A small drone company in El Monte, California, has asked to have its own Federal Communications Commission equipment approval withdrawn. It says it never sold the aircraft the approval covers. The company is Jovistar Inc., and in September 2025 the drone-industry outlet DroneXL flagged it as a suspected front for DJI. The request ended up in the FCC's public equipment-authorization file. Read closely, that file raises a procedural question: what authority actually took the grant down?

Two outlets covered the story within a day of each other and described it differently. Read side by side with the FCC's rules, the gap between their accounts is the most useful part of the story.

What the Letter Says

The document at the center of the case is a one-page letter on Jovistar letterhead, giving the address 9650 Telstar Ave., El Monte, CA. It is dated Sept. 24, 2026, and addressed to TUV Rheinland of North America in Pleasanton, California, to the attention of Andy Yan. TUV Rheinland is a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB), one of the private bodies the FCC authorizes to issue equipment certifications on its behalf.

The letter asks TUV to dismiss the grant for an unmanned aircraft with FCC ID 2BRGW-FKAWZJO. Jovistar says it has not imported, marketed, sold, shipped or distributed the device inside or outside the United States, and that it no longer intends to maintain the certification. It asks TUV to submit the notice to the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology. It also says it replaces and supersedes an earlier surrender request dated Sept. 15, 2026.

According to DroneXL's Oct. 17 report by Haye Kesteloo, the letter came from CEO Haifeng Ding, and a separate, otherwise identical letter covers the company's matching controller, FCC ID 2BRGW-YZAWZJO. DroneXL also reports that FCC correspondence in the file is labeled "Dismissal By TCB Request" and dated Oct. 8. UASFeed read the letter exhibit but not that correspondence page. The Oct. 8 entry is reported here as DroneXL describes it.

A Grant Issued Just Before the Door Closed

The timing matters. DroneXL reports that TUV Rheinland granted both FCC IDs on Sept. 25, 2025. That was about three months before the FCC changed the rules for foreign drones.

On Dec. 22, 2025, the FCC published a fact sheet announcing that, following a determination by an Executive Branch interagency body convened by the White House, UAS and UAS critical components produced abroad were being added to the Covered List unless the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security determines otherwise. Equipment on the Covered List is barred from new equipment authorizations. The fact sheet says the restrictions apply to new device models. They do not stop people from using drones they already bought, and they do not stop the sale of models approved earlier.

That is the backdrop for the timing. A model certified before the cutoff can still be sold, according to the FCC's fact sheet, while a model submitted after it cannot receive an authorization. Jovistar held its grant for just over a year before asking to give it up, DroneXL notes.

Why DroneXL Flagged Jovistar

DroneXL's case that Jovistar is linked to a larger network rests on details in the filings, and those claims are DroneXL's. The outlet reports that Jovistar's filings tie it to two other brands. A quick start guide in the file prints the domain skyanydrone.com under Jovistar's name. The model code FKABZFI, which DroneXL says belongs to a drone certified by Fikaxo Technology, appears in Jovistar's aircraft label exhibit, and Jovistar's technical contact phone number matches the one Fikaxo lists for its own responsible party. UASFeed has not independently checked those links.

DroneXL also points out that Jovistar was not among the eight suspected front companies the FCC proposed fining $25,000 each in July, or among the nine companies named in a July 17 notice. DroneXL adds that the FCC's letters of inquiry are not public, so whether Jovistar received one is unknown. On the public record, then, regulators had not named Jovistar as a DJI front, even if DroneXL suspects it is one.

Two Accounts of Who Acted

The Verge's Oct. 16 item, by Sean Hollister, ran under the headline "Another 'DJI front company' bites the dust." It says public records show TUV Rheinland asked the FCC to block applications from Jovistar, that the FCC agreed, and that Jovistar is now on notice. The piece follows up on a July Verge story about the FCC and TUV Rheinland approving banned DJI technology without basic Google searches.

DroneXL reads the same file differently. By its account, the exhibits posted for both FCC IDs show TUV acting on Jovistar's own written request, not stepping in on its own initiative. The letter supports that reading: the request comes from Jovistar, is addressed to TUV, and asks TUV to submit it to the FCC. The label "Dismissal By TCB Request," as DroneXL reports it, describes the mechanics of the filing. DroneXL says TUV did file the notice, which is why the FCC logs it as a TCB request. The label does not say who first raised a concern.

Both accounts can be partly true. A certification body under scrutiny could have encouraged a client to withdraw. But the public documents UASFeed read do not show that, and the letter itself presents the withdrawal as Jovistar's own decision.

The Rules Question

The more substantive issue is procedural. Under 47 CFR 2.962, the rule that governs TCBs, the text distinguishes what can happen within 30 days of a grant from what can happen afterward.

The current eCFR text of paragraph (f) reads: "Within 30 days of the date of grant of certification, the Commission or TCB issuing the grant may set aside a grant of certification that does not comply with the applicable requirements or upon the request of the applicant. A TCB must notify the applicant and the Commission when a grant is set aside. After 30 days, the Commission may revoke a grant of certification through the procedures in § 2.939."

The rule does let a TCB set aside a grant at the applicant's request, but only inside a 30-day window. Jovistar's grant was about a year old. Once the 30 days have passed, the text names one path, which is revocation by the Commission under section 2.939. Paragraph (g) also bars TCBs from granting waivers, taking enforcement actions or authorizing transfers of control. Paragraph (h) makes every TCB action subject to Commission review.

DroneXL argues that 2.962(f) limits a TCB's set-aside power to the first 30 days. It notes that Jovistar's letter cites no rule and that the public file does not say which authority was used. That leaves several possibilities. The FCC may have acted under an authority the file does not name. There may be an administrative practice for voluntary surrender that sits outside 2.962(f). Or the label may describe a process the rule's text does not clearly allow. The public record does not settle which.

The regulation itself comes with a caveat. An eCFR editorial note says an Aug. 7, 2025, amendment to section 2.962 (90 FR 38070) was delayed indefinitely by a notice at 91 FR 27849 on May 15, 2026. The text quoted above is the version currently shown as in force, not the amended version. Anyone relying on this section should check which version applies before citing it.

Why It Matters

The Covered List rule is built on a cutoff. Models approved before late December 2025 can still be sold, and new foreign models cannot get approved. That puts attention on certification bodies like TUV Rheinland, which The Verge has already criticized over DJI-linked approvals.

DroneXL's own read is that grants like Jovistar's stopped being worth holding once the FCC gave itself a way to cut off sales of equipment it had already approved, and that no public enforcement action forced this one out. If suspected front companies keep giving up old grants on their own, that could clear out questionable approvals without enforcement. It could also let a company leave the file before anyone examines who is behind it. In either case, the procedure matters. If a TCB can dismiss a year-old grant at the applicant's request, that power does not clearly appear in the current text of 2.962(f). If the FCC did it, the public file should say so. For anyone tracking how the drone ban is enforced, the useful question about Jovistar is less whether it was a DJI shell and more which rule took its grant off the books.

UASFeed did not receive or seek comment from Jovistar, TUV Rheinland or the FCC for this report. The Oct. 8 FCC correspondence is reported as DroneXL describes it.

Sources