eIPP Questions and Answers Final.pdf

Question # Question Answer

1 The focus is on eVTOL and AAM, but can sUAS be included as part of shared airspace? sUAS will not be a part of the eIPP project considerations, but sUAS may be included within the shared airspace.

2 Is there a page limit for the Executive Summary or any of the 7 sections of the proposal? There is no page limit for the Executive Summary or any of the seven sections.

The program overview states that “an ambitious scale of pre-certification operations…” Does this mean that our use cases will need to be pre-certified before we submit the application?

As indicated in the SIR, "Aircraft in the proposal must have a type certification project."

After the OTA award, if our program research/development identifies the need for additional skills, will we be permitted to add new partners to the team?

The addition of new partners will be addressed on a case by case basis after award. The process for adding new partners will be addressed in the terms and conditions of the OTA.

The SIR lists five national focus areas: air taxi, regional air mobility, cargo, logistics and supply, and automation safety. Please confirm if pilot projects may demonstrate a phased approach across?

Pilot projects may include a phased approach.

Please confirm that demonstration activities focused on validating UTM architectures, automation safety, or cooperative airspace management fall within the intent of the eIPP?

Demonstration activities that lend themselves into AAM integration fall in the intent of the eIPP.

What level of detail does the FAA expect for data reporting? For example, flight performance, automation reliability, safety events, or community engagement outcomes.

Reporting requirements will be negotiated during the OTA process.

Will the FAA provide a standard reporting framework for consistency across projects, or should states propose their own data-management structure?

Reporting requirements will be negotiated during the OTA process.

The SIR emphasizes safety and public benefit over infrastructure build-out. Please clarify whether demonstration activities may use temporary or modular facilities, such as mobile command or charging units, to support data collection and operations?

Per the SIR, the offeror may use existing or temporary infrastructure and are required to submit "clear test plans, ground infrastructure, and timelines that meet eIPP expectations. Details show readiness to launch operations within 90 days of agreement."

All demonstration activities will be subject to coordinate and approval by the FAA after OTA award.

Because OEM and operator readiness will vary, after award, will we be allowed to adjust the aircraft and/or operators based on their state of readiness to participate in order to accommodate the schedule?

As indicated in Executive Order 14307, the FAA "shall select at least five pilot projects that plan to begin eVTOL operations within 90 days after the date on which any agreement for a pilot project is established."

Operator readiness will be negotiated during the OTA process. Any changes after award will require FAA approval and must meet the terms and conditions of the OTA.

How will the FAA evaluate multi-state/tribal partnerships? Are there criteria or submission documentation that the FAA expects to see?

See Amendment 1 to the SIR.

As per the SIR, "an SLTT may submit only one proposal as the Prime Offeror; however, an SLTT government may be included as a partner in proposals from one or more other SLTT governments."

The SIR at section 8.2 contains the technical documentation requirements. Please see section 9.2.1 of the SIR for the evaluation criteria.

The SIR references “advanced cooperative flow and traffic management with a range of aircraft including UAS.” Would demonstrating UTM workflows and policy readiness meet this requirement?

This is not a requirement of the SIR. Please see section 8 of the SIR for the content required in the submission.

Workforce development and economic growth are mentioned as benefits. Should workforce initiatives be proposed as dedicated tasks or treated as outcomes of operational progress?

Depending on project objectives, workforce initiatives may be dedicated tasks and/or outcomes of operational progress.

c. For projects that involve coordination with tribal governments or operations near tribal lands, please clarify whether applicants should follow any specific consultation or engagement process under existing FAA or federal policy, or if general stakeholder coordination is sufficient for this program?

Applicants should comply with applicable consultation or engagement process under existing FAA Order 1210.20 found at https://my.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/apl/tribal-engagement.

Will the FAA give the same consideration to early-phase demonstrations that have clear public benefit, such as emergency response or medical logistics as it will to passenger operations?

The FAA will give the same consideration to all demonstrations in accordance with the evaluation criteria of the SIR (Section 9.2.1).

Please confirm the date by which all project selections will be made. The Executive Order stated 180 days from the release of the SIR.

As indicated in Executive Order 14307, the FAA will select at least 5 pilot projects "within 180 days of the request".

17 Will the terms of the OTA be shared with participants in advance? No, OTAs will be negotiated with selected participants once the selection has been made.

18 Once the OTA is in place, can it be amended? Yes, on a case-by-case basis. The terms of the OTA will contain requirements for modification or amendment.

In order to accelerate the safe commercialization of AAM into the NAS and ensure dominance in AAM, aircraft operations under the eIPP will require enabling infrastructure. To date, regulatory processes, permitting, provisioning of utilities, and installation of electric aircraft charging infrastructure can take as long as 6-9 months to completion. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (PL 118-

63) established a pilot program to enable AIP funding to be used for the installation of this AAM charging infrastructure at airports. Does DOT see these two programs dovetailing and, if so, will FAA put out additional guidance for airports to access this funding?

The AIP funding outlined in the FAA Reauthorization is separate from the eIPP. No funding is available for the eIPP.

20 What level of budget / financial detail is the FAA seeking in responses to the SIR?

The FAA is not requesting specific financial detail; however Offerors should describe any additional industry, academic or government contributions and demonstrate that they have adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain those resources to perform the OTA.

It is our understanding that a sub-applicant on one submission can be a lead applicant or sub-applicant on another submission, is this correct?

Yes, an SLTT may submit only one proposal as the Prime Offeror; however, an SLTT government may be included as a partner in proposals from one or more other SLTT governments.

The SIR appears to indicate that we do not need to conduct an open procurement process for OEM/Operator partner selection? Can the government please confirm this?

There are no requirements for how SLTTs select US-Based companies to partner with.

The solicitation appears to be focused on operations with aircraft in excess of 1,320 pounds, and that the FAA is not interested in proposals using aircraft less than 1,320 pounds. Can the FAA confirm this?

Any AAM aircraft will be considered for the eIPP in accordance with the SIR.

For the operations envisioned to be flown during eIPP, must they be an actual mission or is a simulated mission acceptable? A. For example, during an EMS logistics and supply operation, must an actual patient be transported or can a representative weight be flown over the mission profile?

Demonstration requirements will be negotiated during the OTA process.

25 Can passengers be flown during eIPP on pre-Type Certified aircraft? All operations must be compliant with existing Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

26 Can flights flown during eIPP generate revenue? Some cargo flights flown during eIPP may be allowed to generate revenue under specific circumstances and will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

27 Can eIPP flights be done during Type Inspection Authorization or Function and Reliability flights?

The eIPP states, “The eIPP will encourage an ambitious scale of pre-certification operations and will incorporate varied solutions where the most successful implementations become standards of practice for future scaling of operations.”

TIA and F&R are conducted per 14 CFR part 21.35 which requires for test objectives to be in conformity and comply specifically with 21.35(a) items (1) through (4).

The test objectives for conducting TIA and F&R would be those test objectives used to determine compliance to the applicable design regulations.

The eIPP is not a program to conduct design type certification. The eIPP is, as written above, allows for “… future scaling of operations.” The FAA expects eIPP participants will be demonstrating aircraft prior to reaching type design conformity but are in process of seeking a TC or STC.

Although the aircraft used for TIA and F&R testing (with a conforming aircraft) may/could be the same aircraft used for the eIPP flight evaluations, these two activities may be serving different purposes/objectives.

If by chance the purpose/objectives for these two programs happen to align, including their respective schedules, then that would be a business decision that the FAA can discuss with the applicant on a case-by-case basis.

28 Can eIPP flights be used for Pilot Training?

The requirements to conduct training in a powered-lift are contained in parts 61 and 194. None of the current powered-lift in development have been certificated and are still being operated on experimental airworthiness certificates. The use of those aircraft have restrictions placed on them by their operating limitations and by part 194. Under section 194.217 test pilots, FAA test pilots and aviation safety inspectors may log training time in experimental aircraft. The training must be done in an experimental powered-lift at the manufacturer, and the applicant must be authorized by the Administrator to act as pilot-in-command (PIC) of the experimental powered-lift. The training must also be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s proposed training program. Once these aircraft become certificated (not experimental) part 194 lays out requirements for the training of initial cadre instructors and others. The regulation requires the training to be completed in an approved training program under part 135 or 141. So based on our current understanding of the nature of the eIPP flights, no, pilot training may not be conducted during these flights unless it conducted in accordance with part 194. The pilot time received while conducting these flights may be creditable towards a powered-lift certificate or rating.

Additionally, remotely piloted flights may not be used for pilot training at any time.

29 What is the expectation on the number of flight hours to be flown during eIPP? Number of flight hours flown will be negotiated during the OTA process.

30 What is the broader role of the government entity during eIPP?

The FAA will provide oversight and direction for the eIPP program.

The SLTTs will be the prime Offerors for the eIPP program.

31 Can the US based private sector partner be on more than one team? Yes, a U.S. based company can be on more than one team.

Please provide further clarification as to what would constitute an SLTT. Would a quasi-private corporation with boards of directors appointed by elected officials be considered an SLTT? Would a port authority be considered an SLTT?

See Amendment 1 to the SIR.

In what ways will the FAA work with SLTTs and their partner(s) to enable initial operations with an acceptable level of safety? For instance, will there be a streamlined process for approvals? Will the FAA approve certain operations typically reserved for type-certificated aircraft?

Operational approval process(es) will be negotiated during the OTA process.

Is the program intended to take advantage exclusively of existing infrastructure (e.g., in the urban context, existing aerodromes including licensed heliports and active airports)? Or is there an opportunity to activate new, and in some cases temporary, infrastructure (e.g., landing zones) so long as it is permitted according to local land use rules and regulations?

Per the SIR, the offeror may use existing or temporary infrastructure and are required to submit "clear test plans, ground infrastructure, and timelines that meet eIPP expectations. Details show readiness to launch operations within 90 days of agreement."

All demonstration activities will be subject to coordinate and approval by the FAA after OTA award.

Will the presence (or lack thereof) of existing electric aircraft charging infrastructure weigh more heavily in the committee's evaluation of proposals?

Per the SIR, the offeror may use existing or temporary infrastructure and are required to submit "clear test plans, ground infrastructure, and timelines that meet eIPP expectations. Details show readiness to launch operations within 90 days of agreement."

All demonstration activities will be subject to coordinate and approval by the FAA after OTA award.

How will planned infrastructural improvements, for example charging infrastructure obligations under existing concession agreements, influence the committee's evaluation criteria? Should applicants specify that charging infrastructure will be available within a specified time period?

Per the SIR, the offeror may use existing or temporary infrastructure and are required to submit "clear test plans, ground infrastructure, and timelines that meet eIPP expectations. Details show readiness to launch operations within 90 days of agreement."

All demonstration activities will be subject to coordinate and approval by the FAA after OTA award.

Will applications that emphasize a use-case in a dense/urban geography be viewed as higher risk?

Are there any mitigating factors within an urban context that would strengthen those applications (e.g., the existence of active rotorcraft operations and FAA charted helicopter routes)?

Mitigating factors and operational safety will be considered in all use case scenarios.

Is there any advantage/disadvantage to including multiple use-cases as part of a single application?

For example, will an application that emphasizes pax transport, cargo, and medical logistics with multiple OEM operators be viewed less favorably than an application which is focused on a singular use-case?

Please see evaluation criteria in Table 3 in Section 9.2.1 of the SIR.

Is there any advantage/disadvantage to submitting an application which emphasizes use-case/missions that would entail the deployment of both larger (manned) VTOL aircraft and smaller (unmanned) VTOL aircraft?

The FAA will give same consideration to all AAM aircraft that meet the requirements of the solicitation. The proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria of the SIR (Section 9.2.1).

Recognizing that, per the RFP requirements, a single SLTT must serve as the "prime" lead on any application, are there any specific factors or characteristics which would advantage one SLTT over another (e.g., an airport agency versus a department of transportation)?

The FAA will give same consideration to all proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria of the SIR (Section 9.2.1).

Recognizing that the evaluation committee will view those applications which emphasize a regional approach more favorably (based on the RFP's published evaluation criteria), is there an opportunity to submit an application which includes multiple regions (e.g., across a single state or multiple states)?

There no restrictions to include multiple regions.

Given a specified overwater flight component of desired eIPP use cases, would AAM aircraft pre-type certified or type certified and conducting commercial air taxi operations be assumed or anticipated to have the same crew and aircraft safety/survival requirements as other similarly operated and certificated aircraft for overwater and/or extended overwater operations (e.g. offshore oil platform use case)?

All operations must be compliant with existing Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

Does the eIPP submission have any unexpressed or implied restrictions in terms of font, font size, margins, length?

No, the requirements are listed in the SIR (a PDF document of size 2 gigabytes or less).

Does the overall eIPP program have an expectation on the number of flight hours to be flown during eIPP? If so, is that number per program awarded or per private OEM?

Number of flight hours flown will be negotiated during the OTA process.

On page 11 under “Offeror Proposal Content”, one of the sections (#4) the proposal must include is:

Overall representation of the operations to be conducted, including advanced air mobility, medical response, cargo transport, and rural access. Evaluation Criteria for this section on page 17 though allows for a rating of good even if there is some variation in use cases that seem to be required above. I suggest changing that evaluation criteria to “Overall representation of the operations to be conducted” and then list inclusion of advanced air mobility, medical response, cargo transport, and rural access case studies as a qualifier for a rating of excellent.

The evaluation criteria is clearly stated in the SIR.

On page 19, in Table 5: Criteria V - Evaluation Rating and Description, a satisfactory rating is possible if the proposed aircraft will begin process for Type Certification and readiness plans commits to launching operations within 90 days of agreement. The FAQ document though states: “Q:

If a partnership proposal includes an aircraft, does the aircraft need to have a type certification project? A: Yes. Aircraft in the partnership proposal must have a type certification project.”

Does an aircraft need to have a type certification project to be included in the proposal or does the proposed aircraft just need to be under active development with testing evidence, be in a position to begin the process for Type Certification and readiness plans, and commit to launching operations within 90 days of agreement?

As indicated in the SIR, "Aircraft in the proposal must have a type certification project."

Could you please clarify whether government authorities – such as airport operators, port authorities, or state and local transportation agencies – are eligible to serve as proposers under the EIPP program? If so, are there any specific eligibility criteria, partnership requirements, or limitations that apply to public-sector entities?

Additionally, would such authorities be permitted to lead proposals directly, or would participation need to occur through collaboration with private-sector partners or consortiums?

See Amendment 1 to the SIR.

Could you also provide additional details regarding the key benefits or outcomes associated with participation in the EIPP program? For example, does participation confer access to federal funding opportunities, technical assistance, or enhanced coordination with federal partners?

The FAA will not provide additional details regarding benefits or outcomes associated with participation in the eIPP program at this time.

Could you please confirm whether projects focused on drone or uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) operations are considered eligible under the EIPP program? If so, are there particular parameters or use cases—such as cargo delivery, infrastructure inspection, or public safety applications—that the program is designed to prioritize or support?

Any AAM aircraft will be considered for the eIPP in accordance with the SIR.

The SIR requires that all aircraft and technologies used in the eIPP be developed or offered by a U.S.-based entity, defined as one not directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a foreign entity. The Executive Order also directs the Department of Commerce to investigate and secure supply chains against foreign control or exploitation. How will the DOT/FAA ensure companies disclose these types of details and evaluate proposals from companies that have established subsidiaries in China and/or received financial support from the Chinese government, and/or lack segregated data infrastructure to ensure sensitive information is not subject to foreign access or influence?

Will such factors be treated as disqualifying under the U.S.-based entity requirement and the EO’s supply chain security mandate?

The awarded OTAs will bar selected participants from working with adversarial nations and data protections language will also be included in the OTA. The definition of United States based company for purposes of this requirement is identified in the SIR.

One of the stated goals of the EO is to advance the domestic commercialization of UAS technologies at scale, including their safe and secure manufacturing, production, and integration, by supporting industry-led innovation, reducing regulatory uncertainty, and streamlining approvals and certification processes, including for consumer goods delivery and environmental reviews. How will the DOT/FAA ensure any charging or other infrastructure installed as part of the eIPP program will be compatible with the industry-led standard put forth by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) under its 2023 report titled: “Interoperability of Electric Charging Infrastructure” by the Infrastructure Subcommittee of the GAMA Electric Propulsion and Innovation Committee

(EPIC).

The FAA will ensure eIPP participants adhere to FAA standards.

Please confirm and provide clarification that a private company can officially represent the SLTT offeror and perform the role as appointed individual, become the single point of contact with the Federal Government, and act as the formal private partner working with the at least one if not more OEMs.

Selected SLTTs will be the prime contractor for OTA awards and cannot designate any other entity to represent them to the FAA. Partners may participate with the SLTT on the eIPP program and interact with the FAA with the inclusion of the SLTT. Roles and responsibilities of the parties will be outlined in the resulting OTA.

Please confirm and provide clarification that a Private Partner can represent more than one offeror on separate proposals and projects since the limit is 1 proposal per offeror not 1 per private partner.

US Based private sector partners may partner with more than one SLTT on multiple proposals. Prime partners may not represent an SLTT as the Prime Offeror on a proposal.

Please confirm and provide clarification that an executive order from the Governor can depict which state government agency is the official offeror, private partner, and single point of contact for the state.

See Amendment 1 to the SIR

The eIPP states “The FAA expects to have communications with potential Offerors throughout the selection process.” – these conversations can help with development of the final submitted proposal and stakeholder engagement but how does an Offeror/Private Partner initiate conversation with the correct FAA or DOT Points of contact? The speed of the SIR is faster than most State and Large Companies are used to and though we are helping them navigate guided conversation with the FAA POC can help streamline this process.

The FAA will not assist SLTTs with the development of their proposals. Any clarifications on the SIR occurred during the Question and Answer timeframe and will be publicly posted. The FAA may communicate with offerors about their proposal submissions after the proposals are submitted.

Would the Government allow early submissions to allow for an earlier award to facilitate operations in time for the 2026 World Cup?

Project selections will be made within 180 days from the release of the SIR, as indicated in the EO. Offerors can submit their proposals at any time; however, the FAA will not evaluate proposals under the SIR has closed.

Per Section 16 RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE OFFEROR – there are a couple problems: a. The Offeror has been stated in section 7.2.1 “Note: The Offeror must be a State, local, tribal, or territorial government.” We suggest removal of this section since the offeror is a Governmental Body b. A newly formed company to be the SLTT ‘s Private Partner should not be precluded from pulling together the range of business and corporate interests required facilitate these operations in the Region.

As such the Private Partners full team should be evaluated by the standards of Section 16 not just the Prime Private Partner in case it is a newly formed entity that is used to align business and corporate interests

Per Executive Order 14307, "Unleashing American Drone Dominance"; Proposals must include a private sector partner with demonstrated experience in eVTOL aircraft development, manufacturing, and operations.

May a consortium propose multiple routes and use cases, with a phased plan that progresses from simpler to more complex operations over the program period?

Pilot projects may include a phased approach.

What are FAA’s expectations for minimum number of flight tests and campaign duration per route/use case? If data objectives are met, would a weeks-long campaign be acceptable, or is a months/years cadence preferred to mirror future commercial operations?

Demonstration requirements will be negotiated during the OTA process.

Must all routes and takeoff/landing locations be fully defined at submission, or can siting and approvals for aviation access points be included as part of the proposed scope of work?

The FAA will give the same consideration to all demonstrations in accordance with the evaluation criteria of the SIR (Section 9.2.1).

May the same route and use case with the same operator and aircraft be proposed as part of different consortiums/proposals?

Yes

Is there flexibility to add additional routes to enhance data collection and learnings as initial insights are created during the period of performance?

Demonstration requirements will be negotiated during the OTA process.

Would a proposal led by one state entity that encompasses operations in multiple states qualify as “Excellent” (per the grading criteria), or are the teaming of SLTT entities across states necessary to achieve an “Excellent” grade?

The FAA will give the same consideration to all individual SLTT's and multiple SLTTs teaming in accordance with the evaluation criteria of the SIR (Section 9.2.1). There is no multi-state requirement for achieving excellent grading. Multi-state and regional models can both achieve excellent status in evaluation criteria II.

64 Are Letters of Attestation needed for non-private entities that wish to be partners?

An SLTT Prime Offeror must provide a Letter of Attestation as outlined in Amendment 1 of the SIR. Any US based company partnering under the eIPP program must also provide a Letter of Attestation in accordance with Criteria 1 as outlined in the SIR. Non-US based entities cannot participate in the eIPP.

Am I correct that this opportunity is expected to last approximately 3 years? And as a part of this, will there be any supplemental opportunities whether annually or thereafter?

As indicated in Executive Order 14307, "The eIPP shall conclude 3 years after the date the first pilot project becomes operational, unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that an extension is warranted in the national interest." At this time, there are no supplemental opportunities planned.

Am I correct that this opportunity will not provide any federal money? As a part of this, my assumption is that the value to public agency/private industry partnerships is to work with USDOT and FAA to advance operational capabilities.

There are no FAA funds available for this effort. This is an unfunded OTA.

I could not find any funding designated for the eIPP. Can you please advise how the OTA will be funded?

There are no FAA funds available for this effort. This is an unfunded OTA.

In 8.2.1 there is a requirement stating "A Type Certification Project must be underway for eVTOL or other AAM aircraft”. Is “Type" Certification a hard requirement as opposed to a Special Airworthiness Certification as is possible under the new MOSAIC/LSA category? As I’m sure you are aware, the new MOSAIC rules specifically support eVTOL certification through a special airworthiness certification process - but this is not a Type Certification. I believe that it’s critical for the FAA to consider Ultralight vehicles and MOSAIC aircraft with non-commercial, personal flight operations in these trials and planning for integration into the NAS (not just commercial “air taxi” type operations).

From the FAA document SCREENING INFORMATION REQUEST 697DCK-25-R-00445 in section 8.2.1 , under the Criterion; 1. U.S.-Based Aircraft &Technology It states:

Criterion 1.U.S.-BasedAircraft &Technology Description The proposal must include the use of eVTOL aircraft or other AAM aircraft and AAM technologies developed/offered by a U.S.-based entity and:

•Letters of attestation from United States-based private-sector partner(s) with demonstrated experience in eVTOL or other AAM development, manufacturing, and operations, or new supporting technologies enabling AAM operations integration into the NAS. (Aircraft must be in the TypeCertification Process) A United States-based company is defined as an entity that:

-Is organized or incorporated under the laws of a State, territory, or possession of the United States or the District of Columbia;

-Has its principal place of business in the United States; and -Is not directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a foreign entity.

•Description of the Offeror’s flexibility to incorporate additional partnerships and contributions.

Aircraft must be in the Type Design Certification Process for eVTOl or other AAM aircraft is one criteria in Section 8.2.

Applying for an FAA Type Certificate is different than applying for a Special Airworthiness certificate such as under the MOSAIC rule. The current eIPP scope does not include ultralight vehicles, such as those intended for personal flight.

The eIPP FAQ’s document provided explains the focus of the eIPP :

The focus of this pilot program will be achieving ambitious national objectives in core areas that are in the public interest. Operations that are envisioned include piloted and unmanned approaches to:

•Air Taxis: Short range, on demand flying eVTOLs connecting to ground transport, demonstrating reduced noise impacts.

•Longer-range, fixed wing flights moving people in new forms of advanced regional aircraft with capabilities such as short takeoff and landing that could unlock new and more economically viable possibilities in air travel.

•Cargo: Using novel aircraft, including potentially fixed wing aircraft, to provide cargo services.

•Logistics and supply: Demonstrating new airlift and emergency management services, such as eVTOL operations for servicing energy facilities off-shore and improving medical transport capabilities with lower costs and impacts on local communities.

•Increasing Automation Safety: Demonstrating safe integration of aircraft with a range of automation technologies designed to enhance safety and/or efficiency in AAM operations.

In summary, the eIPP applicant’s proposal will be evaluated against the criterion published in section 8.2 and the weighting of that criterion as defined in section 9.1

Airspace Coordination: How does the FAA intend to handle airspace management within overlapping Class D and MOA environments during eVTOL test operations? Will deconfliction authority remain with local ATC or transition under centralized program oversight during the pilot phase?

Airspace management will be handled on a case-by-case basis with the FAA after OTAs are awarded.

Infrastructure Certification: Can the FAA confirm whether vertiport infrastructure constructed under interim ASTM or OEM-specific standards will be eligible for inclusion in the eIPP demonstration phase prior to formal MOSAIC rule adoption, and what provisional inspection criteria would apply?

The FAA encourages applicants to conform with FAA standards where appropriate. Engineering Brief 105A, Vertiport Design, Supplemental Guidance to Advisory Circular 150/5390-2D, Heliport Design, was created to address powered-lift aircraft and identifies important operational areas for consideration such as the Downwash/Outwash Caution Area. Sites co-located at a Federally-obligated airport must comply with FAA’s vertiport design standards and comply with 14 CFR Part

77. New greenfield vertiport sites must comply with 14 CFR Part 157, which establishes standards and notification requirements for anyone proposing to construct, alter, or deactivate a civil or joint-use (civil/military) airport. Notification allows the FAA to identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance, to prevent or minimize the adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. Further, FAA may conduct a site inspection as part of the airspace evaluation under Part 157.

Operational Data Reporting: Can the FAA clarify the specific data capture and reporting requirements are expected during the pilot’s initial operating capability phase?

Reporting requirements will be negotiated during the OTA process.

Interstate Integration: For states pursuing interoperable corridors that cross multiple Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) regions, will the FAA establish a unified Certificate of Authorization (COA) review process, or will each region maintain independent oversight and approval authority?

The FAA will work with individual partners upon start of operations.

Could you clarify whether proposals should address all aspects outlined, or whether submissions can focus selectively on areas most relevant to the applicant?s expertise? If only 5 pilot projects will be awarded, which level of submission is required? Additionally, we understand that the request does not anticipate funding under the initial Other Transaction Agreement (OTA), though the language suggests that ?such a modification?

may allow post-award funding adjustments. Could you confirm whether all initial proposals are expected to be entirely self-funded, and then clarify what form the ?Transaction? represents when no funds are exchanged?

Please refer to SAM.gov to get program and submission requirements for the eIPP.

The FAA does not have funding for this OTA. This OTA is not funded.

In the eIPP 7.1.3 (pg. 7) it states: "An SLTT may submit only one proposal as the Prime Offeror; however, an SLTT government may be included as a partner in proposals from one or more other SLTT governments." Two questions: (1) Does this mean if private entity were to partner with an SLTT to form a Private-public-partnership and SLTT submitted as the prime, then we could also have another Dept of Transportation from another state attach as a sub?

(2) Outside of the formal agreement between the Prime and Sub, are there any formal requirements that the eIPP expects a sub to perform? We did not see any specification on this.

Yes, a single private sector company is allowed to participate in multiple eIPP proposal submissions, each in partnership with a different SLTT government.

Also, an SLTT can only submit one proposal, but that SLTT may be included as participants in another SLTT's proposal.

No there are no formal requirements between the Prime and Sub.

The FAA's Request for Information states a "type certification project" must be underway for eVTOL or other AAM aircraft. Can a technology company seeking an STC stand in place of an

OEM?

As indicated in the SIR, "Aircraft in the proposal must have a type certification project."

Is the application process public? Once submitted, what is shared in the public documents?

Additionally, is the application subject to FOIA?

The SIR is public and posted to Sam.gov. Offeror proposals submitted in the eIPP portal are not public and are only viewable to approved FAA personnel. Offeror proposals are not releasable under FOIA. Proposals that contain proprietary information should be marked with proprietary markings.

As a well established private transportation company our main business is non emergency medical transportation. We would like to test and integrate Evtol to improve future services especially to remote regions which are hard to accessby road. We would like to test the feasibility of US and non US made Evtol aircraft currently in compliance testing. Would this be allowed under the eIPP program if the non US evtol vehicle is FAA certified. Thank you for your attention.

eVTOL and other AAM technologies must be developed or offered by the United States-based company. Non-US made eVTOL aircraft will not be allowed to participate in the eIPP.

In responding to Section 3, reference is made to the need to identify "potential current and future economic benefits".

The Evaluation Criteria references that top responses include economic forecasts. As passenger transport viability has yet to be determined (craft have not even been approved for flight), and as demand for cargo, medical and other uses depend on local zoning ordinances, yet to be determined operating costs which effect ROI, and as yet to be determined consumer acceptance of drones in residential neighborhoods, among many other factors yet to be identified, please help identify how a presentation of quantitative economic benefit can be provided at this time.

Economic forecasting methods and models are up to the discretion of the offeror.