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

allow **Breasia Barton** to occup y a Child Restraint Sy stem (CRS) that is not certified for use in aircraft during all phases of flight, including movement on the surface, take off 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 fro m 14 CFR § 121.311(b) and 121.311(c) to the extent necessary to all ow **Breasia Barton** to occup y a CRS that is not certified for use in aircraft during all phases of flight, including movement on the surface, take off and landing
**Breasia Barton** is six ye ar’s old, weighs fift y - four pounds, and is 48 inches tall
**. Breasia**  ’s phy sical 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** phy sical condition, **she** needs the sup port and securit y 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 b y 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 b y being thrown into them during turbulent or emergency

conditions.
I propose that Breasia Barton be allowed to occupy a Britax Traveler Plus CRS

. Al though the Britax Traveler Plus isn't certified for use on aircraft, it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety S tandard (FMVSS) 213 for use of child restraint sy stems in motor vehicles. T he Traveler Plus is manufactured by B ritax, a car seat manufacturer. It is specificall y designed to safel y support and transport a child.
The Traveler Plus will be securel y 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 prim ary 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 obstru ct any passenger’s view of the “fasten seat belt” sign, “no smoking” sign or an y 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 b y 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 RestraintSy stem allows her to use commercial air transportation. Without the support and security

of this Child Restraint Sy stem, she would be unable to fly commerciall y. I also propose that all operat ions under this exemption be conducted with at least one of Brittan y Barton’s parents or a caregiver accompanyinghim 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 m y 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 previousl y completed flights using CRS that have not been certified for use on aircraft.
I believe that m y reasons for requesting an exemption do not differ materially from those presented b y the petitioner in Grant of Exemption 8264. In addition, Ibelieve that the reasons stated b y 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 occup y a CRS that is not certified for use in aircraft during all phases of flight, including movement on the surface, takeo ff and landing . Due to ph ys ical challenges, without the support and security of this Child Restraint Sy stem, this child would be unable to fl y. Additionally, we request that an y 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 a ircraft during all phases of flight, including movement on the surface, takeo ff and landin g . In this case, the safet y of this child is greatly enhanced b y the extra support and securit y that this Child Restraint Sy stem will provide during the flight.