DJI And Autel Petitions Hit FCC’s May 11 Comment Deadline As Drone Operators Push For Covered List Reversal

The Federal Communications Commission’s public comment window on the Covered List petitions filed by DJI and Autel closes Monday, May 11, 2026. Drone operators, public safety agencies, farmers, inspectors, and hobbyists have until end of day to file replies in the two dockets that will determine whether the agency reconsiders its December 22, 2025 decision blocking new foreign-made drones from the US market.

Both companies filed in January 2026 after the FCC added all foreign-made drones and components to the Covered List one day before the Section 1709 deadline in the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act. The agency designated DJI’s filing as ET Docket 26-22 and Autel’s parallel Application for Review as ET Docket 26-23. Replies to oppositions on both petitions are due Monday.

I have followed this regulatory chain since the FCC’s October 28, 2025 vote that granted the agency retroactive ban authority. The May 11 deadline is the last formal opportunity for the public record at the FCC stage before the full Commission can rule on reconsideration.

Where The DJI And Autel Dockets Sit Right Now

The FCC opened the formal comment process under Public Notice DA 26-223 on March 6, 2026, after DJI filed its petition for reconsideration on January 21 and Autel filed a parallel Application for Review the same day, with oppositions due April 6 and replies due May 11. The opposition record is already loaded against the petitioners.

The Department of Defense filed a memorandum citing both classified and unclassified intelligence to oppose DJI’s removal from the list, with a classified annex submitted to Congress on April 3. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies filed a detailed opposition pointing to documented cybersecurity vulnerabilities, including a Romo robot vacuum exploit, as evidence that DJI’s connected products cannot be trusted.

The DJI reconsideration filing carries real commercial weight. Company filings before the Ninth Circuit say the Covered List action will block 25 planned 2026 product launches and cost roughly $1.56 billion in lost US revenue this calendar year.

What FCC Comments Should Actually Address

The strongest comments at the FCC document specific, verifiable operational harm rather than broad political opposition to Chinese-made products, because the agency record needs concrete evidence of the procedural and economic damage the Covered List has caused for actual US drone operators and businesses. Generic opposition to “Chinese drones” carries no weight.

What does carry weight: public safety agencies that lost the ability to replace aging Mavic 3 Enterprise units. Agricultural operators flying Mavic 3 Multispectral platforms with no domestically-built equivalent at the same price point. Inspection contractors whose insurance underwriters require redundancy that the small US-built fleet cannot yet provide.

The Drone Advocacy Alliance, of which DroneXL is a partner, has published step-by-step submission guidance and a dedicated landing page for the campaign. Personal stories about how losing access to specific hardware affects a specific business or agency are what move the needle in this kind of formal review.

One practical caution: comments are public record. Anything submitted, including phone numbers and home addresses, is visible to anyone who searches the docket. File business names where possible, and avoid attaching anything you would not want a competitor to read.

How To File In Both Dockets

Drone operators have two filing pathways at the FCC: the Express system at fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express for short text comments, and the standard system at fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/standard for attached documents. Both DJI’s docket (26-22) and Autel’s docket (26-23) accept replies through end of day Monday, May 11.

To file a quick text comment on DJI’s docket:

1. Visit fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express
2. Enter proceeding number 26-22 and click “In the Matter of SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd”
3. Fill in name (or business name), email, and address
4. Type your comment in the Brief Comments box
5. Toggle email confirmation, check the public filing acknowledgment, click Continue to Review Screen, complete the verification, and submit

For Autel, repeat the process with proceeding number 26-23. Operators submitting attachments should use the standard filing URL and select “Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration” from the Type of Filing dropdown.

The FCC Petition Is One Track Of Three

Even if the comment record turns sharply in DJI’s favor by May 11, the FCC reconsideration process is the slowest of the company’s three legal tracks, and the China Unicom precedent shows the agency taking nearly three years to resolve a similar Covered List reconsideration petition.

The Ninth Circuit petition (Case 26-1029) is where the substantive question of whether the FCC met its statutory burden under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act will actually be tested. DJI’s separate D.C. Circuit appeal of the Pentagon’s Section 1260H “Chinese Military Company” designation is on a third track entirely.

The May 11 record matters because it is the last formal public input before the full Commission can act on reconsideration. Whether it acts during the six-month abeyance DJI is requesting at the Ninth Circuit will determine if that case proceeds on the merits or stalls indefinitely.

DroneXL’s Take

I have reported on this regulatory chain since the October 2025 FCC retroactive vote, and the procedural pattern has been consistent. The federal government had a full year under Section 1709 to audit DJI products. No agency conducted that audit. The FCC defaulted to a sweeping Covered List addition the day before the deadline expired. Every step since has been the agency, the Pentagon, and security think tanks working to defend that default while DJI argues the underlying record is empty.

That is the industry context worth keeping in mind on May 11. Comments to the FCC do not carry the weight of the Ninth Circuit case, where Elizabeth Prelogar’s appellate team is making the constitutional arguments that could force a court to ask whether Bureau staff can unilaterally close the largest drone market in the US. But the docket record is part of the administrative file the full Commission must consider before ruling on reconsideration. A thin or generic record makes it easier to dismiss the petition. A docket loaded with specific operational harm makes that dismissal harder to justify.

DroneXL is a Drone Advocacy Alliance partner, and I have linked to the DAA’s filing instructions throughout this coverage. Whether the Commission rules during DJI’s requested six-month Ninth Circuit abeyance is an open question. If the FCC moves quickly and dismisses the petition, the Ninth Circuit case becomes the only remaining administrative path. If the agency sits on the record the way it sat on China Unicom’s petition for nearly three years, the Ninth Circuit case becomes the case that matters anyway.

The May 11 window is what is in front of US drone operators this week. After that, the case moves to the courts, where the constitutional questions actually get tested, and to whether more non-Chinese exemptions through the Department of War’s review process change the political calculus. DJI’s reply on May 11 closes one chapter. What the full Commission does with the petition opens the next one.

Sources: FCC Public Notice DA 26-223, DJI Petition for Reconsideration (ET Docket 26-22), Autel Application for Review (ET Docket 26-23), Drone Advocacy Alliance.

DroneXL uses automated tools to support research and source retrieval. All reporting and editorial perspectives are by Haye Kesteloo.