**Request to Use CARES Child Restraint System for Larger/Older Persons**

I am writing to request an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent required for Emily Wells to be able to use an FAA Approved Chil d Restraint Sy stem even though she exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. In addition, if m y petition is granted, I request that an y air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Emily Wells is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)( B) to the extent necessary to allow Emily

Wells to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA

- approved child restraint system during use of that child restraint s ys tem aboard an aircraft. I believe the pertinent section from 14 CFR part 121 from which we seek relief is Section 121.311 Seats, safet y belts, and shoulder harnesses. My daughter is 17 y ears old, weighs 60 pounds, and is 54 inches tall. My daughter ’s ph ys ical condition is as follows. She has Rett Sy ndrome and uses a wheelchair . As a result of h er phy sical condition, she needs the support and securit y provided by an FAA Approved C hild Restraint, but because of her weight is incapable of compliance with the regulation. **I am also submitting the following contact information:**  **Gary & Judy Wells , 127**  **NW 21 st**  **St., McMinnville, OR 97128 and gj_wells@comcast.net.**  I understand that the regulation is written to create a high level of safet y for each individual passenger b y ensuring that they are securel y 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 b y being thrown into them during turbulent or emergency conditions. I propose that Emily

Wells be allowed to occup y an FAA Approved Child Restrai nt (CARES, manufactured by

AmSafe, Inc.), even though she exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits. This ensures a high level of safety for Emil y and a high level of safety for the other passengers and cre w on the airplane. In fact, in Emily ’s case, safety is greatly enhanced by

the extra support and securit y that the FAA Approved Restraint System will provide during the entire flight. Enhancing safety

for Emily 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 Sy stem allows Emily to use commercial air transportation. Without the support and security of the FAA Approved Child Restraint Sy stem, she would be unable to fl y commerciall y. I also believe that, with certain limit ations established by the FAA in a grant to this petition, there can be an equivalent level of safet y 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 co mponents of the CARES restraint are the same as those used in restraints for adults on aircraft and would maintain their integrit y if used b y someone who weighed several hundred pounds. I believe that the limit of 44 pounds was established because, with th e 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 wouldmean 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 safet y as that provided by the affected regulation, I propose that the FAA establish a limitation in a grant to this petition that Emily onl y sits in a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. Therefore, no unsafe condition would exist for a passenger seated behind Emily while she is using the CARES restraint. Ialso propose that all operations under this exemption be conducted with at least one of Emily’s parents or a caregiver accompan yi ng him or he r. In addition, I propose that Emily ’s parent or caregiver must carry a cop y of this exemption.

I also request that the processing of this petition not be delay ed for publication and comment in the Federal Register. We want t o travel in February 2014 . 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 Approv ed Child Restraint Sy stem on an aircraft, even though the child exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. Due to phy sical challenges, without the support and securit y of this FAA Approved Child Restraint Sy stem, this child would be unable to fl y. 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 safet y of this child is greatl y enhanced by the extra suppor t and securit y that the FAA Approved Res traint S ys tem will provide for her during the flight. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Judy D Wells
127 NW 21 st Street McMinnville, OR 97128 jwells@linfield.edu December 23, 2013