AFS-09-095-E 

 Exemption No. 9834 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

AVERY OTTENBREIT Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1346

 

for an exemption from § 121.311(b) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter posted December 19, 2008, Mr. Randall Joseph Ottenbreit, parent of Ms. Avery 

Ottenbreit, 33 Martin Street, Regina, SK, Canada S4S 3W4, petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Ms. Ottenbreit for an exemption from § 121.311(b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would 

allow Ms. Ottenbreit to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint 

system during use of that child restraint system aboard an aircraft. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 121.311(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each child aboard an aircraft 

operated under part 121 must occupy an approved seat with a separate safety belt 

secured about him or her, and must not exceed the specified weight limit for the 

restraint system.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that Ms. Ottenbreit’s physical condition is as follows: Ms. Ottenbreit has 

cerebral palsy. She is 15 years old and is 4 feet 11 inches and weighs 73 pounds. She is 

designated as a spastic quadriplegic. She does not have control of her trunk and requires 

strapping to hold her in an upright position. Moreover, she does not walk and is unable to sit 

without proper supports. She uses a power wheelchair for mobility that is equipped with 

lateral supports and a chest harness. 
2

The petitioner further states that as a result of her physical condition, she needs the support 

and security provided by an FAA-approved child restraint; however, because of her weight, 

she is incapable of compliance with the regulation. 

The petitioner also states that he understands 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 ensures that an individual does not cause 

harm to other passengers on the airplane by being thrown into them during turbulent or 

emergency conditions. 

The petitioner proposes that Ms. Ottenbreit be allowed to occupy an FAA-approved child 

restraint, specifically the CAReS child restraint system which is manufactured by AmSafe 

Corporation, even though she slightly exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits. The 

petitioner states that this ensures a high level of safety for Ms. Ottenbreit and a high level of 

safety for the other passengers and crew on the airplane. In fact, in Ms. Ottenbreit’s case, 

safety is greatly enhanced by the extra support and security that the FAA-approved child 

restraint system will provide for her during the entire flight. 

Additionally, the petitioner states that enhancing safety for Ms. Ottenbreit is in the public 

interest. Furthermore, the public interest is also served by the fact that the use of this FAAapproved 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. 

The petitioner also states 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. 

The petitioner states 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 head injury criteria (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 addition, the petitioner states that in order to achieve an equivalent level of safety as that 

provided by the affected regulation, the petitioner proposes that the FAA establish a limitation 

in a grant to this petition that Ms. Ottenbreit only sits in a passenger seat with no passenger 

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

Ms. Ottenbreit while she is using the CAReS restraint. 
3

The petitioner also requests that the processing of this petition not be delayed for publication 

and comment in the Federal Register. The petitioner believes that if the FAA takes the time to 

put the petition in the Federal Register, Ms. Ottenbreit may not be able to travel with her

family during a trip planned for early 2009. 

 The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Ms. Avery Ottenbreit. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner's supporting information and finds that a grant of 

exemption is in the public interest and would provide a level of safety equivalent to that 

provided under the regulation. 

The FAA finds that numerous people with physical challenges, such as those people described 

in Grants of Exemption No. 7831 and 8264, have previously completed flights 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 finds that this 

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities. 

At all times during previous operations conducted under similar exemptions, a caregiver 

accompanied the individual. Similarly, Ms. Ottenbreit will, at all times, be accompanied by 

one of her parents. Therefore, the FAA finds that because Ms. Ottenbreit will be accompanied 

by one of her parents, at all times, she will have adequate assistance should an aircraft 

evacuation become necessary. 

Additionally, the FAA agrees with the petitioner 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 to 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. 

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. 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). 

Therefore, the FAA finds that an equivalent level of safety as that provided by the affected 

regulation can be established with a limitation in this grant of exemption that Ms. Ottenbreit 
4

only sits in a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. With this limitation, no 

unsafe condition would exist for a passenger seated behind Ms. Ottenbreit while she is using 

the CAReS restraint. 

Furthermore, the FAA considers the petitioner's situation unique because Ms. Ottenbreit has 

cerebral palsy. She is 15 years old and is 4 feet 11 inches and weighs 73 pounds. She is 

designated as a spastic quadriplegic. She does not have control of her trunk and requires 

strapping to hold her in an upright position. She does not walk and is unable to sit without 

proper supports. She uses a power wheelchair for mobility that is equipped with lateral 

supports and a chest harness. As a result of her physical challenges, Ms. Ottenbreit is 

physically incapable of literal compliance with the affected section. 

The FAA also finds that enhancing safety for Ms. Ottenbreit is in the public interest. The 

public interest is also served by the fact that the use of this FAA-approved child restraint 

system allows Ms. Ottenbreit to use commercial air transportation. Without the support and 

security of the FAA-approved child restraint system, she would be unable to fly commercially. 

Therefore, the FAA finds that for the reasons presented by the petitioner, the proposed 

exemption would be in the public interest. 

The technical analysis and limitations in this grant have been coordinated with: 

Team Coordinator, Biodynamics Research Team 

Protection and Survival Laboratory, AAM-630 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

(405) 954-7529 

The FAA notes that the pertinent regulatory requirement within 14 CFR § 121.311(b) is 

§ 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 recognizes that compliance with this specific requirement is the responsibility of the 

certificate holder, not the individual. However, in this unique situation, the FAA believes that 

the public interest is not served by requiring Ms. Ottenbreit to ask air carriers to petition the 

FAA on her behalf every time she and her family wish to travel on a commercial air carrier. 

The FAA also finds it is appropriate to issue an exemption to this regulatory requirement to 

the individual, which includes a grant of exemption to any air carrier or commercial operator 

operating under part 121 while Ms. Ottenbreit is aboard their aircraft, to allow her to exceed 

the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system during use of that child 

restraint system aboard an aircraft. 
5

The FAA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701 delegated to 

me by the Administrator, Ms. Avery Ottenbreit is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

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

part 121 while Ms. Ottenbreit is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

§ 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Ms. Ottenbreit to exceed the specified 

weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system during use of that child restraint 

system aboard an aircraft. 

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Ms. Ottenbreit’s 

parents or a caregiver accompanying her. Ms. Ottenbreit may only occupy a passenger seat 

with no passenger seated behind her. In addition, Ms. Ottenbreit'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 March 31, 2011, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 12, 2009. 

/s/ 

Chester D. Dalbey 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service