U.S. Deportment of T r ansportation Federal Aviation Administration April 7, 2014

Ms. Patricia C
. Hooke Parent ofGregory F. Hooke 7504 Maple Avenue Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Dear Ms
. Hooke: Exemption No
. 10976 800 I ndependence Ave. S
.W
. Was hi ngton. p.c 20591

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0151

This letter is to infonn you that we have granted your request for exemption. 

### It transmits our decision, explains its basis , and gives you the conditions and limitations ofthe exemption, including the date it ends. 

### The Basis for Our Decision By letter dated March 3, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalfof Gregory F. Hooke for an exemption from§ 121.3ll(b) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, ifgranted, would allow Gregory to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use ofthat child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft. In Gregory's case, although he is currently 15 years old, he will be over 18 years old before this exemption terminates, therefore an exemption must also be granted from the requirement in§ 121.311(b), that the individual be a "child". However, the reasons for requesting this exemption do not differ materially from those presented by other petitioners and the reasons stated by the FAA for granting other exemptions also apply to the situation you present. The FAA has determined t hat good cause exists for not publishing a summary ofthe 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 Gregory
.
AFS-14

- 182-E2 T he FAA has issued grants ofexemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grants ofExemption Nos. 7831 and 8264 (copies enclosed), the FAA found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems. The use ofthese restraint systems addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner ofoperations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the petition would not set any new precedents regarding the use ofrestraint systems by persons with disabilities. Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

- • they are similar in all material respects to reliefpreviously requested in the enclosed Grant ofExemption Nos. 7831 and 8264; • the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant ofExemption Nos. 7831 and 8264 also apply to the situation you present; and • a grant ofexemption is in the public interest. 

### Our Decision Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Gregory F. Hooke an exemption from § 121.311(b). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Gregory is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

### § 121.3 11 

### (b) to the extent necessary to allow him to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA

-approved CRS during use aboard a U.S. aircraft. All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Gregory's parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Gregory F
. Hooke may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Gregory's parent or caregiver must carry a copy ofthis exempt ion and advise the air carrier about the contents ofthe exemption at least 48 hours before the date ofeach flight. This exemption terminates on April30, 2019, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. Sincerely,

John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director. Flight Standards Service Enclosures