Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Notices 67725 

ACTION: Notice of Rescission of Social 

Security Acquiescence Ruling 05–1(9)— 

Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593 

(9th Cir. 2004). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 

402.35(b)(2), 404.985(e)(1) and 

416.1485(e)(1), the Commissioner of 

Social Security gives notice of the 

rescission of Social Security 

Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 05–1(9). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 13, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Aviles, Office of the General 

Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social 

Security Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

(410) 965–3457, or TTY 410–966–5609, 

for information about this notice. For 

information on eligibility or filing for 

benefits, call our national toll-free 

number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1– 

800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, 

Social Security Online, at http:// 

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An AR 

explains how we will apply a holding 

in a decision of a United States Court of 

Appeals that we determine conflicts 

with our interpretation of a provision of 

the Social Security Act (the Act) or 

regulations when the Government has 

decided not to seek further review of the 

case or is unsuccessful on further 

review. As provided by 20 CFR 

404.985(e)(1) and 416.1485(e)(1), we 

may rescind an AR as obsolete and 

apply our interpretation of the Act or 

regulations if the Supreme Court 

overrules or limits a circuit court 

holding that was the basis of an AR. 

On September 22, 2005, we issued AR 

05–1(9) to reflect the holding of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit in Gillett-Netting v. 

Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2004), 

reh’g denied (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2004) (70 

FR 55656). The Ninth Circuit held that 

an undisputed 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 sections 202(d)(1) and 

212(e)(1) of the Act. The Ninth Circuit 

rejected our longstanding interpretation 

of section 216(h) of the Act, as set forth 

in the regulations, that state intestacy 

law determines the child-parent 

relationship. 

On January 4, 2011, in Capato v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 631 

F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2011), the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Third 

Circuit followed the decision in GillettNetting and held that under sections 

202(d)(1) and 216(e)(1) of the Act, a 

posthumously-conceived applicant can 

satisfy the Act child-parent relationship 

requirement by demonstrating that he or 

she is the undisputed biological child of 

the deceased insured individual. 

Similar to the Ninth Circuit, the Third 

Circuit found that section 216(h) 

requirement to apply state intestacy law 

is triggered only in cases where 

parentage is disputed. 

The Government sought review of the 

Third Circuit’s decision in the Supreme 

Court of the United States, and on May 

21, 2012, the Supreme Court reversed 

the Third Circuit’s decision. The 

Supreme Court upheld our 

interpretation of section 216(h) of the 

Act, under which we apply state 

intestacy law when we determine a 

child-parent relationship under sections 

202(d)(1) and 216(e)(1) of the Act. 

Astrue v. Capato, llU.S. ll, 132 S. 

Ct. 2021 (2012). 

The Supreme Court stated that, ‘‘The 

SSA’s interpretation of the relevant 

provisions, adhered to without 

deviation for many decades, is at least 

reasonable; the agency’s reading is 

therefore entitled to this Court’s 

deference under Chevron. * * * 

Chevron deference is appropriate ‘when 

it appears that Congress delegated 

authority to the agency generally to 

make rules carrying the force of law, 

and that the agency interpretation 

claiming deference was promulgated in 

the exercise of that authority.’ * * * 

Here, as already noted, the SSA’s 

longstanding interpretation is set forth 

in regulations published after noticeand-comment rulemaking.’’ 132 S. Ct. at 

2033–2034 (citations omitted). 

Because, in Capato, the Supreme 

Court rejected the holding in GillettNetting by upholding our policy of 

applying state intestacy law in all childparent determinations, we are 

rescinding AR 05–1(9), in accordance 

with 20 C.F.R. 404.985(e)(1), 

416.1485(e)(1). 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 

Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance) 

Dated: November 5, 2012. 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27447 Filed 11–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 8085] 

Culturally Significant Object Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: 

‘‘Michelangelo’s David Apollo’’ 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, and Delegation of 

Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000 

(and, as appropriate, Delegation of 

Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I 

hereby determine that the object to be 

included in the exhibition 

‘‘Michelangelo’s David Apollo,’’ 

imported from abroad for temporary 

exhibition within the United States, is 

of cultural significance. The object is 

imported pursuant to a loan agreement 

with the foreign owner or custodian. I 

also determine that the exhibition or 

display of the exhibit object at the 

National Gallery of Art, Washington, 

DC, from on or about December 13, 

2012, until on or about March 3, 2013, 

and at possible additional exhibitions or 

venues yet to be determined, is in the 

national interest. I have ordered that 

Public Notice of these Determinations 

be published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a 

description of the exhibit object, contact 

Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 

Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. 

Department of State (telephone: 202– 

632–6469). The mailing address is U.S. 

Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth 

Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 

20522–0505. 

Dated: November 6, 2012. 

J. Adam Ereli, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27545 Filed 11–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Delegation of Authority No. 346] 

Delegation by the Secretary of State to 

the Assistant Secretary for East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs of the Authority To 

Waive the Visa Ban Under the JADE 

Act 

By virtue of the authority vested in 

the Secretary by the laws of the United 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with