Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77311

Determination: Approved. Based on 

information contained in the public 

agency’s application, the FAA has 

determined that the approved class 

accounts for less than 1 percent of the 

total annual enplanements at Roanoke 

Regional Airport. 

Brief Description of Projects Approved 

For Collection and Use:

General aviation rehabilitation phases 

1 and 1B (construct taxiway and tiedown). 

Rehabilitate and construct taxiway 

A—north and middle. 

Multi-user flight information display 

system. 

Passenger elevator from concourse to 

ground level. 

Drainage improvements. 

Update noise exposure maps, phase 1. 

Install precision approach path 

indicator on runway 33. 

Construct taxiway A—south. 

Sinkhole repair on airfield operations 

area. 

Construct entrance road and nonrevenue parking for general aviation 

area. 

Runway snow blower. 

Rubber wheel snow loader. 

Rehabilitate runways 6/24 and 

relocate taxiway E; rehabilitate taxiways 

L, P, G, and K. 

Acquire passenger boarding device. 

Rehabilitate terminal building. 

Construct passenger baggage ramp. 

Acquire land in runway 24 protection 

zone. 

Construct perimeter fencing and gate. 

Runway tunnel rehabilitation—phase 

2. 

Acquire land for airport expansion, 

2.7 acres. 

Acquire navigational aid land—8.5 

acres in the critical area. 

Overhead directional signage at 

terminal entrance. 

Regional jet adapter for leading 

bridge. 

Relocate taxiways A and G—design 

and demolish (phases 1 and 2). 

Rehabilitate runway 15/33, phases 1 

and 2, and construct safety area. 

Install engineered materials arresting 

system for safety area, runway 15. 

Noise abatement program, phases 2, 3, 

and 4. 

PFC program formulation and annual 

administration.

Decision Date: November 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry J. Page, Washington Airports 

District Office, (703) 661–1354. 

Amendment to PFC Approvals:

Amendment No. City, State 

Amendment 

approved 

date 

Original approved net 

PFC revenue 

Amended 

approved 

net PFC 

revenue 

Original estimated 

charge exp. 

date 

Amended 

estimated 

charge exp. 

date 

* 03–04–C–01–AZO Kalamazoo, MI ........................................................ 10/28/04 $2,080,000 $2,080,000 05/01/07 05/01/06

93–03–C–02–SJC San Jose, CA ............................................................ 11/23/04 17,245,000 16,535,353 05/01/97 05/01/97

92–01–C–04–SBP San Luis Obispo, CA ................................................ 11/23/04 584,587 615,677 12/01/94 12/01/94

00–03–C–02–MDT Middletown, PA ........................................................ 11/24/04 4,206,613 10,903,365 01/01/03 01/01/03

02–04–C–01–MDT Middletown, PA ........................................................ 11/24/04 66,334,500 95,513,500 08/01/20 11/01/29

Note: The amendment denoted by an asterisk (*) includes a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per enplaned passenger to $4.50 

per enplaned passenger. For Kalamazoo, MI, this change is effective on January 1, 2005. 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 16, 

2004. 

Joseph G. Washington, 

Acting Manager, Financial Analysis and 

Passenger Facility Charge Branch.

[FR Doc. 04–28233 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2003–16171] 

Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 

(ARFF) Mobile Live Fire Training 

Simulators

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of policy.

SUMMARY: The FAA issues regulations 

and prescribes standards for the training 

of aircraft rescue and fire fighters 

(ARFF) on United States airports 

certificated under 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations part 139. One of the 

requirements of part 139 is for all ARFF 

personnel to participate in at least one 

live-fire drill every 12 months. As 

guidance for airport operators in 

providing this training, the FAA issued 

standards for different size fire training 

facilities based on the largest air carrier 

aircraft serving the airport. With the 

introduction of new technologies, ARFF 

personnel have had the option to train 

on both mobile as well as fixed training 

facilities. The FAA published a Notice 

of Proposed Policy: Request for 

Comments in the Federal Register on 

September 18, 2003 at 68 FR 54772, 

seeking public comment on whether we 

should allow firefighters at Index C, D, 

and E airports to meet the § 139.319 

requirements using the mobile trainers 

every year. As a result of the comments 

received, FAA’s policy is being 

modified to accept mobile simulators for 

2 years for Index C, D, and E airports 

holding a Class I airport operating 

certificate. Every third year, these 

airport fire departments will be required 

to attend a large fixed facility to learn 

about new technologies and procedures 

and to gain experience fighting a larger 

pit fire than the mobile simulators can 

duplicate. Class I airports that are Index 

A and B and Class II, III, and IV airports 

may continue to use the mobile trainer 

every year to meet the 14 CFR part 139 

requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

Gilliam, Senior Fire Fighting Specialist, 

Airport Safety and Operations Division, 

AAS–300, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Ave. 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone 

(407) 812–6331, ext 34.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1988 

revision of 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations part 139, Certification and 

Operations: Land Airports Serving 

Certain Air Carriers, section 

139.319(j)(3) requires ‘‘All rescue and 

fire fighting personnel participate in at 

least one live fire drill every 12 

months.’’ 52 FR 44276 (Nov. 18, 1997) 

(effective Jan. 1, 1988). At the time this 

rule was promulgated, hydrocarbon 

fuels, such as diesel or jet-A, fueled the 

training facilities. In the early 1990s, 

Federal and State environmental 

protection agencies began banning such 

facilities because of ground 

contamination from the fuel. As a result, 

the FAA assisted in developing Liquid 

Propane Gas (LPG) fired facilities. The 

FAA funded these facilities throughout 

the country. The FAA refers to them as 

regional training facilities because, 

mostly, they were intended to serve an 

area of more than one state. The aim 

was for a fire fighter to travel to the 

nearest training facility and receive both 

classroom and live fire training. FAA’s 

position has been that all ARFF 

personnel should be exposed to live 

77312 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 

ground rule fire fighting, either at their 

home airport or at a regional training 

facility. The size of the fire at a training 

facility was to be commensurate with 

the type of air carrier service that could 

be expected to serve the airport of the 

ARFF personnel.

In the mid-1990’s, industry, with the 

assistance of FAA, developed a mobile 

fire training simulator that could be 

transported from airport to airport on 

trucks. The simulations allowed for 

engine fires, interior fires, wheel well 

fires, and cargo hold fires. However, one 

of the drawbacks of the first models of 

the mobile simulator was that they did 

not provide for a ground fire. In the late 

1990’s industry was able to develop a 

grid system ancillary to the simulator 

that provided a ground fire of limited 

size. 

The FAA published a Notice of 

Proposed Policy: Request for Comments 

in the Federal Register on September 

18, 2003, at 54772, seeking public 

comment on whether we should allow 

firefighters at Index C, D, and E airports 

to meet the section 139.319 

requirements using the mobile trainers 

every year. The advantages and 

disadvantages of using Mobile Aircraft 

Fire Trainers for annual training by all 

airports were outlined in the Notice of 

Proposed Policy. Twenty-six comments 

were entered on Docket number 16171. 

Sixteen comments were in favor of 

using mobile trainers for index C, D, and 

E airports and ten were against. Two of 

the sixteen in favor included 

stipulations. 

Commenters in favor (16) provided 

the following reasons: 

1. Flexibility (5)—more training 

variables available 

2. Economic (10)—lower individual 

student and operational cost 

3. Training with local procedures and 

equipment (10)—students can train on 

the same equipment they use every day, 

rather than the equipment maintained at 

a regional facility 

4. Frequency of training (4)—can 

increase with mobile trainers 

5. Cross training with structural and 

mutual aid companies (7)—local 

training can include the local 

government municipal firefighters and 

emergency services that would back up 

the airport ARFF department 

6. Use with tri-annual exercises (7) 

7. FAA inspector use (1)—able to 

observe 

8. Train while maintaining index 

(1)—crews remain in service on site 

9. Mobility (4) 

10. Used in search and rescue training 

(2) 

11. Uses modern and high technology 

(2) 

12. Reduces pollution from large pit 

fires (1) 

13. Increases fire fighter proficiency 

(1) 

14. All associated agencies can 

participate (1)—non fire 

15. Train at different locations on the 

airport (1) 

16. Experience in past use is favorable 

(1) 

Commenters opposed (10) provided 

the following reasons: 

1. Size—a mobile trainer does not 

provide the perception of a large 

incident (10) 

2. Cost should not be a factor—there 

should not be a price on safety (3) 

3. Mobile trainers should not replace 

fixed facilities (2)

4. Increased use of mobile trainers 

will have an adverse impact on fixed 

facilities (4) 

5. New Large aircraft coming will 

further the problems of training (1)—

(Although we note that any aircraft in 

the new large aircraft category would 

require Index E ARFF capability, and 

could not operate at the Index A, B, or 

C airports). 

6. Not environmentally friendly 

because of the water run off (1) 

7. Larger facilities are better and 

provide greater quality (1) 

8. Lowers standards (3) 

Some specific comments made by 

various organizations individuals were: 

• The American Association of 

Airport Executives (AAAE) opposed the 

increased use of the mobile trainer for 

index C, D, and E stating the FAA 

should: 

1. Stay with the current policy 

2. Conduct further study 

3. Develop a policy that provides 

flexibility and also maintains the 

present policy 

• Eight members of AAE and Airports 

Council International—North America 

commented, some for and some against 

the proposal. 

• The Air Line Pilots Association 

opposed the use of mobile trainers, 

citing the elimination of fixed facilities 

and the smaller size of the mobile 

trainers. 

• Two international commenters, 

Transport Canada and Concord Express 

Limited, opposed the use of the mobile 

trainer, citing the size of the pool fire 

and the size of the mock-up as the 

reason. 

• One commenter in favor of the use 

of mobile trainers each year at all 

airports made the point that while 

fighting a large fire is important, it is 

only a part of ARFF. He goes on the say 

‘‘The tactics used on a 10,000 gallon 

ground fuel spill fire and a 5,000 gallon 

ground spill fire using an ARFF truck 

are going to be the same. The mandate 

is that a fire of a certain size be fought; 

it does not go on to specify how it is to 

be fought. The tactics will vary by 

airport, because the equipment will 

vary. Since the airport decides on the 

type of equipment it buys, and on the 

tactics it will use, it should also decide 

on the best training options available.’’

• The FAA received a letter from a 

tenant fire-fighting department on an 

airport extolling the virtues of the 

mobile simulator. According to the 

letter, the mobile simulator was found 

to be a helpful and realistic trainer. It 

went on to say that the simulator allows 

fire crews to use both hand lines and 

ARFF truck turrets, and easily simulates 

interior and exterior aircraft fires. 

Recognizing the virtues and 

shortcomings of both systems and the 

diversity of opinions in the airport 

community as well as in the ARFF 

community, the FAA will adopt this 

policy for the following reasons: the use 

of the mobile trainer will allow more 

flexibility with the fire fighters training 

on their own equipment at local 

facilities with local procedures and 

equipment, allow for greater frequency 

of training, training with structural and 

mutual aid companies, provide training 

of crews without the need to travel and 

in some cases without crews being out 

of service, training at different locations 

on a local airport, provides many 

variable scenarios placing emphasis on 

incidents responded to on a daily bases 

as opposed to the pool fire encountered 

infrequently, and allows for more 

frequent training therefore lowering 

individual student and operational cost. 

The reduction in pool size is offset in 

that the mobile trainer provides fire 

evolutions similar to what is actually 

being offered by the larger facilities 

today. Many burn only one fourth the 

size of the pit due to economic reasons. 

In finding that an airport has met the 

requirement of 14 CFR 139.319(i)(3), the 

FAA will accept the use of mobile 

training simulators for 2 years for Class 

I Index C, D, and E airports. Every third 

year, these airport fire departments will 

be required to attend a large fixed 

facilities as referenced in the Advisory 

Circular AC150/5220–17A to learn 

about new technologies and procedures 

and to gain experience fighting a larger 

pit fire than the mobile simulators can 

duplicate. For Class I airports that are 

Index A and B, and for Class II, III, and 

IV airports, they may continue to use 

the mobile trainer every year to meet the 

14 CFR part 139 requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Notices 77313

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

30, 2004. 

David L. Bennet, 

Director, Office of Airport Safety and 

Standards.

[FR Doc. 04–28235 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. 2004–19922] 

Requested Administrative Waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Invitation for public comments 

on a requested administrative waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel 

CAROL ANN. 

SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105–

383 and Pub. L. 107–295, the Secretary 

of Transportation, as represented by the 

Maritime Administration (MARAD), is 

authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-

build requirement of the coastwise laws 

under certain circumstances. A request 

for such a waiver has been received by 

MARAD. The vessel, and a brief 

description of the proposed service, is 

listed below. The complete application 

is given in DOT docket 2004–19922 at 

http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties 

may comment on the effect this action 

may have on U.S. vessel builders or 

businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag 

vessels. 

If MARAD determines, in accordance 

with Pub. L. 105–383 and MARAD’s 

regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 

23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance 

of the waiver will have an unduly 

adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or 

a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in 

that business, a waiver will not be 

granted. Comments should refer to the 

docket number of this notice and the 

vessel name in order for MARAD to 

properly consider the comments. 

Comments should also state the 

commenter’s interest in the waiver 

application, and address the waiver 

criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s 

regulations at 46 CFR Part 388.

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

January 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

docket number MARAD–2004 19922. 

Written comments may be submitted by 

hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, 

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 

Department of Transportation, 400 7th 

St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

You may also send comments 

electronically via the Internet at http://

dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments 

will become part of this docket and will 

be available for inspection and copying 

at the above address between 10 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except federal holidays. An electronic 

version of this document and all 

documents entered into this docket is 

available on the World Wide Web at 

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

described by the applicant the intended 

service of the vessel CAROL ANN is: 

Intended Use: Carrying passengers for 

hire, coastal sailing cruises. 

Geographic Region: California.

Dated: December 17, 2004.

By order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Joel C. Richard, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–28204 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. 2004–19921] 

Requested Administrative Waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Invitation for public comments 

on a requested administrative waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel 

MYEERAH. 

SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105–

383 and Pub. L. 107–295, the Secretary 

of Transportation, as represented by the 

Maritime Administration (MARAD), is 

authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-

build requirement of the coastwise laws 

under certain circumstances. A request 

for such a waiver has been received by 

MARAD. The vessel, and a brief 

description of the proposed service, is 

listed below. The complete application 

is given in DOT docket 2004–19921 at 

http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties 

may comment on the effect this action 

may have on U.S. vessel builders or 

businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag 

vessels. If MARAD determines, in 

accordance with Pub. L. 105–383 and 

MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part 

388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that 

the issuance of the waiver will have an 

unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel 

builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag 

vessels in that business, a waiver will 

not be granted. Comments should refer 

to the docket number of this notice and 

the vessel name in order for MARAD to 

properly consider the comments. 

Comments should also state the 

commenter’s interest in the waiver 

application, and address the waiver 

criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s 

regulations at 46 CFR Part 388.

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

January 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

docket number MARAD–2004 19921. 

Written comments may be submitted by 

hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, 

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 

Department of Transportation, 400 7th 

St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

You may also send comments 

electronically via the Internet at http://

dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments 

will become part of this docket and will 

be available for inspection and copying 

at the above address between 10 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except federal holidays. An electronic 

version of this document and all 

documents entered into this docket is 

available on the World Wide Web at 

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

described by the applicant, the intended 

service of the vessel MYEERAH is: 

Intended Use: Intended for charter. 

Geographic Region: East Coast of the 

United States and Florida.

Dated: December 17, 2004.

By order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Joel C. Richard, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–28203 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. 2004–19920] 

Requested Administrative Waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Invitation for public comments 

on a requested administrative waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel 

TEMPTATION. 

SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105–

383 and Pub. L. 107–295, the Secretary