60424 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

agree. We believe that the previous 

approvals for using hydrophobic coating 

should have included special conditions 

in the type certification basis. As is the 

case for the Model G150, the use of 

hydrophobic coatings in lieu of 

windshield wipers represents a novel 

design feature relative to the 

certification basis of each of those 

airplane types. While the satisfactory 

service history indicates that these 

particular designs would likely have 

met the requirements of the special 

conditions, the existing regulatory 

requirements would not by themselves 

have necessarily assured the intended 

level of safety for the use of 

hydrophobic coating for precipitation 

removal for these designs, or for other 

designs. Special conditions are 

necessary to address the use of 

hydrophobic coating instead of 

windshield wipers. No changes were 

made as a result of this comment. 

Sufficient View 

The commenter recommends that the 

term ‘‘sufficient view’’ be changed to 

‘‘sufficient view depending on aircraft 

speed.’’ The commenter states that the 

visibility requirements for taxi are 

different than the requirements for 

flight. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

recommendation. The existing 

regulatory requirements in 14 CFR 

25.773(b)(1), at Amendment 25–108, do 

not explicitly include this qualification. 

As with the existing requirements, the 

interpretation of ‘‘sufficient view’’ in 

these special conditions may be 

dependent on several factors other than 

airplane speed, such as phase of flight 

or ground operations. No changes were 

made as a result of this comment. 

Changes to the Proposed Special 

Conditions 

The reference to ‘‘the flight path in 

normal flight attitudes of the airplane’’

has been changed to ‘‘the ground or 

flight path in normal taxi and flight 

attitudes of the airplane.’’ This change 

clarifies a possible ambiguity regarding 

the path of the airplane relative to the 

speeds necessary to maintain the clear 

vision area. While this additional 

language is absent from the requirement 

of § 25.773(b)(1), it is consistent with 

the intended level of safety. As noted in 

the Discussion section of the Notice of 

Proposed Special Conditions, the 

existing requirements are premised on 

the use of windshield wipers or other 

means for which slow speeds and 

minimal airflow are not limiting 

conditions for maintaining an area of 

clear vision. Hydrophobic coatings, 

however, are least effective at slow 

speeds and low airflow rates. To 

maintain the same level of safety as the 

existing regulations, the certification 

basis must address both ground and 

flight operations, as reflected by the 

speed and airflow range included in the 

proposed special conditions. 

We also changed the Discussion 

section to correct the effective date of 

Amendment 25–108 from December 26, 

1990, to December 26, 2002. In addition, 

we made editorial changes to the 

Discussion section to clarify certain 

information regarding airspeed. Except 

as discussed above, the special 

conditions are adopted as proposed. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to the Model 

G150. Should GALP apply at a later date 

for a change to the type certificate to 

include other type designs incorporating 

the same novel or unusual design 

feature, the special conditions would 

apply to those models as well under the 

provisions of § 21.101. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on one model 

of airplane. It is not a rule of general 

applicability. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702, 44704. 

The Special Conditions 

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the following special conditions are 

issued as part of the type certification 

basis for Gulfstream Aerospace Limited 

Partnership (GALP) Model G150 

airplanes. 

Pilot Compartment View—Hydrophobic 

Coatings in Lieu of Windshield Wipers 

The airplane must have a means to 

maintain a clear portion of the 

windshield, during precipitation 

conditions, enough for both pilots to 

have a sufficiently extensive view along 

the ground or flight path in normal taxi 

and flight attitudes of the airplane. This 

means must be designed to function, 

without continuous attention on the 

part of the crew, in conditions from 

light misting precipitation to heavy rain 

at speeds from fully stopped in still air, 

to 1.5 VSR1 with lift and drag devices 

retracted. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

7, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20864 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22421; Airspace 

Docket No. 05–ASW–1] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Revision of Jet Routes J–8, J–18, J–19, 

J–58, J–76, J–104 and J–244; and VOR 

Federal Airways V–60, V–190, V–263 

and V–611; Las Vegas, NM 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action revises Jet Routes 

J–8, J–18, J–19, J–58, J–76, J–104 and J–

244; and Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal 

Airways V–60, V–190, V–263 and V–

611 over the Las Vegas, NM, area. The 

FAA is taking this action due to the 

renaming of the ‘‘Las Vegas VOR tactical 

air navigation (VORTAC)’’ to the ‘‘Fort 

Union VORTAC.’’ The name of the Las 

Vegas, NM, VORTAC is being changed 

to enhance the management of aircraft 

operations over the Las Vegas, NM, area 

by eliminating the possibility of 

confusion with the Las Vegas, NV, 

VORTAC. The FAA is also making 

editorial changes to update the format of 

the legal descriptions for VOR Federal 

Airways V–190, V–263 and V–611. 

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, 

December 22, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Rohring, Airspace and Rules, 

Office of System Operations Airspace 

and AIM, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

To reduce confusion between the Las 

Vegas, NM, VORTAC and the Las Vegas, 

NV, VORTAC, a decision was made to 

change the name of the ‘‘Las Vegas, NM, 

VORTAC’’ to the ‘‘Fort Union, NM, 

VORTAC.’’ Because the name of the 

VORTAC is contained in the legal 

description of J–8, J–18, J–19, J–58, J–76, 

J–104 and J–244; and V–60, V–190, V–

263 and V–611, the legal descriptions 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 60425 

must be changed. The FAA is also 

making editorial changes to update the 

format of the legal descriptions for VOR 

Federal Airways V–190, V–263 and V–

611 by eliminating references to 

mileages and altitudes that are no longer 

included in the legal descriptions of 

airways. 

Jet Routes and Federal airways are 

published in paragraphs 2004 and 

6010(a), respectively of FAA Order 

7400.9N dated September 1, 2005, and 

effective September 15, 2005, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Jet Routes and Federal airways 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the order. 

The Rule 

This action amends Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by 

revising the legal descriptions for Jet 

Routes J–8, J–18, J–19, J–58, J–76, J–104 

and J–244; and VOR Federal Airways V–

60, V–190, V–263 and V–611 over the 

Las Vegas, NM, area. The FAA is taking 

this action due to the renaming of the 

Las Vegas, NM, VORTAC and to 

enhance the management of aircraft 

operations over the Las Vegas, NM, area. 

Further, the FAA is making editorial 

changes to update the format of the legal 

descriptions for VOR Federal Airways 

V–190, V–263 and V–611. There are no 

geographical changes to the affected Jet 

routes and VOR Federal airways. 

Therefore, notice and public procedure 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with 

Paragraph 311(a) of FAA Order 1050.1E, 

Policies and Procedure for Considering 

Environmental Impacts. This airspace 

action is not expected to cause any 

potentially significant impacts, and no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9N, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated September 1, 2005, and 

effective September 16, 2005, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes. 

* * * * * 

J–8 (Revised) 

From Needles, CA, via Flagstaff, AZ; 

Gallup, NM; Fort Union, NM; Borger, TX; 

INT Borger 095° and Kingfisher, OK, 261° 

radials; Kingfisher; Springfield, MO; St 

Louis, MO; Louisville, KY; Charleston, WV; 

INT Charleston 092° and Casanova, VA, 253° 

radials; to Casanova. 

* * * * * 

J–18 (Revised) 

From Mission Bay, CA, via Imperial, CA; 

Bard, AZ; INT of the Bard 089° and Gila 

Bend, AZ, 261° radials; Gila Bend; Phoenix, 

AZ; St. Johns, AZ; Albuquerque, NM; Fort 

Union, NM; Garden City, KS; Salina, KS; St. 

Joseph, MO; to Moline, IL. 

* * * * * 

J–19 (Revised) 

From Phoenix, AZ, via INT Phoenix 053° 

and Zuni, NM, 242° radials; Zuni; INT Zuni 

059° and Fort Union, NM, 268° radials; Fort 

Union; Liberal, KS; Wichita, KS; Butler, MO; 

St. Louis, MO; Roberts, IL; to Northbrook, IL. 

* * * * * 

J–58 (Revised) 

From Oakland, CA, via Manteca, CA; 

Coaldale, NV; Wilson Creek, NV; Milford, 

UT; Rattlesnake, NM; Fort Union, NM; 

Panhandle, TX; Wichita Falls, TX; Ranger, 

TX; Alexandria, LA; Harvey, LA. 

* * * * * 

J–76 (Revised) 

From Las Vegas, NV, via INT Las Vegas 

090° and Tuba City, AZ, 268° radials; Tuba 

City; Fort Union, NM; Tucumcari, NM; to 

Wichita Falls, TX. 

* * * * * 

J–104 (Revised) 

From Los Angeles, CA, via INT Los 

Angeles 083° and Twentynine Palms, CA, 

269° radials; Twentynine Palms; Parker, CA; 

INT Parker 112° and Gila Bend, AZ, 312° 

radials; Gila Bend; Tucson, AZ; San Simon, 

AZ; Socorro, NM; Fort Union, NM; to Pueblo, 

CO. 

* * * * * 

J–244 (Revised) 

From Fort Union, NM; Zuni, NM; INT Zuni 

242° and Phoenix, AZ, 053° radials; Phoenix. 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6010(a)—Domestic VOR Federal 

Airways 

* * * * * 

V–60 (Revised) 

From Gallup, NM, via INT Gallup 089° and 

Albuquerque, NM, 303° radials; 

Albuquerque, via INT Albuquerque 103° and 

Otto, NM, 253° radials; Otto; to Fort Union, 

NM. 

* * * * * 

V–190 (Revised) 

From Phoenix, AZ; St. Johns, AZ; 

Albuquerque, NM; Fort Union, NM, Dalhart, 

TX; Gage, OK; INT Gate 059° and Pioneer, 

OK, 280° radials; Pioneer; INT Pioneer 094° 

and Bartlesville, OK, 256° radials; 

Bartlesville; INT Bartlesville 075° and 

Oswego, KS, 233° radials; Oswego; INT 

Oswego 085° and Springfield, MO, 261° 

radials; Springfield; Maples, MO; 

Farmington, MO; Marion, IL; Pocket City, IN. 

* * * * * 

V–263 (Revised) 

From Corona, NM, INT Corona 278° and 

Albuquerque, NM, 160° radials; 

Albuquerque; INT Albuquerque 019° and 

Santa Fe, NM, 268° radials; Santa Fe; Fort 

Union, NM; Cimarron, NM; Tobe, CO; Lamar, 

CO; Hugo, CO; INT Hugo 345° and Akron, 

CO, 232° radials; to Akron. From Pierre, SD; 

Aberdeen, SD. 

* * * * * 

V–611 (Revised) 

From Newman, TX, via INT Newman 286° 

and Truth or Consequences, NM, 159° 

radials; Truth or Consequences; INT Truth or 

Consequences 028° and Socorro, NM, 189° 

radials; Socorro; Albuquerque, NM; INT 

Albuquerque 036° and Santa Fe, NM, 245° 

radials; Santa Fe; Fort Union, NM; Cimarron, 

NM; Pueblo, CO; Black Forest, CO; INT Black 

Forest 036° and Gill, CO, 149° radials; Gill; 

Cheyenne, WY; Muddy Mountain, WY; Crazy 

Woman, WY; Sheridan, WY; Billings, MT; 

INT Billings 347° and Lewistown, MT, 104° 

radials; Lewistown; INT Lewistown 322° and 

Havre, MT, 226° radials; to Havre. 

* * * * * 

60426 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1Public Law 109–58, 119 Stat. 594. 

2 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

3 112 FERC ¶ 61,232 (2005); 70 FR 52328 

(September 2, 2005). 

4Under the Commission’s optional pre-filing 

process, the Commission’s staff provides 

prospective applicants guidelines which are 

described at length in the NOPR. As explained in 

the NOPR, the current guidelines were developed 

because in certain respects the collaborative prefiling procedures set forth in section 157.22 of the 

Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR 157.22 (2005), 

have proven to be impracticable. Therefore, as 

proposed in the NOPR, the Commission is 

eliminating the collaborative process procedures of 

section 157.22 in conjunction with the 

promulgation of new regulations in this rulemaking 

proceeding. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 11, 

2005. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules. 

[FR Doc. 05–20852 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 153, 157 and 375 

[Docket No. RM05–31–000; Order No. 665] 

Regulations Implementing Energy 

Policy Act of 2005; Pre-Filing 

Procedures for Review of LNG 

Terminals and Other Natural Gas 

Facilities 

Issued October 7, 2005. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

amending its regulations in accordance 

with section 311(d) of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to establish 

mandatory procedures requiring 

prospective applicants to begin the 

Commission’s pre-filing review process 

at least six months prior to filing an 

application for authorization to site and 

construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

terminal. Section 311(d) of EPAct 2005, 

enacted on August 8, 2005, directs the 

Commission to promulgate such 

regulations within 60 days after 

enactment of EPAct 2005. The 

regulations’ mandatory procedures are 

designed to encourage applicants for 

LNG terminal siting and construction 

authority to cooperate with state and 

local officials, as required by EPAct 

2005. The regulations also make the prefiling process mandatory for prospective 

applicants for authority to construct 

related jurisdictional pipeline and other 

natural gas facilities, as defined in the 

regulations. The regulations also require 

a prospective applicant to comply with 

the pre-filing procedures prior to filing 

an application to make modifications to 

an existing or authorized LNG terminal 

if such modifications involve significant 

state and local safety considerations that 

have not been previously addressed. 

Under this Final Rule, prospective 

applicants may elect on a voluntary 

basis to undertake the pre-filing process 

prior to filing applications for other 

facilities subject to the Commission’s 

jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule will become 

effective November 17, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Hoffmann, Office of Energy 

Projects, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

8066, richard.hoffmann@ferc.gov. 

John Leiss, Office of Energy Projects, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–8058, 

john.leiss@ferc.gov. 

Whit Holden, Office of the General 

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

8089, edwin.holden@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, 

Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and 

Suedeen G. Kelly. 

I. Introduction 

1. Pursuant to section 311(d) of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 

2005),1 enacted on August 8, 2005, the 

Commission is required, by October 7, 

2005, to promulgate regulations 

requiring prospective applicants for 

authorization for the siting and 

construction of liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) terminals (as defined in EPAct 

2005) to comply with the Commission’s 

pre-filing review process, beginning at 

least six months prior to filing an 

application. As further required by 

EPAct 2005, the proposed regulations 

are designed to encourage applicants to 

cooperate with state and local officials, 

a goal also contemplated by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA).2 This Final Rule fulfills the 

Commission’s responsibilities under 

section 311(d) of EPAct 2005. 

2. The mandatory procedures 

established in this Final Rule require 

that a prospective applicant for 

authority to site and construct an LNG 

terminal submit information necessary 

for NEPA pre-filing review of the LNG 

terminal, as defined in EPAct 2005. A 

prospective applicant for authority to 

construct related jurisdictional pipeline 

and other natural gas facilities, as 

defined in the regulations, is also 

required to undertake the mandatory 

pre-filing review process. A prospective 

applicant is also required to comply 

with the pre-filing procedures prior to 

filing an application to make 

modifications to an existing LNG 

terminal if such modifications involve 

significant state and local safety 

considerations that have not been 

previously addressed. This Final Rule 

provides that prospective applicants 

may elect on a voluntary basis to 

undertake the pre-filing process prior to 

filing applications for other facilities 

subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction 

under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

3. In response to EPAct 2005’s 

directive with respect to LNG terminals, 

the Commission issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) on 

August 26, 2005, in Docket No. RM05–

31–000 setting forth proposed 

regulations to implement a mandatory 

pre-filing process for prospective 

applicants for authority under section 3 

of the NGA for the siting and 

construction of new LNG terminals.3 As 

explained in the NOPR, it was already 

the Commission’s policy prior to 

enactment of EPAct 2005 to encourage 

prospective applicants’ use of the 

Commission’s optional pre-filing 

process for LNG terminal projects, as 

well as interstate gas pipeline projects 

in appropriate cases, to encourage early 

involvement by the public and 

governmental agencies, as contemplated 

by NEPA and Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations. Further, 

because it is desirable to maximize early 

public involvement to promote the 

wide-spread dissemination of 

information about proposed projects 

and to reduce the amount of time 

required to issue an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) or environmental 

assessment (EA) once an application is 

filed, the Commission’s Office of Energy 

Projects (OEP) developed its current 

guidelines for going beyond informal 

discussions into a more formal pre-filing 

process.4

4. As explained in the NOPR, the 

Commission’s experience with the 

current pre-filing process is that it has 

been used with much success since its 

introduction several years ago. It is a 

process with which the natural gas 

industry, governmental entities and the 

public are familiar. However, the 

current pre-filing process is optional, 

and EPAct 2005 requires that the 

Commission implement a mandatory, 

rather than elective, pre-filing process