Autonomous Akin Update - February 2026

December and January saw many regulatory developments impacting advanced aviation and uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS). As an initial matter, DJI drones landed on the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Covered List (which DJI is fighting at the FCC) preventing DJI from obtaining future equipment authorizations for its drones. The FCC also placed all foreign produced UAS and UAS-critical components on the Covered List and then followed that release with adoption of exemptions and limited waivers.

Finally, the FCC recently adopted a new framework that would allow it to further restrict the importation and marketing of previously authorized equipment on the Covered List, which could include foreign-produced drones. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) opened a new comment period for its Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) regulations focused on electronic conspicuity (EC), an important concept for safety, and the industry is awaiting decisions on participants for the Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Pilot Program. These developments and more are covered below.

Akin Spotlight

Developments Related to DJI. The FCC added all of DJI's "communications and video surveillance equipment and services," including its drones, listed in Section 1709(a)(1) of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to the Covered List. As discussed below, the FCC simultaneously added all foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components, which includes DJI drones, to the Covered List. In making this addition, the FCC relied on a "National Security Determination" made by an unidentified "Executive Branch interagency body." Equipment identified on the Covered List is prohibited from obtaining new FCC equipment authorizations, which are required for the importation, marketing and sale of equipment in the United States that emits radio frequency (intentionally and unintentionally). While previously authorized equipment may still be sold, a placement on the Covered List largely prevents manufacturers from introducing new and updated products that require new approvals. More details about this addition to the Covered List can be found here.

DJI Petition to FCC. On January 22, 2026, DJI filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Commission's action to add all of DJI's communications and video surveillance equipment and services to the Covered List. DJI states that following the inclusion of its products on the Covered List, the FCC sent letters to Telecommunication Certification Bodies asking that they set aside equipment authorizations for DJI products that had been granted authorization in the 30 days prior to the Covered List addition. DJI asks the Commission to: (1) reconsider inclusion of all of DJI's equipment and services on the FCC's Covered List; (2) remove DJI's listing; and (3) reverse any set-asides of existing equipment authorizations that rely on the listing. In its Petition, DJI states that the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) erred in adding DJI's products to the Covered List because PSHSB exceeded its statutory authority and violated DJI's due process rights. In addition, or in the alternative, DJI asks the Commission to clarify that the Covered List does not apply to certain DJI equipment that does not satisfy the statutory definitions of "communications and video surveillance equipment." DJI's Petition for Reconsideration can be found here.

DJI Appeal to the D.C. Circuit. DJI separately challenged in the D.C. Circuit a federal court ruling upholding the Pentagon's decision to label the company a "Chinese military company." Oral arguments in that case took place on February 6, 2026.

Restrictions on All Foreign-Produced UAS. DJI was not the only foreign-made drone restricted by the FCC. The FCC has added all foreign-produced UAS and UAS-critical components to the Covered List. The FCC also released a Public Notice clarifying that certain UAS and UAS-critical components are not on the Covered List, including: (1) those that are included on the Defense Contract Management Agency's (DCMA) Blue UAS list; and (2) those that qualify as "domestic end products" under the Buy American Standard. The FCC also provided guidance on how entities that do not fall within the excluded categories may seek Conditional Approval from the Department of Defense/War, and the Department of Homeland Security. Notably, the exemption and Conditional Approval procedures do not apply to DJI drones. An in-depth review of the Covered UAS and UAS critical components exemptions and Conditional Approval guidance can be found here.

On January 21, 2026, the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) released another Public Notice announcing a limited waiver, which will allow covered UAS and UAS-critical components to receive permissive "Class I" changes. The now waived permissive changes include software and firmware updates that ensure the continued functionality of devices, such as updates that patch vulnerabilities and facilitate compatibility with different operating systems. You can find additional information on OET's limited waiver here.

Key Developments

FCC Adopts Procedures to Further Limit the Importation and Marketing of Previously Authorized Equipment on the Covered List

Separate from all of the above, the FCC has also adopted procedures that would allow OET and PSHSB to place importation and marketing limitations on equipment that already has equipment authorizations (Covered Equipment). This limitation, if imposed, would not limit continued use of already sold devices. The procedures for prohibiting continued importation and marketing of Covered Equipment would begin after issuance of a public notice in which OET and PSHSB are required to:

• Describe the devices by class, type, or other description that will be prohibited from further importation or marketing in the United States.
• Include an Impact Assessment whereby FCC staff will provide an initial assessment of the impact of the proposed prohibition, public interest factors, unacceptable national security risks the equipment poses, the economic and supply chain impacts, and any other relevant criteria.
• Propose timing of prohibition for the new limitation and seek comment on timeline considerations.
• Initiate a public comment period that would allot a 30-day comment cycle, and staff has discretion to provide an opportunity for reply comments.

Staff Determination and Expected Timing. Once the comment period has lapsed, FCC staff will review submissions and issue determinations about whether it will prohibit the further importation and marketing of relevant devices, providing the reasons and timeline. While it is unclear when OET/PSHSB will release a public notice(s), FCC staff could initiate individual limitation proceedings at any time. It is not clear which Covered List entity(ies)/equipment will be the example case for the new equipment authorization limitation procedures.

FAA Seeks Additional Comment on Proposed BVLOS Rules

The FAA reopened the comment period for its BVLOS notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to seek additional comment on a limited number of questions relating to EC and proposing: (1) legacy right-of-way rules that would give Part 108 UAS operators presumptive right-of-way over manned aircraft with certain exceptions; and (2) rules that would require UA operating in Class B and Class C airspace or over Category 5 populations areas to have detect-and-avoid capabilities. Specifically, stakeholders are asked to provide input on the following questions:

• Are there alternate EC devices capable of complying with the proposed rules that are available today? What are the names and manufacturers of those devices? Where are the devices currently approved for use and for what purpose(s)? Do any of them have the capability to inform the user that the device is not working properly?
• Are these EC devices approved for the same purpose as ADS-B Out? Do these alternate EC devices provide other benefits beyond what ADS-B Out offers? Are existing alternate EC devices used for, or capable of providing, anonymity?
• If not currently available, how quickly can alternate EC devices be available to the U.S. market once an approved standard is available?
• Would the performance requirements applicable to ADS-B Out also be appropriate for alternate EC devices? Why or why not?
• RTCA has a standard for EC (RTCA DO-282C). Are there any reasons why applying this standard for alternate EC devices in the United States would not be feasible or appropriate? Are there other existing industry consensus standards for EC that the FAA should consider accepting?
• What would be the potential downside(s) of requiring EC devices to include some sort of indicator (g., visual or audio) to notify the pilot that the device is not working properly?
• Are there other methods or technologies that the FAA should consider allowing manned operators to use to be electronically detectable besides ADS-B Out or alternate EC devices?

The limited comment period closed on February 11, 2026.

To read this article in full, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.