John Mullins

620 S. Scoville Ave.

Oak Park, IL 60304

708-267-8456

To whom it may concern at the FAA,

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

Mullins 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 Molly is aboard its aircraft is granted an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Molly 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, Molly Mullins is 16 year’s old, weighs 82 pounds, and is 58 inches tall. Molly’s 

physical condition is as follows: Cerebral Palsy with low muscle tone. As a result of her

physical 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: John Mullins, 620 S. Scoville Ave., Oak Park, IL 

60304. I can be reached via email at john@ejmco.com.

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

crew on the airplane. In fact, in Molly’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 Molly 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 Molly 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 Molly only sits in a 

passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. Therefore, no unsafe condition would exist 

for a passenger seated behind Molly while she is using the CARES restraint. I also propose that 

all operations under this exemption be conducted with at least one of Molly's parents or a 

caregiver accompanying him or her. In addition, I propose that Molly's 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 April 28 - May 1, 2016. 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 her during the flight.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

John Mullins