59798 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Notices 

1 70 FR 42135 (July 21, 2005). 

photograph, such as a driver’s license. If 

an individual does not have 

identification documents sufficient to 

establish his/her identity, the individual 

must certify in writing that he/she is the 

person claimed to be and that he/she 

understands that knowing and willful 

request for, or acquisition of, a record 

pertaining to another individual under 

false pretenses is a criminal offense. 

If notification is requested by 

telephone, an individual must verify 

his/her identity by providing identifying 

information that parallels the record to 

which notification is being requested. If 

it is determined the identifying 

information provided by telephone is 

insufficient, the individual will be 

required to submit a request in writing 

or in person. If an individual is 

requesting information by telephone on 

behalf of another individual, the subject 

individual must be connected with SSA 

and the requesting individual in the 

same phone call. SSA will establish the 

subject individual’s identity (his/her 

name, SSN, address, date of birth and 

place of birth, along with one other 

piece of information such as mother’s 

maiden name), and ask for his/her 

consent in providing information to the 

requesting individual. 

If a request for notification is 

submitted by mail, an individual must 

include a notarized statement to SSA to 

verify his/her identity or must certify in 

the request that he/she is the person 

claimed to be and that he/she 

understands that the knowing and 

willful request for, or acquisition of, a 

record pertaining to another individual 

under false pretenses is a criminal 

offense. These procedures are in 

accordance with SSA Regulations (20 

CFR 401.40). 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE(S): 

Same as ‘‘Notification’’ procedure(s). 

Requesters also should reasonably 

specify the record contents they are 

seeking. These procedures are in 

accordance with SSA Regulations (20 

CFR 401.50). 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE(S): 

Same as ‘‘Notification’’ procedures. 

Requesters also should reasonably 

identify the record, specify the 

information they are contesting, and 

state the corrective action sought, and 

the reasons for the correction, with 

supporting justification showing how 

the record is untimely, incomplete, 

inaccurate or irrelevant. These 

procedures are in accordance with SSA 

Regulations (20 CFR 401.65). 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Information in this system of records 

is obtained from information collected 

from individuals interviewed in person 

in SSA FOs, from existing systems of 

records, such as the Claims Folders 

System, (60–0089), Master Beneficiary 

Record, (60–0090), Supplemental 

Security Income Record and Special 

Veterans Benefits, (60–0103), and from 

information generated by SSA, such as 

computer date/time stamps at various 

points in the interview process. 

SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS

OF THE PRIVACY ACT: 

None. 

[FR Doc. 05–20503 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 5204] 

Notice of Meeting; United States 

International Telecommunication 

Advisory Committee Information 

Meeting on the World Summit on the 

Information Society 

The Department of State announces a 

meeting of the U.S. International 

Telecommunication Advisory 

Committee (ITAC). The purpose of the 

Committee is to advise the Department 

on matters related to telecommunication 

and information policy matters in 

preparation for international meetings 

pertaining to telecommunication and 

information issues. 

The ITAC will meet to discuss the 

matters related to the second phase of 

the World Summit on the Information 

Society (WSIS), in preparation for the 

WSIS Summit in mid-November. The 

meeting will take place on Tuesday, 

October 25, 2005 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

in the auditorium of the Historic 

National Academy of Science Building. 

The National Academy of Sciences is 

located at 2100 C St. NW., Washington, 

DC. 

Members of the public are welcome to 

participate and may join in the 

discussions, subject to the discretion of 

the Chair. Persons planning to attend 

this meeting should send the following 

data by fax to (202) 647–5957 or e-mail 

to jillsonad@state.gov not later than 24 

hours before the meeting: (1) Name of 

the meeting, (2) your name, and (3) 

organizational affiliation. A valid photo 

ID must be presented to gain entrance to 

the National Academy of Sciences 

Building. Directions to the meeting 

location may be obtained by calling the 

ITAC Secretariat at (202) 647–5205. 

Dated: October 6, 2005. 

Anne Jillson, 

Foreign Affairs Officer, International 

Communications and Information Policy, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05–20550 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–16944] 

Operating Limitations at Chicago 

O’Hare International Airport 

ACTION: Notice of order. 

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2005, the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) issued 

an order to show cause, which solicited 

written views on extending for a second 

time the FAA’s August 18, 2004, order 

limiting scheduled operations at O’Hare 

International Airport (O’Hare). The 

August 2004 order made effective a 

series of schedule adjustments that the 

air carriers individually agreed to 

during a scheduling reduction meeting. 

These agreements, in general, resulted 

in a voluntary peak-hour arrival rate at 

O’Hare of eighty-eight scheduled flights, 

with the exception of the 8 p.m. hour—

the final peak hour of the day—when 

the rate would not exceed ninety-eight 

scheduled arrivals. 

The FAA previously extended the 

effectiveness of the August 2004 order 

through October 29, 2005. This notice 

announces that the FAA Administrator 

has signed an order that further extends 

the August 2004 order through April 1, 

2006. The text of the extension order is 

published below as supplementary 

information to this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerry Shakley, System Operations, Air 

Traffic Organization: telephone (202) 

267–9424; facsimile (202) 267–7277; 

e-mail gerry.shakley@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Second Order Extending the August 

2004 Limitation of Scheduled 

Operations at O’Hare International 

Airport 

On July 18, 2005, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) issued an order to 

show cause, soliciting written views on 

extending through April 1, 2006, the 

August 2004 order limiting scheduled 

operations at O’Hare International 

Airport (O’Hare).1 The August 2004 

order made effective a series of schedule 

adjustments that air carriers 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Notices 59799 

2 70 FR 15520 (Mar. 25, 2005). 3Mar. 21, 2005, Order at 5–10. 

individually agreed to during a 

scheduling reduction meeting convened 

under 49 U.S.C. § 41722. The FAA 

previously extended the order through 

October 29, 2005. After careful 

reflection on the written views 

submitted, the FAA is now extending 

the August 2004 order through April 1, 

2006. 

The FAA is taking this action to 

ensure that congestion and delay at 

O’Hare remain at manageable levels 

through the upcoming winter 

scheduling season while the agency 

considers the need for additional 

measures. The FAA has separately 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

that would limit scheduled arrivals at 

O’Hare and establish allocation, 

transfer, and other procedures not 

included in the August 2004 order.2 The 

comment period for the proposed rule 

closed on May 24, and the FAA and the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

are evaluating the comments filed in 

that proceeding. The FAA intends to 

make a final decision in that proceeding 

as promptly as possible. The FAA 

expects that this extension of the August 

2004 order will permit the order’s 

expiration to coincide with the effective 

date of a final rule, if a rule is adopted. 

The FAA’s authority to extend the 

August 2004 order is the same authority 

cited in that order. The FAA proposed 

to extend the August 2004 order under 

the agency’s broad authority in 49 

U.S.C. § 40103(b) to regulate the use of 

the navigable airspace of the United 

States. This provision authorizes the 

FAA to develop plans and policy for the 

use of navigable airspace and, by order 

or rule, to regulate the use of the 

airspace as necessary to ensure its 

efficient use. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 

§ 41722 authorizes the FAA to conduct 

scheduling reduction meetings. The 

FAA’s authority under section 41722 

would be unenforceable if the FAA 

lacked the related authority to capture 

voluntary schedule reductions in FAA 

orders. 

Discussion of the Written 

Submissions: A total of six respondents 

filed written views on the FAA’s 

proposed extension of the August 2004 

order. The respondents included four 

air carriers (American Airlines, 

Independence Air, Northwest Airlines, 

and United Airlines), one air carrier 

organization (the Air Carrier Association 

of America), and the City of Chicago 

(City). None of the respondents 

representing air carrier interests 

opposed the extension of the August 

2004 order through April 1, 2006. 

As the operator of O’Hare, the City 

registers a concern that the restrictions 

contained in the August 2004 order will 

be effective indefinitely. We reiterate 

that the agreements reached during the 

August 2004 scheduling reduction 

meeting are temporary. In the August 

2004 order, the FAA emphasized that 

capacity increases—not negotiated 

schedule reductions or other restrictions 

on demand—are the preferred means of 

curtailing delays like those the O’Hare 

experienced prior to the order. In 

addition, as the July 18 Order to Show 

Cause reflects, the FAA has issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking on the 

subject of flight limitations at O’Hare, 

and the FAA and Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation are evaluating the 

comments received in that matter. Our 

decision to extend the August 2004 

order through April 1, 2006, will permit 

adequate time to consider the comments 

on the proposed rulemaking and, if a 

rule is adopted, to implement a final 

rule. Again, we continue to anticipate 

that the August 2004 order will endure 

for the shortest practical duration. 

The City asks the FAA to let the order 

expire to determine whether over 

scheduling at O’Hare will recur. The 

City reasons that a capacity constraint 

can be imposed again if it proves 

necessary. In the August 2004 order, the 

FAA recounted in detail the impact of 

over scheduling at O’Hare. The 

nationwide and debilitating nature of 

the resulting delays caused the FAA to 

convene the scheduling reduction 

meeting. The recent and expected air 

traffic procedural improvements and 

equipment upgrades that the City 

identifies will not increase O’Hare’s 

capacity so significantly that intolerable 

delay will not recur if the August 2004 

order were to expire as now scheduled. 

the FAA’s overall approach seeks to 

avoid the instability that successive 

expiration and reinstitution of voluntary 

schedule reductions at O’Hare would 

inflict on air carriers and the public. 

Moreover, while the FAA recognizes the 

City’s view that the O’Hare 

Modernization Program, if approved 

and implemented, could significantly 

increase the airport capacity, the 

program could not be completed before 

the August 2004 order is currently 

scheduled to expire. 

The City also asserts that the hourly 

scheduled arrival rate of eighty-eight 

during most peak hours, as set forth in 

the August 2004 order, is too low. The 

City would prefer an hourly scheduled 

arrival rate of ninety-two. In addition, 

the City repeats that, in its view, the 

FAA should amend the August 2004 

order to exempt all international 

operations from the order’s limitations. 

The City previously raised identical 

concerns over the FAA’s first extension 

of the August 2004 order, and the FAA 

therefore addressed the City’s views in 

detail when it extended the order in 

March 2005.3 In the context of 

extending the voluntary scheduling 

limits, the FAA’s prior assessment of the 

City’s views has not materially changed. 

In addition, the City has filed similar 

comments in the public docket for the 

related rulemaking proceeding. The 

FAA and the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation are affording the City’s 

comments most careful consideration in 

that proceeding. Because the only 

matter at issue in this order is the 

contemplated short-term extension of 

the August 2004 order through April 1, 

2006, it is unwise to address here issues 

that are now the subject of an open 

rulemaking before the agency. The FAA 

will address the merit of these 

comments in the rulemaking process. 

Finally, we reject the City’s suggestion 

that the agency lacks the authority to 

limit arrivals at O’Hare by extending the 

August 2004 order. As an initial matter, 

the August 2004 order was the product 

of voluntary schedule limitations 

negotiated during a scheduling 

reduction meeting that Congress 

specifically authorized in 49 U.S.C. 

41722. An FAA-issued order is the only 

practical means by which we can 

enforce the voluntary agreements that a 

scheduling reduction meeting produces. 

Accordingly, in authorizing the FAA to 

conduct such meetings, Congress 

presumably perceived that the FAA 

would issue and maintain orders, like 

the August 2004 order, as extended, that 

comport with the air carriers’

agreements. 

Furthermore, in phasing out the High 

Density Rule at O’Hare in July 2002, 

Congress simultaneously emphasized 

that it did not disturb the FAA’s 

authority over safety and the movement 

of air traffic. 49 U.S.C. 41715(b). Our 

continuing authority in these areas is 

more than adequate to permit the 

extension of the August 2004 order that 

we specify here. 

Conclusion: The FAA proposed to 

extend the August 2004 order through 

April 1, 2006, on the basis of its 

tentative finding that such an extension 

is necessary to prevent a recurrence of 

overscheduling at O’Hare. After 

considering the responses, the FAA has 

determined to make this finding final 

and to extend the order through April 1, 

2006. 

Accordingly, with respect to 

scheduled flight operations at O’Hare, it 

is ordered that: 

59800 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Notices 

1. Ordering paragraph seven of the 

FAA’s August 18, 2004, order limiting 

scheduled operations at O’Hare 

International Airport is amended to 

state that the order shall expire at 9 p.m. 

on April 1, 2006. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 5, 

2005. 

Rebecca MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 05–20464 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Artisan Liens on Aircraft; Recordability 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice 

SUMMARY: Consistent with Agency 

practice, this notice is issued to advise 

interested parties of the addition of the 

States of Idaho and Utah to the list of 

those thirty-three states from which the 

Aircraft Registration Branch (FAA 

Aircraft Registry), Mike Monroney 

Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, will accept artisan liens for 

recordation. Since December 17, 1981, 

the Aeronautical Center Counsel has 

issued these notices in the Federal 

Register. 

DATE: This notice is effective October 

13, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph R. Standell, Aeronautical Center 

Counsel, Aeronautical Center (AMC–7), 

Federal Aviation Administration, 6500 

S. MacArthur, Oklahoma City, OK 

73169. Telephone (405) 954–3296. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 46 FR 

61528, December 17, 1981, the Federal 

Aviation Administration published its 

legal opinion on the recordability of 

artisan liens, with the identification of 

those states from which artisan liens 

would be accepted. Subsequently, we 

advised that Florida, Nevada, and New 

Jersey had passed legislation that, in our 

opinion, allows the FAA Aircraft 

Registry to accept artisan liens from 

those states (49 FR 17112, April 23, 

1984). 

The Agency continued this practice 

when we adivsed that the following 

states had passed legislation that either 

required or allowed recording of notice 

of lien thereby allowing the FAA 

Aircraft Registry to accept and record 

artisan liens claimed under those states’

law: 

Minnesota and New Mexico (51 FR 

21046, June 10, 2986) 

Missouri (53 FR 23716, June 23, 1988) 

Texas, (54 FR 38584, September 19, 

1989) 

North Dakota, (54 FR 51965, October 17, 

1989) 

Michigan and Tennessee, (55 FR 31938, 

August 6, 1990) 

Arizona, (56 FR 27989, June 18, 1991) 

Iowa, (56 FR 36189–36190, July 31, 

1991) 

California (General Aviation only), 

Connecticut, Ohio, and Virginia (58 

FR 50387, September 27, 1993) 

Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island (67 FR 68902, November 13, 

2002) 

This notice is to advise interested 

parties that the states of Idaho and Utah 

are now identified as additional states 

from which artisan liens will be 

accepted. 

With the addition of Idaho and Utah, 

the complete list of thirty-five states 

from which artisan liens on aircraft will 

be accepted as of this date is: Alaska, 

Arizona, Arkansas, California (General 

Aviation Only), Connecticut, Florida, 

Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virgin Islands, 

Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. 

Issued in Oklahoma City on September 28, 

2005. 

Joseph R. Standell, 

Aeronautical Center Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–20467 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Intent To Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement and To Conduct 

Scoping Meetings for the Proposed 

Relocation of Runway 11R/29L and 

Associated Development at the Tucson 

International Airport in Tucson, AZ 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and to 

conduct scoping meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

will be prepared to assess the potential 

impacts of the proposed relocation of 

Runway 11R/29L and associated 

development at Tucson International 

Airport. To ensure that all significant 

issues related to the proposed action are 

identified, one (1) public scoping 

meeting and one (1) governmental 

agency scoping meeting will be held. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Simmons, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Western-Pacific Region, 

Airports Division, P.O. Box 92007, Los 

Angeles, California 90009–2007. 

Telephone: (310) 725–3614. Any 

scoping comments and suggestions 

regarding the EIS must be submitted to 

the address above and must be received 

no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard 

Time, December 15, 2005. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

will prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for addressing specific 

improvements at Tucson International 

Airport. The (EIS) will be prepared in 

accordance with the procedures 

described in FAA Order 5050.4A, 

Airport Environmental Handbook, and 

FAA Order 1050.1E, Environment 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The 

Tucson Airport Authority, the owner of 

Tucson International Airport proposes 

the following development as identified 

in the 2004 Tucson International 

Airport Master Plan: Relocate Runway 

11R/29L, 450 feet to the southwest, 

creating a centerline to centerline 

separation of 1,156 feet between the 

existing Runway 11L29R and the 

relocated Runway 11R/29L. The length 

of the relocated Runway 11R/29L will 

be 11,000 feet long by 150 feet wide. 

The development will also include the 

extension of existing Taxiways A–6 and 

A–17, and provisions for acute angled 

‘‘high speed’’ exits at Taxiways A–11, 

A–13, and A–15; addition of new 

Taxiways A–16 and A–18; extension of 

Taxiway B, (which is currently marked 

as 11R/29L); relocation of the airport 

service road to accommodate the 

proposed runway relocation; and 

installation of an Instrument Landing 

System (ILS) in conjunction with the 

relocated runway, including a Medium 

Intensity Approach Lighting System 

with Runway Alignment Indicator 

Lights (MALSR) in both directions. The 

Airport Master Plan Update identified 

the need to provide additional airfield 

capacity at the Airport to meet the 

projected levels of operational and 

passenger demand. Within the EIS, FAA 

proposed to consider a range of 

alternatives that could potentially meet 

the need for additional airport capacity 

in the Tucson metropolitan area 

including, but not limited to, the 

following: