February 8, 2015

Federal Aviation Authority

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to request an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent required for my 

son, Richard Gabriel Arceo, to be able to use an FAA Approved Child Restraint System even 

though he exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. In addition, if my petition is granted, I request 

that any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Richard is aboard its 

aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to 

allow Richard to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system 

during use of that child restraint system aboard an aircraft.

I believe the pertinent section from 14 CFR part 121 from which we seek relief is Section 

121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses.

My son is 10 year’s old, weighs 95 pounds, and is 46 inches tall. My son, Richard has autism, 

which is a developmental disability, with sensory and auditory processing challenges. As a 

result of his condition, he needs the support and security provided by an FAA Approved Child 

Restraint, but because of his weight is incapable of compliance with the regulation. I am also

submitting the following contact information: Ronald Arceo, 9670 Franklin Ave. Unit 607

Franklin Park , IL 60131 and 888equalizer1961@gmail.com. I understand that the regulation 

is written to create a high level of safety for each individual passenger by ensuring that they are 

securely restrained in their seats during all phases of flight. The regulation also ensures that an 

individual does not cause harm to other passengers on the airplane by being thrown into them 

during turbulent or emergency conditions.

I propose that Richard be allowed to occupy an FAA Approved Child Restraint (CARES, 

manufactured by AmSafe, Inc.), even though he exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits. This 

ensures a high level of safety for Richard and a high level of safety for the other passengers and 

crew on the airplane. In fact, in Richard’s case, safety is greatly enhanced by the extra support 

and security that the FAA Approved Restraint System will provide during the entire flight.

Enhancing safety for is in the public interest. In addition, the public interest is also served by the 

fact that the use of this FAA Approved Child Restraint System allows him to use commercial air 

transportation. Without the support and security of the FAA Approved Child Restraint System, 

he would be unable to fly commercially.

I also believe that, with certain limitations established by the FAA in a grant to this petition, 

there can be an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the affected regulation. The CARES 

restraint has been certified by the manufacturer for use by children 22- 44 pounds. However, the 

components of the CARES restraint are the same as those used in restraints for adults on aircraft 

and would maintain their integrity if used by someone who weighed several hundred pounds.
I believe that the limit of 44 pounds was established because, with the additional weight of the 

child attached to the seatback, the seatback would move forward more quickly in an accident 

scenario and this might cause a higher HIC load for the person seated in the seat behind the 

passenger using the CARES restraint (because the seatback moving forward more quickly would 

mean that it would not be there to attenuate the energy from the impact of the person seated 

behind the person using the CARES restraint).

In order to achieve an equivalent level of safety as that provided by the affected regulation, I 

propose that the FAA establish a limitation in a grant to this petition that Richard Arceo only sits 

in a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. Therefore, no unsafe condition would 

exist for a passenger seated behind Richard while he is using the CARES restraint. I also propose 

that all operations under this exemption be conducted with at least one of us, Richard’s parents 

or a caregiver accompanying him or her. In addition, I propose that my husband and I, as 

Richard’s parents or a caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption.

I also request that the processing of this petition not be delayed for publication and comment in 

the Federal Register. We want to travel by February 25, 2015. If you take the time to put this in 

the Federal Register, it will delay the process and we may not be able to travel in this timeframe.

If it is necessary to put a summary in the Federal Register, I submit the following:

This is a request for an exemption from FAR 121.311 (b) to the extent required for a child to use 

an FAA Approved Child Restraint System on an aircraft, even though the child exceeds the 

weight limits for the CRS. Due to physical challenges, without the support and security of this 

FAA Approved Child Restraint System, this child would be unable to fly. We request that this 

child be allowed to occupy an FAA Approved Child Restraint (CARES, manufactured by 

AmSafe, Inc.), even though he exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits of 44 pounds. In this 

case, the safety of this child is greatly enhanced by the extra support and security that the FAA 

Approved Restraint System will provide for him during the flight.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Melanie Arceo

Contact No 312-257-4434