20282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface at Mondell Field 

Airport, Newcastle, WY. Controlled 

airspace is necessary to accommodate 

aircraft using the RNAV (GPS) standard 

instrument approach procedures at 

Mondell Field Airport and would 

enhance the safety and management of 

aircraft operations at the airport. A 

minor airport name change would be 

made from Mondell Field to Mondell 

Field Airport, Newcastle, WY. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005, of FAA 

Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, 

and effective September 15, 2010, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in this Order. 

The FAA has determined this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) 

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

section 106, describes the authority for 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart 

I, section 40103. Under that section, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations to assign the use of the 

airspace necessary to ensure the safety 

of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it establishes 

additional controlled airspace at 

Mondell Field Airport, Newcastle, WY. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, and 

effective September 15, 2010 is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ANM WY E5 Newcastle, WY [Modified] 

Mondell Field Airport, WY 

(Lat. 43°53′08′′ N., long. 104°19′05′′ W.) 

Ellsworth AFB, SD 

(Lat. 44°08′42′′ N., long. 103°06′13′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within 4 miles 

northeast and 8.3 miles southwest of the 

Mondell Field Airport 154° and 334° bearings 

extending from 5.3 miles northwest to 16.1 

miles southeast of the airport; that airspace 

extending upward from 1,200 feet above the 

surface bounded on the north by the north 

edge of V–86, on the east by a 45.6-mile 

radius of Ellsworth AFB, on the south by the 

north edge of V–26, on the west by a line 4.3 

miles west of and parallel to the Mondell 

Field Airport 360° bearing; that airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet MSL 

bounded on the north by the north edge of 

V–26, on the east by a 45.6-mile radius of 

Ellsworth AFB, on the south by the south 

edge of V–26, on the west by a line 4.3 miles 

west of and parallel to the Mondell Field 

Airport 360° bearing. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 6, 

2011. 

Christine Mellon, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8743 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA 2010–0044] 

RIN 0960–AG89 

How We Collect and Consider 

Evidence of Disability 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration 

(SSA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We propose to modify the 

requirement to recontact your medical 

source(s) first when we need to resolve 

an inconsistency or insufficiency in the 

evidence he or she provided. Depending 

on the nature of the inconsistency or 

insufficiency, there may be other, more 

appropriate sources from whom we 

could obtain the information we need. 

By giving adjudicators more flexibility 

in determining how best to obtain this 

information, we will be able to make a 

determination or decision on disability 

claims more quickly and efficiently in 

certain situations. Eventually, our need 

to recontact your medical source(s) in 

many situations will be significantly 

reduced as a result of our efforts to 

improve the evidence collection process 

through the increased utilization of 

Health Information Technology (HIT). 

DATES: To be sure that we consider your 

comments, we must receive them by 

June 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of three methods—Internet, 

fax, or mail. Do not submit the same 

comments multiple times or by more 

than one method. Regardless of which 

method you choose, please state that 

your comments refer to Docket No. 

SSA–2010–0044 so that we may 

associate your comments with the 

correct regulation. 

Caution: You should be careful to 

include in your comments only 

information that you wish to make 

publicly available. We strongly urge you 

not to include in your comments any 

personal information, such as Social 

Security numbers or medical 

information. 

1. Internet: We strongly recommend 

that you submit your comments via the 

Internet. Please visit the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Use the Search 

function to find docket number SSA– 

2010–0044. The system will issue a 

tracking number to confirm your 

submission. You will not be able to 

view your comment immediately 

because we must post each comment 

manually. It may take up to a week for 

your comment to be viewable. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20283 

1Sections 404.1512(d) and 416.912(d) require us 

to ‘‘make every reasonable effort’’ to develop ‘‘your 

complete medical history for at least the 12 months 

preceding the month in which you file your 

application unless there is a reason to believe that 

development of an earlier period is necessary or 

unless you say that your disability began less than 

12 months before you filed your application.’’ See 

§§ 404.1512(d)(1) and 416.912(d)(1) for how we 

define ‘‘every reasonable effort.’’ 

2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966– 

2830. 

3. Mail: Mail your comments to the 

Office of Regulations, Social Security 

Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21235–6401. 

Comments are available for public 

viewing on the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov or 

in person, during regular business 

hours, by arranging with the contact 

person identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Rudick, Office of Regulations, 

Social Security Administration, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, (410) 965–7102. 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: 

Explanation of Changes 

Sometimes the evidence we receive 

from your treating physician, 

psychologist, or other medical source is 

inadequate for us to determine whether 

you are disabled; that is, we either do 

not have sufficient evidence to 

determine whether you are disabled or 

if after weighing the evidence we 

determine we cannot reach a conclusion 

about whether you are disabled. 

Our current regulations describe what 

actions we will take in these situations. 

Currently, we will first recontact your 

medical source to determine whether 

the additional information we need is 

readily available, unless we know from 

past experience that the source either 

cannot or will not provide the necessary 

findings. We will seek additional 

evidence or clarification from your 

medical source when the report from 

your medical source contains a conflict 

or ambiguity that must be resolved, does 

not contain all the necessary 

information, or does not appear to be 

based on medically acceptable clinical 

and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 

We may do this by requesting copies of 

your medical source’s records, a new 

report, or a more detailed report from 

your medical source, including your 

treating source, or by telephoning your 

medical source. If the information we 

need is not readily available from your 

medical source, we may request 

additional medical records, ask you to 

undergo a consultative examination (CE) 

at our expense, or ask you or others for 

more information. Sections 404.1512(e), 

404.1527(c), 416.912(e), and 416.927(c). 

We are currently engaged in efforts to 

dramatically improve the evidence 

collection process, particularly as it 

pertains to obtaining records from your 

medical source(s). Through the 

increased utilization of HIT, we will be 

able to obtain medical records from your 

source(s) electronically in a readable 

and organized format. HIT will also 

enable our adjudicators to access your 

complete records upon their receipt of 

a claim for adjudication. By obtaining 

all of the records from your medical 

source(s) at the outset of a claim and in 

a format that will speed our review of 

the evidence, we will be able to 

significantly reduce the need to 

recontact your source(s) for additional 

records or clarification. HIT will also 

reduce the number of CEs we might 

otherwise need when information from 

your medical source(s) is inadequate for 

us to determine disability. 

In the meantime, we propose to 

modify the requirement in 

§§ 404.1512(e) and 416.912(e) that we 

first recontact your medical source(s) 

when we need to resolve an 

inconsistency or insufficiency in the 

evidence he or she provided. Under our 

proposed rule, after we have made every 

reasonable effort to help you get medical 

reports from your medical sources,1 we 

will determine the best way to resolve 

the inconsistency or insufficiency. We 

will do that by taking one or more of 

several actions, including recontacting 

your medical source(s) when we need to 

resolve an inconsistency or 

insufficiency in the evidence he or she 

provided. 

Although we propose to eliminate the 

requirement that we recontact your 

medical source(s) first when we need to 

resolve an inconsistency or 

insufficiency in the evidence he or she 

provided, we expect that our 

adjudicators would continue to 

recontact your medical source(s) when 

we believe such recontact is the most 

effective and efficient way to resolve an 

inconsistency or insufficiency. For 

example, if we have a report from one 

of your medical sources that contains a 

functional assessment of your physical 

capacity for work, but no clinical or 

objective findings in support, we expect 

that the adjudicator would first contact 

that source to find out the reasons for 

his or her assessment. Similarly, when 

the medical evidence we receive from 

one of your medical sources contains an 

internal inconsistency about an issue 

relevant to our disability determination, 

we would also expect that our 

adjudicator would contact that source to 

resolve the inconsistency. 

However, our adjudicative experience 

has shown that, in some cases, there are 

other, more effective, ways to obtain the 

additional information we need. It is 

sometimes inefficient and ineffective to 

require our adjudicators to first contact 

your medical source(s). For example, 

when your medical source(s) does not 

specialize in the area of the impairment 

you have alleged and we need more 

evidence about its current severity, we 

may supplement the evidence in your 

case record by obtaining a CE with a 

specialist (such as a pulmonologist) who 

can perform the type of examination we 

need in order to determine whether you 

are disabled under our rules. 

In addition, there are times when 

issues revealed in the medical evidence 

are better clarified by someone other 

than your medical source(s). For 

example, if the medical evidence 

contains a reference that indicates you 

returned to work, it may be more 

appropriate to contact you to verify this 

information and to obtain any related 

information, such as your schedule, 

earnings, and job duties, rather than 

recontacting your medical source(s). 

The current requirement to recontact 

your medical source(s) first can 

sometimes cause a delay in the 

adjudication of your case. 

There are situations where we need 

the flexibility to determine how best to 

resolve inconsistencies and 

insufficiencies in the evidence. This 

proposed change would give our 

adjudicators the discretion to determine 

the best way to address these issues and 

obtain the needed information more 

quickly and efficiently. In these 

situations, we would shorten case 

processing time and conserve resources. 

This proposed change would not alter 

our rules in §§ 404.1512(d) and 

416.912(d) that require us to make every 

reasonable effort to help you get medical 

reports from your medical sources when 

you give us permission to request the 

reports. Rather, the proposed change 

would apply only after we have made 

those reasonable efforts. In addition to 

removing the requirement to recontact 

medical sources first in all situations, 

we propose to reorganize and clarify our 

rules about how we would consider and 

obtain additional evidence so that these 

rules are easier to understand and 

apply. Specifically, we propose to 

combine the guidance in current 

§§ 404.1512(e), 404.1527(c), 416.912(e), 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20284 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and 416.927(c) in a new section, 

proposed §§ 404.1520b and 416.920b. In 

this new section, we will: 

• Explain when we consider evidence 

to be ‘‘insufficient’’ or ‘‘inconsistent’’; 

• Explain that if all the evidence we 

receive, including any medical 

opinion(s), is consistent and there is 

sufficient evidence for us to determine 

whether you are disabled, we will make 

a determination or decision based on 

that evidence; 

• Explain that if any of the evidence 

in your case record, including any 

medical opinion(s), is inconsistent, we 

will weigh the relevant evidence and 

decide if we can determine whether you 

are disabled based on the evidence we 

have; 

• Explain that if the evidence is 

consistent but we have insufficient 

evidence to determine whether you are 

disabled or if after weighing the 

evidence we determine we cannot reach 

a conclusion about whether you are 

disabled, we will determine the best 

way to resolve any inconsistency or 

insufficiency; 

• Explain that the action(s) we take 

will depend on the nature of the 

inconsistency or insufficiency; 

• List the action(s) we will take to 

resolve the inconsistency or 

insufficiency and explain that we may 

not take all of the actions listed; 

• Explain that if we cannot resolve 

the inconsistency or insufficiency, we 

will make a determination or decision 

based on the evidence we have. 

Because we are proposing to remove 

current §§ 404.1512(e), 404.1527(c), 

416.912(e), and 416.927(c), we would 

redesignate the paragraphs that follow. 

We would revise cross-references in 

§§ 404.1512(b)(6), 404.1545(a)(3), 

416.912(b)(6), and 416.945(a)(3) to 

reflect these redesignations. We would 

also add cross-references to proposed 

§§ 404.1520b and 416.920b in 

§§ 404.1519a, 404.1520, 404.1527, 

416.919a, 416.920, and 416.927. 

Current §§ 404.1512(f) and 416.912(f) 

(proposed redesignated §§ 404.1512(e) 

and 416.912(e)), state, ‘‘If the 

information we need is not readily 

available from the records of your 

medical treatment source, or we are 

unable to seek clarification from your 

medical source, we will ask you to 

attend one or more consultative 

examinations at our expense.’’ The 

phrase ‘‘not readily available from the 

records of your medical treatment 

source’’ could be read to require 

recontact with your medical sources 

first, so we propose to revise this 

language to say that we may ask you to 

attend one or more consultative 

examinations at our expense. Similarly, 

we would revise the first sentence in 

current §§ 404.1519a(a)(1) and 

416.919a(a)(1) (proposed redesignated 

§§ 404.1519a(a) and 416.919a(a)) 

because it could also be read to require 

recontact first. 

We would also remove from the list 

of situations which may require a CE in 

§§ 404.1519a(b) and 416.919a(b) the 

example that indicates that we could 

not resolve the inconsistency or 

insufficiency by recontacting your 

medical source. We also propose to 

combine the guidance in current 

§§ 404.1519a(a)(2) and (b) and 

416.919a(a)(2) and (b), because both of 

these paragraphs explain that we will 

use results from CEs to resolve 

inconsistencies and insufficiencies. 

Other Changes 

We propose to make a number of 

other editorial corrections and nonsubstantive changes to the current rules. 

We are proposing these changes for 

clarity and consistency and to correct 

minor grammatical errors. For example, 

we propose to revise some language 

from passive to active voice. Where the 

current rules refer to a ‘‘determination,’’ 

we propose to add the term ‘‘or 

decision,’’ as appropriate, to clarify that 

these regulations apply to 

determinations and decisions at all 

levels of our administrative review 

process. 

Our current title II rules state, ‘‘you 

must furnish medical and other 

evidence * * * about your medical 

impairment(s) and, if material to the 

determination of whether you are blind 

or disabled, its effect on your ability to 

work on a sustained basis.’’ Section 

404.1512(a). Our current title XVI rules 

state, ‘‘If material to the determination 

whether you are blind or disabled, 

medical and other evidence must be 

furnished about the effects of your 

impairment(s) on your ability to work, 

or if you are a child, on your 

functioning, on a sustained basis.’’ 

Section 416.912(a). We propose to 

remove the words ‘‘blind or’’ from these 

two sections because your ability to 

work is not material to a determination 

or decision of whether you have 

blindness under titles II and XVI of the 

Social Security Act. This change reflects 

our current policy and operational 

practice with respect to the evaluation 

of disability claims involving blindness. 

Clarity of These Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. In addition to your 

substantive comments on these 

proposed rules, we invite your 

comments on how to make them easier 

to understand. For example: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit your needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rules 

clearly stated? 

• Do the rules contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rules easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rules easier to understand? 

When will we start to use these rules? 

We will not use these rules until we 

evaluate the public comments we 

receive on them, determine whether 

they should be issued as final rules, and 

issue final rules in the Federal Register. 

If we publish final rules, we will 

explain in the preamble how we will 

apply them, and summarize and 

respond to the public comments. Until 

the effective date of any final rules, we 

will continue to use our current rules. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866 as 

Supplemented by Executive Order 

13563 

We have consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

determined that these proposed rules 

meet the requirements for a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 as supplemented by Executive 

Order 13563. Thus, they were reviewed 

by OMB. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that these proposed rules, 

if published in final, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because they would affect only 

individuals. Accordingly, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as provided in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, 

is not required. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These proposed rules do not create 

any new or affect any existing 

collections and, therefore, does not 

require Office of Management Budget 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

(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; and 

96.006, Supplemental Security Income) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20285 

List of Subjects 

20 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; 

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability 

Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements; Social Security. 

20 CFR Part 416 

Administrative practice and 

procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability 

benefits, Public Assistance programs; 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements; Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we propose to amend subpart 

P of part 404 and subpart I of part 416 

of chapter III of title 20 Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, 

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE (1950–) 

Subpart P—[Amended] 

1. The authority citation for subpart P 

of part 404 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a), (b), and (d)– 

(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i) and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, 

and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 402, 405(a)–(b), and (d)–(h), 416(i), 

421(a), (i) and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 

902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, 110 

Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 

118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 

2. Amend § 404.1512 by: 

a. Revising the third sentence of 

paragraph (a); 

b. In paragraph (b)(6), removing the 

phrase ‘‘(see § 404.1527(f)(1)(ii));’’ and 

adding in its place the phrase ‘‘. See 

§ 404.1527(e)(2) through (3).’’, 

c. Removing paragraph (e), 

e. Redesignating paragraph (f) as (e) 

f. Revising the heading and first 

sentence of newly redesignated 

paragraph (e), and g. Redesignating 

paragraph (g) as (f). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 404.1512 Evidence. 

(a) * * * This means that you must 

furnish medical and other evidence that 

we can use to reach conclusions about 

your medical impairment(s) and, if 

material to the determination of whether 

you are disabled, its effect on your 

ability to work on a sustained basis. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(e) Obtaining a consultative 

examination. We may ask you to attend 

one or more consultative examinations 

at our expense. * * * 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 404.1519a by 

a. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as 

paragraph (a) and revising the newly 

redesignated paragraph (a), 

b. Removing paragraph (a)(2), 

b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text, 

e. Adding ‘‘or’’ after the semi-colon in 

paragraph (b)(3), 

E. Removing paragraph (b)(4), and 

f. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as 

(b)(4). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 404.1519a When we will purchase a 

consultative examination and how we will 

use it. 

(a) General. If we cannot get the 

information we need from your medical 

sources, we may decide to purchase a 

consultative examination. See 

§ 404.1512 for the procedures we will 

follow to obtain evidence from your 

medical sources and § 404.1520b for 

how we consider evidence. Before 

purchasing a consultative examination, 

we will consider not only existing 

medical reports, but also the disability 

interview form containing your 

allegations as well as other pertinent 

evidence in your file. 

(b) Situations which may require a 

consultative examination. We may 

purchase a consultative examination to 

try to resolve an inconsistency in the 

evidence, or when the evidence as a 

whole is insufficient to allow us to make 

a determination or decision on your 

claim. Some examples of when we 

might purchase a consultative 

examination to secure needed medical 

evidence, such as clinical findings, 

laboratory tests, a diagnosis, or 

prognosis, include but are not limited 

to: 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 404.1520 by adding a 

sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(3) 

to read as follows: 

§ 404.1520 Evaluation of disability in 

general. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * See § 404.1520b. 

* * * * * 

5. Add § 404.1520b to read as follows: 

§ 404.1520b How we consider evidence. 

After we review all of the evidence 

relevant to your claim, including 

medical opinions (see § 404.1527), we 

make findings about what the evidence 

shows. In some situations, we may not 

be able to make these findings because 

the evidence in your case record is 

insufficient or inconsistent. We consider 

evidence to be insufficient when it does 

not contain all the information we need 

to make our determination or decision. 

We consider evidence to be inconsistent 

when it conflicts with other evidence, 

contains an internal conflict, is 

ambiguous, or when the medical 

evidence does not appear to be based on 

medically acceptable clinical or 

laboratory diagnostic techniques. If the 

evidence in your case record is 

insufficient or inconsistent, we may 

need to take additional actions, as we 

explain in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section. 

(a) If all of the evidence we receive, 

including all medical opinion(s), is 

consistent and there is sufficient 

evidence for us to determine whether 

you are disabled, we will make our 

determination or decision based on that 

evidence. 

(b) If any of the evidence in your case 

record, including any medical 

opinion(s), is inconsistent, we will 

weigh the relevant evidence and see 

whether we can determine whether you 

are disabled based on the evidence we 

have. 

(c) If the evidence is consistent but we 

have insufficient evidence to determine 

whether you are disabled or if after 

weighing the evidence we determine we 

cannot reach a conclusion about 

whether you are disabled, we will 

determine the best way to resolve the 

inconsistency or insufficiency. The 

action(s) we take will depend on the 

nature of the inconsistency or 

insufficiency. We will try to resolve the 

inconsistency or insufficiency by taking 

any one or more of the actions listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this 

section. We might not take all of the 

actions listed below. We will consider 

any additional evidence we receive 

together with the evidence we already 

have. 

(1) We may recontact your treating 

physician, psychologist, or other 

medical source. We may choose not to 

seek additional evidence or clarification 

from a medical source if we know from 

experience that the source either cannot 

or will not provide the necessary 

evidence. If we obtain medical evidence 

over the telephone, we will send the 

telephone report to the source for 

review, signature, and return; 

(2) We may request additional 

existing records (see § 404.1512); 

(3) We may ask you to undergo a 

consultative examination at our expense 

(see §§ 404.1517 through 404.1519t); or 

(4) We may ask you or others for more 

information. 

(d) When there are inconsistencies in 

the evidence that we cannot resolve or 

when, despite efforts to obtain 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20286 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

additional evidence, the evidence is 

insufficient to determine whether you 

are disabled, we will make a 

determination or decision based on the 

evidence we have. 

6. Amend § 404.1527 as follows: 

a. Revise paragraph (b); 

b. Remove paragraph (c); 

c. Redesignate paragraphs (d) through 

(f) as (c) through (e); 

d. In newly redesignated paragraph (c) 

remove ‘‘(d)(2)’’ and add in its place 

‘‘(c)(2)’’; 

e. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(2) remove ‘‘(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii)’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘(c)(2)(i) and 

(c)(2)(ii)’’ and remove ‘‘(d)(3) through 

(d)(6)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(c)(3) 

through (c)(6)’’; 

f. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(d)(3) remove ‘‘(e)(1) and (e)(2)’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘(d)(1) and (d)(2)’’; 

g. In newly redesignated paragraph (e) 

remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and add in its 

place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’; 

h. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’; and 

i. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e)(2)(iii) remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 404.1527 Evaluating opinion evidence. 

* * * * * 

(b) How we consider medical 

opinions. In determining whether you 

are disabled, we will always consider 

the medical opinions in your case 

record together with the rest of the 

relevant evidence we receive. See 

§ 404.1520b. 

* * * * * 

7. Amend § 404.1545 by revising the 

fifth sentence of paragraph (a)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 404.1545 Your residual functional 

capacity. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * (See §§ 404.1512(d) through 

(e).) * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

8. The authority citation for subpart I 

of part 416 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 

1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p) and 

1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 

1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383(b); secs. 

4(c) and 5, 6(c)–(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98– 

460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 

U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note). 

9. Amend § 416.912 by: 

a. Revising the third sentence of 

paragraph (a), 

b. In paragraph (b)(6), removing the 

phrase (see § 416.927(f)(1)(ii)); and 

adding in its place the phrase ‘‘See 

§ 416.927(e)(2)–(3)’’, 

c. By removing paragraph (e), 

d. Redesignating paragraph (f) as (e), 

e. Revising the heading and first 

sentence of the newly redesignated 

paragraph (e), and 

f. Redesignating paragraph (g) as (f). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 416.912 Evidence. 

(a) * * * If material to the 

determination whether you are disabled, 

medical and other evidence must be 

furnished about the effects of your 

impairment(s) on your ability to work, 

or if you are a child, on your 

functioning, on a sustained basis. * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) Obtaining a consultative 

examination. We may ask you to attend 

one or more consultative examinations 

at our expense. * * * 

* * * * * 

10. Amend § 416.919a by: 

a. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as 

(a) and revising the newly redesignated 

paragraph (a), 

b. Removing paragraph (a)(2), 

c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text, 

d. Adding ‘‘or’’ after the semi-colon in 

paragraph (b)(3), 

e. Removing paragraph (b)(4), and 

f. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as 

(b)(4). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 416.919a When we will purchase a 

consultative examination and how we will 

use it. 

(a) General. If we cannot get the 

information we need from your medical 

sources, we may decide to purchase a 

consultative examination. See § 416.912 

for the procedures we will follow to 

obtain evidence from your medical 

sources and § 416.920b for how we 

consider evidence. Before purchasing a 

consultative examination, we will 

consider not only existing medical 

reports, but also the disability interview 

form containing your allegations as well 

as other pertinent evidence in your file. 

(b) Situations which may require a 

consultative examination. We may 

purchase a consultative examination to 

try to resolve an inconsistency in the 

evidence or when the evidence as a 

whole is insufficient to support a 

determination or decision on your 

claim. Some examples of when we 

might purchase a consultative 

examination to secure needed medical 

evidence, such as clinical findings, 

laboratory tests, a diagnosis, or 

prognosis, include but are not limited 

to: 

* * * * * 

11. Amend § 416.920 by adding a 

sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(3) 

to read as follows: 

§ 416.920 Evaluation of disability in 

general. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * See § 416.920b. 

* * * * * 

12. Add § 416.920b to read as follows: 

§ 416.920b How we consider evidence. 

After we review all of the evidence 

relevant to your claim, including 

medical opinions (see § 416.927), we 

make findings about what the evidence 

shows. In some situations, we may not 

be able to make these findings because 

the evidence in your case record is 

insufficient or inconsistent. We consider 

evidence to be insufficient when it does 

not contain all the information we need 

to make our determination or decision. 

We consider evidence to be inconsistent 

when it conflicts with other evidence, 

contains an internal conflict, is 

ambiguous, or when the medical 

evidence does not appear to be based on 

medically acceptable clinical or 

laboratory diagnostic techniques. If the 

evidence in your case record is 

insufficient or inconsistent, we may 

need to take additional actions, as we 

explain in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section. 

(a) If all of the evidence we receive, 

including all medical opinion(s), is 

consistent and there is sufficient 

evidence for us to determine whether 

you are disabled, we will make our 

determination or decision based on that 

evidence. 

(b) If any of the evidence in your case 

record, including any medical 

opinion(s), is inconsistent, we will 

weigh the relevant evidence and see 

whether we can determine whether you 

are disabled based on the evidence we 

have. 

(c) If the evidence is consistent but we 

have insufficient evidence to determine 

whether you are disabled or if after 

weighing the evidence we determine we 

cannot reach a conclusion about 

whether you are disabled, we will 

determine the best way to resolve the 

inconsistency or insufficiency. The 

action(s) we take will depend on the 

nature of the inconsistency or 

insufficiency. We will try to resolve the 

inconsistency or insufficiency by taking 

any one or more of the actions listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this 

section. We might not take all of the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20287 

actions listed below. We will consider 

any additional evidence we receive 

together with the evidence we already 

have. 

(1) We may recontact your treating 

physician, psychologist, or other 

medical source. We may choose not to 

seek additional evidence or clarification 

from a medical source if we know from 

experience that the source either cannot 

or will not provide the necessary 

evidence. If we obtain medical evidence 

over the telephone, we will send the 

telephone report to the source for 

review, signature, and return; 

(2) We may request additional 

existing records (see § 416.912); 

(3) We may ask you to undergo a 

consultative examination at our expense 

(see §§ 416.917 through 416.919t); or 

(4) We may ask you or others for more 

information. 

(d) When there are inconsistencies in 

the evidence that we cannot resolve or 

when, despite efforts to obtain 

additional evidence, the evidence is 

insufficient to determine whether you 

are disabled, we will make a 

determination or decision based on the 

evidence we have. 

13. Amend § 416.927 as follows: 

a. Revise paragraph (b); 

b. Remove paragraph (c); 

c. Redesignate paragraphs (d) through 

(f) as (c) through (e); 

d. In newly redesignated paragraph (c) 

remove ‘‘(d)(2)’’ and add in its place 

‘‘(c)(2)’’; 

e. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(2) remove ‘‘(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii)’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘(c)(2)(i) and 

(c)(2)(ii)’’ and remove ‘‘(d)(3) through 

(d)(6)’’ and add in its place ‘‘(c)(3) 

through (c)(6)’’; 

f. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(d)(3) remove ‘‘(e)(1) and (e)(2)’’ and add 

in its place ‘‘(d)(1) and (d)(2)’’; 

g. In newly redesignated paragraph (e) 

remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and add in its 

place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’; 

h. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’; and 

i. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e)(2)(iii) remove ‘‘(a) through (e)’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘(a) through (d)’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 416.927 Evaluating opinion evidence. 

* * * * * 

(b) How we consider medical 

opinions. In determining whether you 

are disabled, we will always consider 

the medical opinions in your case 

record together with the rest of the 

relevant evidence we receive. See 

§ 416.920b. 

* * * * * 

14. Amend § 416.945 by revising the 

fifth sentence of paragraph (a)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 416.945 Your residual functional 

capacity. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * (See §§ 416.912(d) through 

(e).) * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–8388 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Chapter I 

No Child Left Behind School Facilities 

and Construction Negotiated 

Rulemaking Committee 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs is announcing 

that the No Child Left Behind School 

Facilities and Construction Negotiated 

Rulemaking Committee will hold its 

sixth meeting in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. The purpose of the meeting is 

to continue working on reports and 

recommendations to Congress and the 

Secretary as required under the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

DATES: The Committee’s sixth meeting 

will begin at 8 a.m. on April 27, 2011, 

and end at 12 p.m. on April 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the National Indian Program Training 

Center, second floor, 1011 Indian 

School Road, NW., Albuquerque, New 

Mexico 87104. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Designated Federal Official, Michele F. 

Singer, Director, Office of Regulatory 

Affairs and Collaborative Action, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs, 1001 Indian School Road, NW., 

Suite 312, Albuquerque, NM 87104; 

telephone (505) 563–3805; fax (505) 

563–3811. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The No 

Child Left Behind School Facilities and 

Construction Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee was established to prepare 

and submit to the Secretary a catalog of 

the conditions at Bureau-funded 

schools, and to prepare reports covering: 

The school replacement and new 

construction needs at Bureau-funded 

school facilities; a formula for the 

equitable distribution of funds to 

address those needs; a list of major and 

minor renovation needs at those 

facilities; and a formula for equitable 

distribution of funds to address those 

needs. The reports are to be submitted 

to Congress and to the Secretary. The 

Committee also expects to draft 

proposed regulations covering 

construction standards for heating, 

lighting, and cooling in home-living 

(dormitory) situations. 

The following items will be on the 

agenda: 

• Review and approve February 2011 

meeting summary; 

• Reach consensus on unresolved 

issues in the draft report; 

• Finalize draft report language and 

prepare for tribal consultation; 

• Agree on a schedule, standard 

agenda and presentation material for 

tribal consultation sessions; 

• Discuss and clarify next steps for 

synthesizing and sharing comments 

received from tribal consultation and 

highlighting key topics for final 

committee meeting; and 

• Public comments. 

Written comments may be sent to the 

Designated Federal Official listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above. All meetings are open to 

the public; however, transportation, 

lodging, and meals are the responsibility 

of the participating public. 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

Paul Tsosie, 

Chief of Staff, Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8649 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 110 and 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1119] 

RIN 1625–AA01; 1625–AA11 

Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor, 

New Bedford, MA: Anchorage Ground 

and Regulated Navigation Area 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend an existing anchorage ground 

which currently overlaps a pilot 

underwater cap (‘‘pilot cap’’) in the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) New Bedford Harbor Superfund 

Site in New Bedford, MA. The Coast 

Guard also proposes to establish a 

regulated navigation area (RNA) 

prohibiting activities that disturb the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1