[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 57919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


Rescission of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 97-1(1)

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 97-
1(1)--Parisi By Cooney v. Chater, 69 F.3d 614 (1st Cir. 1995).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 404.985(e) and 402.35(b)(2), the 
Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of the rescission of 
Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 97-1(1).

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Sargent, Litigation Staff, Social 
Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, 
(410) 965-1695.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 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)(4) a Social Security Acquiescence 
Ruling may be rescinded as obsolete if we subsequently clarify, modify 
or revoke the regulation or ruling that was the subject of the circuit 
court holding for which the Acquiescence Ruling was issued.
    On January 13, 1997, we issued Acquiescence Ruling 97-1(1) to 
reflect the holding in Parisi By Cooney v. Chater, 69 F.3d 614 (1st 
Cir. 1995), that the Social Security Administration (SSA), when 
computing a family maximum reduction pursuant to section 203(a) of the 
Social Security Act, should not include the monthly benefit that would 
otherwise be payable to a spouse entitled on the earnings record of a 
worker if payment of that spouse's benefit is precluded by section 
202(k)(3)(A) of the Act due to the spouse's entitlement to a higher 
benefit on the spouse's own earnings record. The court also held that 
the statutory language of section 203(a) requires SSA to consider the 
actual amount of benefits payable under the relevant benefit 
provisions, not purely theoretical entitlements, in calculating the 
total monthly benefits payable on the worker's earnings record under 
the family maximum.
    Concurrent with the rescission of this Ruling, we are publishing 
our final rules amending section 404.403 of Social Security Regulations 
No. 4 (20 CFR 404.403) to change the method for computing the family 
maximum benefit reduction when a beneficiary has dual entitlement on a 
another earnings record. The final rules provide in paragraph 
404.403(a)(5) that, when benefits are subject to reduction for both the 
family maximum and dual entitlement, we consider only the amount of 
benefits actually due or payable to the person with dual entitlement on 
the same earnings record when calculating the reduction under the 
family maximum. Because the change in the regulations adopts the Parisi 
court's holding on a nationwide basis, we are rescinding Acquiescence 
Ruling 97-1(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: October 20, 1999.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner of Social Security.
[FR Doc. 99-28018 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P