Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9821 

1Sections 404.900 and 416.1400. 

2Sections 404.1615(c)(1) and 416.1015(c)(1). 

3Sections 404.1615(c)(2) and 416.1015(c)(2). In 

some States, we are testing a modification to the 

disability determination procedures that allows 

State agency disability examiners called ‘‘single 

decisionmakers’’ (SDM) to make both favorable and 

unfavorable determinations alone in some cases; 

that is, without working in a team with a medical 

or psychological consultant. Sections 404.906(b)(2) 

and 416.1406(b)(2). We expect to continue that 

testing even if we adopt these proposed rules as 

final rules. However, if we adopt these proposed 

rules as final rules, the changes would apply in all 

States, including SDM States. They would allow 

SDMs and other disability examiners to make fully 

favorable determinations alone in QDD and 

compassionate allowance claims. 

4Sections 404.1619 and 416.1019. Our data 

demonstrate that the model is working as we 

intend. See, for example, ‘‘Good Practices in Social 

Security: The Quick Disability Determination (QDD) 

and Compassionate Allowances (CAL) Initiatives: A 

case of the Social Security Administration,’’ 

International Social Security Association (ISSA), 

2009, available at: http://www.issa.int/aiss/ 

Observatory/Good-Practices/The-Quick-DisabilityDetermination-QDD-and-CompassionateAllowances-CAL–Initiatives. In that paper, we 

reported to ISSA that the processing time for QDD 

allowances is about 12 days. 

TABLE 1—RELATED SERVICE INFORMATION

Document Revision Date 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170–36–0004 ...................................................................................................... 01 March 10, 2008. 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170–36–0011 ...................................................................................................... 02 July 19, 2007. 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190–36–0006 ...................................................................................................... 01 July 19, 2007. 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190–36–0014 ...................................................................................................... 01 January 14, 2009. 

Task 36–11–02–002 (Low Stage Bleed Check Valve) in Section 1 of the EMBRAER 170 Maintenance 

Review Board Report MRB–1621.

5 November 5, 2008. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

24, 2010. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4505 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2008–0041] 

RIN 0960–AG87 

Disability Determinations by State 

Agency Disability Examiners 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We propose to amend our 

rules to permit disability examiners in 

the State agencies to make fully 

favorable determinations in certain 

claims for disability benefits under titles 

II and XVI of the Social Security Act 

(Act) without the approval of a medical 

or psychological consultant. The 

proposed changes would apply on a 

temporary basis only to claims we 

consider under our rules for Quick 

Disability Determinations (QDD) or 

under our compassionate allowance 

initiative. 

DATES: To be sure that we consider your 

comments, we must receive them no 

later than April 5, 2010. 

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–2008–0041 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 

this method for submitting your 

comments. Visit the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Use the Search 

function of the webpage to find docket 

number SSA–2008–0041, then submit 

your comment. Once you submit your 

comment, the system will issue you a 

tracking number to confirm your 

submission. You will not be able to 

view your comment immediately as we 

must manually post each comment. It 

may take up to a week for your 

comment to be viewable. 

2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966– 

2830. 

3. Mail: Address your comments to 

the Office of Regulations, Social 

Security Administration, 137 Altmeyer 

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 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: 

Nancy Schoenberg, Office of 

Compassionate Allowances and 

Disability Outreach, Social Security 

Administration, 4692 Annex, 6401 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, (410) 966–9408, 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 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. 

What Do Our Current Rules Provide? 

Under our current rules, a State 

agency disability examiner and a State 

agency medical or psychological 

consultant generally work together to 

make disability determinations at the 

first two levels of the administrative 

review process for adjudicating 

disability claims under titles II and XVI 

of the Act.1 The members of the team 

are jointly responsible for the 

determination.2 A State agency 

disability examiner can make the 

disability determination alone only 

when there is no medical evidence to 

evaluate and the claimant fails or 

refuses, without a good reason, to go to 

a consultative examination.3

Although we evaluate all disability 

claims using the same criteria, we have 

developed two methods for expediting 

certain claims where there is a high 

probability that we will find the 

claimant disabled. In the QDD process, 

we use a computer-based predictive 

model to analyze specific elements of 

data in electronic claim files. The 

predictive model identifies claims in 

which there is a high potential that the 

claimant is disabled and in which we 

can quickly and easily obtain evidence 

supporting the claimant’s allegations.4

In the compassionate allowance 

initiative, we use a list of conditions to 

quickly identify diseases and other 

medical conditions that invariably 

qualify under the Listing of Impairments 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

5 20 CFR part 404, subpart P, appendix 1, which 

also applies to title XVI per § 416.925. 

6See generally http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ 

compassionateallowances/. In October 2008, we 

issued an initial list of 50 conditions that we 

consider for compassionate allowance. See http:// 

www.socialsecurity.gov/compassionateallowances/ 

conditions.htm. We created this list based on input 

from a variety of sources, including the public. See, 

e.g., 72 FR 41649 (2007), 73 FR 10715 (2008), and 

73 FR 66563 (2008). We plan to obtain more public 

input in order to determine whether and how to 

expand the list over time. 

7See Social Security Administration Strategic 

Plan 2008–2013, Strategic Goal 2, http:// 

www.ssa.gov/asp/StrategicGoal2.pdf. 

8 72 FR 51173. 

9 Id. at 51175. 

10Sections 404.1520 and 416.920. Fully favorable 

determinations based on medical equivalence or at 

step 5 are only a relatively small fraction of the 

QDD and compassionate allowance determinations 

we have made so far. 

11Sections 404.1526(c) and 416.926(c). 

12Sections 404.1520(a)(4) and 416.920(a)(4). 

13Section 1614(a)(3)(I) of the Act and 

§§ 416.903(f) and 416.1015(e) of our regulations. 

(‘‘listings’’) in our regulations 5 based on 

minimal, but sufficient, objective 

medical information.6

What Changes Are We Proposing, and 

Why? 

We propose to redesignate current 

§§ 404.1615(c)(3) and 416.1015(c)(3) as 

(c)(4) and to add new paragraph (c)(3) to 

allow disability examiners to make fully 

favorable determinations under our 

QDD rules or under our compassionate 

allowance initiative without the 

approval of a medical or psychological 

consultant. This proposal is consistent 

with our goal to allow cases that should 

be allowed as quickly as possible.7 It 

would also help us to process cases 

more efficiently because it would give 

State agency medical and psychological 

consultants more time to work on those 

complex cases for which we need their 

expertise. 

This proposal is a change from our 

prior position. When we published final 

rules extending the QDD process to all 

States,8 we declined to adopt a 

comment to allow disability examiners 

to make determinations without a 

medical or psychological consultant’s 

involvement.9 However, we now have 

about 2 years of experience using the 

QDD process nationally, and even 

longer experience in our Boston region. 

In light of our experience adjudicating 

QDD and compassionate allowance 

cases and our quality assurance reviews 

of determinations made in States that 

use single decisionmakers (SDMs), we 

believe it is appropriate to allow 

disability examiners to make some fully 

favorable determinations without a 

medical or psychological consultation. 

Our quality assurance reviews for the 

past 2 fiscal years show that the 

accuracy rates in the States that use 

SDMs is comparable to, if not higher 

than, the accuracy rates in those States 

that do not use SDMs. Moreover, many 

of the determinations included in our 

quality assurance reviews are more 

complex than QDD and compassionate 

allowance determinations. 

For these reasons, we expect that the 

accuracy rate of QDD and 

compassionate allowance 

determinations made by State agency 

disability examiners would be 

comparable to the accuracy rate of the 

determinations now made by a team. 

We also have other measures in place 

that will provide us with information 

about the quality of QDD and 

compassionate allowance 

determinations, including quality 

assurance reviews. Therefore, we would 

be monitoring determinations made by 

State agency disability examiners. If we 

proceed with final rules, we plan to 

include a ‘‘sunset date’’—a date after 

which the final rules would no longer 

be effective—of three years after the 

final rules become effective, subject to 

further extensions. The sunset date 

would apply only to the final rules on 

determinations by State agency 

disability examiners on QDD and 

compassionate allowance cases. 

State agency disability examiners who 

make fully favorable determinations 

under these proposed rules would still 

have the option of consulting with State 

agency medical and psychological 

consultants when they deem it 

necessary. We would also require State 

agency disability examiners to consult 

with State agency medical or 

psychological consultants before they 

make a fully favorable determination 

based on medical equivalence to a 

listing at step 3 or based on a finding of 

inability to do other work at step 5 of 

our sequential evaluation process.10 Our 

current rules require adjudicators to 

consider the opinion of one or more 

medical or psychological consultants 

when they determine whether an 

impairment(s) medically equals a listing 

at step 3.11 Further, in order to make a 

fully favorable determination at step 5, 

adjudicators must first determine that a 

claimant does not have an 

impairment(s) that meets or medically 

equals a listing; therefore, they will have 

had to consult with a medical or 

psychological consultant to determine 

that there were no impairments that 

medically equaled a listing.12

Regardless of whether the State agency 

disability examiner chooses to consult 

with a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant or is required 

to do so, the disability examiner would 

be solely responsible for the 

determination under the proposed rules. 

We would not apply these proposed 

changes to claims for supplemental 

security income payments under title 

XVI for individuals under age 18. The 

Social Security Act requires us to make 

reasonable efforts to ensure that a 

qualified pediatrician or other 

individual who specializes in a field of 

medicine appropriate to the child’s 

impairment(s) evaluates the child’s 

case.13 We interpret this statutory 

requirement to mean that a medical or 

psychological consultant must 

participate as part of a team in all State 

agency determinations of childhood 

disability under title XVI, including 

fully favorable determinations. 

What Other Changes Are We 

Proposing? 

The change we are proposing would 

apply only to claims adjudicated under 

the QDD process or the compassionate 

allowance initiative. Our current 

regulations explain the QDD process, 

but not the compassionate allowance 

initiative. Therefore, we propose to add 

a short definition of compassionate 

allowance in §§ 404.1602 and 416.1002, 

the sections of subpart Q of part 404 and 

subpart J of part 416 that provide 

definitions of terms. 

We also propose a number of 

conforming changes throughout 

subparts P and Q of part 404 and 

subparts I and J of part 416 of our 

regulations to reflect the provisions in 

proposed new §§ 404.1615(c)(3) and 

416.1015(c)(3). For example, we propose 

revisions to §§ 404.1546 and 416.946 to 

recognize that it would be possible in 

some cases for a State agency disability 

examiner to be responsible for assessing 

a claimant’s residual functional 

capacity. We also propose revisions to 

§§ 404.1512, 404.1527, 416.912, and 

416.927 to account for situations in 

which State agency disability examiners 

would weigh State agency medical or 

psychological consultant input as 

opinion evidence; these rules are similar 

to rules we already have for 

administrative law judges and the 

Appeals Council (when the Appeals 

Council makes a decision). We show all 

of the proposed changes in the proposed 

rules section following this preamble. 

While the QDD process applies only 

to the initial level of the administrative 

review process under §§ 404.1602 and 

416.1002 of our regulations, these 

proposed rules include provisions that 

apply to both the initial and 

reconsideration levels. We have two 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9823 

14Sections 404.907 and 416.1407. 

major reasons for including references 

to the reconsideration level: 

• The compassionate allowance 

initiative is not limited to the initial 

level of administrative review; and, 

• Any claimant who is dissatisfied 

with our determination—even a 

determination that is fully favorable— 

may request a reconsideration.14

Finally, we are proposing minor 

editorial changes to several rules to 

recognize that State agency medical 

consultants are not always physicians. 

These changes would conform these 

rules to the provisions of §§ 404.1616 

and 416.1016 of our current rules. We 

also would correct a grammatical error 

in §§ 404.1619(b)(2) and 416.1019(b)(2) 

and make other minor editorial changes 

throughout the proposed rules. 

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 isn’t 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? 

What Is Our Authority To Make Rules 

and Set Procedures for Determining 

Whether a Person is Disabled Under the 

Statutory Definition? 

Under the Act, we have full power 

and authority to make rules and 

regulations and to establish necessary 

and appropriate procedures to carry out 

the provisions of the Act. Sections 

205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1). In 

addition, we have the power to 

promulgate regulations that establish 

the procedures State agencies must 

follow when performing the disability 

determination function for us. Sections 

221(a)(2) and 1633. 

When Will We Start To Use These 

Rules? 

We will not use these rules until we 

evaluate public comments and publish 

final rules in the Federal Register. All 

final rules we issue include an effective 

date. We will continue to use our 

current rules until that date. If we 

publish final rules, we will include a 

summary of the significant comments 

we received, along with responses and 

an explanation of how we will apply the 

new rules. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866 

We have consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

determined that these proposed rules 

meet the criteria for a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. Thus, they were subject to OMB 

review. 

The Office of the Chief Actuary 

provided two estimates of the effects of 

the proposed rule change, due to 

uncertainty over the extent to which the 

predictive models underlying the QDD 

process and the compassionate 

allowance initiative are expanded. The 

first estimate assumes the percent of 

cases designated QDD or compassionate 

allowance remains at the recent level 

(3.8%). The second estimate assumes 

that we will adjudicate 6% of all cases 

under the QDD or compassionate 

allowance models by the end of FY 

2012. The following table presents the 

year-by-year estimates of the effect of 

the proposed change on OASDI benefit 

payments and Federal SSI payments for 

the fiscal year period 2010–19 under 

these two sets of assumptions. All 

estimates are based on the assumptions 

underlying the President’s FY 2010 

Budget, assuming the proposed changes 

become effective July 1, 2010. The 

estimates reflect projected costs should 

the changes be extended through 2019. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED INCREASES IN

OASDI BENEFITS AND FEDERAL SSI 

PAYMENTS RETAIN QDD AND COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE AT 3.8% 

OF ALL INITIAL RECEIPTS

[In millions] 

Fiscal year OASDI SSI Total 

2010 .................. * * * 

2011 .................. * * * 

2012 .................. $1 * $1 

2013 .................. 1 * 1 

2014 .................. 1 * 1 

2015 .................. 1 * 1 

2016 .................. 1 * 1 

2017 .................. 1 * 1 

2018 .................. 1 * 2 

2019 .................. 2 * 2 

Totals 

2010–14 ..... 2 * 3 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED INCREASES IN

OASDI BENEFITS AND FEDERAL SSI 

PAYMENTS RETAIN QDD AND COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE AT 3.8% 

OF ALL INITIAL RECEIPTS—Continued 

[In millions] 

Fiscal year OASDI SSI Total 

2010–19 ..... 9 1 10 

* Increase in OASDI benefit payments or 

Federal SSI payments of less than $500,000. 

(Totals may not equal the sum of components 

due to rounding.) 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED INCREASES IN

OASDI BENEFITS AND FEDERAL SSI 

PAYMENTS EXPAND QDD AND COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE TO 6% OF

ALL INITIAL RECEIPTS

[In millions] 

Fiscal year OASDI SSI Total 

2011 .................. * * * 

2011 .................. * * $1 

2012 .................. $1 * 1 

2013 .................. 2 * 2 

2014 .................. 2 * 2 

2015 .................. 2 * 3 

2016 .................. 3 * 3 

2017 .................. 3 * 3 

2018 .................. 3 * 4 

2019 .................. 4 $1 4 

Totals 

2010–14 ..... 5 1 6 

2010–19 ..... 20 3 23 

* Increase in OASDI benefit payments or 

Federal SSI payments of less than $500,000. 

(Totals may not equal the sum of components 

due to rounding.). 

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 as 

they affect only States and individuals. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis as provided in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, as amended, is not 

required. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not create any new, or 

affect any existing, collections and, 

therefore, does not require Office of 

Management and Budget approval 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No 96.001, Social Security— 

Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social 

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, 

Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 

96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

Dated: November 10, 2009. 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 

subparts P and Q of part 404 and 

subparts I and J of part 416 of chapter 

III of title 20 of the 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) and (i), 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) and (i), 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 removing the 

word ‘‘and’’ from the end of paragraph 

(b)(5), redesignating paragraph (b)(6) as 

paragraph (b)(8) and revising newly 

redesignated paragraph (b)(8), and 

adding new paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) 

to read as follows: 

§ 404.1512 Evidence. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) At the initial level of the 

administrative review process, when a 

State agency disability examiner makes 

the initial determination alone (see 

§ 404.1615(c)(3)), opinions provided by 

State agency medical and psychological 

consultants based on their review of the 

evidence in your case record (see 

§ 404.1527(f)(1)(ii)); 

(7) At the reconsideration level of the 

administrative review process, when a 

State agency disability examiner makes 

the determination alone (see 

§ 404.1615(c)(3)), findings, other than 

the ultimate determination about 

whether you are disabled, made by State 

agency medical or psychological 

consultants and other program 

physicians, psychologists, or other 

medical specialists at the initial level of 

the administrative review process, and 

other opinions they provide based on 

their review of the evidence in your case 

record at the initial and reconsideration 

levels (see § 404.1527(f)(1)(iii)); and 

(8) At the administrative law judge 

and Appeals Council levels (including 

the administrative law judge and 

Decision Review Board levels in claims 

adjudicated under the procedures in 

part 405 of this chapter), findings, other 

than the ultimate determination about 

whether you are disabled, made by State 

agency medical or psychological 

consultants and other program 

physicians or psychologists, or other 

medical specialists, and opinions 

expressed by medical experts or 

psychological experts that we consult 

based on their review of the evidence in 

your case record. See § 404.1527(f)(2)– 

(3). 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 404.1527 by revising 

paragraphs (f)(1), and (f)(2)(i) and 

(f)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 404.1527 Evaluating opinion evidence. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) In claims adjudicated by the State 

agency, a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant (or a medical 

or psychological expert (as defined in 

§ 405.5 of this chapter) in claims 

adjudicated under the procedures in 

part 405 of this chapter) may make the 

determination of disability together with 

a State agency disability examiner or 

provide one or more medical opinions 

to a State agency disability examiner 

when the disability examiner makes the 

initial or reconsideration determination 

alone (see § 404.1615(c)). The following 

rules apply: 

(i) When a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant makes the 

determination together with a State 

agency disability examiner at the initial 

or reconsideration level of the 

administrative review process as 

provided in § 404.1615(c)(1), he or she 

will consider the evidence in your case 

record and make findings of fact about 

the medical issues, including, but not 

limited to, the existence and severity of 

your impairment(s), the existence and 

severity of your symptoms, whether 

your impairment(s) meets or medically 

equals the requirements for any 

impairment listed in appendix 1 to this 

subpart, and your residual functional 

capacity. These administrative findings 

of fact are based on the evidence in your 

case but are not in themselves evidence 

at the level of the administrative review 

process at which they are made. 

(ii) When a State agency disability 

examiner makes the initial 

determination alone as provided in 

§ 404.1615(c)(3), he or she may obtain 

the opinion of a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant about one or 

more of the medical issues listed in 

paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section. In 

these cases, the State agency disability 

examiner will consider the opinion of 

the State agency medical or 

psychological consultant as opinion 

evidence and weigh this evidence using 

the relevant factors in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section. 

(iii) When a State agency disability 

examiner makes a reconsideration 

determination alone as provided in 

§ 404.1615(c)(3), he or she will consider 

findings made by a State agency medical 

or psychological consultant at the initial 

level of the administrative review 

process and any opinions provided by 

such consultants at the initial and 

reconsideration levels as opinion 

evidence and weigh this evidence using 

the relevant factors in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section. 

(2) * * * 

(i) Administrative law judges are not 

bound by any findings made by State 

agency medical or psychological 

consultants, or other program 

physicians or psychologists. State 

agency medical and psychological 

consultants and other program 

physicians, psychologists, and other 

medical specialists are highly qualified 

physicians, psychologists, and other 

medical specialists who are also experts 

in Social Security disability evaluation. 

Therefore, administrative law judges 

must consider findings and other 

opinions of State agency medical and 

psychological consultants and other 

program physicians, psychologists, and 

other medical specialists as opinion 

evidence, except for the ultimate 

determination about whether you are 

disabled (see § 404.1512(b)(8)). 

(ii) When an administrative law judge 

considers findings of a State agency 

medical or psychological consultant or 

other program physician, psychologist, 

or other medical specialist, the 

administrative law judge will evaluate 

the findings using relevant factors in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section, such as the consultant’s 

medical specialty and expertise in our 

rules, the supporting evidence in the 

case record, supporting explanations the 

medical or psychological consultant 

provides, and any other factors relevant 

to the weighing of the opinions. Unless 

a treating source’s opinion is given 

controlling weight, the administrative 

law judge must explain in the decision 

the weight given to the opinions of a 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9825 

State agency medical or psychological 

consultant or other program physician, 

psychologist, or other medical 

specialist, as the administrative law 

judge must do for any opinions from 

treating sources, nontreating sources, 

and other nonexamining sources who 

do not work for us. 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 404.1529 by revising the 

third sentence of paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 404.1529 How we evaluate symptoms, 

including pain. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * In cases decided by a State 

agency (except in disability hearings 

under §§ 404.914 through 404.918 and 

in fully favorable determinations made 

by State agency disability examiners 

alone under § 404.1615(c)(3)), a State 

agency medical or psychological 

consultant or other medical or 

psychological consultant designated by 

the Commissioner (or a medical or 

psychological expert (as defined in 

§ 405.5 of this chapter) in claims 

adjudicated under the procedures in 

part 405 of this chapter) directly 

participates in determining whether 

your medically determinable 

impairment(s) could reasonably be 

expected to produce your alleged 

symptoms. * * * 

* * * * * 

5. Revise § 404.1546(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 404.1546 Responsibility for assessing 

your residual functional capacity. 

(a) Responsibility for assessing 

residual functional capacity at the State 

agency. When a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant and a State 

agency disability examiner make the 

disability determination as provided in 

§ 404.1615(c)(1), a State agency medical 

or psychological consultant(s) (or a 

medical or psychological expert (as 

defined in § 405.5 of this chapter) in 

claims adjudicated under the 

procedures in part 405 of this chapter) 

is responsible for assessing your 

residual functional capacity. When a 

State agency disability examiner makes 

a disability determination alone as 

provided in § 404.1615(c)(3), the 

disability examiner is responsible for 

assessing your residual functional 

capacity. 

* * * * * 

Subpart Q—[Amended] 

6. The authority citation for subpart Q 

of part 404 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 205(a), 221, and 702(a)(5) 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), 

421, and 902(a)(5)). 

7. Amend § 404.1602 by adding the 

definition ‘‘Compassionate allowance’’ 

in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 404.1602 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Compassionate allowance means a 

determination or decision we make 

under a process that identifies for 

expedited handling claims that involve 

impairments that invariably qualify 

under the Listing of Impairments in 

appendix 1 to subpart P based on 

minimal, but sufficient, objective 

medical evidence. 

* * * * * 

8. Amend § 404.1615 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text, 

removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

paragraph (c)(2), redesignating 

paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(4), and 

adding a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 404.1615 Making disability 

determinations. 

* * * * * 

(c) Disability determinations will be 

made by: 

* * * * * 

(3) A State agency disability examiner 

alone if the claim is adjudicated under 

the quick disability determination 

process (see § 404.1619) or as a 

compassionate allowance (see 

§ 404.1602), and the initial or 

reconsidered determination is fully 

favorable to you. This paragraph will no 

longer be effective on [INSERT DATE 

THREE YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULES] unless we 

terminate it earlier or extend it beyond 

that date by notice of a final rule in the 

Federal Register; or 

* * * * * 

9. Amend § 404.1619 by revising 

paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), 

(b)(2), and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 404.1619 Quick disability determination 

process. 

* * * * * 

(b) If we refer a claim to the State 

agency for a quick disability 

determination, a designated quick 

disability determination examiner must 

do all of the following: 

(1) Subject to the provisions in 

paragraph (c) of this section, make the 

disability determination after consulting 

with a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant if the State 

agency disability examiner determines 

consultation is appropriate or if 

consultation is required under 

§ 404.1526(c). The State agency may 

certify the disability determination 

forms to us without the signature of the 

medical or psychological consultant. 

(2) Make the quick disability 

determination based only on the 

medical and nonmedical evidence in 

the file. 

* * * * * 

(c) If the quick disability 

determination examiner cannot make a 

determination that is fully favorable to 

the individual, or if there is an 

unresolved disagreement between the 

disability examiner and the medical or 

psychological consultant (except when a 

disability examiner makes the 

determination alone under 

§ 404.1615(c)(3)), the State agency will 

adjudicate the claim using the regularly 

applicable procedures in this subpart. 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

10. 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 1383b); 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). 

11. Amend § 416.912 by removing the 

word ‘‘and’’ from the end of paragraph 

(b)(5), redesignating paragraph (b)(6) as 

paragraph (b)(8) and revising newly 

redesignated paragraph (b)(8), and 

adding new paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) 

to read as follows: 

§ 416.912 Evidence. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) At the initial level of the 

administrative review process, when a 

State agency disability examiner makes 

the initial determination alone (see 

§ 416.1015(c)(3)), opinions provided by 

State agency medical and psychological 

consultants based on their review of the 

evidence in your case record (see 

§ 416.927(f)(1)(ii)); 

(7) At the reconsideration level of the 

administrative review process, when a 

State agency disability examiner makes 

the determination alone (see 

§ 416.1015(c)(3)), findings, other than 

the ultimate determination about 

whether you are disabled, made by State 

agency medical or psychological 

consultants and other program 

physicians, psychologists, or other 

medical specialists at the initial level of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the administrative review process, and 

other opinions they provide based on 

their review of the evidence in your case 

record at the initial and reconsideration 

levels (see § 416.927(f)(1)(iii)); and 

(8) At the administrative law judge 

and Appeals Council levels (including 

the administrative law judge and 

Decision Review Board levels in claims 

adjudicated under the procedures in 

part 405 of this chapter), findings, other 

than the ultimate determination about 

whether you are disabled, made by State 

agency medical or psychological 

consultants and other program 

physicians or psychologists, or other 

medical specialists, and opinions 

expressed by medical experts or 

psychological experts that we consult 

based on their review of the evidence in 

your case record. See § 416.927(f)(2)–(3). 

* * * * * 

12. Amend § 416.927 by revising 

paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 416.927 Evaluating opinion evidence. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) In claims adjudicated by the State 

agency, a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant (or a medical 

or psychological expert (as defined in 

§ 405.5 of this chapter) in claims 

adjudicated under the procedures in 

part 405 of this chapter) may make the 

determination of disability together with 

a State agency disability examiner or 

provide one or more medical opinions 

to a State agency disability examiner 

when the disability examiner makes the 

initial or reconsideration determination 

alone (see § 416.1015(c)). The following 

rules apply: 

(i) When a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant makes the 

determination together with a State 

agency disability examiner at the initial 

or reconsideration level of the 

administrative review process as 

provided in § 416.1015(c)(1), he or she 

will consider the evidence in your case 

record and make findings of fact about 

the medical issues, including, but not 

limited to, the existence and severity of 

your impairment(s), the existence and 

severity of your symptoms, whether 

your impairment(s) meets or medically 

equals the requirements for any 

impairment listed in appendix 1 to 

subpart P of part 404 of this chapter, 

and your residual functional capacity. 

These administrative findings of fact are 

based on the evidence in your case but 

are not in themselves evidence at the 

level of the administrative review 

process at which they are made. 

(ii) When a State agency disability 

examiner makes the initial 

determination alone as provided in 

§ 416.1015(c)(3), he or she may obtain 

the opinion of a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant about one or 

more of the medical issues listed in 

paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section. In 

these cases, the State agency disability 

examiner will consider the opinion of 

the State agency medical or 

psychological consultant as opinion 

evidence and weigh this evidence using 

the relevant factors in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section. 

(iii) When a State agency disability 

examiner makes a reconsideration 

determination alone as provided in 

§ 416.1015(c)(3), he or she will consider 

findings made by a State agency medical 

or psychological consultant at the initial 

level of the administrative review 

process and any opinions provided by 

such consultants at the initial and 

reconsideration levels as opinion 

evidence and weigh this evidence using 

the relevant factors in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section. 

(2) * * * 

(i) Administrative law judges are not 

bound by any findings made by State 

agency medical or psychological 

consultants, or other program 

physicians or psychologists. State 

agency medical and psychological 

consultants and other program 

physicians, psychologists, and other 

medical specialists are highly qualified 

physicians, psychologists, and other 

medical specialists who are also experts 

in Social Security disability evaluation. 

Therefore, administrative law judges 

must consider findings and other 

opinions of State agency medical and 

psychological consultants and other 

program physicians, psychologists, and 

other medical specialists as opinion 

evidence, except for the ultimate 

determination about whether you are 

disabled (see § 416.912(b)(8)). 

(ii) When an administrative law judge 

considers findings of a State agency 

medical or psychological consultant or 

other program physician, psychologist, 

or other medical specialist, the 

administrative law judge will evaluate 

the findings using relevant factors in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section, such as the consultant’s 

medical specialty and expertise in our 

rules, the supporting evidence in the 

case record, supporting explanations the 

medical or psychological consultant 

provides, and any other factors relevant 

to the weighing of the opinions. Unless 

a treating source’s opinion is given 

controlling weight, the administrative 

law judge must explain in the decision 

the weight given to the opinions of a 

State agency medical or psychological 

consultant or other program physician, 

psychologist, or other medical 

specialist, as the administrative law 

judge must do for any opinions from 

treating sources, nontreating sources, 

and other nonexamining sources who 

do not work for us. 

* * * * * 

13. Amend § 416.929 by revising the 

third sentence of paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 416.929 How we evaluate symptoms, 

including pain. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * In cases decided by a State 

agency (except in disability hearings 

under §§ 416.1414 through 416.1418 

and in fully favorable determinations 

made by State agency disability 

examiners alone under § 416.1015(c)(3)), 

a State agency medical or psychological 

consultant or other medical or 

psychological consultant designated by 

the Commissioner (or a medical or 

psychological expert (as defined in 

§ 405.5 of this chapter) in claims 

adjudicated under the procedures in 

part 405 of this chapter) directly 

participates in determining whether 

your medically determinable 

impairment(s) could reasonably be 

expected to produce your alleged 

symptoms. * * * 

* * * * * 

14. Revise § 416.946(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 416.946 Responsibility for assessing 

your residual functional capacity. 

(a) Responsibility for assessing 

residual functional capacity at the State 

agency. When a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant and a State 

agency disability examiner make the 

disability determination as provided in 

§ 416.1015(c)(1), a State agency medical 

or psychological consultant(s) (or a 

medical or psychological expert (as 

defined in § 405.5 of this chapter) in 

claims adjudicated under the 

procedures in part 405 of this chapter) 

is responsible for assessing your 

residual functional capacity. When a 

State agency disability examiner makes 

a disability determination alone as 

provided in § 416.1015(c)(3), the 

disability examiner is responsible for 

assessing your residual functional 

capacity. 

* * * * * 

Subpart J—[Amended] 

15. The authority citation for subpart 

J of part 416 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1614, 1631, and 

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

902(a)(5), 1382c, 1383, and 1383b). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9827 

16. Amend § 416.1002 by adding a 

definition of ‘‘Compassionate 

allowance’’ in alphabetical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 416.1002 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Compassionate allowance means a 

determination or decision we make 

under a process that identifies for 

expedited handling claims that involve 

impairments that invariably qualify 

under the Listing of Impairments in 

appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of 

this chapter based on minimal, but 

sufficient, objective medical evidence. 

* * * * * 

17. Amend § 416.1015 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text, 

removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

paragraph (c)(2), redesignating 

paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(4), and 

adding a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 416.1015 Making disability 

determinations. 

* * * * * 

(c) Disability determinations will be 

made by: 

* * * * * 

(3) A State agency disability examiner 

alone if you are not a child (a person 

who has not attained age 18), and the 

claim is adjudicated under the quick 

disability determination process (see 

§ 416.1019) or as a compassionate 

allowance (see § 416.1002), and the 

initial or reconsidered determination is 

fully favorable to you. This paragraph 

will no longer be effective on [INSERT 

DATE THREE YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULES] 

unless we terminate it earlier or extend 

it beyond that date by notice of a final 

rule in the Federal Register; or 

* * * * * 

18. Amend § 416.1019 by revising 

paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), 

(b)(2), and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 416.1019 Quick disability determination 

process. 

* * * * * 

(b) If we refer a claim to the State 

agency for a quick disability 

determination, a designated quick 

disability determination examiner must 

do all of the following: 

(1) Subject to the provisions in 

paragraph (c) of this section, make the 

disability determination after consulting 

with a State agency medical or 

psychological consultant if the State 

agency disability examiner determines 

consultation is appropriate or if 

consultation is required under 

§ 416.926(c). The State agency may 

certify the disability determination 

forms to us without the signature of the 

medical or psychological consultant. 

(2) Make the quick disability 

determination based only on the 

medical and nonmedical evidence in 

the file. 

* * * * * 

(c) If the quick disability 

determination examiner cannot make a 

determination that is fully favorable to 

the individual, or if there is an 

unresolved disagreement between the 

disability examiner and the medical or 

psychological consultant (except when a 

disability examiner makes the 

determination alone under 

§ 416.1015(c)(3)), the State agency will 

adjudicate the claim using the regularly 

applicable procedures in this subpart. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4283 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2010–0001; Notice No. 

103] 

RIN 1513–AB31 

Proposed Expansion of the Santa 

Maria Valley Viticultural Area (2008R– 

287P) 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau proposes to expand 

the Santa Maria Valley viticultural area 

in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo 

Counties, California, by 18,790 acres. 

We designate viticultural areas to allow 

vintners to better describe the origin of 

their wines and to allow consumers to 

better identify wines they may 

purchase. We invite comments on this 

proposed change to our regulations. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on 

this notice to one of the following 

addresses: 

• http://www.regulations.gov (via the 

online comment form for this notice as 

posted within Docket No. TTB–2010– 

0001 at ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal 

e-rulemaking portal); 

• Director, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, 

Washington, DC 20044–4412; or 

• Hand delivery/courier in lieu of 

mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 

200–E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this notice for specific instructions and 

requirements for submitting comments, 

and for information on how to request 

a public hearing. 

You may view copies of this notice, 

selected supporting materials, and any 

comments we receive about this 

proposal at http://www.regulations.gov 

within Docket No. TTB–2010–0001. A 

direct link to this docket is posted on 

the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/ 

wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under 

Notice No. 103. You also may view 

copies of this notice, all related 

petitions, maps or other supporting 

materials, and any comments we receive 

about this proposal by appointment at 

the TTB Information Resource Center, 

1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20220. Please call 202–453–2270 to 

make an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. 

Sutton, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 

158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 

415–271–1254. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

requires that these regulations, among 

other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels, and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the regulations 

promulgated under the FAA Act. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) allows the establishment of 

definitive viticultural areas and the use 

of their names as appellations of origin 

on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the 

list of approved viticultural areas. 

Definition 

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines 

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region 

distinguishable by geographical 

features, the boundaries of which have 

been recognized and defined in part 9 

of the regulations. These designations 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS