Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices 41989

21 15 U.S.C. 78f and 78s(b)(2).

22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 Under the Social Security Independence and

Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No.

103-296, effective March 31, 1995, SSA became an

independent agency in the Executive Branch of the

United States Government and was provided

ultimate responsibility for administering the Social

Security programs under title II of the Act. Prior to

March 31, 1995, the Secretary of Health and Human

Services had such responsibility.

2 At the pertinent time, Georgia law provided that

a child born out of wedlock may inherit from or

through his father or any paternal kin only if the

criteria specified in the statute are satisfied ‘‘during

the lifetime of the father and after conception of the

child.’’ A 1991 amendment, not applicable in this

case, expanded the time frame for establishing

paternity to include the period when proceedings

on the father’s estate are pending.

from absent Wheel participants.

Therefore, the Commission believes that

granting accelerated approval of the

proposed rule change, as amended, is

consistent with Sections 6 and 19(b)(2)

of the Act.21

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,22 that the

proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-97-21),

including Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is

hereby approved on an accelerated

basis.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.23

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20412 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 97-

3(11)]

Daniels on Behalf of Daniels v.

Sullivan; Application of a State’s

Intestacy Law Requirement That

Paternity be Established During the

Lifetime of the Father

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling.

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

422.406(b)(2), the Commissioner of

Social Security gives notice of Social

Security Acquiescence Ruling 97-3(11).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Sargent, Litigation Staff, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965-1695.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although

not required to do so pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are

publishing this Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling in accordance

with 20 CFR 422.406(b)(2).

A Social Security Acquiescence

Ruling 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 that decision or is

unsuccessful on further review.

We will apply the holding of the

Court of Appeals decision as explained

in this Social Security Acquiescence

Ruling to claims at all levels of

administrative adjudication within the

Eleventh Circuit. This Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling will apply to all

determinations and decisions made on

or after August 4, 1997. If we made a

determination or decision on your

application for benefits between

December 30, 1992, the date of the Court

of Appeals decision, and August 4,

1997, the effective date of this Social

Security Acquiescence Ruling, you may

request application of the Ruling to your

claim if you first demonstrate, pursuant

to 20 CFR 404.985(b), that application of

the Ruling could change our prior

determination or decision.

If this Social Security Acquiescence

Ruling is later rescinded as obsolete, we

will publish a notice in the Federal

Register to that effect as provided for in

20 CFR 404.985(e). If we decide to

relitigate the issue covered by this

Social Security Acquiescence Ruling as

provided for by 20 CFR 404.985(c), we

will publish a notice in the Federal

Register stating that we will apply our

interpretation of the Act or regulations

involved and explaining why we have

decided to relitigate the issue.

(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; 96.005 Special

Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners.)

Dated: December 20, 1995.

Shirley S. Chater,

Commissioner of Social Security.

Editorial note: This document was

received at the Office of the Federal Register

July 28, 1997.

Acquiescence Ruling 97-3(11)

Daniels on Behalf of Daniels v.

Sullivan, 979 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir.

1992)—Application of a State’s Intestacy

Law Requirement that Paternity be

Established During the Lifetime of the

Father—Title II of the Social Security

Act.

Issue: Whether, in determining a

child’s status under section 216(h)(2)(A)

of the Social Security Act (the Act), the

Social Security Administration (SSA),1

in applying the requirement imposed by

a State’s law of intestate succession that

an illegitimate child establish paternity

during the lifetime of the father, created

an insurmountable barrier that violated

the constitutional right to equal

protection of the law.

Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation:

Sections 202(d) and 216(h)(2)(A) of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)

and 416(h)(2)(A)); 20 CFR 404.354(b).

Circuit: Eleventh (Alabama, Florida,

Georgia)

Daniels on Behalf of Daniels v.

Sullivan, 979 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1992).

Applicability of Ruling: This Ruling

applies to determinations or decisions at

all administrative levels (i.e., initial,

reconsideration, Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) hearing and Appeals

Council).

Description of Case: On April 11,

1985, Cassandra Daniels, who was 14

years old, gave birth to a son, Adonis

Daniels. Daniels claimed that Kirby

Marshall was Adonis’ father even

though Daniels and Marshall never

married or lived together, and a father’s

name was not listed on the child’s birth

certificate. Although Marshall did not

provide support for Adonis, both

Daniels’ mother and Marshall’s mother

stated that he was the father. Marshall

died in an automobile accident on

September 12, 1987.

In November 1987 Daniels filed an

application, on behalf of Adonis, for

child’s benefits on Marshall’s earnings

record but the claim was denied, both

initially and upon reconsideration,

because the child did not satisfy any of

the statutory entitlement requirements.

After a hearing, an ALJ found that

Adonis was not Marshall’s ‘‘child’’

under section 216(h)(3) of the Act

because the deceased wage earner was

not living with or contributing to the

support of Adonis at the time of his

death. The ALJ also found that Adonis

was not entitled under the other

definitions of child in section 216(h),

including the definition incorporated by

reference from the Georgia law of

intestate succession.2 However, the ALJ

stated that Adonis appeared to be the

child of the worker. The Appeals

Council denied Daniels’ request for

review of the ALJ’s decision.

The plaintiff sought judicial review

alleging that SSA’s application of the

Georgia statutory scheme for intestate

succession was unconstitutional

because it denied her child equal

protection of law. The district court

affirmed SSA’s findings and rejected the
41990 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices

3 The court considered the following leading

cases: Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988); Pickett v.

Brown, 462 U.S. 1 (1983); Mills v. Habluetzel, 456

U.S. 91 (1982); Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (1978);

and Handley, By and Through Herron v. Schweiker,

697 F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1983).

4 Quoting Handley, 697 F.2d at 1003.

constitutional challenge. Daniels

appealed and the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

reversed the judgment of the district

court on the grounds that, as applied to

the particular facts of the case, SSA’s

use of Georgia intestacy law was

unconstitutional.

Holding: After carefully considering

the principles stated in the leading cases

addressing the constitutionality of

similar State statutes, the Court of

Appeals held that ‘‘as applied to this

case, the Social Security Act’s

incorporation of the Georgia intestacy

scheme violates equal protection.’’3

Noting that the United States Supreme

Court, in Pickett v. Brown, had ruled

unconstitutional a State statute that

imposed a two-year limit on paternity

and child support actions on behalf of

certain illegitimate children, the Daniels

court found that the obstacles that

prevented a child from establishing

paternity during the first two years after

birth persisted, at least, into the third

year. Accordingly, the court concluded

that ‘‘where the father died less than

two and one-half years after Adonis’

birth, the requirement that paternity be

established during the lifetime of the

father effectively ‘impose[d] an

unconstitutional insurmountable barrier

which denie[d] appellant the equal

protection of the laws.’’’4

The court also noted that Daniels was

further impeded in establishing the

paternity of her child because of her

status as a minor. Although the court

did not hold that the Georgia intestacy

statute was unconstitutional, it found

that SSA’s application of that statute to

the specific facts of the case when

determining Daniels’ eligibility for

Social Security survivors benefits

violated equal protection.

Statement As To How Daniels Differs

From Social Security Policy

In accordance with section

216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, SSA uses State

laws to decide whether a claimant is the

child of a deceased worker. Under its

regulation (20 CFR 404.354(b))

implementing section 216(h)(2)(A), SSA

‘‘look[s] to the laws that were in effect

at the time the insured worker died in

the State where the insured had his or

her permanent home.’’ The State laws

governing intestate succession (i.e., the

laws State courts use to decide whether

a claimant could inherit a child’s share

of the worker’s personal property if the

worker had died without leaving a will)

are controlling.

The Daniels court found that the Act’s

incorporation of the Georgia intestacy

law’s requirement that the paternity of

an illegitimate child be established

during the lifetime of the father was

unconstitutional as applied to the facts

in Daniels’ case, where paternity would

have had to be established in less than

two and one-half years from the date of

the child’s birth. Under these

circumstances, the court found that the

requirement constituted an

insurmountable barrier and violated the

child’s right to equal protection of law.

Explanation of How SSA Will Apply

The Daniels Decision Within The Circuit

This Ruling applies only to cases

where the applicant for surviving

child’s benefits under section

216(h)(2)(A) of the Act resides in

Alabama, Florida or Georgia at the time

of the determination or decision at any

administrative level, i.e., initial,

reconsideration, ALJ hearing or Appeals

Council.

When adjudicating a claim for

surviving child’s benefits involving the

establishment of inheritance rights

under a State’s intestacy law, SSA will

allow a period of two and one-half years

from the date of birth of the applicant

for the commencement and resolution of

legitimacy proceedings before applying

a statutory requirement that requires an

illegitimate child to establish paternity

during the lifetime of the father.

Adjudicators will continue to apply the

other provisions of State intestacy law

in effect on the date of the worker’s

death.

[FR Doc. 97–20272 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4190-29-F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that

the Information Collection Requests

(ICRs) abstracted below have been

forwarded to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review and

comment. The ICRs describes the nature

of the information collection and their

expected burden. The Federal Register

Notice with a 60-day comment period

soliciting comments on OMB Control

Number: 2133–0522 was published on

May 19, 1997 (FR 62 27290). The

Federal Register Notice with a 60-day

comment period soliciting comments on

OMB Control Number: 2133–0517 was

published on May 13, 1997 (FR 62

26348).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before September 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Weaver, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone

202–366–2811.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Maritime Administration

1. Title: Seamen’s Claims;

Administrative Action and Litigation.

Type of Request: Extension of

currently approved information

collection.

OMB Control Number: 2133–0522.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Description of

Respondents: Officers or members of a

crew (or their surviving dependents or

beneficiaries, or by their legal

representatives) who suffered death,

injury, or illness while employed on

vessels as employees of the United

States through the National Shipping

Authority, Maritime Administration

(MARAD), or successor.

Abstract: Collects information from

claimants for death, injury or illness

suffered while serving as officers or

members of a crew employed on vessels

as employees of the United States

through the National Shipping

Authority, Maritime Administration

(MARAD), or successor.

Need and Use of the Information: The

information collected is evaluated by

MARAD to determine if the claim is fair

and reasonable. If the claim is allowed,

it is settled, a release is obtained from

the claimant verifying consummation of

the settlement, and payment is made to

the claimant.

Annual Estimated Burden: 750 hours.

2. Title: Approval of Underwriters for

Marine Hull Insurance.

Type of Request: Extension of

currently approved information

collection.

OMB Control Number: 2133–0517.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Foreign underwriters

of marine insurance and insurance

brokers placing marine hull insurance if

less than 50 percent of the placement is

made in the American market.

Abstract: Concerns approval of

marine hull underwriters to insure

MARAD program vessels. Foreign

applicants will be required to submit