AFS-11-435-E 

September 23, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10365 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0936 

Ms. Penny Mancini 

15219 Wilds Parkway, NW. 

Prior Lake, MN 55372 

Dear Ms. Mancini: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter received August 22, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Chase Mancini for an exemption from § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Mr. Mancini 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 an aircraft. 

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 Chase Mancini. 

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. 10056 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that the petitioner also required relief from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). This states, in part, 

“The child must be properly secured in the restraint system and must not exceed the specific 

weight limit for the restraint system.” The FAA recognized that compliance with this specific 

requirement was the responsibility of the certificate holder, not the individual. However, in 

that unique situation, the FAA believed that the public interest was not served by requiring 
2 

the petitioner to ask air carriers to petition the FAA on his/her behalf every time the petitioner 

wished to travel on a commercial air carrier. 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 are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 10056; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 10056 

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 Chase Mancini an exemption from 

14 CFR § 121.311(b) and 14 CFR § 135.128 (a) to the extent required for Chase Mancini to 

be able to use an FAA-approved CRS even though he exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. 

In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 or part 135 while 

Chase Mancini is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

§ 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) and 14 CFR § 135.128(a)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow 

Chase Mancini to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved CRS during use of 

that CRS aboard an aircraft. 

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Chase Mancini’s 

parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Chase Mancini may only occupy a passenger seat 

with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Chase Mancini’s parent or caregiver must 

carry a copy of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure