FCC DJI Ban: What You Need to Know

Beyond the Buzz (Episode 19) - FCC DJI Ban: What You Need To Know 

January 13, 2026 

Hunter Hegel:  

Welcome to  this iteration of Beyond the Buzz, first Beyond the Buzz of 2026.  my name is Hunter Hegel. I'm the Vantis UAS operations manager, oversee all operations and regulatory requests  on our statewide network. And today we're going to be going over the FCC new policies that were just drafted late last year and then early this year, going over some of the retroactive bands as well. and then touching on the new NDAA of fiscal year 26 going over the new counter UAS authorities for state and local government officials. So with that, we'll get it kicked off. 

So just want to give everybody some context here  and how we got to this specific moment.  why was the FCC public notice triggered in the first place?  

So we have to go back to the NDAA of fiscal year 25 section 1709 that pretty much said that with one within one year of it becoming law which was December 23rd 2024  an appropriate national security agency had to determine whether specified communications or video surveillance equipment posed unacceptable national security risks.  they actually called out those entities mainly being DJI and Autel and they were also trying to go after their subsidiaries and their shell companies with the caveat being that if there was no determination made within the one-year period that the FCC would actually automatically add all the entities to the FCC covered list.  

So what we're expecting from  that section 1709 after that one-year period. So what most people were hoping in the industry was that an appropriate national security agency would actually conduct an audit  and make sure that  if the equipment actually did pose an unacceptable risk to national security.  with the caveat being there that a report would be public thereafter so that everybody in the industry could understand and see if DJI was actually  detrimental to national security or not. , and with that, , if they were, we were expecting that DJI and Autel were going to be, , and their shell companies were going to be added to the cover list, , and not all foreign UAS.  

So then again, just a quick context, , what are the appropriate national security agencies? You have to go search in another, , US Century Code608. , and from there, there's about five agencies that can actually conduct that audit.  Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, the Office of Director of National Intelligence, the NSA, and the FBI. 

So, what did we get? Well, there was no audit that took place. Instead, there was a White House gathering and they said that they there was design from the at least one National Security Agency. I don't know if it was all of them or not, but they made the determination that all UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the US. So with that, they cited threats from unauthorized surveillance, sensitive data, exfiltration, supply chain vulnerabilities, and other potential threats to the homeland. but they did make a distinction that the DoD or DHS can  make a determination that a given UAS a class of UAS or those UAS critical components  don't pose a threat.  

So revising again, what was DJI's position in the whole thing? , from their chief regulatory officer, they pretty much stated that they had an original compromise  with in the original NDAA of  of 25 where an audit was going to be conducted by one of the appropriate national security agencies, but that was going to be without a defined timeline. The language was later revised at the last minute.  and then they added a 12-month completion timeline as well. and they also removed the specific security agency.  from DJI's perspective, they've been actively lobbing for the past 12 months while the NDA was coming to effect.  and they were hoping that the audit was going to be public within 30 days  if there was one. So two key issues that emerged  from DJI.  if there was no audit  conducted, again, DJI was just going to be placed on the cover list. That's what we were most likely expecting. And then since there was no specific agency called out, if there's no ownership, it most likely was just going to get kicked down the road and there wasn't going to be anyone that was going to execute it.  

Then let's fast forward to December 22nd of 2025 where the FCC made that public notice designated authority 251086.  summary of it real quick.  they came out and said that you cannot import, market, or sell new or feature foreign UAS products in the US that haven't received an FCC authorization prior to that December 22nd deadline.  some big things to note here is that this is only for new and future UAS products, current operators, or any any platform that you still have in your fleet right now. You may still fly, you may still exercise as a pilot any of your existing models that that previously received FCC authorization. , like I said before, the DoD or the DHS can also whitelist any of their products that they see fits, which we just saw with the newest release on December 7th. Also expands the critical component list from previous established defense innovation unit and the defense contract management agency criteria. Again, no audit was conducted.  the going theory is that there was a the FCC back against the wall with the timeline. They wanted to cast a wide net and then narrow the scope  from future iterations and that seems to hold true with their newest revision on de  January 7th. And then overall again throughout the industry there's a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity everywhere.  nobody really knows what's going on. So as long as the policy gets more well defined we should have broader insight into what's actually happening.  

So just giving more context, what does the FCC regulate? How can they let this happen? How do we let this happen?  overall FCC regulates the interstate and international comms by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the US.  it's main focused on the radio frequency spectrum and preventing harmful interference. And then the FCC requires equipment authorization for RF emitting devices before they can be marketed, imported or sold in the United States.  

And then the covered list authority. So how did they get this authority to add these certain entities to the covered list?  it stems back from the secure and trusted comms network act of 2019. It directed the FCC to identify comms and equipment that pose an unacceptable risk to national security.  some important distinctions here. It does the FCC does not independently determine this national security risk. So, it has to be one of those five agencies that get together and send that determination to the FCC before they can add a company or product to that covered list.  once directed, the FCC is going to implement those restrictions on the authorization or the support of those listed equipment's on the covered list and it also does not extend to the general imports of oversight beyond the RF equipment authorization itself. So big thing to note there that they are only after the radio frequency approval process. They cannot import or they do not have general oversight over imports. That's usually on customs and border protection.  

So then just some more limitations on the FCC. Again,  mainly focused on approving and denying those RF equipment authorizations, enforcing that compliance, and then implementing congressionally directed determinations like we just saw. Again, the FCC does not regulate ownership. Anything that you still have in your current fleet or you still own, they cannot come after you. You are still free to operate.  

So, touching on importation. So while the FCC doesn't have general oversight over it, Customs and Border Protection does. So Customs is going to act as the de facto gatekeeper for all  critical components.  they have broad discretion to detain, inspect or exclude the shipments.  one basically on national security concerns.  the cover list provides that  provides that authority for this. So just because we have products that are still being able to be imported, just because they are a foreign product, that does give the CBP the necessary resources to delay and or limit their importation. So we can still buy them, just might not get them with that two-day shipping.  there is no separate import ban.  so the CBP can still restrict or deny the entries of the equipment. , if we think we can try to skirt the equipment authorization, there's about 10 other conditions on how RF devices can be imported. Those are usually meant for R&D and or limited quantities. So there no real there's no real relief from that aspect. Hunter 9:12 So let's dive into the FCC cover list what it is. So you see right there in the picture, appendix A, that was most updated in December 22nd of 2025. down below is what was added.  the first one, Huawei Technologies back in March of 2021.  pretty much is what the covered list is a covered communication equipment or services published by the FCC.  under their own regulations, once it's added to the FCC, equipment is prohibited from receiving that equipment authorization.  just want to again reiterate that this is not going to be an immediate effect for the industry.  it's not an instant grounding.  you're still going to be free to operate. It's going to be but it's going to be constraint on those new models. So, we're not going to see this effect take place again right away or in the next couple months. We're going to see it years down the line.  and then one thing to note too is that all new applicants must now certify that their equipment is not prohibited from receiving the equipment authorization by being on the cover list. So looking at the actual language that was added straight from the actual cover list UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country and all coms and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the NDAA of 25. So that was the big kicker right there is the foreign country aspect. Again, we were most likely referring to People's Republic of China that was actually going to be implemented in there, but instead it was it cast a wide net and had the foreign country instead. 

So, summary of the determination, what they said in the actual docent, the UAS is equal to a dual use technology both on the commercial side and then a potential for military or par paramilitary.  also said that the United States should have a secure and strong domestic UAS industrial base. Again, making sure that we are able to have a strong secure and be able to manufacture UAS and UAS critical components in the United States. And then just want to touch on one thing real quick back on the cover list. I would say that we are pretty lucky that we waited this long until 2025 or pretty much 2026 to get this language added.  seeing past emails and past statements from the FCC chairman Brandon Carr, there was stipulation that he wanted to start this process back in 2021. So at least we do still have some relief with the new manufacturing and new products that have taken place in the United States so far.  

Summary of the determination continuing  pretty much again saying that anything any foreign produced UAS critical opponents produce a propose an unacceptable risk to national security in the United States. Again, they don't really give any evidence as to why  mainly that they want to onshore manufacturing make sure that we have a resilient supply chain here.  

So what do they say for evidence anyways? So some major key points  let's see major events since the US is hosting the World Cup and the Olympics in 2026 and 2028 have to make sure that there are there's threats to crowded venues and critical infrastructure.  they talk about the drones and modern conflict and terrorism and criminal activity like drug smuggling. looking at the federal response, DoD, DHS, and FEMA are already in he investing heavily in counter UAS detection, tracking, and then foreign supply chain again without their evidence just speaking off the hip that they pose due to the supply chain forced data access, remote updates, and potential manipulation. Again, from the war in Ukraine to Gaza, we see that DOI can be used in several different ways.  from operation spiderweb. 

 they want to make sure that the UAS here do not pose significant threat to the public. Overall, what they're trying to do protect US airspace, secure major events, and then rebuild a resilient trusted UAS ecosystem in the United States.  

So, just like with anything in aviation, there are exemptions to the covered list or rules. Like I said in the opening, DoD or DHS can approve or whitelist specific UAS class of UAS or critical components for authorization down below in the slide. That's just straight from the docent itself. And this is exactly what we saw  in the DoD national security determination on January 7th.  they made two distinctions. One is that anything on the DoD's blue cleared list is good until January 1st of 2027. So pretty much a 12-month 12 calendar month reprieve from that foreign distinction and then any UAS or critical components that qualify as a domestic end product under the Buy American standard. Now most people understand what the blue UAS list is but the Buy American standard does need to take some digging into and understanding and we'll touch on that in a little bit.  

 again summary of the public notice right there. It was issued designated authority 26 2022. feel free to go ahead and go read that what they actually added to the cover list. So, there's the language right there. , again, highlighted in blue, but except until January 1st, 2027, , pretty much what I just said, everything on the blue list cleared. Everything that's , qualifies under the domestic end product of the buy American standard is cleared as well until, , for that one year.  

summary of determination straight from the docent source itself. So the Buy American standard I encourage everybody to go look at the regulation 48 CFR25.101 alpha so what it is to be a domestic end product pretty much what it means is that they have to have the final manufacturing or assembly in the United States you can still have foreign parts and this is where it comes down to cost not the actual quantity or number of components on the UAS. So from 2024 to 2028 the total cost of the US or yeah the total cost of US made components have to be at least 65% of the total UAS and that's going to jp up to 75% in 2029. So some things to consider there. Again you can still have foreign products. This is going to be mostly used for those manufacturing and hobby FPV drones that you want to import  those products from. But you still have to consider the cost associated with the US products. , one important nuance, it's again based on cost, not quantity of parts, and it often does not apply to commercial off-the-shelf drones, but it still has to have that final assembly/manufacturer in the United States to be considered that domestic end product. And then let's touch on the FCC re retroactive ban. So this was actually happening in October of last year.  the FCC voted unanimously 3-0 to grant itself the authority to retroactively ban the electronic devices that were cleared for sale if those manufacturers were deemed as security risks.  meaning that if they were added to the cover list  that's a big deal wasn't  I wasn't too brought up in the industry but  there's a lot to pick apart in this part. So since foreign UAS are on the cover list now that means that the FCC can go back to any of those products and retroactively ban them and pull their product authorization but they have to do this one by one. So it's going to take a while and there are several limits to it. Again FCC cannot and will not confiscate or deactivate drones that are already in your hands.  and then each ban also will involve a 30-day public comment period. So there will be public push back and your voice can be heard if they do try to retroactively ban any products. If those platforms are added, they could not be marketed or sold, but they again they can still be owned and operated. and then servicing previous products could prove difficult, cannot be a one-to-one replacement. So, think of let's go back if FCC went back and said that the DJI Mini Mini4 Pro poses unacceptable risk to the national security, they come back add it to these retroactive ban authorities. They would have a 30-day public period from then.  you could again still operate your DJI Ban Mini4, but if you crashed it  and asked DJI to send you a replacement, that would not be allowed under this retro retroactive ban.  

Then going to the fact sheets. So with this new summary of determination that came out on January 7th, they wanted to quill some unrest and some confusion here. So they added a couple FAQs to it. So  there's about four or five in here that I thought are relevant and should be shared widely. So first question is is there a process to get an individual exemption to this? So again from the powers that the DoD or DHS have they can evaluate individual requests for that determination and make sure that they do not pose an unacceptable risk and then from those entities can u apply for such determinations and those are going to be referred to as conditional approvals and that's what we just saw with that distinction of adding the blue list and then the buy American standard.  

Next question is a drone produced in the United States containing foreign products foreign produced components now covered equipment and prohibited from the FCC equipment authorization. That's a great question. So what they came out and said is that a UAS produced in the United States containing foreign produced components but that also complies with the blue list and or by American standard shall not be considered cover. So two things to dig in there.  Make sure that it's either blue and or you research and look up the by American standard to fully understand that it's not going to be covered.  

Next one, what constitutes produced in a foreign country? So, this is their answer to this question is  entertaining for my own benefit is that  there's not really a third party assessment here. It's all going to be in good faith.  and make sure that your equipment authorization doesn't have any covered list. And then the applicants must certify that any RF device is not covered equipment and that includes certification that the RF device is not a UAS or UAS critical component produced in that foreign country. So pretty much what we have here with the NDAA2 is where it's just self-certified self-certifying at the end of the day. I'm sure that there'll be third-party assessments down the road to  to verify this, but as of right now, it's all going to be in good faith.  

Next question. How would it the band impact devices that can be that can be serve as a UAS component but also have other uses? Are all camera produced abroad now covered equipment given that cameras are listed as UAS critical components? I think this is going to be a very  interesting question as it further comes into light.  what the FCC said is that they understand that the critical components to mean components designed and intended primary for the UAS.  and then they gave an example if a camera with many potential functions and uses could theoretically be attached to a drone, it is not a UAS critical component. So meaning any FPV camera would be considered a critical component. But if you take  you know just a Sony EO camera that has other functions then no that would not be considered a UAS critical component.  

All right, next one. Some of the UAS critical components for instance batteries traditionally do not even require FCC equipment authorization. Do they now? Again, very good question that needs to be answered.  first off, no. if it did not previously require equipment authorization, it still does not. Now, they went on to further say that generic batteries are unlikely to have required FCC equipment authorization in the past. So, they're therefore would not be required in the future.  but all entities seeking a waiver for a UAS will be required to establish an onshoring plan for the manufacturing of all those critical components listed. So, and that goes back to the conditional approval. That's what the waiver is talking about. But they added or they significantly broadened that critical component list so that they can try to onshore and manufacture those critical components here in the United States.  

And then last one, do applicants need to have documentation or evidence to demonstrate that a component was not produced in a foreign country? Again, for this the equipment certification pretty much says that there is no specific documentation or evidence required. It's going to be all in good faith. It'll be interesting to see how this is flushed out in future iterations as they apply for those equipment authorizations.  

And then does this affect drones made exclusively for federal government use? , surprisingly, no. , drones that are for the DoD or DHS or federal government do not need FCC equipment authorizations. So, again, this is only going to affect the commercial hobbyist industry.  those federal agencies have their own regulations regarding acquisition. So again, it's hurting just the commercial industry  not really the federal government at this point.  

So, looking at the FCC critical components, have a side by-side comparison.  the new list is significantly broader from what was policy of the DCMA/ the NDA critical components.  there's a couple that are the same, but again broadens it to cast the wide net.  most of the areas everybody understands.  navigation system, sensor and cameras pretty much all the same as the table to your right, but the two big ones that everybody wasn't uproar with are the batteries and battery management system and motors. Again, those don't really distribute RF spectrum or frequencies. So why should they be considered an FCC critic component? Again, FCC came back and said that  they're not going to be requiring that FCC authorization approval, but they're going to expect that those foreign entities are going to be able to onshore and manufacture those batteries and motors here.  

Again, kind of just touched on the last slide.  most of what was added to that critical component list usually requires some sort of SEC authorization but again with the batteries and motors typically not since there is no RF transmission. 

So with all that said what does it mean domestically and globally? So for my take is that foreign UAS manufacturers such as DJI are going to continue releasing cost effective platforms worldwide that includes Canada and Mexico.  these advance these advancements are going to remain largely inaccessible to the US both on the commercial and recreational side of things.  as a result the US is going to remain largely excluded and insulated from whatever new technology is out there that is available for the international community. So this might be a big step back for the US domestic and commercial operators and it's going to be a big win for foreign produced operators.  

So, guidance on submissions for conditional approval. What I was talking about before is that the DoD can come in and or if a specific entity wants to come in and apply their foreign UAS to the DoD or DHS, the DoD came out with guidance on how to do so. Some things to note here is that the conditional approvals will only be granted for a period up to 12 months. Other than that, it's going to either be  rescended and or sunset. Otherwise, they're going to have to re-up every year. So, that's something to note, too, is that the covered list is most likely going to be updated rapidly at least probably once every year as new foreign manufacturers come in and apply for conditional approval.  

Information requested under this conditional approval. There's three main subjects that are in this. Corporate structure is one. Again, nothing too new or novel here. Just the legal name.  complete ownership structure.  pretty much anything that is relevant in the corporate world.  

Next one is going to be the manufacturing and supply chain disclosure.  again, nothing too new here.  detailed bill of materials, country of origin of all components of UAS and UAS critical components. One thing that is new is justification of why any foreign manufactured UAS are not currently manufactured in the US. So that's something that's new. And then the cost of U US source components as a percentage of the total system costs. So again, they want to know why they either left or they're not manufacturing the US now and how they're going to fix that.  

Next one is again new to me and very interesting that they would request this but the US manufacturing and onshoring plan. So to get this conditional approval they want a detailed and timebound plan to establish and expand u US-based manufacturing to qualify for that FCC authorization. So they want to know how they are going to onshore. They want to make sure that you have planned investments for that one to five years. , again, this isn't going to be an immediate u threshold. It's going to take, as we've seen with the previous federal regulations like under the chip chips act, this manufacturing establishment is going to take time to build up on the domestic side of things.  

So, they have the conditional approvals.  Let's touch on subsidizing this domestic industry and this manufacturing. So, looking at the drone dominance, this was just released about  couple months ago, but with that with the drone dominance, they have a $1 billion plan to purchase small drones over the next two years.  looking like it's over going to be 300,000 attack drones. My take is that they're going to be subsidizing the domestic production for the defense industry with the hope that they can lower the cost for the commercial side of things on the consumer and prosumer level. We have American manufacturers like Scottio and Unusual Machines and other domestic OEMs that are going to fill the gap, but again, this transition is not going to happen overnight. It's going to take , a couple years to get that manufacturing spun up on what everybody wants. And then we do have some good stories, too, is that domestic battery manufacturing continues to innovate and expand in the United States.  just give a quick shout out to Badland Batteries that they are manufacturing those lipo batteries and UA UAS batteries in North Dakota.  

Again, like I've said this whole time is that it's not going to be an instant problem to solve, but looking on the timelines. So looking at foreign OEMs, they typically refresh these models every 12 to 36 months. So depending on when you got your most recent DJI drone,  you're most likely not going to see that new revision.  so let's just take the DJI Mini 5 that was just released.  if there is a DJI Mini6, that will not be released in the United States. And then replacement and attrition timeline, again, that two to five month of the lifetime cycle of the UAS. So just depending on when you actually got those products into your fleets, if they were at the later half of 2019 to 2020, might be start it will be time to start looking at replacing those looking at if you want to continue down the foreign product or if you want to transition to that domestic product.  

One estimate on the estimated fiscal cost of this, it's probably going to be between 1 to five billion to transition all platforms across the commercial, public, government, all that.  so it's going to be a lot of heavy investment. Hopefully that the federal and state entities understand this and they can see that the subsidizing this for that drone replacement is going to be necessary. North Dakota is taking that first step and trying to do that with the state agencies under our drone replacement program, but it's going to take work across all the across all the country to understand the actual fiscal cost of what this means not just government entities but to commercial operators as well.  

All right.  next just wanted to touch on the new newest NDA of 2026 drone mitigation and the safer skies act.  some big things that I want to just point out is that this one just became law December 18th of 2025.  but some new things that came up is the new authorities for counter UAS for state, local, tribal, and territorial enforcement. , just want to preface that DHS and DOJ already had a lot of these authorities, but now they designate these to state, local, and tribal law enforcement. So, straight from the act itself. So anything that is necessary to mitigate a credible threat that a UAS or that a UAS poses to the safety or security of people, facilities, and assets a venue or a set of venues used for large scale public gatherings, events, critical infrastructure or correctional facilities. So pretty wide range of what they can do and where they can operate these counter UIS authorities.  some limitations and notes here is that they have to submit to the attorney general within 48 hours of if they use any mitigation action and then if any UAS is seized by state, local tribal  it's subject to for forfeit under these laws. And then next thing is that before state or local enforcement can exercise these authorities, they have to be trained and certified by the AG. So it's not going to be willy-nilly where any state or local enforcement can come in and shoot down your drone. There's going to be training, and they will have to be certified. 

So what are the authorities that were granted?  there's six sections right here.  mostly is that and these are again I encourage everybody to go read this for yourself but for my take is that during to actually identify attract monitor your UAS they can do that without your consent. They can warn you again without your or they can try to warn you by passive or active means. C, D, E, and F are what really ring true on what they can actually do. For Charlie, they can disrupt control of your UAS without your consent, including by disabling the UAS by intercepting, interfering or causing interference with the pretty much the communication structure of your system. They can also seize control or exercise control of a UAS and then they can seize and or confiscate your UAS. They can also use reasonable force if necessary to disable, damage or destroy UAS systems and or EAS. So big thing here is that once they are trained and if there's a large public event gathering again follow the rules, follow the regulations, do not fly your drone because it most likely will be in a one way, shape or form disrupted and probably brought to the ground and then ceased. So again, follow the rules and regulations, but again, just want everybody to be aware that there are new authorities granted to state and local enforcement agencies around counter UAS.  

And then one section I think that's often forgotten in the NDAA 25 is the DoD lighter  prohibition. This is going to start in June 30th of 2026. Pretty much is saying that DoD is prohibited from operating, procuring or contracting Lidar technology. if it's under a foreign covered foreign country, those foreign covered countries are going to be China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So mainly looking at China. That also extends to DJI Lidar as well. So looking at the NDAA Lidar is going to be coming into effect mostly most likely this year.  

Just some facts and stats that I want to share too. There's over 800,000 UAS registered in the US right now.  just over half of those are for commercial registration.  under half is the recreational use. Again, just want to point out that the FCC does not prevent you from continuing to sell, import or market your platforms. And then again, this number is probably a little flawed at this point now, but at one point drones from China accounted for more than 90% of the consumer market, 70% of the industrial drone market, and 92% of the first responder market. So again, going tying back to the fiscal cost, it's going to be a lot of money to change or transition from these foreign manufactured UAS to domesticated UAS. 

And then biggest takeaways, just want to make sure that everybody understands this.  longwinded way of saying that again you cannot import, market or sell any new or future UAS products in the US that have not received an FTC authorization prior to 2020 December 22nd 2025. Again, there are still new products that already have received that FCC authorization that will come to market after this date, but anything that still needs that authorization will most likely not see.  

Again, operators may still fly current existing models that receive previous FCC authorization. , just again want to reiterate that the FCC cannot and will not take away any products in your current fleet. They will not be going door to door knocking to go see if you have a DJI in your basement. , no worries there. Again, the DoD or DHS can whitelist new or previous foreign platforms and components. , we saw this on the blue list and their framework. Again, you get 12 calendar months and then they have to reup or it sunsets. , again, like I said before, want to make sure that you are continually checking the cover list because it's going to be updated each time that the DoD or DHS makes that national security distinction. Again, expanding critical components  mainly to on shore manufacturing of these components so we don't have to procure them through foreign entities. Again, I want to make sure that everyone understands that you should conduct your own research, find the source documentation or review for yourself. Don't just don't just rely on the articles that you see online. Again, there's going to be uncertainty  everywhere and it's going to continue to run a mock until these policies are more well defined. FCC did try to step in the right direction with that to narrow the scope and provide those FAQs, but again, it's going to take time to actually see how this policy plans out. And then if you're a fleet owner, look to start diversifying your fleets. Try to make the most educated decision that's best for your company and your organization. Again, it's not going to be a one-size fits-all solution for everybody. It's going to be dependent on what's best for you and your company. And then one thing to do is continue to educate both the aviation, non-aviation communities. Again, there's going to be a lot of misinformation that's going around about this topic.  continue to educate yourself, educate everybody in the industry and then mainly if you have a problem and you want your voice heard, reach out to your representatives and senators to provide input and advocate your position. Again, they're the ones that can change the law and advocate for yourself as well.  

If you have any questions, put them in the chats. Otherwise, that was it. So, I appreciate everybody taking the time, spending 45 minutes to review the newest FCC policies. want to give a shout out to the Hive for letting us use and operate it here. , and then other than that, again, thanks for stopping and then check out next month's Beyond Buzz.  

Right. Thing in the chats, , Vic asked, "Does the FC covered list align with blue and green , UAS list?" I feel like something acceptable on the blue UAS list might be foreign drone and unacceptable in the FCC list. , again, , with the new distinction in the executive orders, green equals blue and with this new , new determination that blue is covered or blue is not covered , for this 12th calendar month. So, check back again January 2nd of 2027. and the blue list might be on the cover list again.   

Can DJI and Nutel get the 12-month conditional waivers with an onshore plan and continue to do business in the US? Absolutely they can. , again with the stigma surrounding DJI and Autel, I don't know if it's likely, but if there's enough political pressure, then yes, , they would most likely be able to , get that conditional waiver.  

I will share those links.  

If operators need parts from existing foreign drones in their fleet, what can they do? Again, look at the Buy American standard.  if you if they are already a part of your component otherwise look at the blue UAS framework they list other components that they are approved so far a lot of them are foreign manufactured as well so double check those two resources first and then if it's already approved again this is only going to be for new components past that FCC or past the December 22nd deadline  

Perfect. No other questions. Again, appreciate everybody. Thanks for tuning in. I'll see you guys next time.