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

allow Breasia Barton to occupy a Child Restraint System (CRS) that is not certified for 

use in aircraft during all phases of flight, including movement on the surface, takeoff and 

landing. In addition, if my petition is granted, I request that any air carrier operating 

under part 121 while Breasia Barton is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 

14 CFR § 121.311(b) and 121.311(c) to the extent necessary to allow Breasia Barton to 

occupy a CRS that is not certified for use in aircraft during all phases of flight, including 

movement on the surface, takeoff and landing

Breasia Barton is six year’s old, weighs fifty-four pounds, and is 48 inches tall.

Breasia’s physical condition is as follows. She has Chronic Lung Disease, a seizure 

disorder, and has cerebral palsy. She also has limited to no trunk control, so she is unable 

to sit upright without assistance. 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: Marchella Denise Muller & Brittany Barton (1505 

Garden Plaza, Apt. N5; Columbia, SC 29204) and email is bhyland@sc.wish.org.

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 Breasia Barton be allowed to occupy a Britax Traveler Plus CRS. Although 

the Britax Traveler Plus isn't certified for use on aircraft, it meets Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213 for use of child restraint systems in motor vehicles. The 

Traveler Plus is manufactured by Britax, a car seat manufacturer. It is specifically 

designed to safely support and transport a child.

The Traveler Plus will be securely strapped in the passenger seat of the aircraft using the 

existing lap belt of the aircraft. The lap belt's original functionality will be used as the 

primary means of occupant restraint. The Traveler Plus will be placed in the window seat 

such that it will not restrict access to or use of any required emergency or regular exit, or 

of the aisle in the passenger cabin. The Traveler Plus will also not obstruct any 

passenger’s view of the “fasten seat belt” sign, “no smoking” sign or any required exit 

sign. 

This ensures a high level of safety for Breasia Barton and a high level of safety for the 

other passengers and crew on the airplane. In fact, in Breasia’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 Breasia Barton 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 this Child Restraint System, she would be unable to fly commercially.

I also propose that all operations under this exemption be conducted with at least one of 

Brittany Barton’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him or her. In addition, I propose 

that Breasia’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 July 22-26, 2013. 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.

I believe that the FAA issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all 

material respects to those presented in my petition. In Grant of Exemption 8264, the 

FAA found that it would be in the public interest and would provide a level of safety

equivalent to that provided under the regulation.

The FAA also found that numerous persons, afflicted by disabilities similar to Breasia 

Barton, such as the person described in Grant of Exemption No. 8264, have previously 

completed flights using CRS that have not been certified for use on aircraft.

I believe that my reasons for requesting an exemption do not differ materially from those 

presented by the petitioner in Grant of Exemption 8264. In addition, I believe that the 

reasons stated by the FAA for granting that exemption also apply to the situation I

present.

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 to allow a 

child to occupy a CRS that is not certified for use in aircraft during all phases of flight, 

including movement on the surface, takeoff and landing. Due to physical challenges, 

without the support and security of this Child Restraint System, this child would be 

unable to fly. Additionally, we request that any air carrier operating under part 121 would 

be granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) and 121.311(c)(2)(iv) to 

the extent necessary to allow this child to occupy a CRS that is not certified for use in 

aircraft during all phases of flight, including movement on the surface, takeoff and 

landing. In this case, the safety of this child is greatly enhanced by the extra support and

security that this Child Restraint System will provide during the flight.