Rescission of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 05-1(9), 67724-67725 [2012-27447]
Download as PDF
67724
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Notices
thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to
increase the maximum term for LongTerm Equity Options Series (‘‘LEAPS’’)
to fifteen years. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on August 10,
2012.3 A designation of a longer period
for Commission action was published in
the Federal Register on September 25,
2012.4 The Commission received one
comment on the proposed rule change.5
On September 6, 2012, CBOE responded
to the comment letter.6 This order
approves the proposed rule change.
II. Description of the Proposal
Currently, the maximum term for
equity and interest rate LEAPS is 36
months (three years) and the maximum
term for index LEAPS is 60 months (five
years). CBOE proposes to amend CBOE
Rules 5.8, 23.5(b) and 24.9(b) to increase
the maximum term for all LEAPS to 180
months (fifteen years).7 CBOE notes that
similar fifteen year maximum terms
exist for FLEX Options.8
CBOE states that expanding the
eligible term for all LEAPS to fifteen
years would allow the Exchange to offer
products in an exchange-traded
environment that could compete with
comparable over-the counter (‘‘OTC’’)
products. According to CBOE, it has
received numerous requests from
market participants that currently enter
into OTC positions that have longerdated expirations than are currently
available on CBOE to list LEAPS with
longer dated expirations on the
Exchange. CBOE represents that it has
confirmed that the OCC can configure
its systems to support LEAPS that have
a maximum term of fifteen years.
III. Discussion and Commission
Findings
After careful review, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national
2 17
CFR 240.19b–4.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67600
(August 6, 2012), 77 FR 47890 (‘‘Notice’’).
4 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67892
(September 19, 2012), 77 FR 59029.
5 See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, from Christopher Nagy, President,
KOR Trading LLC, dated August 17, 2012 (‘‘KOR
Letter’’).
6 See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, from Jenny Klebes-Golding, Senior
Attorney, CBOE, dated September 6, 2012 (‘‘CBOE
Letter’’).
7 CBOE also proposes to make technical, nonsubstantive changes to CBOE Rules 5.8 and 24.9 to
delete ‘‘®’’ symbols.
8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58890
(October 30, 2008), 73 FR 66085 (November 6, 2008)
and CBOE Rules 24A.4(a)(2)(iv) and 24B.4(a)(2)(iv).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
3 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Nov 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
securities exchange.9 Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,10 which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
KOR suggests that CBOE’s proposal
lacks data evidencing actual interest in
extended LEAPS terms.11 With regard to
interest in the proposed product, CBOE
responds that its proposal is geared
toward an unmet demand of
institutional investors, and was
prompted by numerous requests from
market participants, such as insurance
companies offering equity-linked
variable annuities, that have typically
turned to OTC dealers to trade options
with longer-dated expirations.12 CBOE
also states that it believes that
additional institutional demand for
longer-dated LEAPS (such as, for
example, S&P 500 Index options) would
come from sell-side firms hedging
longer-dated OTC instruments (such as,
for example, S&P variance).13 Further,
CBOE states that virtually all of the
firms it queried suggested that the ideal
maturity for hedging trading activity
exceeds the 10-year mark and that it
seeks to offer various maturities
(particularly in S&P 500 Index options)
out to fifteen years in order to provide
a more robust and flexible market for
longer-dated options.
KOR also expresses concern that the
proposal does not specify classes to
which the proposal would apply and
that the proposal could unduly burden
the market through its potential impact
on quote traffic and the costs associated
with disseminating and maintaining the
data for longer-termed LEAPS.14 CBOE
states that it does not currently know all
of the specific classes for which there
will be future market demand for
longer-dated LEAPS, and thus it is
unable to identify such classes at this
time.15 CBOE notes, however, that S&P
500 Index options are one of the classes
that it anticipates would underlie
9 In
approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule’s
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
11 See KOR Letter, supra note 5.
12 See CBOE Letter, supra note 6.
13 Id.
14 See KOR Letter, supra note 5.
15 See CBOE Letter, supra note 6.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
longer-dated LEAPS.16 CBOE also states
that it does not expect there to be a
significant increase to quote traffic
because CBOE anticipates listing longerdated LEAPS in response to specific
market demand and does not expect to
significantly populate expirations.17 In
addition, CBOE notes that certain
liquidity providers are not subject to
quoting obligations for LEAPS, which
will assist with quote traffic
mitigation.18
Given CBOE’s representation that
there is demand for options with longerdated expirations from institutional
investors who are currently trading such
options in the OTC market,19 the
Commission believes that the proposal
is reasonably designed to provide such
investors with additional means of
hedging equity portfolios from longterm market risk with an exchangetraded standardized security, thereby
facilitating transactions in options and
contributing to the protection of
investors and the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets. The Commission
notes that fifteen-year expirations are
already permitted for non-standardized
FLEX Options.20 In addition, the
Commission notes the Exchange’s
representation that it does not anticipate
a significant increase in quote traffic.21
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed
above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act.
IV. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,22 that the
proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2012–
071) be, and it hereby is, approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.23
Kevin M. O’Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–27510 Filed 11–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Docket No. SSA–2012–0058]
Rescission of Social Security
Acquiescence Ruling 05–1(9)
AGENCY:
Social Security Administration.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 See
Notice; see also CBOE Letter, supra note 6.
supra note 8.
21 See CBOE Letter, supra note 6.
22 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
20 See
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Notices
Notice of Rescission of Social
Security Acquiescence Ruling 05–1(9)—
Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593
(9th Cir. 2004).
ACTION:
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 https://
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
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Nov 09, 2012
Jkt 229001
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)
[Public Notice 8085]
Culturally Significant Object Imported
for Exhibition Determinations:
‘‘Michelangelo’s David Apollo’’
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.
SUMMARY:
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
[Delegation of Authority No. 346]
[FR Doc. 2012–27447 Filed 11–9–12; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Dated: November 5, 2012.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
67725
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
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67724-67725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27447]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Docket No. SSA-2012-0058]
Rescission of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 05-1(9)
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
[[Page 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 https://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 Gillett-Netting 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, ----U.S.
----, 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 notice-and-
comment rulemaking.'' 132 S. Ct. at 2033-2034 (citations omitted).
Because, in Capato, the Supreme Court rejected the holding in
Gillett-Netting by upholding our policy of applying state intestacy law
in all child-parent 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