each official position of the BFA is a brief justification to provide clarity.

Change to FAR 91.113 – Right of Way rules

• The Balloon Federation of America does not believe that unmanned aircraft should have the right of way over any manned aircraft. Drones should have the ability to detect and avoid all aircraft including other drones. We recognize that the FAA is unlikely to accept that recommendation, in that event, we believe that the following Part 108 changes and implementation processes should be considered:

1. If aircraft without electrical systems are to be required to carry a device that will transmit position information, the following steps should be taken: 
   1. No BVLOS should be allowed by UAs until such devices are specified for design and performance and developed and approved for use by the FAA.

   2. The device must have some method of ensuring proper functionality to perform the task of transmitting the necessary information.

   3. The device must be proven in low altitude airspace to transmit a reliable signal in all forms of low-level clutter and obstructions.

   4. The background systems that will take transmitted data and send that data to be used to maneuver UAs around traffic should be tested to demonstrate a high level of reliability.

   5. The UA operators must demonstrate that their command-and-control systems have the ability to take that data and navigate the UAs under their control to a 99.99% reliability to detect and avoid all manned aircraft transmitting their position.
      
   6. The device must be practical for use in hot air balloons, with respect to mounting requirements -- especially the antenna -- without causing health concerns from EMF radiation.

   7. The power requirements must be practical for lighter- than-air aircraft use. h. Lighter-than-air aircraft must be allowed to turn a device off when operating outside drone operation areas (e.g. above 400’ AGL) Even gas balloons, flying long distance competition and record flights will need to conserve battery power and weight.

2. NOTAMs should be filed by the operators of UAs conducting BVLOS operations indicating the area of operation and hours of operation.

3. Strict standards should be established by the FAA that define distances or altitudes that are acceptable for such avoidance by UA aircraft. Such distances should be sufficient to allow manned aircraft to maneuver normally without risk of a collision.

4. Operators of manned aircraft are monitored by the FAA and when found in violation of FAA rules or any actions deemed reckless or causing endangerment, action is taken against that pilot. UAs determined to be in violation of FAA safety standards or breaking altitude regulations should be held to the same standard and be grounded, shut down, fined, suspended and forced to reapply after a period of time re-proving that they meet all original requirements before resuming operations.

5. Given that numerous violations by UA of the existing 400 foot existing altitude regulations verified by drone near miss reports, numbering in the thousands annually, the FAA must get the entire drone community, BVLOS or Part 107, under control and following FAA regulations.

6. Data that would be generated by an LTA aircraft utilizing a transmitting device that is sending not only position, altitude and airspeed, but also aircraft/operator data should be protected from their data falling into the hands of “bad actors” using that data for purposes not intended.

7. If drones are equipped with sensing /visual systems for avoiding towers, antennas, powerlines, and buildings, this same system could “see and avoid” a hot air balloon which is a larger object than most in the airspace. Rather than relying on electronic conspicuity, visual conspicuity would make more sense.

8. Per 14 CFR Part 31, balloons are visually conspicuous by their nature, which provides the necessary visual conspicuity necessary for drones to see and avoid them in flight.

9. Those processes and activities specified in proposed Part 146, Automated Data Service Providers, need to be brought online in phases, rather than all at once, with appropriate function checks concentrating on safety and collision avoidance, at various stages along the path.

Discussions:

The proposed rules would amend § 91.113 to give unmanned aircraft (UAS) operating under Part 108 the right- of-way over manned aircraft in low-altitude airspace, except when: 

• The manned aircraft is in Class B or C airspace,

• Operating in a “Category 5” population density area,

• Departing or arriving at an airport/heliport, or

• Equipped with ADS-B Out or equivalent electronic conspicuity equipment.

Practically, this means a balloon pilot at 200–300 ft AGL in Class G airspace could be legally required to yield to a drone. contrary to longstanding manned aircraft right-of-way rules.

It is not currently required or possible for a balloon to transmit its position electronically through any means and UA does not have a current means by which to transmit its position in a manner that can be seen by other manned aircraft.

Further, the UA would only be required to use a transmitter to make itself conspicuous in Class B and C airspace, not in the airspace that is of the most concern to balloonist, that fly regularly in class E and G airspace.

The sharing of airspace must be a shared responsibility. The proposed rule speaks of mutual sharing of the airspace yet does not provide the means to ensure that each party has an equal responsibility through which to make itself known or seen by the other.

The basis or the proposed rule completely changes the long-standing concept that the less maneuverable aircraft should have the right of way over the more maneuverable aircraft and is contradictory to all acceptable safety standards.

The existing § 91.113 recognizes the primacy of manned aircraft and reversing that creates unacceptable risk.

Balloons cannot maneuver in any manner to avoid a collision with a UA if the UA is not detected by the balloon at a value of time that ranges from 30 to 50 seconds prior to the passage of the UA. The larger the balloon the more mass causing it to take longer to vacate its current position in the airspace. In other words, a balloon cannot get out of the way even if the UA is detected during its approach to the balloon.

Crewed aircraft carrying people must always retain right- of-way over unmanned aircraft, regardless of altitude.

Electronic Conspicuity

• The BFA does not support a mandate for electronic conspicuity for operations within Class E or G airspace, but rather a voluntary equipage approach.

• The BFA believes that UA avoidance of balloons should be viewed in a manner that causes the more maneuverable aircraft to avoid the less maneuverable aircraft.

• The BFA believes that the FAA should provide economic relief to the LTA industry for the purchase of any future developed equipment that will provide electronic conspicuity for balloons. This would follow the FAA’s previous effort to provide a   partial rebate to aircraft owners for installation of ADS-B.

Discussions:

Balloons are not currently authorized to have equipment that transmits its position to the UA or other manned aircraft under FAR 91.225.

Balloons lack ADS-B due to weight, cost, and lack of electrical systems, as well as regulatory requirements prohibiting such use. Rules that give priority only to ADS- B-equipped aircraft create a de facto equipment mandate without rulemaking. There is no legal solution to the FAA’s mandate of conspicuity.

There is no approved, certified, or accepted equipment available to a balloon with which it may gain the right of way over UA.

The NPRM assumes that manned aircraft in low-level airspace can be electronically conspicuous (ADS-B Out or similar methodology.

There is no official effort on the part of FAA to provide approvals for equipment capable of providing electronic conspicuity. UA are required to utilize detect and avoid equipment, yet the technology to provide that equipment is not currently approved or functional to the extent that it can detect and avoid balloons or other non-conspicuous aircraft.

UA certification

• The BFA urges the FAA to make all UA aircraft operating under FAR 108 to be visually conspicuous as well as electronically conspicuous to all other users of the     airspace below 400 feet. 

• UA aircraft should be discoverable by other aircraft having the capability to see ADS-B equipped UA aircraft through one of the many commercially available portable ADS-B in units.

Most UA aircraft that will operate under this new rule are manufactured in non-conspicuous colors and do not have sufficient visible lighting. Visual conspicuity through brightly colored paint and high intensity strobe lighting should be a minimum requirement of this rule to set the UA apart from its surrounding environment.

 Other Discussions:

• FAA, “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations”, 90 Fed. Reg 38235 (August 7, 2025) indicates that the UAS community      may not be reliant on the same weather reporting system and sources that legacy aircraft operations require, and instead offers the option to the UA operator to      “obtain weather information in other ways”. This is problematic – the proposed rule, in the preamble, offers the opinion that, “for airspace below 400 feet only, around    3% of the continental United States and 2% of Alaska airspace is covered by an approved source of weather information, with most of that being on or near airport      environments”. This separation from the legacy aircraft community is concerning.

• FAA, “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations”, 90 Fed. Reg 38245 (August 7, 2025) discusses “allow(ing) for an electronic conspicuity device that broadcasts a signal on Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) 978 MHz and that would also provide a means for the manned aircraft operator to retain their right-of-way over the UA” and further, “it would only be used to make UA aware of the presence of a manned aircraft that the UA must yield to”. However, there is no reference to Section 810 of the 20214 FAA Reauthorization Act (Public Law 118-63) , in which the FAA was directed to address the development of “low-cost voluntary (emphasis added) ADS-B, nor of Section 906 of the same Act, which requires the Comptroller General to study technologies that allow UA to detect and avoid uncrewed aircraft. The only study we are aware of is the HASS (Highly Automated System Safety) study completed by the Department of Transportation.

• FAA, “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations”, 90 Fed. Reg 38304 (August 7, 2025) discusses eligibility for                airworthiness acceptance. They specifically deny airships, and apparently variants, the possibility of acceptance, and the reasoning is interesting. Quote, “This is because UA operating under part 108 would be required to cede right of way to other aircraft which are broadcasting ADS-B Out, per proposed part 108.195. The low    speed and relatively long response times to control inputs would make it unlikely that an airship would be able to maintain safe separation by avoiding detected       aircraft.” Frankly, we see this as a distinction without a difference – it’s the same problem we’re looking at in the LTA community.

All of the above comments and discussion may be used for your comments, but please DO NOT copy and paste this document and send it in as your own. It is best to select some proposed comments, rewrite them in your own words, and file that as your submission. Duplicate comments, as well as those which are “copy/paste” documents, will be eliminated during the review process.

Make sure the docket number, FAA-2025-1908, is prominently displayed on the first page of your submission.

Online submissions can be made at www.regulations. gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Snail mail comments should be sent to:

               Docket Operations, M-30
               US Department of Transportation (DOT)     
               1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140
               West Building Ground Floor
               Washington, DC 20590-0001