### February 2, 2012

SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY TO: Federal Docket Management System, www.regulations.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building, Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590

- 0001

RE: Landmark FBO, LLC (Landmark Aviation) Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329 (b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to 14 CFR part 11 1 

### , Landmark FBO, LLC (Landmark Aviation or alternatively

, Landmark 2 

### ) hereby petitions for an exemption from §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293 (a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347 to allow Landmark’s wholly

owned subsidiary, Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC 3 

### (PHA) to receive credit for aircraft

specific training, testing and checking received by pilots while employed by Landmark Aviation Waukegan, LLC (LAW) 4 

### , another operating unit of Landmark Aviation.

The requested relief includes aircraft

- specific 5 

### initial new hire ground and flight training, written and oral tests, competency checks and pilot

- in

- command instrument proficiency checks. If gra nted, the exemption would eliminate the need for PHA to conduct these activities for the LAW pilots who meet the conditions described herein.

Pertinent Regulations

This petition requests relief from the following training, testing and checking sections of part 135. All sections are specific to the aircraft type being operated by the pilot:

1 All citations are to 14 CFR unless otherwise noted.

2 Landmark Aviation is a registered trademark of Landmark FBO, LLC. Landmark Aviation is used by Landmark FBO, LLC’s subsidiaries and to describe all aviation business interests owned by Landmark FBO, LLC and its subsidiaries including the two part 135 oper ators named above.

3 Certificate # 

### I5WA933J

4 Certificate # IEYA828T

5 All company

- specific training will be administered to the LAW pilots upon their transition to the PHA
certificate. This petition only requests relief from FAA regulations relating to th e aircraft

- specific training , testing and checking described above. 117 North Henry Street, Alexandria, VA 22314

– 2903 Telephone 703.299.0784 Fax 703.299.0254 www.potomac

- law.com

Marshall S. Filler Direct Dial

- 703.451.7393 Admitted in the District of Columbia and Virginia E

- Mail

- marshall.filler @potomac

- law.com

### U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations February 2 , 2012 Page 2

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b)

, 135.297 , 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

• Section 135.345(b) sets forth the requirements for initial ground training.

• Section 135.329(b) requires compliance with § 135.345 in its entirety.

• Section 135.347 co ntains, in pertinent part, initial flight training requirements.

• Section 135.293(a)(2) and (3) describe initial pilot testing (i.e., oral or written) requirements.

• Section 135.293(b) requires a competency check.

• Section 135.297 requires a pilot in command instrument proficiency check every six

months.

Background

a. Aircraft types new to PHA

In 2010 Landmark Aviation acquired a substantial portion of the assets of DB Aviation, Inc., a part 135 operator based in Waukegan, IL. Landmark placed these assets into its newly

created LAW unit which continues to operate as a separate part 135 air carrier from PHA.

As part of its internal reorganization Landmark is seeking to transition certain LAW aircraft and their associated flight crewmembers to the PHA certificate. 6 

### Specifically, this involves 21 aircraft and approximately 60 pilots. Eighteen of the 21 aircraft (and therefore most of these pilots) represent 12 aircraft types that are not being operated by PHA today.

Therefore, no aircraft

- specific training elements currently exist in PHA’s training program for these aircraft. This will require the FAA to approve new training curricula for PHA. The scope of that program and the associated testing and checking will depend on the FAA ’s disposition of this petition. In that regard, PHA intends to submit the same initial training curriculum currently approved by the FAA for new hire LAW pilots operating these aircraft types. If granted PHA would reference the exemption in its reduced in itial new hire program.

b. Use of part 142 training centers

Both LAW and PHA contract aircraft

- specific training, testing and checking elements to

FAA

- approved training centers 7 

### as authorized by §§ 135.291(b) and 135.294(b). The
operator

- approved programs for these aircraft types are based on the training centers’ programs which are also FAA

- approved. The same check airmen who conducted the most recent events for LAW would also be approved as check airmen for PHA when it begins operating these aircraft. If this petition is granted the next recurrent activity for these pilots (after they move to the PHA certificate) would be based on the date they were last accomplished for LAW.

6 Some aircraft and their pilots will continue operating on the LAW certificate.

7 FlightSafety International and CAE SimuFlight

### U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations February 2 , 2012 Page 3

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b)

, 135.297 , 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

c. Aircraft types common to both operators

The remaining three aircraft that would move to the PHA certificate consist of two types that have training programs approved on both certificates. As with the 12 new aircraft types discussed above, the two common training programs are based on the training center’s

FAA

- approved programs. Whil e Landmark recognizes that part 135 requires that a training and qualification program be approved for a particular operator, training center approved programs are seldom changed in a substantive way by the air carrier’s local office.

In any event, PHA w ill compare the two approved initial hire training programs to determine any differences. Once completed, PHA would submit its evaluation to the local office along with a proposed reduced initial new hire program for those pilots transitioning to the PHA

c ertificate. This program would be identical to PHA’s normal initial new hire program except

it would not include the aircraft

- specific portions for eligible LAW pilots.

FAA Policy

a. FAA letter of January 28, 2010

In a letter dated January 28, 2010 to Damon Danneker of Air Rutter International the FAA described the methodology to be used when a certificate holder desires that newly

- hired crewmembers receive credit for previous aircraft

- specific training received while they were employed by another c ertificate holder (Attachment 1, AFS

- 1 letter). The FAA stated that the practice of automatically taking credit for prior training was contrary to the intent of the regulations. However, the AFS

- 1 letter also described a protocol that could be used in whic h the acquiring certificate holder performs a differences analysis of the two company’s training programs. The letter acknowledged that under appropriate circumstances the pilots could receive credit for prior training. The FAA letter also stated the follo wing regarding the agency’s plans to issue guidance on the subject:

Additionally, the Air Carrier Training and 142 Training Center Branch of the Air Transportation Division, AFS·21 0, is currently developing guidance for inclusion in the appropriate portions of FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management Syst em, that will detail specific procedures and guidelines regarding the circumstances and conditions under which an operator may take credit for a portion of another operator's crewmember training. This guidance will provide instructions for the initial appr oval of training programs that include a provision to take credit for training previously conducted, as well as training being conducted by another operator/training center. We are also developing a notice that will require all principal operations inspect ors (POI) to review currently approved training programs. This review will require POls to evaluate existing programs to ensure

### U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations February 2 , 2012 Page 4

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b)

, 135.297 , 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

compliance with current policy and provide guidelines for the initial approval of training programs granting credit for training previously conducted by another operator/training center. This notice will include guidelines that detail the specific training modules and/or elements or events which are acceptable for granting training credit, and those that are not. The notice should be published by early February 2010, and the accompanying guidance to Order 8900.1 by early April 2010. (emphasis added)

Although the AFS

- 1 letter addressed training only, the rationale for allowing similar credit for previous tests and checks under these circumstances is equally compelling. The testing and checking events are directly linked to the approved training program and occur during the same crewmember visit to the part 142 training center. The authorized check airmen who

administer the aircraft

- s pecific tests and checks for the LAW pilots would also administer

them for PHA.

Providing relief from only the training requirements means that crewmembers must be sent back to the same approved training center for testing and checking. They

would be eval uated by the same approved check airmen even though they are already current and qualified under essentially the same aircraft

- specific training program that will be submitted for approval by PHA. In Landmark’s view, this does nothing to enhance safety whi le adding significant and unwarranted costs to the integration of these LAW aircraft and pilots into PHA’s operations.

b. Draft FAA Notice of December 13, 2011

On December 13, 2011 the FAA issued a draft notice 8 

### in which it acknowledged that a part

135 cert ificate holder may develop and submit for approval a reduced initial new hire training program for pilots who have previous experience as a crewmember in part 135 operations and/or a particular aircraft and duty position. The document provides that a

reduc ed curriculum would require detailed prerequisites to define the level of experience needed to enter a reduced new hire program. It further stated that while there are no minimum hour requirements for a reduced program, “ all the ... elements of the certifica te holder’s full initial training program must be accomplished as well as the qualification module because the regulations “do not permit the crediting of such training (with the exception of CRM and DRM training) ” (emphasis added).

Although the purpose of the notice was to clarify the scope of allowable practices it created confusion for the petitioner because it appears to be contrary to the AFS

- 1 letter in the following material respects: (1) the AFS

- 1 letter indicated that credit could be received

un der appropriate circumstances (ostensibly without an exemption), and (2) the AFS

- 1 letter

8 76 FR 80831, December 27, 2011 (Attachment 2)

### U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations February 2 , 2012 Page 5

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b)

, 135.297 , 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

did not require that any reduced training program address all of the requirements of the full initial new hire program as stated in the draft notice. In addition, nei ther the AFS

- 1 letter nor

the draft notice addressed the issue of aircraft

- specific tests and checks required by §§135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b) and 135.297.

Landmark is submitting this petition because the draft notice does not appear to allow what
the AFS

- 1 letter stated was acceptable; i.e., that under appropriate circumstances the acquiring carrier could take credit for a portion of the training received at the pilot’s previous employer after conducting a differences analysis of the two prog rams. Specifically, PHA seeks relief only for the complete aircraft

- specific portion of the training, testing and checking conducted under the conditions described below.

Communications with PHA’s Certificate

- Holding District Office

By letter dated June 16, 2011 , PHA’s Principal Operations Inspector (POI) requested the removal of certain provisions contained in PHA’s pilot training manual that allowed pilots employed by other companies to receive training and checking credit when they were hired by PHA under specific circumstances. Prior to the January 28, 2010 letter, these provisions were consistent with accepted industry practice and authorized by many FAA local offices.

Prior to the draft notice being issued the FSDO advised PHA informally that it could take credit for previous aircraft

- specific training provided it followed the policy set forth in the
AFS

- 1 letter. However, the FSDO interpreted the AFS

- 1 letter as being limited to training; therefore, it declined to apply it to aircraft

- specific testing and checking required by § 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b) and 135.297. Therefore, all current and qualified LAW pilots moving to the PHA certificate would require new tests and checks before they

could se rve as pilots for PHA on aircraft for which they are currently qualified. Practically, this means that these pilots would still have to be sent to the same part 142 training center

because the aircraft

- specific testing and checking activities occur at esse ntially the same time as the training.

Landmark has also learned that operators are being held to different standards from region to region. This results in some certificate holders gaining a significant competitive advantage over others.

Proposed Condi tions and Limitations

Landmark proposes that the exemption be limited to aircraft

- specific, initial new hire training, testing and checking under the following circumstances:

1. The Greensboro FSDO must approve amendments to PHA’s operations specificatio ns authorizing the LAW aircraft to be operated under PHA’s air carrier

### U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations February 2 , 2012 Page 6

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b)

, 135.297 , 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

certificate.

2. Only those pilots transitioning from the LAW to the PHA certificate would be covered by the exemption.

3. The following conditions would apply to LAW pilots who are current an d qualified in a type of aircraft not being operated by PHA on the date the exemption is granted.

a. The Greensboro FSDO must approve an initial new hire pilot training and qualification program that is substantially similar to LAW’s FAA

- approved

program. b. Th is program must specifically reference this exemption which would become part of the PHA approved program.

4. The following conditions apply to LAW pilots who are current and qualified on an aircraft type common to both certificates:

a. PHA must perform a differ ences analysis of the two carriers’ training

programs. b. Based on this analysis PHA would develop a reduced new

- hire training program for the transitioning pilots up to and including receiving full credit for the last training, testing and checking event con ducted under the LAW

certificate on that aircraft.

c. PHA would submit the differences analysis and its proposed training program to the FSDO for approval.

5. The same part 142 training center user by LAW for a specific aircraft type is contracted to perform the se activities for PHA.

6. The same LAW check airman who administered the crewmember’s most recent training, testing and checking events at the part 142 training center has also been designated as a PHA check airman for the same type aircraft.

Public Interest and Safety

Landmark submits that the circumstances described herein are highly unusual. The company recognizes that operator

- specific training programs may vary considerably. Therefore, all newly

- hired LAW pilots will satisfactorily complete those requirements in the normal manner before they would be eligible to fly for PHA. However, the same is not true

for aircraft

- specific training under the circumstances presented here. The two operators

have contracted with the s ame approved training centers, have obtained or will obtain FAA approval for essentially the same program and all of the required activities would be administered by the same check airmen. Therefore, granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety

.

It is clearly in the public interest not to impose significant additional costs on certificate holders unless required in the interests of safety. This is particularly true in a down economy where potential job creation is critically important to the na tion’s economic recovery. Although pilot training rules are an important component in ensuring the highest degree of

### U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations February 2 , 2012 Page 7

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b)

, 135.297 , 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

safety in air transportation the intent of those rules is satisfied under these circumstances. Each of the LAW pilots are trained, qualifie d and current on the same aircraft type they would operate for PHA. Moreover, each of those pilots will receive company

- specific training before they would be authorized to fly under the PHA certificate. Each of them will receive required recurrent trainin g and checking in the normal manner except for the fact that if the exemption is granted the due dates would be based on their most recent training center event while they were still employed by LAW.

LAW’s annual training budget is in excess of $1 million ; forcing PHA to repeat essentially the same events out of sequence (i.e., before they would be due if the pilot continued to fly for LAW). This would accelerate approximately $500,000 of these costs and adversely impact the company’s cash flow. Moreover, granting this relief would be consistent with the agency’s efforts to explore processes which realize efficiencies without creating additional

risk.

When adopting new regulations the FAA is required to compare the costs of a new rule against its benefits . Although not specifically required in the case of an exemption the same logic dictates that the FAA evaluate the high costs of complying with the rules in this instance against the level of safety than an exemption would provide.

For these reasons and i n accordance with § 11.81(e), granting the exemption would be in the public interest and would not adversely affect safety. It would also result in a level of safety at least equal to that required by the regulations from which the exemption is sought.

Go od Cause Exists to Issue the Exemption without Notice and Comment

Landmark requests that the FAA issue the exemption without publication for notice and comment in the Federal Register as is normally required.

Section 11.87 lists four factors that the age ncy considers in deciding whether a petitioner has shown good cause for the FAA not to delay action on the petition. Those factors are set

forth below in italics along with the company’s response in plain text:

(a) Whether granting the petition would set a precedent:

Petitioner is unaware whether previous exemptions were issued. However, a check of the FAA’s automated exemption data base revealed no exemptions relating to these sections were issued from 2000 to the present. Given the unique nature of

these circumstances petitioner submits that granting an exemption to Landmark would not likely have widespread applications in other situations where credit for pilot training is requested.

### U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations February 2 , 2012 Page 8

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b)

, 135.297 , 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

(b) Whether the relief requested is identical to exemptions previously gra nted : See response to previous question.

(c) Whether delaying action would adversely affect the petitioner :

Delaying action on the petition would prejudice Landmark and its two air carrier units. The companies have already been adversely affected due to confusion in the industry and the FAA about the extent to which a new operator may obtain credit for certain portions of a pilot’s prior training. Landmark’s acquisition of DB Aviation’s
assets occurred after the AFS

- 1 lette r was issued.

In that letter the FAA described the procedure it expected to be followed; it stated that such credit was not automatic and that a differences analysis of the two training programs was required. While it indicated that credit could be obtain ed under the appropriate circumstances, the letter was not clear in its application to testing and checking.

Although guidance was promised in early 2011, the draft notice was not issued until the end of 2011. Moreover, that notice is materially different from the AFS

- 1 document, particularly in its statement that any reduced new hire training program submitted for approval must address all the elements of the certificate holder’s normal approved program. Read literally, this means that an exemption is nec essary to provide the relief requested since PHA seeks total credit for prior aircraft specific training, testing and checking under the narrow circumstances described herein. Having to wait several more months for the notice and comment process would

furt her prejudice petitioner as it attempts to streamline the two carriers’ operations.

(d) Whether the petition was filed in a timely manner : The petition is timely filed.

In light of the above considerations Landmark submits that good cause exists not to dela y action on this request.

Summary of Exemption Request

In accordance with § 11.81(e), Landmark offers the following summary suitable for publication in the Federal Register in the event the FAA believes that good cause to waive publication has not been e stablished.

Landmark Aviation petitions the FAA for an exemption from §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293 (a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347 to allow Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC unit (PHA) to receive credit for

aircraft

- specific tr aining, testing and checking received by pilots while they

### U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations February 2 , 2012 Page 9

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b)

, 135.297 , 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

were employed by Landmark Aviation Waukegan, LLC(LAW).

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner requests that the FAA grant the requested relief. Please let me know if you have any questions or desire additional information.

Respectfully submitted,

Marshall S. Filler
Counsel for Landmark Aviation

Attachments

cc: Dan Jenkins, Manager, AFS

- 210 Robert Burke, AFS

- 210 James Verre, Manager, GSO FSDO Wayne Vohs, POI

# Attachment 1

### i Background, Terminology, and Policies of Contract Training Version: 1.0 Version Date: 01/03/2011



## AFS-OOl LETTER 

## HO-03-BTPC

U,S, Department
of Transportation

Federal Aviation AdmInistration



### JAN 28 2010

Mr. Damon Danneker
Chief Pilot
Air Rutter International
4310 Donald Douglas Drive, Suite 202 Long Beach, CA 90808

Dear Mr. Danneker:

This is in response to your letter dated September 29, 2009, regarding your appeal of the

response from the Western-Pacific Flight Standards regional division manager denying your submission of a training program revision for Air Rutter International (ARI).

At my request, the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, conducted a thorough evaluation

of your request and associated information as well as the responses provided by both Inspector Lackey and 

### Mr. R. Kemp. Our findings support their conclusions concerning the applicability (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) offlight crewmember training conducted by or on behalf of another air carrier and its creditability toward meeting the regulatory requirements of ARI. With the exception of the reference to canceled Air Transportation

Handbook BUlletin (HBAT) 99-12, we believe the references cited in 

### Mr. Kemp's July 9, 2009, letter to you are appropriate and correctly address the specific issues of one air carrier accepting the training conducted on behalf of another air carrier as meeting the regulatory requirements of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 135 Subpart H. With

. specific reference to expired HBAT 99-12, the information contained in this expired bulletin
is no longer applicable. References to the expired HBAT, cited in the previous Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) responses; do not invalidate the, basis of the technical

decision regarding program requirements.

Although promoted by some training organizations. the practice of one air carrier accepting

the crewmembern:aining provided by another air carrier as meeting its specific crewniember training requirements is generally contrary to the intent as well as the technical provisions of

14 CFR parts 121 and 135. Under certain controlled conditions we do, however, believe

that some training, specifically systems training. which is designed for a specific aircraft
type. model, and configuration, may be creditable. This may occur provided the subject training mirrors the accepting operator's approved training program and does not include
operator specific duties or responsibilities. For one operator to accept the training conducted

under another operator's approved curriculum, without first conducting a detailed side-byside comparison designed to identifY the differences between the curriculums. is not consistent With sound operating practices. Parts 121 and 135 clearly outline the training

program requirements,courseware, training devices, simulators, facilities, etc., that each
operator must include in its approved training program. These requirements are dependent

on an operator's equipage, operating envirorunent, complexity of the specific aircraft,

21000072, Authorization and Surveillan<:e of Contract Training for Operators HO/PE
FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY Page 11 of 14Background, Terminology, and Policies of Contract Training Version: 1.0 Version Date: 01/0312011



# ­

2

complexity of the type of operation, the experience and knowledge level of the students, and efficiency and sophistication of the operator's entire training program (including items such

as instructor proficiency, training aids, facilities, courseware, and the operator's experience

with the aircraft). For one operator to assume that another operator's training program

meets these operator specific requirements, without a detailed comparison, again is not
consistent with applicable regulations, operational control requirements, or the provisions of

the operator's operating certificate.

We agree with your contention that some training centers have been distributing 14 CFR
part 135 training programs that are not consistent with current FAA regulations or policy.

We have raised this issue with the appropriate training center management officials as well

as associated FAA officials. Additionally, the Air Carrier Training and 142 Training Center

Branch of the Air Transportation Division, AFS·21 0, is currently developing guidance for

inclusion in the appropriate portions of FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Infonnation Management System, that will detail specific procedures and guidelines regarding the

circumstances and conditions under which an operator may take credit for a portion of

another operator's crewmember training. This guidance will provide instructions for the

initial approval of training programs that include a provision to take credit for training previously conducted, as well as training being conducted by another operator/training

center. Weare also developing a notice that will require all principal operations inspectors (POI) to review currently approved training programs. This review will require POls to
evaluate existing programs to ensure compliance with current policy and provide guidelines

for the initial approval of training programs granting credit for training previously conducted by another operator/training center. This notice will include guidelines that detail the specific training modules andlor elements or events which are acceptable for granting training credit, and those that are not. The notice should be published by early February 2010, and the accompanying guidance to Order 8900.1 by early April 2010.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to respond 

### to your concerns and .trust that this
letter fully explains current and future FAA actions concerning the transfer of training credit

between operators.

If you accept this decision, please notify Fred Stein, AFS·40, either by telephone «202) 385-4517) or by**e~mail** (fred.stein@faa.gov) and he will close this Consistency and Standardization Initiative (CSI) action. If you want a review at the

next level with the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, A VS-l, you must
notifY Mr. Stein within 30 calendar days of receipt of the service director's decision.

Ifwe do not hear from you within 30 calendar days, we will consider this CSI

closed.

Sincerely,



# 9 L

.c Pf 

# cr-­

fW

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service

Contract Training for Operators

fOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY Page 12 of 14

# Attachment 2

### 80831 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules

above the specified trim speed. This must be shown at any speed that can be obtained, except that speeds requiring a control force in excess of 40 pounds or speeds above the maximum allowable speed or below the minimum speed for steady unstalled flight need not be
considered.

(b) The stick force or position must vary with speed so that any substantial speed change results in a stick force or position clearly perceptible to the pilot.

C. In place of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.175, Demonstration of static longitudinal stability requirement, comply with the following:

SC23.175 Demonstration of static longitudinal stability:

(a) Climb. The stick force curve must have, at a minimum, a neutrally stable to stable slope at speeds between 85 and 115 percent of the trim speed, with—

(1) Maximum continuous power; and (2) The airplane trimmed at the speed used in determining the climb performance required by section 23.69(a).

(b) Cruise. With the airplane in trim with power for level flight at representative cruising speeds at high and low altitudes, including speeds up

to V NO , except that the speed need not
exceed V H —

(1) The stick force curve must, at a minimum, have a neutrally stable to stable slope at all speeds within a range that is the greater of 15 percent of the trim speed plus the resulting free return speed range, or 40 knots plus the resulting free return speed range, above and below the trim speed, except that the slope need not be stable—

(i) At speeds less than 1.3 V S1 ; or (ii) For airplanes with V NE established under section 23.1505(a), at speeds greater than V NE
.

(c) Landing. The stick force curve must, at a minimum, have a neutrally stable to stable slope at speeds between

1.1 V S1 and 1.8 V S1 with—

(1) Landing gear extended; and (2) The airplane trimmed at— (i) V REF , or the minimum trim speed if higher, with power off; and

(ii) V REF with enough power to maintain a 3 degree angle of descent.

D. In place of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.177, Static directional and lateral stability requirement, comply with the following:

SC23.177 Static directional and lateral stability:

(a) The static directional stability, as shown by the tendency to recover from a wings level sideslip with the rudder free, must be positive for any landing gear and flap position appropriate to the takeoff, climb, cruise, approach, and landing configurations. This must be shown with symmetrical power up to maximum continuous power, and at speeds from 1.2 V S1 up to the maximum allowable speed for the condition being investigated. The angle of sideslip for these tests must be appropriate to the type of airplane. At larger angles of sideslip, up to that at which full rudder
is used or a control force limit in section 23.143 is reached, whichever occurs first, and at speeds from 1.2 V S1 to V O , the rudder pedal force must not reverse.

(b) In straight, steady slips at 1.2 V S1 for any landing gear and flap positions, and for any symmetrical power conditions up to 50 percent of maximum continuous power, the rudder
control movements and forces must increase steadily, but not necessarily in constant proportion, as the angle of sideslip is increased up to the maximum appropriate to the type of airplane. The
aileron control movements and forces may increase steadily, but not necessarily in constant proportion, as the angle of sideslip is increased up to the maximum appropriate to the type of airplane. At larger slip angles, up to the angle at which the full rudder or aileron
control is used or a control force limit contained in section 23.143 is reached,
the aileron and rudder control
movements and forces must not reverse as the angle of sideslip is increased. Rapid entry into, and recovery from, a maximum sideslip considered appropriate for the airplane must not result in uncontrollable flight
characteristics.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 16, 2011.
Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2011–33049 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 135**

**[Docket No. FAA–2011–1397]**

**Clarification of Policy Regarding Approved Training Programs** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

**ACTION :**  Notice of availability; request
for comment.

**SUMMARY :**  This document announces the availability of an FAA Notice that would require FAA inspectors to review 14 CFR part 135 approved training programs to identify and correct those programs which erroneously issued credit for previous training or checking. The document also provides guidance on constructing reduced hour training programs based on previous experience. Upon review of the comments and any necessary revision, this document would cancel and replace FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 19, Paragraph 3–1111.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before February 27, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2011–1397 using any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC

20590–0001.

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493–2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change,

to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket web site, anyone
can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc. ). DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement can be
found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478),
as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Robert Burke, Air Carrier Training Branch, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)


### 80832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules

267–8262; facsimile: (202) 267–5229;
email: robert.burke@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, was issued on September 13, 2007. This order consolidated and replaced FAA Orders 8300.1, 8400.1, and 8700.1, the FAA’s guidance to inspectors. There have been numerous inquiries by part 135 certificate holders regarding the acceptance of training/evaluations previously completed by a crewmember while in the employment of another certificate holder. Regulations do not permit the crediting of such training (with the specific exception of CRM and DRM training).

Additionally, some training centers have distributed a training program template that provides credit for training/evaluations conducted by another operator. Such provisions are contrary to the intent as well as the technical provisions of part 135 and are not appropriate for inclusion in a certificate holder’s approved training

program.

Part 135 certificate holders may develop and submit for approval multiple curriculums for a particular crewmember position and aircraft make/ model/variant. For example, a part 135 certificate holder may have a an initial new-hire curriculum designed to meet the requirements of new hire crewmembers that have minimal flight time, no previous part 135 experience, or do not have qualifications related to the certificate holder’s operational environment. The certificate holder may then also apply for a reduced new hire curriculum for pilots that have previous experience as a crewmember in part 135 operations and/or the particular aircraft and duty position. The second curriculum in this example may have less training hours due to the crewmember’s extensive experience.
Each of these curriculums would also have detailed prerequisites to define the level of experience required to enter into either of these new hire programs. There are no hour requirements which need to be defined on a reduced training program, however all the training
elements of the certificate holder’s full initial training program must be accomplished as well as the qualification module.

While the FAA generally does not request comment on internal Notices and orders, the agency has established a docket for public comments regarding this guidance for inspectors in recognition of the interest of current 14 CFR part 135 certificate holders. The agency will consider all comments received by January 26, 2012. Comments received after that date may be
considered if consideration will not delay agency action on the review. A copy of the proposed order is available for review in the assigned docket for the
Order at http://www.regulations.gov.

Issued in Washington, DC on December 13,

2011. John S. Duncan, Acting Deputy Director, FAA Flight Standards

Service.

[FR Doc. 2011–33091 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY**
**COMMISSION**

**16 CFR Part Chapter II**

**Fire Pots and Gel Fuel; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for** 
**Comments and Information**

**AGENCY :**  Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

**ACTION :**  Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

**SUMMARY :**  The Consumer Product Safety Commission (‘‘the Commission,’’ ‘‘CPSC,’’ or ‘‘we’’) has reason to believe that firepots and gel fuel used together may present an unreasonable risk of injury. As of September 30, 2011, the
Commission is aware of 76 incidents that resulted in 2 deaths and 86 injuries involving firepots used with gel fuel. All
of these incidents occurred between April 3, 2010 and September 1, 2011. Many of the injuries were severe; over half of the victims reportedly required hospitalization. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) initiates a rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). We invite comments concerning the risk of injury associated with firepots, gel fuel and gel fuel containers, the regulatory alternatives discussed in this notice, and other possible ways to
address this risk. We also invite interested persons to submit an existing
standard or a statement of intent to modify or develop a voluntary standard to address the risk of injury described in
this notice.

**DATES :**  Written comments in response to this notice must be received by February

27, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011– 0095, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

Submit electronic comments in the following way: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov.

Written Submissions

Submit written submissions in the following way:

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504–7923.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not
submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http:// www.regulations.gov.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Rohit Khanna, Fire Program Area Team Leader, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 Research Place Rockville, MD 20850; telephone (301) 987–2508, or email rkhanna@cpsc.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
A. Background

CPSC staff identified firepots used with gel fuel as an emerging hazard in June 2011, after a severe injury was reported to the CPSC. We pursued investigations and conducted analyses of these incidents. As of September 30, 2011, we are aware of 76 incidents involving firepots used with gel fuel that resulted in 2 deaths and 86 injuries. In an effort to address this emerging hazard, the CPSC’s Office of Compliance and Field Operations initiated several recalls of pourable alcohol gel fuel. To date, 12 voluntary recalls have been announced recalling more than 2 million bottles of gel fuel. The products
involved in the recalls were alcoholbased gel fuel in containers intended to be used with firepots. Each recalled product was marketed for use with