AFS-12-507-E September 13, 2012

Exemption No. 10628 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0898

Ms. Kari Gracie Parent of Matthew Pepe 181 Park Avenue, Suite 12 West Springfield, MA 01089

Dear Ms. Gracie:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received August 20, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Matthew Pepe for an ex emption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Matthew Pepe to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CARES, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft . In Matthew Pepe’s case, only his height exceeds manufacturer’s limits, but reasons for requesting this exemption do not differ materially from those presented by the other petitioners and the reasons stated by the FAA for granting other exemptions also apply to the situation you present.

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 and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Matthew Pepe.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA2

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Matthew Pepe exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Matthew Pepe is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Matthew Pepe to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved CRS during use of that CRS aboard a U.S.

aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Matthew Pepe parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Matthew Pepe may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Matthew Pepe’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure