VIA FDMS

December 7, 2014

Mr. James H. Williams

Manager

UAS Integration Office, AFS-80

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: Supplement to Amazon Petition for Exemption – Docket No. FAA-2014-0474

Dear Mr. Williams:

Thank you for your letter, dated October 29, in which you seek additional information to

supplement Amazon’s petition for exemption submitted on July 9 under Section 333 of the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. I am writing in reply.

As described in our petition, the Amazon Prime Air delivery system will get packages to

customers in 30 minutes or less using small aerial vehicles (a.k.a., unmanned aircraft systems,

or “UAS”). We believe customers will love it, and we are committed to making Prime Air

available worldwide as soon as we are permitted to do so.

To date, much of our Prime Air research and development efforts, including flight

testing operations, have been conducted inside our laboratory and indoor testing facilities in

Washington State. However, we must move beyond indoor testing if we are to realize the

consumer benefits of Amazon Prime Air. In the absence of timely approval by the FAA to

conduct outdoor testing, we have begun utilizing outdoor testing facilities outside the United

States. These non-U.S. facilities enable us to quickly build and modify our Prime Air vehicles as

we construct new designs and make improvements. It is our continued desire to also pursue

fast-paced innovation in the United States, which would include the creation of high-quality

jobs and significant investment in the local community. We believe this is what Congress

intended when enacting Section 333, and it is why we continue to make every effort to seek

this exemption.
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 2

To ensure that our outdoor flight testing operations are as safe as possible, we have

proposed to test on private property in a rural area of Washington State, away from people or

crowds. We also have proposed to do so under the supervision of trained pilots, at low

altitudes, below 400 feet above ground level (“AGL”), within visual line of sight, employing

“geofencing” technology that will keep the vehicle confined to the test area, and abiding by the

detailed safety measures outlined in our petition. These detailed safety measures are much

stronger than those currently required for hobbyists and manufacturers of model aircraft, who

already do every day what Amazon is proposing.

Given the very conservative nature of Amazon’s request, especially in contrast to the

nature of other petitions for commercial small UAS operations that already have been granted,

as well as the way that thousands of hobbyists are permitted to operate small UAS today, we

are very concerned that our needs for testing operations have not yet been accommodated.

At the FAA’s suggestion, and again in-line with our desire to pursue fast-paced

innovation in the United States, we also have been exploring another regulatory path to

accommodate our research and development needs, an Experimental Certification under 14

C.F.R. § 21.191. However, this alternative entails a lengthy process that was designed for

manned aircraft and bears little practical application to small UAS. This process requires

certification for each individual vehicle, which is burdensome considering how fast we are

designing new Prime Air vehicles. Our first Experimental Certification application has been

delayed multiple times as we try to work with the FAA to simplify the process. Disconcertingly,

there is no guarantee that this alternative process will provide us the flexibility we need or at

the pace we need it. Therefore, we are maintaining our Section 333 petition, and hope that we

have not lost time pursuing this alternative.

I have provided responses to your letter’s question about the Experimental Certification

alternative; however, I am concerned your question implies that alternatives must be pursued

and demonstrated ineffective before our Section 333 petition will be fully considered: “Given

that the proposed operations can be conducted in accordance with existing regulations of §

21.191, please explain the particular circumstances regarding why an exemption would be an

appropriate vehicle to permit those operations.” It seems far from clear that our proposed

operations can be conducted successfully under Section 21.191 at this time. There is nothing in

our reading of Section 333 that requires exhaustion of other regulatory provisions before the

FAA grants petitions for exemption. Moreover, the FAA has concluded that an airworthiness

certificate, experimental or otherwise, is not required to operate a small UAS under Section

333, which Congress created to get small UAS safely flying as soon as possible in the United

States. Requiring exhaustion of alternatives before granting our Section 333 petition would

impede that goal.
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 3

Of equal concern is your letter’s request for us to further explain “why granting

[Amazon’s] request would be in the public interest.” I have responded to this question in detail

below, but I fear the FAA may be questioning the fundamental benefits of keeping UAS

technology innovation in the United States. Simply put, Prime Air has great potential to

enhance the services we already provide to millions of our customers by providing rapid parcel

delivery that will also increase the overall safety and efficiency of the transportation system.

We want approval to conduct outdoor testing operations with our small UAS in the United

States to help realize this goal.

Here are our specific answers to your letter’s three questions:

1. Section 333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act directs the Secretary of

Transportation to determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in

the national airspace system before completion of rulemaking required by section 332 of

the Act, and furthermore, determine whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of

authorization, or airworthiness certification under section 44704 of title 49, United

States Code, is required for the operation of these unmanned aircraft systems. You are

seeking an exemption for the purposes of experimentation, research and development,

and conducting rapid prototyping of UAS. The aircraft to be operated for the purposes

described in your petition may be issued special airworthiness certificates in the

experimental category in accordance with the pertinent parts of 14 CFR § 21.191. Given

that the proposed operations can be conducted in accordance with existing regulations

of § 21.191, please explain the particular circumstances regarding why an exemption

would be an appropriate vehicle to permit those operations.

Section 333 is the appropriate mechanism to facilitate Amazon’s innovation for Prime

Air. The FAA has determined that the operation of small UAS for other than hobby or

recreational purposes is commercial in nature. The agency has also concluded that small UAS

do not require an airworthiness certificate pursuant to Section 333. Consistent with the FAA’s

own legal position, Amazon’s development operations fall squarely within the scope of those

that Congress intended to be covered by Section 333, and can be addressed by Section 333 to

provide greater flexibility in R&D than the traditional Experimental Certification process.

While efforts have been made by the FAA to informally adapt the Experimental

Certification process, which was designed for the development of manned aircraft – be it a

Boeing 747 or a Piper Cub – it remains unnecessarily onerous and ill-suited for the small UAS

operations that Amazon seeks to conduct under this exemption. Despite the dedicated and

well-intentioned efforts of many FAA personnel, Amazon’s experience to-date with the

Experimental Certification process makes clear that the agency’s requirements and guidance
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 4

must be updated or allow for deviations to be workable. Under this process, requiring the

small UAS used in Amazon’s development to obtain an airworthiness certificate undermines the

intent of Section 333 as a mechanism to get safe operations flying quickly.

Our strict safety measures will apply to all operations under the requested exemption.

This will provide for a level of safety exceeding that of the film production operations already

permitted by Section 333 exemptions, given our vehicles will be operated in a secure, privatelyowned location, away from populated areas. Additionally, there is nothing in our reading of

Section 333 that requires exhaustion of other regulatory provisions before the FAA grants

petitions for exemption. Requiring exhaustion of other options before granting our Section 333

petition would impede the goal we share with Congress of getting small UAS flying

commercially safely and soon in the United States.

2. To assist with the assessment of how your petition for exemption is in the public interest,

please explain more fully the reasons why granting your request would be in the public

interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole. What data or analysis supports

Amazon's position that aerial delivery is in the interest of the American public? Other

examples of benefit to the public may include reductions in injuries or fatalities related to

current hand delivery practices or reductions in environmental footprints.

The outdoor testing operations we seek in our petition for exemption is a necessary step

towards realizing the consumer benefits of Prime Air, as well as a step in unlocking the

enormous potential of small UAS technology. Aerial delivery is poised make goods available to

consumers in a manner that is more environmentally-friendly than current surface delivery

methods, while improving the overall safety of the transportation system.

It is also in the public interest for Amazon to keep its small UAS R&D operations in the

United States, and help America establish itself as the leader in development of UAS

technology. Our continuing innovation through outdoor testing in the United States and, more

generally, the competitiveness of the American small UAS industry, can no longer afford to

wait. Amazon is increasingly concerned that, unless substantial progress is quickly made in

opening up the skies in the United States, the nation is at risk of losing its position as the center

of innovation for the UAS technological revolution, along with the key jobs and economic

benefits that come as a result.

We are poised to significantly expand our distinguished team of engineers, scientists,

and aeronautical professionals at Amazon’s next-generation R&D lab in Washington State.

Amazon Prime Air currently has dozens of United States job openings for highly-skilled

professionals including hardware engineers and research scientists.
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 5

Subject to demonstrating the appropriate safeguards that Congress outlined in Section

333, Amazon should be free to conduct research and development operations over our own

private property in the United States without further delay.1 Without approval of our testing in

the United States, we will be forced to continue expanding our Prime Air R&D footprint abroad.

3. The petition seeks specific exemption from 14 CFR § 21.191(a), 14 CFR § 45.23(b), 14 CFR §

91.9(b), and 14 CFR § 91.203(a) and (b). However, footnote 1 on page 3 of your petition

requests, "relief from any associated or implementing requirements of several related

provisions that my otherwise be applicable," and lists ten additional regulations for which

Amazon believes it may require exemption. However, the petition may not provide sufficient

information to assess the regulations noted; including, for example, 14 CFR § 91.151 or 14

CFR § 91.405. In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.81(b), the petition must specify the section or

sections of 14 CFR from which you seek exemption. Therefore, if you seek relief from other

regulations in addition to 14 CFR § 21.191(a), 14 CFR § 45.23(b), 14 CFR § 91.9(b), and 14

CFR § 91.203(a) and (b), the petition should be amended accordingly.

Further details on the specific regulations implicated by Amazon’s petition are as

follows:

 14 C.F.R. § 21.191(a) – The FAA’s interpretation of Section 333 obviates the need to seek

relief from this airworthiness certification provision.2

 14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b) – Amazon will not be required to display the word “EXPERIMENTAL”

on our vehicles because they will not be issued an Experimental Certificate under 14

C.F.R. § 21.191, but the vehicles will bear N-number markings that are as large as

practicable in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C.3

 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) and (b) – To the extent the FAA determines that the pilot in

command (“PIC”) for our specific operations must hold a private pilot certificate, and

that a commercial pilot certificate would otherwise be necessary for our research and

development operations, Amazon requests an exemption from these provisions. The

FAA has already concluded that a private pilot certificate is sufficient to conduct small

1

Amazon fully supports the FAA’s test site program and looks forward to participating in it as a component of our

overall research and development efforts. However as noted in our original filing, it would be impractical for

Amazon to pursue the test sites as our sole method of testing at this time.

2

See FAA, Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption Filed Under Section 333 (Sep. 25, 2014).

3

See, e.g., In the Matter of the Petition of Astreaus Aerial, Grant of Exemption No. 11062 (Sep. 25, 2014), Docket

No. FAA-2014-0352, at 14.
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 6

UAS operations and nothing in our petition would give the agency cause to depart from

its reasoned analysis.4

 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(b) and 91.203(b) – An exemption is no longer required because the

FAA has deemed it acceptable for the documents required by these provisions to be

kept at the ground control station (“GCS”) and available to the PIC any time the vehicle

is operating.5

 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) – Because our vehicles will necessarily be operated closer than 500

feet to Amazon personnel participating in the operations, and consistent with the

procedures set forth in our confidential Operations Manual, Amazon requests an

exemption from this provision.

 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 – Amazon requests relief from the requirement to have a typical

barometric altimeter aboard the vehicle. We believe operating within visual line of sight

and at or below 400 feet AGL, along with a telemetric data feed that provides altitude

information to the pilot via downlink from the vehicle to the GCS, is sufficient to ensure

that our operations do not adversely affect safety.

 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) – Amazon requests an exemption from the fuel minimum

requirements to operate in visual flight rule conditions. We believe that operating

within a secure, isolated operating area, with a vehicle under 55 pounds, within visual

line of sight, and with procedures that require our flights to be safely terminated once

our batteries fall below 20% capacity, provides an equivalent or greater level of safety.

 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) –

Amazon requests relief from these regulatory maintenance and alteration requirements

on the basis that the requirements for vehicle/component maintenance, overhaul,

replacement, and inspection established and identified in our confidential Operations

Manual will ensure that our operations will not adversely affect safety in the national

airspace system or of the people and property on the ground.

In addition, we have included responses to the supplemental questions asked of all

Section 333 petitioners as Appendix 1.

4

See id. at 16-18.

5

See id; see also Memorandum from Mark Bury, FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation and

Regulations, to John Duncan, FAA Flight Standards Service (Aug. 8, 2014).
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 7

Amazon urges the FAA to swiftly approve our Section 333 petition, submitted nearly five

months ago. Without the ability to test outdoors in the Unites States soon, we will have no

choice but to divert even more of our UAS research and development resources abroad.

Please do not hesitate to contact me via email at prime-air-exemption@amazon.com if

you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Misener

Vice President, Global Public Policy

Amazon.com
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 8

Appendix 1

Additional Information Supporting this Petition

Regarding the Unmanned Aircraft System

Detailed proprietary information regarding the vehicles to be operated under this

exemption, including the associated GCS, will be available in our confidential Operations

Manual. In all planned configurations, our vehicles will weigh less than 55 pounds, including

payload, and be powered by electric motors. The navigation system incorporates a geofence

altitude altimeter that prevents the vehicles from flying outside the operating area or over 400

feet AGL. Given the current FAA restrictions on Amazon testing outdoors, we have not been

flying our vehicles outdoors in the United States. We have however started testing outdoors in

other countries with regulatory environments more supportive of small UAS innovation.

Prior to each flight, the PIC will conduct a pre-flight inspection of the vehicle and GCS.

Maintenance will be performed and verified to address any condition potentially affecting safe

operations. Repair of damaged parts will most likely mean replacement, and Amazon will have

a sufficient stock of replacement parts. A functional flight test will be conducted following the

replacement of any flight-critical component. All maintenance and alterations will be

documented in the aircraft records. Vehicle technician qualification criteria, as well as

requirements for vehicle/component maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection will

be established and identified in our confidential Operations Manual. Such requirements will

encompass: (i) actuators/servos; (ii) transmission; (iii) powerplant; (iv) propellers; (v) electronic

speed controller; (vi) batteries; (vii) mechanical dynamic components; (viii) remote command

and control; and (ix) GCS.

The wireless spectrum utilized by our vehicles’ primary and secondary communications

link systems is approved by the Federal Communications Commission for unlicensed use.

Regarding the Unmanned Aircraft PIC

While Amazon can have a PIC available who holds at least a private pilot certificate with

a third-class medical certificate for our testing operations, if absolutely necessary, we disagree

strongly with the FAA’s conclusion that “Section 333 does not provide flexibility for

requirement to hold an airman certificate described in 49 U.S.C. §44711.”6There is no

language that restricts its application to airworthiness certificate determinations only. Section

333 should be read broadly so as to enable small UAS operations before completion of the

6

See FAA, Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption Filed Under Section 333 (Sep. 25, 2014) at 4.
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 9

FAA’s required rulemakings. The salient consideration of a Section 333 petition should be

whether the vehicles can be operated safely. 7 Given the scope of Amazon’s desired operations,

which will be conducted entirely over our own isolated private property, and associated

safeguards, requiring our PICs to hold a private pilot certificate is simply unnecessary. The

combination of small UAS flight experience and successful completion of FAA Ground School, a

requirement for all our Operators, is more than sufficient under the circumstances.

We will use GCS Operators, and optionally other Operators, who will assist the PIC. In

addition, we will have a Safety Officer who is responsible for ensuring that the overall operation

is safe, and potentially other Safety Observers who will be used to observe the vehicle and its

performance, to ensure that the operating area remains clear of other air or ground traffic. The

Safety Officer and Safety Observers will be familiar with the applicable aviation regulations and

also have completed a FAA Ground School course.

The PICs, Operators, Safety Officer, and Safety Observers will all have completed

Amazon internal training on the normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures for our vehicles

and operations. Detailed information regarding the knowledge and airmanship test

qualifications, training, and flight experience, as applicable, for all employees involved in our

operation will be set forth in our confidential Operations Manual.

Regarding the Operation of the Unmanned Aircraft

Procedures for conducting a pre-flight safety risk assessment in accordance with 14

C.F.R. § 91.7(b) to determine that the vehicle is in a condition for safe flight and that the

planned operation can be completed safely, as well as proposed operating conditions and the

potential hazards and corresponding safety mitigations associated with those conditions, will be

detailed in Amazon’s confidential Operations Manual. In addition to those set forth in

Amazon’s original petition, our proposed operating conditions include: (i) the vehicle remaining

clear and yielding the right of way to all other manned operations and activities at all times; (ii)

all operations being conducted under visual meteorological conditions (“VMC”); and (iii) the

vehicle not being operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a

cloud or when visibility is less than three statue miles from the PIC.

There are also multiple redundant systems to ensure that the vehicles remain inside the

operating area:

7

Amazon believes that using a PIC who has completed FAA private pilot ground instruction and passed the FAA

private pilot written examination or FAA-recognized equivalent is more than sufficient to ensure safety of our

testing operations and the National Airspace System. Flight experience gained through obtaining a private pilot

certificate will not materially aid the PIC in our operational environment.
Mr. James H. Williams

December 7, 2014

Page 10

 Geofence functionality is programmed into the navigation software. If the vehicle has

crossed a defined three-dimensional geographical area (i.e., the “geofence”), the flight

control system will immediately command the vehicle to halt and hover in place. The

PIC and Safety Officer can then clear the area under the vehicle and command an

autoland, or the PIC can take manual command of the vehicle and return it to the

operating area.

 The vehicle will be observed at all times by the PIC, Safety Observers, and the GCS

Operator, who has a real-time position readout of the vehicle. If the vehicle leaves the

operating area or behaves erratically, the PIC will execute emergency procedures and

end the operation.

 If the geofence system were to fail, and the vehicle does not respond to manual

commands, the PIC will initiate emergency procedures that automatically return the

vehicle to the launch point for that mission. This functionality has been tested

successfully and will be verified prior to all operations.

 If the vehicle still does not respond to the lost link procedures, the PIC or Safety Officer

will immediately activate the vehicle’s emergency shutdown system, which will

interrupt all power to the vehicle via a separate, redundant communications path.

 Remote observers in the operating area and security guards stationed at the entrance

will be equipped with encrypted portable radios that will allow for immediate

communication with the PIC. All personnel will also be able to contact the PIC directly

by cellular phone as a backup means of communication in the case of a radio failure.