38424 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

paper that is submitted with the

computerized media; or by submitting a

digitized copy of the signed certification

as a separate file in the electronic

submission. Each verification submitted

under this section shall certify that the

treasurer or other signatory has

examined the report or statement and, to

the best of the signatory’s knowledge

and belief, it is true, correct and

complete. Any verification under this

section shall be treated for all purposes

(including penalties for perjury) in the

same manner as a verification by

signature on a report submitted in a

paper format.

(h) Schedules and forms with special

requirements. The following list of

schedules, materials, and forms have

special signature and other

requirements and reports containing

these documents shall include, in

addition to providing the required data

within the electronic report, either a

paper copy submitted with the political

committee’s or other person’s electronic

report or a digitized version submitted

as a separate file in the electronic

submission: Schedule C–1 (Loans and

Lines of Credit From Lending

Institutions), including copies of loan

agreements required to be filed with that

Schedule, Schedule E (Itemized

Independent Expenditures), Form 5

(Report of Independent Expenditures

Made and Contributions Received), and

Form 8 (Debt Settlement Plan). The

political committee or other person

shall submit any paper materials

together with the electronic media

containing the report.

(i) Preservation of reports. For any

report filed in electronic format under

this section, the treasurer or other

person required to file any report under

the Act shall retain a machine-readable

copy of the report as the copy preserved

under 11 CFR 104.14(b)(2). In addition,

the treasurer or other person required to

file any report under the Act shall retain

the original signed version of any

documents submitted in a digitized

format under paragraphs (g) and (h) of

this section.

PART 109—INDEPENDENT

EXPENDITURES (2 U.S.C. 431(17),

434(c)).

10. The authority for part 109 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(17), 434(a)(11) and

(c), 438(a)(8), 441d.

11. Section 109.2 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 109.2 Reporting of independent

expenditures by persons other than a

political committee 2 U.S.C. 434(c)).

(a) Every person other than a political

committee, who makes independent

expenditures aggregating in excess of

$250 during a calendar year shall file a

report on FEC Form 5 or, if the person

is not required to file electronically

under 11 CFR 104.18, a signed

statement with the Commission or

Secretary of the Senate in accordance

with 11 CFR 104.4(c).

* * * * *

PART 114—CORPORATE AND LABOR

ORGANIZATION ACTIVITY

12. The authority citation for part 114

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B), 431(9)(B),

432, 434(a)(11), 437d(a)(8), 438(a)(8) and

441b.

13. Section 114.10 is amended by

revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii) to read as

follows:

§ 114.10 Nonprofit corporations exempt

from the prohibition on independent

expenditures.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) This certification may be made

either as part of filing FEC Form 5

(independent expenditure form) or, if

the corporation is not required to file

electronically under 11 CFR 104.18, by

submitting a letter in lieu of the form.

The letter shall contain the name and

address of the corporation and the

signature and printed name of the

individual filing the qualifying

statement. The letter shall also certify

that the corporation has the

characteristics set forth in paragraphs

(c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section.

* * * * *

PART 9003—ELIGIBILITY FOR

PAYMENTS

14. The authority citation for part

9003 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9003 and 9009(b).

§ 9003.1 [Amended]

15. Section 9003.1 is amended by

removing paragraph (b)(11).

PART 9033—ELIGIBILITY FOR

PAYMENTS

16. The authority citation for part

9033 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9033 and 9039(b).

§ 9033.1 [Amended]

17. Section 9033.1 is amended by

removing paragraph (b)(13).

Dated: June 16, 2000.

Darryl R. Wold,

Chairman, Federal Election Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–15668 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 404

RIN 0960–AE85

Reduction of Title II Benefits Under the

Family Maximum Provisions in Cases

of Dual Entitlement

AGENCY: Social Security Administration

(SSA).

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: The interim final rules

published at 64 FR 57774, on October

27, 1999, are adopted as final without

change. These rules amend the family

maximum provisions under title II of

the Social Security Act (the Act). These

rules amend how we compute the total

monthly benefits payable to a family

when one or more of the beneficiaries

are entitled to benefits on another

earnings record. In certain specific

circumstances, this change to our rules

will increase the amount of benefits

payable to some family members

entitled on the record to which the

family maximum applies. These final

rules adopt nationwide the holding of

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First

Circuit in Parisi by Cooney v. Chater.

DATES: These regulations are effective

October 27, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill

Hilton, Social Insurance Specialist,

Office of Program Benefits, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401,

(410) 965–2468 or TTY (410) 966–5609.

For information on eligibility, claiming

benefits or coverage of earnings, call our

national toll-free number, 1–800–772–

1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 203(a) of the Act establishes

a limit, derived from a worker’s primary

insurance amount (PIA), on the total

monthly benefits to which dependents

or survivors may be entitled on the basis

of one worker’s earnings record (the

family maximum). Under our previous

regulations, the benefits of each

claimant entitled on the worker’s

earnings record were reduced

proportionally so that the total monthly

benefits of those entitled on the record

in one month did not exceed the family

maximum. In calculating total monthly

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38425

benefits, we included all benefits of the

claimants who were entitled on the

worker’s record without considering

whether the benefits were actually due

or payable.

Our previous regulations were

challenged in court by the child of a

worker who was disabled. The worker

and his dependent child, the plaintiff in

this case, began receiving Social

Security benefits on the worker’s

earnings record. The worker’s spouse

became entitled to retirement benefits

(old-age benefits) based on her own

earnings record. Under section 202(r) of

the Act, she was deemed also to have

applied for and become entitled to

wife’s benefits based on the worker’s

earnings record. SSA determined that

because the monthly retirement benefits

that she was entitled to receive on her

own exceeded the amount of her

monthly wife’s benefits on the worker’s

earnings record, she could only receive

payment for the retirement benefits

payable on her own earnings record.

However, SSA counted the benefits to

which she was entitled on the worker’s

earnings record, but which were not

actually paid to her, toward the monthly

maximum amount of benefits payable

on the worker’s earnings record (the

family maximum). Because the total

monthly amount of the worker’s

disability benefits, the plaintiff’s child’s

benefits, and the wife’s benefits

exceeded the monthly family maximum

limit, SSA reduced the amount of the

plaintiff’s and the wife’s monthly

benefits.

In Parisi By Cooney v. Chater, 69 F.3d

614 (1st Cir., 1995), the court held that,

when computing a reduction under the

family maximum pursuant to section

203(a) of the Act, SSA should not

include the monthly benefit that would

otherwise be payable to a spouse if

payment of that spouse’s benefit is

precluded (by section 202(k)(3)(A) of the

Act), due to the spouse’s dual

entitlement to a higher benefit on the

spouse’s own earnings record. To

implement the Court’s ruling in the First

Circuit, we issued an Acquiescence

Ruling (AR) on January 13, 1997 (62 FR

1792). Under this ruling (AR 97–1(1)),

which applied only to claims for

benefits in the First Circuit, SSA

considers only the amount of monthly

dependent’s or survivor’s benefits

actually due or payable to the duallyentitled person when determining the

amount of the benefit reduction because

of the family maximum. As a result of

the Court’s decision, we reassessed our

interpretation in our prior regulations

and consistent with our rules on

acquiescence which were designed to

restore national uniformity to our

programs, we decided to adopt the

court’s holdings nationwide.

Explanation of Changes

We amended § 404.403 of our

regulations by adding a new paragraph

(a)(5). This new paragraph specifies

that, in cases involving benefits subject

to reduction for both the family

maximum and dual entitlement, we

consider only the amount of monthly

dependent’s or survivor’s benefits

actually due or payable to the duallyentitled person when we determine how

much to reduce total monthly benefits

because of the family maximum. We

included examples of how we compute

benefits payable in such cases.

These changes are effective for

benefits payable for months after

September 1999.

Comments on Interim Final Rules

On October 27, 1999, we published

the interim final rules in the Federal

Register at 64 FR 57774 and provided a

60-day period for interested individuals

and organizations to comment. We

received comments from five

individuals and organizations

concerning this action. One comment

was from the firm that represented the

plaintiff in the Parisi by Cooney v.

Chater case. They expressed their

pleasure that SSA was making this

change nationwide. Following are

summaries of the comments and our

responses to them.

Comment: One commenter said that a

person entitled as a husband or wife

should still receive full benefits on his

or her own record.

Response: When a husband or wife is

entitled to benefits as a spouse and to

benefits on his or her own earnings

record, he or she receives the full

benefit on his or her own record. This

is in accordance with section

202(k)(3)(A) of the Act and is unaffected

by these rules.

Comment: The same commenter

believes that when a person can receive

a higher benefit as a spouse, the family

maximum should apply on the record

where the spouse benefit is payable.

Response: When an excess benefit as

a spouse is payable on a record, the

benefits on that record are subject to the

family maximum. While the family

maximum will still apply if other family

members are entitled, this change will

allow more to be paid on that record

because only the amount actually paid

to the dually entitled person will be

considered.

Comment: This commenter also felt

children should be paid on the record

with the higher benefit and those

benefits should be based on the family

maximums from both records.

Response: When each parent is

entitled on his or her own record,

children are paid on the record with the

higher benefit amount. Benefits to the

children are based on the total of both

family maximums. This is in accordance

with section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Comment: This commenter finished

by stating that the regulations should be

adopted because they will liberalize the

family maximum restrictions.

Response: These regulations do

liberalize the family maximum

provisions and will result in higher

benefit amounts to those affected.

Comment: Two commenters believe

the family maximum should be

eliminated because it limits the benefits

payable. One felt this is unfair to those

with large families. One also believes

workers should be allowed to opt out of

Social Security coverage.

Response: The family maximum is set

forth in the Act itself, and could be

eliminated only by legislation.

Similarly, legislative changes would be

needed to permit workers to opt out of

Social Security coverage. Such issues

are beyond the scope of both these

regulations and our rulemaking

authority.

Comment: Another commenter

suggested that we include an example of

how benefits would be calculated for a

surviving spouse who is also entitled on

her own record.

Response: These regulations do not

change the way benefits are computed

for a surviving spouse who is also

entitled on her own record. She will

still receive her own benefit first, plus

any excess over that amount which is

payable to her as a surviving spouse.

Comment: The same commenter

asked how these regulations affect the

spouse of a retired military person

because the military Survivor’s Benefits

program is affected by Social Security

Offset.

Response: These regulations do not

change how her Social Security benefit

is computed. There is no change in how

the benefit affects the receipt of a

military Survivor’s Benefit.

For the reasons discussed above, we

have not changed the interim final rules

based on the public comments.

Therefore, the interim final rules are

adopted as final without change.

38426 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: June 9, 2000.

Kenneth S. Apfel,

Commissioner of Social Security.

PART 404–FEDERAL OLD-AGE,

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY

INSURANCE (1950— )

Accordingly, the interim final rules

amending 20 CFR Part 404 published at

64 FR 57774 on October 27, 1999, are

adopted as final without change.

[FR Doc. 00–15644 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191–02–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 178

[Docket No. 99F–1421]

Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants,

Production Aids, and Sanitizers;

Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending its

food additive regulations that provide

for the safe use of tetradecanoic acid,

lithium salt as a stabilizer for

polypropylene and certain

polypropylene copolymers intended for

use in contact with food. When the

regulation was last amended, the

regulation published with some errors.

This document corrects those errors.

DATES: This rule is effective June 21,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vir

D. Anand, Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition (HFS–215), Food and

Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20204, 202–418–3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA has

discovered that two errors have become

incorporated into the agency’s current

food additive regulations. In an

amendment to 21 CFR 178.2010,

published in the Federal Register of

December 27, 1999 (64 FR 72273), there

were errors regarding the food type VI–

B. This document corrects those errors.

Publication of this document constitutes

final action under the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has

determined that notice and public

comment are unnecessary because this

amendment is nonsubstantive.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 178

Food additives, Food packaging.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to

the Director, Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 178 is

amended as follows:

PART 178—INDIRECT FOOD

ADDITIVES: ADJUVANTS,

PRODUCTION AIDS, AND SANITIZERS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 178 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.

2. Section 178.2010 is amended in the

table in paragraph (b) under the heading

‘‘Limitations’’ by revising the entry for

‘‘Tetradecanoic acid, lithium salt’’ to

read as follows:

§ 178.2010 Antioxidants and/or stabilizers

for polymers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Substances Limitations

*******

Tetradecanoic acid, lithium salt (CAS Reg. No. 20336–96–3) For use only at levels not to exceed 0.15 percent by weight of polypropylene and polypropylene copolymers complying with

§ 177.1520(c) of this chapter, items 1.1a, 1.1b, 3.1a, 3.1b, 3.1c,

3.2a, and 3.2b. The finished polymers may only be used in contact

with food of Types I, II, IV–B, VI–B, VII–B, and VIII as described in

table 1 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter under conditions of use B

through H as described in table 2 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter, and

with food of Types III, IV–A, V, VI–A, VI–C, VII–A, and IX described

in table 1 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter under conditions of use C

through G as described in table 2 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter.

*******

Dated: June 7, 2000.

L. Robert Lake,

Director of Regulations and Policy, Center

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. 00–15561 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 349

[Docket No. 98N–0002]

RIN 0910–AA01

Ophthalmic Drug Products for Overthe-Counter Human Use; Amendment

of Final Monograph

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

monograph for over-the-counter (OTC)

ophthalmic drug products (the

regulation that establishes conditions

under which these drug products are

generally recognized as safe and

effective and not misbranded). The

amendment adds a new warning and

revises an existing warning for

ophthalmic vasoconstrictor drug

products. These products contain the

ingredients ephedrine hydrochloride,

naphazoline hydrochloride,

phenylephrine hydrochloride, or