71632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

34 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). 35 5 U.S.C. 601–12. 36The RFA definition of ‘‘small entity’’ refers to 

the definition provided in the Small Business Act 

(SBA), which defines a ‘‘small business concern’’ as 

a business that is independently owned and 

operated and that is not dominant in its field of 

operation. See 15 U.S.C. 632. According to the SBA, 

a small electric utility is defined as one that has a 

total electric output of less than four million MWh 

in the preceding year. 

gathering, analysis, and 

dissemination.34 Accordingly, neither 

an environmental impact statement nor 

environmental assessment is required. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

41. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 35 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Many of the entities, i.e., 

reliability coordinators, transmission 

operators, generation operators, 

transmission owners and distribution 

providers identified in the transmission 

operator’s restoration plan, to which the 

requirements of this rule would apply 

do not fall within the definition of small 

entities,36 but most transmission owners 

and most distribution providers would 

be deemed small entities. The proposed 

Reliability Standards clarify the 

elements of restoration plans and 

training requirements and give 

reliability coordinators a greater role in 

review and approval of plans, but the 

proposed Reliability Standards reflect 

primarily a continuation of existing 

system restoration requirements 

currently applicable to reliability 

coordinators, transmission operators 

and generation operators. 

42. Based on available information 

regarding NERC’s compliance registry, 

and our best assessment of the 

application of the proposed Reliability 

Standards, approximately 1,110 entities 

will be responsible for compliance with 

proposed Reliability Standards EOP– 

005–2 and EOP–006–2, of which 

approximately 678 are transmission 

owners and distribution providers not 

already subject to the existing system 

restoration Reliability Standards. Of the 

678 transmission owners and 

distribution providers, only that subset 

whose field switching personnel are 

identified in the restoration plan as 

having unique tasks will be subject to a 

new requirement under the proposed 

standards, i.e., providing two hours of 

system restoration training every two 

calendar years to such personnel. The 

Commission estimates that this 

requirement will impose a cost of 

perhaps $1,056 per year on transmission 

owners and distribution providers, and 

indeed for some entities there will be no 

additional cost because field personnel 

are already being trained in restoration 

tasks and therefore should not present 

significant operating costs. Based on the 

foregoing, the Commission certifies that 

this proposed Reliability Standard will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

43. Based on this understanding, the 

Commission certifies that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required. 

VII. Comment Procedures 

44. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments on the 

matters and issues proposed in this 

notice to be adopted, including any 

related matters or alternative proposals 

that commenters may wish to discuss. 

Comments are due January 24, 2011. 

Comments must refer to Docket No. 

RM10–16–000, and must include the 

commenter’s name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their 

address in their comments. 

45. Commenters may submit 

comments, identified by Docket No. 

RM10–16–000 and in accordance with 

the requirements posted on the 

Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.ferc.gov. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Agency Web Site: Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format, and not in a scanned format, at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver their 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. These 

requirements can be found on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp or 

via phone from FERC Online Support at 

202–502–6652 or toll-free at 1–866– 

208–3676. 

46. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

on this proposal are not required to 

serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

VIII. Document Availability 

47. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through 

FERC’s Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) 

and in FERC’s Public Reference Room 

during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First 

Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 

20426. 

48. From FERC’s Home Page on the 

Internet, this information is available on 

eLibrary. The full text of this document 

is available on eLibrary in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, 

printing, and/or downloading. To access 

this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number excluding the last three 

digits of this document in the docket 

number field. 

49. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during 

normal business hours from FERC 

Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202)502–8659. E-mail the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29569 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2007–0101] 

RIN 0960–AF69 

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating 

Mental Disorders 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

limited reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening for a 

limited purpose the comment period for 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) that we published in the 

Federal Register on August 19, 2010 (75 

FR 51336). We are reopening the 

comment period for 15 days to clarify 

and to seek additional public comment 

about an aspect of the proposed 

definitions of the terms ‘‘marked’’ and 

‘‘extreme’’ in sections 12.00 and 112.00 

of our Listing of Impairments (listings). 

We are reopening the comment period 

to accept comments about that issue 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71633 

1There are additional functional criteria, which 

we refer to as the paragraph C criteria, in current 

listings 12.02, 12.03, 12.04, and 12.06. We do not 

discuss those criteria here. 

2 50 FR 35038, 35066 (August 28, 1985). 

3 55 FR 51208 (December 12, 1990). 

only. We will not consider comments on 

any other aspects of the proposed 

listings for mental disorders that we 

receive during this reopened comment 

period. 

DATES: To ensure that your comments 

are considered, we must receive them 

no later than December 9, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of three methods—Internet, 

fax, 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–2007–0101 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. 

• 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– 

2007–0101. 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. 

• Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966– 

2830. 

• Mail: Address 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: 

Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Medical 

Listings Improvement, Social Security 

Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235– 

6401, (410) 965–1020. 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: 

Electronic Version 

The electronic file of this document is 

available on the date of publication in 

the Federal Register at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

We are reopening until December 9, 

2010 the comment period on one aspect 

of our proposed rules to revise our 

mental disorders listings: Definitions we 

provide for the terms ‘‘marked’’ and 

‘‘extreme’’ that refer to standardized 

testing. In light of the public comments 

we have received on this aspect of our 

proposed rules, we have decided to 

provide more background about these 

proposals, to clarify our intent, and to 

request additional public comment on 

only this clarification. We have received 

many letters and facsimile messages 

from members of the public who appear 

to have misunderstood the background 

and purpose of these proposals. We 

believe that it will be helpful to these 

and other commenters if we provide 

more information and more time to 

comment on this issue. 

Background 

In this section and the sections that 

follow, we will review what our current 

rules say, the history of those rules and 

how we developed them, and how they 

relate to the proposed rules. As we will 

show, in most instances the proposed 

rules would not be new, especially for 

children with mental disorders who 

claim disability benefits under the 

supplemental security income (SSI) 

program. We developed the rules with 

input from both medical experts and 

advocates for people who have mental 

disorders. We do not intend the 

proposed rules to have the effect of 

encouraging our adjudicators to 

purchase testing; rather, they are 

alternative criteria that we use to help 

define our terms for assessing severity 

under the listings. The proposed rules 

would also not directly affect adults or 

children who are already receiving 

disability benefits from us. 

Under our current mental disorders 

listings, each listing (except listings 

12.05 and 12.09) consists of a statement 

describing the disorder(s) addressed by 

the listing (a ‘‘capsule definition’’), 

paragraph A criteria (a set of medical 

findings), and paragraph B criteria (a set 

of four impairment-related functional 

limitations).1 In general, we will find 

that an adult is disabled under the 

current mental disorders listings if he or 

she has a mental disorder that meets the 

capsule definition and the paragraph A 

criteria of a listing, and the disorder 

results in ‘‘marked’’ limitations in two of 

the four paragraph B criteria. We define 

the term ‘‘marked’’ for adults in current 

§ 12.00C as follows: 

Where we use ‘‘marked’’ as a standard for 

measuring the degree of limitation, it means 

more than moderate but less than extreme. A 

marked limitation may arise when several 

activities or functions are impaired, or even 

when only one is impaired, as long as the 

degree of limitation is such as to interfere 

seriously with your ability to function 

independently, appropriately, effectively, 

and on a sustained basis. 

We also cross-refer to current 

§§ 404.1520a and 416.920a in our 

regulations, which indicate that 

‘‘marked’’ is more than moderate and 

less than extreme. We repeat a variation 

of this definition of ‘‘marked’’ in 

additional sections under § 12.00C. For 

example, in § 12.00C1, we state: ‘‘We do 

not define ‘marked’ by a specific 

number of activities of daily living in 

which functioning is impaired, but by 

the nature and overall degree of 

interference with function.’’ We follow 

this statement with an example that 

refers generally to ‘‘serious’’ difficulties 

in daily activities. 

Except for very minor language 

changes, we have had this definition of 

‘‘marked’’ in our adult mental disorders 

listings since 1985.2 The 1985 adult 

mental disorders listings were also the 

first listings in which we established a 

standard of listing-level severity based 

on ‘‘marked’’ limitations in two broad 

areas of functioning. Since that time, 

however, we have issued other listings 

and rules that use a ‘‘two-marked 

standard’’ or otherwise refer to ‘‘marked’’ 

limitations. 

Over the last 20 years, we have 

refined and expanded our definition of 

the term ‘‘marked’’ in response to 

questions from our adjudicators and the 

public and based on expert input. We 

first expanded the definition of 

‘‘marked’’ in revised childhood mental 

disorders listings we published in 

1990.3 Although we have made minor 

language changes, the definition of 

‘‘marked’’ in our childhood disability 

rules, which we developed with 

information we received from a panel of 

experts, has been substantively the same 

since we first published it. The current 

childhood rule provides: 

Where ‘‘marked’’ is used as a standard for 

measuring the degree of limitation[,] it means 

more than moderate but less than extreme. A 

marked limitation may arise when several 

activities or functions are impaired, or even 

when only one is impaired, as long as the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

4Listings, § 112.00C. 

5See, in general, 56 FR 5534 (February 11, 1991). 

6 20 CFR 416.926a(c)(3) (1997). 

7 62 FR 6408, 6414 (February 11, 1997). 

8 65 FR 54747 (September 11, 2000). 

9 Ibid. 

10 20 CFR 416.926a(e)(2). 

11 65 FR at 54757. 

12Propose § 12.00D2, 75 FR at 51356. Again, 

there is a similar definition of ‘‘extreme’’ in the next 

paragraph on the same page. 

degree of limitation is such as to interfere 

seriously with the ability to function (based 

upon age-appropriate expectations) 

independently, appropriately, effectively, 

and on a sustained basis. When standardized 

tests are used as the measure of functional 

parameters, a valid score that is two standard 

deviations below the norm for the test will 

be considered a marked restriction.4

We incorporated this definition by 

reference for the policy of functional 

equivalence when we first established 

that policy in 1991.5 In 1997, following 

the enactment of Public Law 104–193, 

we published separate definitions of the 

terms ‘‘marked’’ and ‘‘extreme’’ for the 

purposes of determining functional 

equivalence. We also provided several 

alternative definitions, including a 

definition that provided that ‘‘[w]hen 

standardized tests are used as the 

measure of functional abilities, a valid 

score that is two standard deviations or 

more below the norm for the test (but 

less than three standard deviations)’’ 

would establish a marked limitation. 

Our 1997 rules also provided that 

‘‘[w]hen standardized tests are used as 

the measure of functional abilities, a 

valid score that is three standard 

deviations or more below the norm for 

the test’’ would establish an extreme 

limitation.6

When we first published this rule in 

1997, we explained that the definitions 

of ‘‘marked’’ and ‘‘extreme’’ were ‘‘not 

new, but are based on longstanding 

policy in the regulations and 

interpretations we have used in our 

internal instructions and training.’’7

As in 1991, the rules for SSI children 

we published in 1997 were interim final 

rules with a request for public comment. 

When we published the final rules in 

2000,8 we explained in the preamble 

that ‘‘we asked a number of individual 

experts for information as we 

formulated these final rules. The experts 

included pediatricians, psychologists, 

and other pediatric specialists, and 

individual advocates for children with 

disabilities who have expert knowledge 

about the SSI program.’’9 The final rules 

we published in 2000 contained specific 

definitions of the terms ‘‘marked’’ and 

‘‘extreme’’ that are consistent with the 

rules we proposed in our August 2010 

NPRM, including the provisions that: 

• We will find that a person has a 

‘‘marked’’ limitation when he or she has 

a valid score that is two standard 

deviations or more below the mean, but 

less than three standard deviations, and 

• ‘‘Marked’’ limitation is the 

equivalent of the functioning we would 

expect to find on standardized testing 

with scores that are at least two, but less 

than three, standard deviations below 

the mean. 

The current functional equivalence 

rule is identical to the rule we 

published in 2000.10 We also provide a 

definition of ‘‘extreme’’ with criteria 

similar to those in the definition of 

‘‘marked’’ but at a higher level of 

severity. 

When we published the current 

definition of ‘‘marked’’ for functional 

equivalence, we explained in the 

preamble of the final rules: 

In addition to retaining the other 

definitions of ‘‘marked’’ from the interim final 

rules, we also added a new one explaining 

that ‘‘marked’’ is the equivalent of functioning 

we would expect to find on standardized 

testing with scores that are at least two, but 

less than three, standard deviations below 

the mean. This includes in our rules a 

longstanding instruction from the training 

manual we provided to our adjudicators 

when the interim final rules were 

implemented. (Childhood Disability 

Training, SSA Office of Disability, Pub. No. 

64–075, March 1997.)11

What the Proposed Rules Say 

Immediately before we define the 

terms ‘‘marked’’ and ‘‘extreme,’’ we 

provide the following general guidance 

in proposed § 12.00D1: 

1. General 

a. When we rate your limitations 

using the paragraph B mental abilities, 

we consider only limitations you have 

because of your mental disorder. 

b. To do most kinds of work, a person 

is expected to use his or her mental 

abilities independently, appropriately, 

effectively, and on a sustained basis. 

c. Marked or extreme limitation of a 

paragraph B mental ability reflects the 

overall degree to which your mental 

disorder interferes with your using that 

ability independently, appropriately, 

effectively, and on a sustained basis in 

a work setting. It does not necessarily 

reflect a specific type or number of 

activities, including activities of daily 

living, that you have difficulty doing. In 

addition, no single piece of information 

(including test scores) can establish 

whether you have marked or extreme 

limitation of a paragraph B mental 

ability. (See 12.00D4.) [Emphasis 

added.] 

d. Marked or extreme limitation of a 

paragraph B mental ability also reflects 

the kind and extent of supports you 

receive and the characteristics of any 

highly structured setting in which you 

spend your time that enable you to 

function as you do. The more extensive 

the supports or the more structured the 

setting you need to function, the more 

limited we will find you to be. * * * 

The proposed rule defining ‘‘marked’’ 

limitation for adults says: 

2. What We Mean by ‘‘Marked’’ 

Limitation 

a. Marked limitation of a paragraph B 

mental ability means that the symptoms 

and signs of your mental disorder 

interfere seriously with your using that 

mental ability independently, 

appropriately, effectively, and on a 

sustained basis to function in a work 

setting. Although we do not require the 

use of such a scale, marked would be 

the fourth point on a five-point rating 

scale consisting of no limitation, slight 

limitation, moderate limitation, marked 

limitation, and extreme limitation. 

b. Although we do not require 

standardized test scores to determine 

whether you have marked limitations, 

we will generally find that you have 

marked limitation of a paragraph B 

mental ability when you have a valid 

score that is at least two, but less than 

three, standard deviations below the 

mean on an individually administered 

standardized test designed to measure 

that ability and the evidence shows that 

your functioning over time is consistent 

with the score. (See also 12.00D4.) 

[Emphasis added.] 

c. Marked limitation is also the 

equivalent of the level of limitation we 

would expect to find on standardized 

testing with scores that are at least two, 

but less than three, standard deviations 

below the mean.12

Proposed §§ 12.00D4a and D4c say, as 

pertinent to this reopened NPRM: 

4. How We Consider Your Test Results 

a. We do not rely on any IQ score or 

other test result alone. We consider your 

test scores together with the other 

information we have about how you use 

the mental abilities described in the 

paragraph B criteria in your day-to-day 

functioning. 

* * * * * 

c. Generally, we will not find that a 

test result is valid for our purposes 

when the information we have about 

your functioning is of the kind typically 

used by medical professionals to 

determine that the test results are not 

the best measure of your day-to-day 

functioning. If there is a material 

inconsistency between your test results 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71635 

13 You may look up our award data for children 

under SSI by year in the SSI Annual Statistical 

Report, available at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ 

policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2009/ssi_asr09.pdf. 

14See 404.1594(c)(3)(i), 416.994(b)(2)(iv)(A), and 

416.994a(b)(2). 

and other information in your case 

record, we will try to resolve it. * * * 

* * * * * 

(Emphasis added). We provide similar 

definitions of the terms ‘‘marked’’ and 

‘‘extreme’’ in the listings section for 

children, with criteria appropriate to 

childhood. 

Why are we providing a limited 

reopening of the public comment 

period? 

In response to the NPRM, we received 

many public comments that seemed to 

misunderstand our current policy, what 

changes we were proposing, and how 

the proposals might affect adults and 

children. We believe that much of the 

confusion was caused by our failure to 

provide sufficiently detailed 

information about our current policies 

and where our proposals came from. We 

apologize for that omission, which we 

have corrected in this notice. 

Although we received a wide variety 

of comments, we are reopening the 

public comment period on a limited 

basis to specifically address the 

misunderstanding of our current and 

proposed policy regarding the use of 

standardized tests. We are requesting 

public comment only on this issue in 

light of the clarification we are 

providing in this notice. 

Many commenters focused on two 

aspects of our proposed rule: (1) A 

definition of ‘‘marked’’ based on a 

standardized test score that is two 

standard deviations below the mean; 

and, (2) a separate definition of 

‘‘marked’’ based on functioning that 

would be the equivalent of such a score 

if there were a standardized test. As 

discussed above, neither of these 

proposals represents new policy; both 

are based on our longstanding rules. 

However, some commenters said that 

our proposal would encourage our 

adjudicators to use standardized tests. 

Many said that we should drop all 

reference to standardized tests in the 

mental illness sections of the proposed 

rules and that the change would reduce 

the number of children and adults with 

serious mental disorders who qualify for 

disability benefits. Some who are 

already beneficiaries or who have family 

members who are beneficiaries were 

concerned that they would lose their 

benefits. 

We did not intend for, and do not 

believe that, our proposed rules would 

do any of these things. The childhood 

mental disorders listings have contained 

a provision defining ‘‘marked’’ limitation 

as a score that is two standard 

deviations below the mean on a 

standardized test for 20 years. We 

developed those rules with information 

we received from a group of mental 

health experts. We did not propose to 

change that provision or the way we 

determine disability in children with 

serious mental disorders. We proposed 

only to extend the provision to adults 

since it has worked well in childhood 

claims. 

The proposed rules for adults and 

children do not state that adjudicators 

should obtain standardized tests, 

encourage them to do so, or indicate 

that there are standardized tests for all 

serious mental disorders. Rather, our 

proposed rules state only that if a person 

has a standardized test and the scores 

are two standard deviations below the 

mean, the test will show that the person 

has a ‘‘marked’’ limitation. Consistent 

with our current childhood rules, the 

proposed rules also state that 

adjudicators must not rely on the results 

of standardized tests alone but must 

consider all of the evidence in the 

person’s case record. 

Since the beginning of 2001, our 

functional equivalence regulation has 

contained an alternative rule defining 

‘‘marked’’ limitation for children based 

on functioning that would be consistent 

with a score on a standardized test that 

is two standard deviations below the 

mean, if there were such a test. As with 

the provision for actual scores from an 

actual test, the rule provides that we 

will find that the child has a marked 

limitation if the child is functioning at 

that level. The regulation section, like 

the proposed rule for the mental 

disorders listings, also provides other 

definitions for the term ‘‘marked.’’ We 

began using this regulation in 1997, 13 

years ago. The number of awards of 

children who apply for SSI has not 

fallen since that time.13 Given this 

experience, we believe that it was 

appropriate to include the rule in both 

the adult and child mental disorders 

listings. 

Perhaps most importantly, it appeared 

that many commenters did not 

understand that we do not deny a 

person’s claim merely because his or her 

impairment(s) does not meet or 

medically equal the criteria of our 

listings. As under our current rules, 

adults with mental disorders who 

cannot perform their past work or a 

significant number of jobs in the 

national economy considering their age, 

education, and work experience would 

still be able to qualify under other rules 

we have for finding persons disabled. 

We also want to make clear that we 

do not reexamine the entitlement of 

beneficiaries when we revise listings. 

When we periodically perform 

continuing disability reviews to 

determine if beneficiaries are still 

disabled, we continue to use the same 

listing section we used to make our 

most recent favorable decision.14 Thus, 

beneficiaries who qualified under a 

current listing would continue to 

qualify as long as their impairments 

continued to meet or medically equal 

the current listing. 

In light of the importance of this issue 

and the widespread misunderstanding 

of our proposed rules, we are reopening 

the comment period for the limited 

purpose of allowing interested persons 

to provide any additional comments 

they may have on our proposed policy 

regarding the use of standardized tests. 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29577 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

21 CFR Part 1308 

[Docket No. DEA–345N] 

Schedules of Controlled Substances: 

Temporary Placement of Five 

Synthetic Cannabinoids Into 

Schedule I 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The Deputy Administrator of 

the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) is issuing this notice of intent to 

temporarily place five synthetic 

cannabinoids into the Controlled 

Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the 

temporary scheduling provisions under 

21 U.S.C. 811(h) of the CSA. The 

substances are 1-pentyl-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole (JWH–018), 1-butyl-3- 

(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–073), 1-[2-(4- 

morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole (JWH–200), 5-(1,1- 

dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3- 

hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP– 

47,497), and 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2- 

[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol 

(cannabicyclohexanol; CP–47,497 C8 

homologue). This intended action is 

based on a finding by the DEA Deputy 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1