Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Certain Covered UAS and UAS Critical Components and Equipment Listed in Section 1709 of Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act

The commenter, a commercial remote pilot, opposes the proposed import bans because they believe the restrictions will increase hardware costs, stifle innovation by reducing competition, and damage the U.S. economy. They argue that the policy will hinder American technological advancement by pricing out service providers and removing access to the global supply chain.

Austin Robinette, owner of HyperSky Search Services LLC, opposes the proposal because it could restrict access to thermal drone technology used for public safety and search-and-rescue operations. He argues that the FCC should distinguish between military security concerns and legitimate civilian and commercial uses of these tools.

Daniel J Adams, a construction worker, opposes the proposed rule because he believes it will hurt individuals seeking side income and stifle the growth of the drone industry. He argues that the ruling is not in the best interest of the nation's people or its technological future.

The commenter opposes the proposed ban on certain UAS products and components, arguing that they are essential for their livelihood and that no viable American alternatives exist. They contend that the products are consumer goods rather than national security concerns and should be allowed to compete in a free market.

The commenter, a small business owner in the pet rescue industry, opposes the proposal because it would restrict their ability to use and repair affordable drones from DJI and Autel. They argue that American-made alternatives lack the necessary performance and cost-effectiveness for their community service.

The commenter opposes the proposal to limit the importation of certain overseas drone manufacturers, arguing that it will negatively impact recreational users, commercial businesses, and public safety agencies due to the high cost and lower quality of domestic alternatives. They also suggest the FCC review a study by OnDefend which found no data link between these manufacturers and US consumers.

The commenter opposes the proposed ban on DJI products, arguing that there is no evidence of data transmission to the CCP. They characterize the action as protectionism and an abuse of regulatory power that will harm US consumers and business owners.

The commenter, a small business owner, opposes the ban on Chinese-made drones because their company relies exclusively on these products for daily operations. They argue that US alternatives are currently not technologically or economically viable and that the ban could put their business out of operation.