Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Notices 55657 

2Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8–601 (1975). 

3An applicant will be deemed a ‘‘child’’ under 

section 216(e)(1) if he or she is the biological child 

of the insured and his or her parents went through 

a marriage ceremony that would have been valid 

but for a legal impediment. See section 216(h)(2)(B) 

of the Act; 20 CFR 404.355(a)(2). An applicant will 

also be considered a ‘‘child’’ if: (1) the insured had, 

before his death, acknowledged parentage in 

writing, been decreed a parent by a court, or been 

ordered to pay child support; or (2) there is 

satisfactory evidence that the deceased insured is 

the biological parent of the applicant and the 

insured was, at the time of his death, living with 

the applicant or contributing to his support. See 

section 216(h)(3)(C) of the Act; 20 CFR 

404.355(a)(3)–(4). These additional tests for 

eligibility require action by the insured during the 

lifetime of the child. 

the ‘‘child’’ definition of the statute. 

Finding that there was no dispute about 

the twins’ parentage, the court held that 

section 216(h)(2), (3) of the Act had ‘‘no 

relevance to the issue before [it]’’ and 

thus there was no need to consult State 

inheritance law. The court concluded 

that the twins were deemed dependent 

upon the insured under section 

202(d)(3) of the Act because under 

Arizona law, they were his ‘‘legitimate’’

children. Under Arizona law, ‘‘[e]very 

child is the legitimate child of its 

natural parents and is entitled to 

support and education as if born in 

lawful wedlock.’’ 2 The court reasoned 

that because the insured was married to 

the mother of the twins and was the 

twins’ biological father, the twins are 

legitimate under State law. 

Statement as to How Gillett-Netting 

Differs From SSA’s Interpretation of the 

Social Security Act 

We determine that an individual may 

be eligible for child’s insurance benefits 

under section 202(d)(1) of the Act if he 

is the ‘‘child’’ of an insured individual 

as defined in section 216(e) and was 

dependent on the insured at the time of 

his death under section 202(d)(3). 

Section 216(e)(1) defines a ‘‘child’’ as 

‘‘the child or legally adopted child of an 

individual.’’ Section 216(h) provides the 

analytical framework that we must 

follow for determining whether a child 

is the insured’s child for the purposes 

of section 216(e). Section 216(h)(2)(A) 

directs us to ‘‘apply such law as would 

be applied in determining the 

devolution of intestate personal 

property by the courts of the State in 

which such insured individual is 

domiciled * * * at the time of his death 

***’’ (See also 20 CFR 404.355(a)(1)). 

A child who cannot inherit personal 

property from the deceased insured 

individual under State intestacy law 

may nonetheless be eligible for child’s 

insurance benefits under limited 

circumstances under sections 

216(h)(2)(B) and (3)(C); these 

circumstances do not apply to an afterconceived child. (See also 20 CFR 

404.355(a)).3 Consequently, to meet the 

definition of ‘‘child’’ under the Act, an 

after-conceived child must be able to 

inherit under State law. 

If the individual satisfies the 

definition of ‘‘child’’ under section 

216(e), the child must also show he or 

she ‘‘was dependent upon’’ the insured 

individual ‘‘at the time of [the insured’s] 

death’’ in order to be eligible for benefits 

under section 202(d)(1)(C)(ii). Under 

section 202(d)(3), a ‘‘legitimate’’ child is 

‘‘deemed dependent’’ upon the insured 

individual at the time of his death 

unless the child has been adopted by 

someone else. A child who satisfies the 

requirements of section 216(h)(2), (3) is 

deemed legitimate for purposes of 

section 202(d)(3) and, therefore, deemed 

dependent. Section 202(d)(3); Social 

Security Ruling 77–2c. Other children, 

though, must establish that they were 

living with their father at the time of his 

death or that he was contributing to 

their support in order to be found 

dependent under section 202(d)(3). 

The Ninth Circuit in Gillett-Netting 

held that the twins established ‘‘child’’

status under the Act solely because they 

are the biological children of the 

insured. The court found that section 

216(h) did not apply unless a child’s 

parentage is disputed. The court also 

found that, under Arizona law, an 

insured individual’s biological child 

conceived by artificial means after the 

death of the insured would be 

considered ‘‘natural’’ if the parents were 

married at the time of the insured’s 

death. Further, the court concluded that 

every child in Arizona is the legitimate 

child of his natural parents. As a result, 

the Ninth Circuit deemed the twins 

dependent on the insured under section 

202(d)(3) because it considered them to 

be legitimate under Arizona law. The 

court concluded that the twins were 

eligible for child’s benefits under 

section 202(d) of the Act. 

Explanation of How SSA Will Apply the 

Gillett-Netting Decision Within the 

Circuit 

This ruling applies only to cases 

involving an applicant for surviving 

child’s benefits who applies on the 

earnings record of a person who, at the 

time of death, had his permanent home 

in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and 

Washington. While the court based its 

dependency determination on State law, 

it ruled that State law was irrelevant for 

determining ‘‘child’’ status if parentage 

was not in dispute. 

In a claim for survivor’s benefits, we 

will determine that a biological child of 

an insured individual who was 

conceived by artificial means after the 

insured’s death is the insured’s ‘‘child’’

for purposes of the Act. We will not 

apply section 216(h) of the Act in 

determining the child’s status. In 

addition, if such child is considered 

legitimate under State law, we will 

consider the child to be the insured’s 

‘‘legitimate’’ child and thus deemed 

dependent upon the insured for 

purposes of section 202(d)(3) of the Act. 

All of the States and jurisdictions 

within the Ninth Circuit, except Guam, 

have eliminated distinctions between 

legitimate and illegitimate children. 

These States allow all children the same 

rights which flow between parents and 

their children, regardless of the parents’

marital status. A child acquires these 

rights if he establishes that an 

individual is his parent under State 

family law provisions. Accordingly, if 

all other requirements are met, 

adjudicators will consider such child 

entitled to child’s benefits under section 

202(d). 

[FR Doc. 05–18920 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 5192] 

Determination on Provision of 

Assistance to the United Nations 

Democracy Fund 

Pursuant to section 451 of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of l961, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’) (22 U.S.C. 2261) and section 1–

100 of Executive Order 12163, as 

amended, I hereby authorize, 

notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, the use of up to $2,561,508 in fiscal 

year 2004 funds made available under 

chapter 3 of part I of the Act, up to 

$6,938,492 in FY 2004 and FY 2005 

funds made available under chapter 4 of 

part II of the Act, and up to $500,000 in 

FY 2005 funds made available under 

chapter 9 of part II of the Act, in order 

to provide assistance authorized by part 

I of the Act for a contribution to the 

United Nations Democracy Fund. This 

Determination supersedes and replaces 

the Determination of July 27, 2005, on 

Provision of Assistance to United 

Nations Democracy Fund. 

This Determination shall be reported 

to the Congress promptly, and shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

55658 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 183 / Thursday, September 22, 2005 / Notices 

Dated: September 10, 2005. 

Condoleezza Rice, 

Secretary of State, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05–18967 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–37–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Public Notice for Waiver of 

Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance, 

Bolton Field Airport; Columbus, OH 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with 

respect to land. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is considering a 

proposal to change a portion of the 

airport from aeronautical use to nonaeronautical use and to authorize the 

release of 13.6672 acres of airport 

property for an exchange of property 

between the Columbus Regional Airport 

Authority (CRAA) and the City of 

Columbus. The land currently houses a 

solid waste transfer station that will 

remain on the site. The land was 

conveyed to the City of Columbus in 

Deed Volume 2803, page 547 of the 

Recorder’s Office, Franklin County, 

Ohio. The land was acquired by the City 

of Columbus with funding from Federal 

Grant 8–39–0026–01. There are no 

impacts to the airport by allowing the 

airport to dispose of the property. 

Approval does not constitute a 

commitment by the FAA to financially 

assist in the disposal of the subject 

airport property nor a determination of 

eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from 

the FAA. In exchange, the CRAA will 

receive a parcel of land (43.562 acres) 

currently being used as a golf course 

facility adjacent to Port Columbus 

International Airport. This parcel is 

partially located in the existing Runway 

Protection Zone for Runway 10R–28L as 

indicated on the approved Airport 

Layout Plan (ALP) for Port Columbus 

International Airport. 

In accordance with section 47107(h) 

of title 49, United States Code, this 

notice is required to be published in the 

Federal Register 30 days before 

modifying the land-use assurance that 

requires the property to be used for an 

aeronautical purpose. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 24, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary W. Jagiello, Program Manager, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Great 

Lakes Region, Detroit Airports District 

Office, DET ADO–608, 11677 South 

Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, 

Michigan 48174. Telephone Number 

(734–229–2956)/Fax Number (734–229–

2950). Documents reflecting this FAA 

action may be reviewed at this same 

location or at Bolton Field Airport, 

Columbus, Ohio. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following 

is a legal description of the property 

located in Columbus, Franklin County, 

Ohio, and described as follows: 

Beginning at a 3⁄4′′ iron pipe and cap 

set at the northwesterly corner of the 

said 110.86 acre tract and being in the 

centerline of Georgesville road; Thence 

north 76°35′37′′ East along the 

centerline of said Georgesville Road a 

distance of 102.74 feet to a 3⁄4′′ iron pipe 

and cap set. 

Thence South 1°6′50′′ West passing a 3⁄4′′ iron pin at 101.25 feet on the 

southerly right of way line of said 

Georgesville Road and the northwest 

corner of a 16.715 acre tract conveyed 

to Robert Eicholt, Rita J. Sabatino, John 

R. Hetrick as recorded in OR13962G03, 

Recorder’s Office Franklin County, Ohio 

and continuing along the westerly line 

of the said 16.715 acre tract and easterly 

line of said 110.86 acre tract, a total 

distance of 596.98 feet to a 3⁄4′′ iron pipe 

and cap set; 

Thence South 88°49′46′′ East along 

the southerly line of the said 16.715 acre 

tract and a northerly line of said 110.86 

acre tract a distance of 676.04 feet to a 

3⁄4′′ iron pipe and cap set; 

Thence South 1°10′14′′ West a 

distance of 692.21 feet to a 3⁄4′′ iron pipe 

and cap set; 

Thence North 88°49′46′′ West a 

distance of 775.35 feet to a 3⁄4′′ iron pipe 

and cap set in the westerly line of said 

110.86 acre tract and easterly line of the 

Southwest Airport Industrial Park, 

Section 2 and recorded in Plat Book 45, 

page 73 of the Recorder’s Office, 

Franklin County, Ohio; 

Thence North 01°06′50′′ East along the 

westerly line of the said 110.86 acre 

tract and the easterly line of the said 

Southwest Airport Industrial Park, 

Section 2, passing a 3⁄4′′ iron pipe at a 

distance of 1160.84 feet and being the 

northeast corner of Lot 1 of said 

Southwest Airport Industrial Park, 

Section 2 and the southerly right-of-way 

line of said Georgesville Road, a total 

distance of 1263.19 feet to the place of 

beginning, containing 13.6672 acres of 

land and being subject to all legal 

highways, easements and restrictions of 

record. 

Bearings are based on State Plane 

Coordinates NAD 83. All 3⁄4′′ iron pipes 

and caps set has the logo S5669. 

Dated: Issued in Romulus, Michigan on 

August 5, 2005. 

Winsome A. Lenfert, 

Acting Manager, Detroit Airports District 

Office FFA, Great Lakes Region. 

[FR Doc. 05–18933 Filed 9–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of 

Noise Compatibility Program and 

Request for Review, Portland 

International Jetport, Portland, ME 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces its 

determination that the noise exposure 

map for Portland International Jetport, 

as submitted by the City of Portland, 

Maine under the provisions of Title I of 

the Aviation Safety and Noise 

Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–193) 

and 14 CFR part 150, is in compliance 

with applicable requirements. The FAA 

also announces that it is reviewing a 

proposed noise compatibility program 

that was submitted for Portland 

International Jetport under part 150 in 

conjunction with the noise exposure 

map, and that this program will be 

approved or disapproved on or before 

March 8, 2006. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the 

FAA’s determination on the noise 

exposure map and of the start of its 

review of the associated noise 

compatibility program is September 9, 

2005. The public comment period ends 

on November 11, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

C. Silva, Federal Aviation 

Administration, New England Region, 

Airports Division, ANE–600, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803. 

Comments on the proposed noise 

compatibility program should also be 

submitted to the above office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces that the FAA finds 

that the noise exposure map submitted 

for Portland International Jetport is in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements of part 150, effective 

September 9, 2005. Further, FAA is 

reviewing a proposed noise 

compatibility program for that airport 

which will be approved or disapproved 

on or before March 8, 2006. This notice 

also announces the availability of this