Exemption No. 10128 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

KURT W. MULLER Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2010–0239

for an exemption from § 91.319(a) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letters posted to the docket on March 04, 2010 and March 22, 2010, 

Mr. Kurt W. Muller, 23101 Sweetbay Lane, California, Maryland 20619, petitioned the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 91.319(a)(2) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit 

Mr. Muller to operate his Rowell Pitts Special S–1, which holds an experimental 

airworthiness certificate, for dispersing human or pet ashes for hire. 

The petitioner requires relief from the following regulation:

Section 91.319(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an 

experimental category civil aircraft for other than the purpose for which the certificate 

was issued, or for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. 

The petitioner supports his request with the following information:

The petitioner states that he seeks relief from § 91.319(a)(2) to establish a 

part-time business. The desired business would use his Rowell Pitts Special S–1, 

registration No. N3DR, to disperse the ash remains of persons and/or pets from the 

air in accordance with all applicable Federal and State guidelines. 

The petition states this exemption would serve the public interest for two reasons. 

First, there are few aerial ash dispersal services and none provide the service in an 

aerobatic aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner believes he could provide a unique service 

to the public. Second, the petitioner states he will provide aerial dispersal of 

ash remains free of charge to U.S. military personnel killed in action and at a discount 

AFS–10–185–E 
2

to military veterans. The petitioner states he is an active-duty naval officer and combat 

veteran. He notes that he would like to serve fellow veterans and their families in a 

special and unique way. 

The petitioner states that granting this exemption would not adversely affect the level 

of safety provided by § 91.319(a)(2) in that, by operating single-seat aircraft, he would 

be unable to carry passengers, and by operating a small aircraft with no provisions for 

baggage, he could not carry a substantial amount of property. The petitioner notes the 

aircraft is not suited for any other commercial purpose. The petitioner also notes an 

exemption would not necessitate any change to the normal flight envelope or profile for 

aircraft N3DR, or pose any other conceivable safety risk. The petitioner specifies he is 

not requesting to extend the privileges of an exemption outside the United States. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the 

petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a 

precedent.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s supporting information and has 

determined that the circumstances Mr. Muller presents do not justify a grant of 

exemption. The FAA finds the petitioner has not shown that a grant of exemption 

would be in the public interest or that a level of safety equivalent to that provided by 

the regulations would be maintained. 

Previously, the FAA has consistently denied exemptions in circumstances similar to 

those presented by the petitioner. In these previous denials of exemption, the FAA 

stated it found that permitting the operation of experimental aircraft carrying property 

for compensation or hire was not in the public interest because the proposed operation 

could be conducted in an aircraft with standard airworthiness certification. In this 

circumstance, the petitioner provides no material to support the need to conduct this 

type of operation in his experimental aircraft (Rowell Pitts Special S–1, 

registration No. N3DR.) The FAA finds there are many other types of aircraft 

available to conduct the proposed services that have the proper type certification and 

would not require an exemption. In addition, the FAA issued an experimental 

certificate to the petitioner for the following purpose under § 21.191(g), Operating 

amateur-built aircraft, which is defined as operating an aircraft the major portion of 

which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction 

project solely for their own education or recreation. The petitioner has not shown how 

his situation is unique as compared to other operators of experimental aircraft who are 

complying with the limitations of their certificates. 

The FAA recognizes that the petitioner’s proposed operation would provide a service 

to veterans and their families, but this does not set precedent for granting an exemption. 
3

The FAA has determined the proposed service of dispersing ashes from the air would 

not benefit the public interest. 

The FAA’s Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Mr. Kurt W. Muller for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 91.319(a) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2010. 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service