AFS-10-272-E 

 Exemption No. 10194 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

HelpFourPaws, Inc. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0497

for an exemption from § 61.113(c) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated April 30, 2010, Mr. Elliot Mintzer, President and Founder, 

HelpFourPaws, Inc. (HelpFourPaws), 303-B Anastasia Boulevard, Suite 160, Saint 

Augustine, Florida 32080, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

HelpFourPaws for an exemption from § 61.113(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow for reimbursement of its 

volunteer pilots for fuel, rental, oil, and/or airport expense costs incurred while conducting 

flights transporting animals in need of veterinary care, transportation to veterinary facilities, 

or other animal rescue. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.113(c) which prescribes, in pertinent part, that a private pilot may not pay 

less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the 

expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

HelpFourPaws is requesting an exemption to allow for reimbursement to volunteer 

pilots for fuel, oil, airport expenditures, and/or rental fee costs incurred in conducting flights 

for transporting animals that are in need of veterinary care, transportation to veterinary 

facilities, or other animal rescue from harmful or potentially lethal environments. 

The petitioner provided several definitions to ensure clarity of its petition. 
2

1. Volunteer Pilot Organization (VPO): an Internal Revenue Service-approved 501(c)(3) 

organization with a primary purpose of facilitating charitable public benefit flight. The 

VPO must function through an organized corporation of registered or membervolunteer pilots. 

2. Charitable flight: a flight facilitated by the VPO for which no payment is made to the 

pilot, the VPO, or any other party or entity for conduct of the flight. The purpose of 

the flight must be totally dedicated for a charitable purpose that has demonstrable 

public benefit. 

3. Reimbursement: if there is any reimbursement, the reimbursement process must be 

administered as stated herein: 

a. The reimbursement process must be administered by the VPO that 

facilitated the flight; and 

b. The reimbursement may be for any amount up to the full cost of fuel 

and oil used in the charitable flight(s), and any rental and/or airport 

expenditures related directly to an exempted flight. 

Issue of Public Interest 

The petitioner states that, in these economic times, it is very important from a public 

perspective that a means be devised to allow the costs of conducting charitable animal rescue 

transport to be distributed to a broader base. Today, the total cost to facilitate and maintain 

charitable animal rescue transport rests 100 percent on the VPO. In addition, the entire cost 

of the flight rests on the volunteer pilot. A large portion of this expense is for fuel, oil, airport 

expenditures, or rental fees. These costs are easily calculated from recorded flight times, 

normal burn-rates, and average retail fuel costs as well as invoices from pilots. 

The petitioner contends that an exemption to allow a VPO to reimburse volunteer 

pilots for some or all of the fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees allows the opportunity 

for additional donors to join the process by providing donations to help cover these costs and 

other expenses. The resulting mix of participants will relieve overburdened volunteer pilots 

and allow the influx of new volunteer participants, which, in turn, will provide a greater 

public benefit. 

The past few years have shown a decline in charitable animal rescue transport that has 

resulted in fewer animals adopted. This exemption will reverse that trend and provide a 

much-needed benefit to the animal rescue community. 

Effect of the Exemption on Safety 

The petitioner states that the exemption, as proposed, would mandate an increase in 

the experience level of volunteer pilots serving in charitable animal rescue transport through 

the VPO. The petitioner further states that a VPO granted an exemption should be required to 
3

conduct an annual safety audit which would then promote a culture of safety and provide a 

documented safety management strategy. The petitioner contends that the net result would be 

a smaller but more experienced pilot base along with increased levels of service to the general 

public. The petitioner also anticipates that an exemption would result in additional 

availability of charitable animal rescue transport that will allow for the saving of animals that 

could not be reached due to previous constraints. 

The petitioner believes that the FAA should allow both the exemption and its 

recommended procedure which it contends will require an absolute minimum of workload on 

the FAA. The petitioner believes the exemption as proposed will ensure that only pilots 

certified as “approved” by the VPO would be reimbursed. It further contends that the 

exemption, as proposed, will ensure that no reimbursement is made that would apply to 

training or flights for unintended purposes. 

The petitioner also submitted a Safety Management Plan as part of its petition. 

 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to HelpFourPaws. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s request and supporting materials and finds 

that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

In this petition, HelpFourPaws is seeking to reimburse its volunteer private pilots for 

operating expenses incurred in transporting animals that are ill or injured or are in harmful or 

potentially lethal environmental conditions and for which their owners or caretakers cannot 

financially afford commercial transportation. In order to reimburse the volunteer pilots, it 

would need relief from § 61.113(c), which allows a private pilot to receive a pro rata share of 

the operating expenses of a flight from the passengers if they share a common purpose for 

making the flight. 

The FAA has determined that the petitioner’s request would be contrary to the 

provisions set forth in § 61.113(c). In the scenario presented in the petition, the passenger or 

animal caretaker or owner, not the pilot, would dictate the choice of destination (i.e., 

transportation to a veterinary treatment facility/veterinary hospital or animal rescue facility). 

The sole purpose that a volunteer pilot would have in making the flight would be to provide 

transportation for the animal to seek veterinary treatment or transport away from a harmful or 

potentially lethal environment. Such operations may include the carriage of animal support 

passengers such as veterinarians or animal handlers. Reimbursement for the pro rata share of 

operating expenses for transporting animal cargo, and potentially passengers in support of the 

animal cargo, to a veterinary treatment facility or other animal rescue facility would constitute 

compensation and would be considered a commercial operation for which a part 119 

operator’s certificate would be required. 
4

On May 27, 2005, Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, 

issued a legal interpretation to Joseph A. Kirwan which determined that charitable human 

medical flights that involve point-to-point transportation for which any kind of compensation 

is received would be considered a commercial operation. In a November 19, 2008, legal 

interpretation to Peter Bunce, the FAA stated, in essence, that the only allowable sharing of 

costs of operating expenses are those which are bona fide (i.e., “joint ventures for a common 

purpose”). The FAA concluded that there is no “common purpose” if the volunteer pilot is 

only flying to a destination for the purpose of providing transportation services for the 

patient/passenger to receive medical treatment at a medical facility/hospital. 

Nevertheless, the FAA has found that the humanitarian efforts of these pilots who 

volunteer their time and piloting services are commendable and has, therefore, allowed some 

very limited exceptions to § 61.113(c) to permit the transport of humans in need of medical 

care by private pilots without requiring a pro rata distribution of expenses See Exemption 

No. 10019 (March 10, 2010)(Wings of Mercy); Exemption No. 10009 (February 26, 2010) 

(Mercy Medical Airlift). However, these exemptions have been limited to situations in which 

human life and health have been the primary considerations. Although providing similar 

assistance to animals may be a good cause, we find it is not sufficiently in the public interest 

to justify exempting such operations from the regulations. We note that, although the FAA is 

denying this petition, HelpFourPaws’ volunteer pilots may continue to conduct these 

operations without reimbursement for expenses. 

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 HelpFourPaws, Inc., for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 61.113(c) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 11, 2011. 

/s/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service .