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

extent required for Mahi Parmar to be able to use an FAA Approved Child 

Restraint System even though she 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 Mahi Parmar is 

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 

121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Mahi Parmar 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 daughter is ___6__ year’s old, weighs __13 kg___ pounds, and is 3 

foot and 6_inches tall. My daughter’s physical condition is as follows 

(Insert a description of physical challenges). As a result of herphysical 

condition, she needs the support and security provided by an FAA 

Approved Child Restraint, but because of her weight is incapable of 

compliance with the regulation. I am also submitting the following 

contact information: Amandeep Parmar 63 Doubleday drive Winnipeg 

MB R2P0P3.Email: amandeepparmar76@gmail.com. 204-633-8579, 

204-899-1250.

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 Mahi Parmar be allowed to occupy an FAA Approved Child 

Restraint (CARES, manufactured by AmSafe, Inc.), even though she

exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits. This ensures a high level of 

safety for Mahi and a high level of safety for the other passengers and 

crew on the airplane. In fact, in Mahi ’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 (name) 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 her to use commercial air transportation. Without 

the support and security of the FAA Approved Child Restraint System, she

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 (Mahi) only sits in a passenger seat with no passenger 

seated behind her. Therefore, no unsafe condition would exist for a 

passenger seated behind (Mahi) while she is using the CARES restraint. I 

also propose that all operations under this exemption be conducted with at 

least one of Amadeep Parmar and Satwant Parmar parents or a caregiver 

accompanying him or her. In addition, I propose that Amandeep parmar

parent or 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 (End 

of August or first week of Sept. 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 she 

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 herduring the 

flight. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Best Regards 

Amandeep Parmar 

63 Doubleday drive, Winnipeg 

Manitoba ,R2P0P3 

204-6338579,204-8991250