The FAA’s proposed Part 108 regulations are supposed to revolutionize Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) drone operations in the United States. And though the drone industry has largely applauded the proposed changes, there are still some concerns.

And for DJI, one of those key sticking points in the draft rules is a provision that would restrict a key approval to either drones made in America or otherwise made in countries with “a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement addressing UAS.”

Here’s the problem: The U.S. doesn’t currently have any such agreements. And it feels unlikely that — given today’s geopolitical environment — one would be made with China, which is where DJI drones are made.

“This rule would shut out many proven platforms in the market that operators rely on, including DJI,” according to a statement by DJI, shared on its ViewPoints blog.

And that’s not the only major political challenge for DJI these days. Just last Friday, a U.S. judge rejected a bid by DJI to be removed from the U.S. Defense Department’s list of companies allegedly working with Beijing’s military.

What is Part 108?

The proposed Part 108 rules would replace the current waiver system — which can take up to 90 days for BVLOS approval — with a scalable, nationwide framework using a two-tier authorization system. With that would come permits for smaller operations and certificates for higher-risk missions, both under a new airworthiness acceptance process.

That airworthiness acceptance is the key word here. As currently drafted, eligibility is limited to U.S. production or countries with specific “bilateral agreements.” Since no such agreements exist, American drone operators who have been safely flying DJI aircraft under Part 107 waivers for BVLOS operations for years would find those same proven platforms ineligible under the new framework. That’s not necessarily because of safety concerns — it’s purely based on where they were manufactured.

So what should drone pilots who want to fly DJI drones (which are known for their reliability and affordability) do? DJI is pushing for a standards-based approach instead.

“We recommend that, as an alternative, the FAA focus on mechanisms to review the evidence provided by manufacturers to confirm they meet the industry adopted consensus standards for airworthiness, instead of relying on the proposed oversight approach typical from airworthiness certification,” according to a statement from DJI.

Other potential challenges in the proposed Part 108 rules

The country-of-manufacture restriction isn’t even the only provision in Part 108 that could threaten DJI’s position. DJI identified several other aspects of the draft rules that present challenges.

Radio frequency ban: The proposed rules would prohibit drones using 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz frequencies— the backbone of DJI’s command and control systems — from operating in Category 2 areas and above. That’s a massive portion of operational airspace. DJI argues these frequencies have proven safe for years in both VLOS and BVLOS operations, with fail-safe systems protecting against interference.

Automation-only mandate: Part 108 heavily favors highly automated systems where no pilot directly controls the aircraft. This would exclude most current DJI platforms, even sophisticated solutions like DJI Dock and FlightHub 2 that combine automation with “pilot in the loop” architectures. The problem? Most existing BVLOS operations under Part 107 waivers — security patrols, Drone-as-First-Responder programs, infrastructure inspections — require the ability to switch between automated and manual flight mid-mission.

Excessive data reporting: The draft rules would require operators to share all BVLOS flight data with manufacturers. DJI calls this “unnecessary and burdensome for all parties involved.” The company proposed instead that operators only submit incident or accident information through manufacturer-provided tools.

Site-by-site approvals: Instead of creating a streamlined national framework, operators would need FAA approval for every individual site. That essentially recreates the old waiver system Part 108 was supposed to replace. DJI argues that if operators can meet standardized safety conditions already approved for certain operations, they should be able to fly anywhere in the country.

What this means for the drone industry

Sure, DJI is calling out these issues as a means of protecting its market share, but DJI has been emphasizing the impact that such rules would have on public safety agencies and other service providers who rely on DJI drones.

Many fire departments, police agencies, search and rescue teams and emergency responders across the United States use DJI drones. They tend to be far cheaper than American-made alternatives. If Part 108 prohibits DJI drones from BVLOS operations, it could potentially set back the operational capabilities of public safety agencies and other businesses (or cost taxpayers and customers more money to fund more expensive DJI alternatives).

U.S. political concerns about Chinese tech companies

The Justice Department has been clear in court filings that the U.S. “has long expressed significant concerns about the national security threat posed by the relationship between Chinese technology companies and the Chinese state.”

Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman rejected DJI’s bid to be removed from the Pentagon’s list of companies allegedly working with Beijing’s military, saying the Defense Department had “substantial evidence” that DJI contributes to the “Chinese defense industrial base.” DJI maintains it “is neither owned nor controlled by the Chinese military” and is evaluating its legal options, but the precedent isn’t encouraging. In fact, Judge Friedman made a similar ruling for China-based lidar manufacturer Hesai Group in July.

What you can do now

The public comment period for Part 108 (Docket FAA-2025-1908) closes October 6, 2025 at 11:59 ET (that’s next Monday). The FAA is required to consider substantive public feedback before finalizing the rules.

To submit your own comment, click the blue comment box on the notice on the Regulations.gov website. As far as what to write in your comments? Consider stating:

• Why this matters to you as a commenter
• How the proposal would affect you if adopted as written
• What would make it better, with constructive alternatives

And just from my experience: comments written in your own words and grounded in real operational experience carry the most weight.

The post The FAA’s new drone rules have a DJI-shaped hole in them appeared first on The Drone Girl.