AFS-12-198-E 

February 10, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10448 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0116 

Ms. Cori Raddigan 

Parent of Riley Raddigan 

12403 Lummus Lane 

Quantico, VA 22134 

Dear Ms. Raddigan: 

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

decision, explains its basis, and the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the 

date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter received January 30, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Riley Raddigan for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Mr. 

Raddigan 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 U.S. aircraft. In Mr. Raddigan’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 Mr. Raddigan. 

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 FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges, such as those people described in 

Grants of Exemption No. 7831 and 8264 (copies enclosed), had previously completed flights 
2 

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 that 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 

of exemption; 

 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 Mr. Riley Raddigan an exemption from 

§ 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under 

part 121 while Mr. Raddigan is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 

 § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Mr. Raddigan 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 Mr. Raddigan’s 

parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Mr. Raddigan may only occupy a passenger seat 

with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Mr. Raddigan’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 February 28, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure