Robert Rahm |
September 29, 2026 
By Robert Rahm
A petition filed Monday does not ground the drones already flying grocery runs. It also does not give a Part 107 pilot a delivery route.
On September 28, 2026, fifteen states and Harris County, Texas, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to review and set aside the FAA's July 28 Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Record of Decision for drone package delivery operations in the United States. The petition is dated the same day. New York's attorney general signed as counsel of record. The statutory hook is 49 U.S.C. § 46110.
The document they want vacated is not Part 107. It is the nationwide environmental finding the FAA issued for commercial package delivery flown under 14 CFR Part 135. The agency signed it July 28. The notice of availability ran July 30 at 91 Fed. Reg. 48,208.
Who sued
The caption lists New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Harris County, Texas.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the programmatic assessment "falls far short of properly analyzing the environmental impacts that drone package delivery operations may have." Reuters quoted the coalition's claim that the late-July determination did not adequately address potential safety risks or other environmental impacts. The FAA did not immediately comment to Reuters.
The public petition asks the court to set the FONSI aside. It does not, in the papers reviewed for this article, attach a temporary stay. Do not tell a client that delivery is frozen because fifteen states filed.
What the FONSI actually decided
The proposed action in the PEA is package delivery by operators certificated under Part 135. The FAA concluded that, with the mitigation written into the assessment, the action would not result in significant environmental impacts. That finding is why a new hub that stays inside the national envelope no longer needs its own six-to-eight-month environmental study.
Reuters reported that the review modeled noise from 1,150 average deliveries out of a single hub, with en-route flight below 400 feet and an instruction to avoid noise-sensitive areas such as parks, campgrounds, trailheads, and some wilderness. Those figures come from the PEA the states are attacking. They are not Part 107 operating limits for an independent contractor.
Part 108 is a different file. The routine BVLOS rule is still in White House review. This lawsuit is about the July environmental finding for Part 135 package delivery. Do not collapse the two.
What a Part 107 contractor should do this week
You still need a Remote Pilot Certificate to fly a commercial small UAS. You still need airspace authorization where Part 107 requires it. You still may not carry another party's property for compensation beyond visual line of sight just because you hold that card. The FAA has said for years that those routes sit on Part 135 plus the other approvals that attach to the operator.
What changed on Monday is the legal risk around the environmental shortcut the carriers use to add hubs.
- Treat existing delivery volumes as live until a court says otherwise. Check NOTAMs, LAANC, and the carrier's published service area before you launch in the same town.
- Ask the client whether a Part 135 nest sits on the same parcel or the next parking lot. A 107 inspection job next to a grocery pad is a see-and-avoid problem, not a NEPA problem.
- If a city planner asks you to permit the flight path, send them to the FAA for the aircraft and to zoning for the pad. Northglenn, Colorado, is writing hub rules this month — 200-foot buffers, a 65 dB cap at the property line, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. — while staff notes that a nest in the next town can still drop into Northglenn. Local ground rules and federal airspace rules are not the same instrument.
- Do not bid a delivery route off this petition. The work that remains for independents is site survey, pad layout, noise and parking studies, rooftop structural checks, and airspace briefings sold to the certificate holder or the landlord.
California's release points at Prime Air in Lockeford and the planned Tracy expansion as examples of operations already in a petitioner state. Those sites are evidence in a brief. They are not a new certificate privilege.
What to watch
The Second Circuit will docket the petition and set a briefing schedule. Watch for a stay motion. Watch whether the FAA defends the FONSI as a final order under § 46110. Watch cities that are writing pad ordinances while the case is pending.
Until one of those events changes the paper, fly the job you are certificated to fly, stay out of the other operator's published volume, and keep the environmental fight in the caption where it belongs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did fifteen states stop drone delivery on September 28?
No. They filed a petition for review. The July 28 FONSI remains the FAA's final environmental finding unless the Second Circuit stays or vacates it.
Does this lawsuit change Part 107?
No. The petition targets the programmatic environmental assessment for Part 135 package delivery. Part 107 operating rules, Remote ID, registration, and LAANC are not the order under review.
Can a Part 107 pilot start package delivery if the states lose?
No. Carrying another party's property for compensation beyond visual line of sight still requires the operator's Part 135 authority and the other approvals that attach to that certificate. A Remote Pilot Certificate is not that authority.
Is this the same case as the Part 108 BVLOS rule?
No. Part 108 is a separate rulemaking still in executive review. The September 28 petition names the July 28 PEA, FONSI, and Record of Decision.
Which governments filed?
New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Harris County, Texas.