UAS-
🔨
Forge
uas-forge.com
📊
Patterns
uas-patterns.com
🔥
Patterns Pro
uas-patterns.pro
📡
Intel
uas-intel.com
📘
Handbook
uas-handbook.com
⊞ UAS- Hub (all domains) Midwest Nice Advisory LLC
The landscape changed on Dec 22, 2025. Two independent regimes went into effect the same day: the government-wide FAR 52.240-1 (implementing ASDA) and the FCC Covered List addition for foreign UAS. The FCC action is the larger shift because it applies to every US buyer, not just federal procurement.
Regime Applies to What it prohibits Effective Registry / Citation
§889 NDAA FY2019 Any contractor selling to the US government (enterprise-wide) Covered telecom / video surveillance gear — Huawei, ZTE, Hikvision, Dahua, Hytera. Not UAS-specific. 2019-08-13 FAR 52.204-25
§848 NDAA FY2020 Department of Defense only DoD cannot procure or operate UAS made in China or containing Chinese "critical components" (FC, radio, camera, gimbal, GCS software, storage). 2020 Pub. L. 116-92 §848 · DIU guidance
§817 NDAA FY2023 Extends §848 to additional federal agencies beyond DoD Same scope as §848, broader buyer coverage. 2023 Pub. L. 117-263 §817
ASDA / FAR 52.240-1 NDAA FY2024 §§1821-1832 (American Security Drone Act) Government-wide — every federal agency, every contract Federal agencies cannot procure or operate UAS from "covered foreign entities" as listed by the Federal Acquisition Security Council on SAM.gov. 2025-12-22 FAR 52.240-1 · SAM.gov
FCC Covered List NDAA FY2025 §1709 Every US buyer — commercial, hobby, federal, state, local. FCC will not authorize foreign-produced UAS or critical UAS components for sale/use in the US. DJI and Autel named explicitly. Narrow Blue UAS / Framework carve-out. 2025-12-22 FCC DA-25-1086
Blue UAS Cleared DoD curated list Complete UAS platforms — DoD cyber + hardware review + ATO Stronger than NDAA alone. Certified airframes with Authority To Operate, not just parts-level compliance. Ongoing (DCMA since 2025-07-10) bluelist.dcma.mil
Blue UAS Framework DIU component list Integrators building custom UAS from pre-vetted components Menu of approved sub-systems (ModalAI, ARK Electronics, Doodle Labs, Auterion, Vertiq, etc.) that can be mixed into custom airframes. Ongoing diu.mil/blue-uas
TAA Trade Agreements Act 1979 GSA schedule procurement — not China-specific Products must be substantially transformed in the US or a TAA-designated allied country (~120 nations). 1979 19 U.S.C. §2511
TL;DR mental model: §889 is about telecom gear company-wide. §848 is DoD + drones. §817 extends §848 to more agencies. ASDA makes it government-wide. FCC Covered List makes it apply to everyone. Blue UAS is the DoD's positive list of cleared airframes. Framework is the positive list of cleared parts. TAA is a separate trade rule about country of origin for GSA contracts. A part can be TAA-compliant and still fail §848, and vice versa.

What "critical components" means under §848

DoD guidance enumerates which subsystems must originate outside covered foreign entities. If any of these come from China (or another covered source), the whole UAS is non-compliant — even if the airframe is US-manufactured:

Flight Controller
Autopilot + IMU stack
Radio / Datalink
C2 and video downlink
Camera
EO, IR, thermal, payload
Gimbal
Stabilized camera mount
GNSS / GPS
Positioning module
GCS Software
Ground control station
Data Storage
Onboard storage / SD

Common misconceptions

"NDAA §848 is from FY2024"

No — §848 is FY2020. The FY2024 action that extends it government-wide is ASDA (codified at §§1821-1832), implemented as FAR 52.240-1. When someone says "the new NDAA drone rule from 2024," they almost always mean ASDA, not §848.

"Blue UAS Cleared and NDAA-compliant are the same"

Every Blue UAS Cleared platform is NDAA-compliant, but not every NDAA-compliant platform is Blue UAS Cleared. Blue UAS adds cybersecurity review, hardware inspection, and an Authority to Operate on top of parts-level compliance. A small FPV shop can ship NDAA-compliant parts tomorrow; getting Blue UAS Cleared takes months and a formal process.

"TAA-compliant = NDAA-compliant"

These are separate regimes. TAA only checks whether a product was substantially transformed in an allied country — a TAA-eligible product could still contain a §848-banned Chinese flight controller. Conversely, an NDAA-compliant product manufactured in the US is automatically TAA-compliant but the reverse is not true.

"The FCC Covered List only affects federal buyers"

No — this is the biggest change. The Dec 22, 2025 FCC action is an equipment authorization prohibition, which means foreign-produced UAS and critical components cannot be legally sold or operated in the US by anyone — commercial operators, hobbyists, state/local government. This is the first US rule that reaches beyond federal procurement into the consumer market. Narrow Blue UAS / Framework exemptions exist.

"Self-attested spec sheets are worthless"

Not worthless, but they carry only as much weight as the manufacturer's reputation. For procurement, Blue UAS Cleared and Blue UAS Framework add third-party DoD verification. For commercial buyers and most contract work, a signed, dated, per-SKU spec sheet from a reputable vendor (the Freefly pattern) is the industry standard.

What a compliance spec sheet should contain

There is no DoD-issued form. The de facto industry standard (set by Freefly's per-SKU PDFs) contains:

  1. Product identification. Model, variant / bundle part number, revision date.
  2. Applicable statutes. Usually lists §848, §889, §817, ASDA together.
  3. Component-origin table. Each critical subsystem with vendor, model, country of manufacture.
  4. Officer attestation. Signature block from a company officer.
  5. Sub-vendor declarations. Supporting attestations from component makers (Hylio is the best example — bundles an e-con Systems validation for the camera).
Forge position: Since no centralized registry exists, Forge maintains its own cross-vendor index at /spec-sheets/ — links point directly to the vendor's original document. We do not re-host PDFs. Missing data means the vendor has not publicly addressed that statute, not that they are non-compliant.

Authoritative sources