49598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Customs Service regarding what country

abbreviations are acceptable for

purposes of compliance with the

marking statute. Customs notes that it is

incorrect to abbreviate the word

‘‘concentrate’’ to ‘‘conc’’ when

disclosing the origin of juice concentrate

since the ultimate purchaser will not

unmistakably identify ‘‘conc’’ as an

abbreviation for the word ‘‘concentrate.’’

Summary

Imported fruit juice concentrate

which is imported into the U.S. and

used in the production of concentrated

or reconstituted fruit juice is not

substantially transformed after

undergoing further processing in the

U.S. Accordingly, all such imported

concentrate is subject to the country of

origin marking requirements of 19

U.S.C. 1304, and 19 CFR Part 134.

Processors may use ‘‘major supplier

marking’’ in preparing labels for

containers of juice made with imported

concentrate. If a processor obtains 75

percent or more of the imported

concentrate used in a particular lot from

ten or fewer countries, only those

countries need be revealed. The full

name of the country of origin must be

used unless Customs has authorized

abbreviations which unmistakably

indicate the country of origin of the

concentrate to the ultimate purchaser.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

was David E. Cohen, Office of

Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs

Service. However, personnel from other

offices participated in its development.

Date: September 17, 1997.

Stuart P. Seidel,

Assistant Commissioner, Office of

Regulations and Rulings.

[FR Doc. 97–25134 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

RIN 0960–AE58

Administrative Review Process,

Testing Elimination of the Fourth Step

of Administrative Review in the

Disability Claim Process (Request for

Review by the Appeals Council)

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: We are amending our rules to

establish authority to test elimination of

the final step in the administrative

review process used in determining

claims for Social Security and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

benefits based on disability. Under the

final rules, the right of appeal for a

claimant who is included in the test

procedures and who is dissatisfied with

the decision of an administrative law

judge (ALJ) will be to file a civil action

in Federal district court, rather than to

request the Appeals Council to review

the decision. We are testing procedures

that eliminate the request for Appeals

Council review in furtherance of the

Plan for a New Disability Claim Process

that former Commissioner of Social

Security Shirley S. Chater approved in

September 1994. Unless specified, all

other regulations relating to the

disability determination process and the

administrative review process remain

unchanged.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harry J. Short, Legal Assistant, Division

of Regulations and Rulings, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–6243. For information on eligibility

or claiming benefits, call our national

toll-free number, 1–800–772–1213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Social Security Administration

(SSA) currently uses a four-step process

in deciding claims for Social Security

benefits under title II of the Social

Security Act (the Act) and for SSI

benefits under title XVI of the Act.

Claimants who are not satisfied with the

initial determination on their claims

may request reconsideration. Claimants

who are not satisfied with the

reconsidered determination may request

a hearing before an ALJ, and claimants

who are dissatisfied with an ALJ’s

decision may request review by the

Appeals Council. Claimants who have

completed these four steps, and who are

dissatisfied with the final decision, may

request judicial review of the decision

by filing a civil action in Federal district

court. 20 CFR 404.900 and 416.1400.

SSA’s Plan for a New Disability Claim

Process (59 FR 47887, September 19,

1994) anticipates establishment of a

redesigned, two-step process for

deciding Social Security and SSI claims

based on disability. The redesign plan

anticipates that the process for

determining disability can be

significantly improved by strengthening

the steps of the process in which we

make initial determinations and provide

dissatisfied claimants an opportunity for

a hearing before an ALJ, and by

eliminating the reconsideration step and

the step in which claimants request the

Appeals Council to review the decisions

of ALJs.

In 20 CFR 404.906 and 416.1406 (60

FR 20023, April 24, 1995), we have

established authority to test, singly and

in combination, several model

procedures for modifying the disability

claims process. Under that authority, we

are testing, in isolation from other

possible changes, a modification of the

initial determination step in which a

single decisionmaker, rather than a team

composed of a disability examiner and

a medical consultant, makes the initial

determination of disability. In addition,

under authority established in 20 CFR

404.943 and 416.1443 (60 FR 47469,

September 13, 1995), we are also testing,

in another model for evaluating a

possible change in isolation from other

changes, use of an adjudication officer

as the focal point for all prehearing

activities in disability cases in which a

claimant requests a hearing before an

ALJ.

To assess how the above changes and

other elements of the disability redesign

plan would work together in different

combinations, we initiated an integrated

test on April 7, 1997, that combines

model procedures for major elements of

the redesign plan. As structured under

testing authority established in

§§ 404.906, 404.943, 416.1406, and

416.1443 in combination, this integrated

model includes, in addition to models

for the single decisionmaker and the

adjudication officer, a model for

procedures to provide a predecision

interview conducted by the single

decisionmaker (at which a claimant for

benefits based on disability will have an

opportunity to submit further evidence

and have an interview with the initial

decisionmaker if the evidence is

insufficient to support a fully favorable

initial disability determination or would

require an initial determination denying

the claim), and a model to test

eliminating the reconsideration step in

disability claims.

In order to increase our ability to

assess the effects of possible

modifications of the disability claim

process in combination, we are, through

publication of these final rules, adding

new §§ 404.966 and 416.1466 to our

regulations to authorize testing of an

additional modification in our

integrated model. These final rules

authorize us to incorporate in the

integrated model additional procedures

to test elimination of the step in the

disability claim process in which a

claimant requests the Appeals Council

to review the hearing decision of an

ALJ.

Our specific goal in testing

elimination of the request for Appeals

Council review will be to assess the

effects of this change, as it functions in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49599

conjunction with other modifications in

the disability claim process included in

the integrated model, on: (1) judicial

workloads, and (2) the legal sufficiency

of decisions subjected to judicial

review. We consider the effects of the

change in those respects to represent the

principal, practical issues bearing on the

advisability of eliminating the request

for review step in connection with the

planned, overall redesign of the

disability claim process.

Regulatory Provisions

Under new §§ 404.966 and 416.1466,

we will randomly select approximately

one half of the requests for an ALJ

hearing in the integrated model for

potential inclusion in the test

procedures for eliminating the request

for Appeals Council review. The

remaining requests for hearing in the

integrated model will be processed

under our regulations concerning the

request for Appeals Council review step

and subsequent judicial review. This

will enable us to assess other

modifications tested in the integrated

model in association with both the test

procedures for eliminating the request

for Appeals Council review and our

existing request for review procedures.

The provisions of §§ 404.966 and

416.1466 apply only to those ALJ

decisions that have been identified for

inclusion in that part of our integrated

model in which the request for review

by the Appeals Council is eliminated.

Under these provisions, we will

eliminate the request for review step

(which has been established by agency

regulations and is not mandated by the

Act) in a case in the integrated model if:

(1) the case has been randomly selected

for inclusion in this aspect of the model,

and (2) an ALJ issues a decision in the

case that is less than wholly favorable

to the claimant (i.e., unfavorable or only

partially favorable to the claimant).

Cases in the integrated model in which

an ALJ issues a wholly favorable

decision, dismisses a request for

hearing, or issues a recommended

decision will not be included in this

part of the model. These cases will be

processed under our existing procedures

for requesting Appeals Council review

and judicial review.

In a case to which the new rules

apply, the appeal available to a claimant

who is dissatisfied with the ALJ’s

decision will be, as the notice of the

decision will advise, filing a civil action

in Federal district court. Requesting

review by the Appeals Council will be

eliminated as an appeal and as a

prerequisite to seeking judicial review.

Under §§ 404.966 and 416.1466, the

ALJ’s decision will be binding unless a

party to the decision files a civil action,

the Appeals Council decides within a

specified time to review the decision on

its own motion under the authority

provided in 20 CFR 404.969 and

416.1469, or the decision is revised by

the ALJ or the Appeals Council under

the rules on reopening final decisions in

20 CFR 404.987 and 416.1487. A party

to the decision will have the right to

request the Appeals Council to grant an

extension of time to file a civil action.

Evaluation Procedures

We will evaluate the effect of

eliminating the request for review step

on judicial workloads by comparing the

rate at which civil actions are filed by

individuals whose claims are processed

under the current administrative review

steps in the disability claims process—

i.e., the four step process—to the rate at

which civil actions are filed in cases

selected for processing under the test

procedures for eliminating the request

for Appeals Council review. We will

also consider the rate at which civil

actions are filed in cases in the

integrated model in which we retain the

request for Appeals Council review. In

addition, we will collect and evaluate

information on the reasons individuals

included in the elimination of the

request for review decide either to

pursue or to forgo appeals to district

courts.

We will assess the effect of

eliminating the request for review on

the legal sufficiency of final decisions

by comparing the rates at which,

following the filing of civil actions in

cases included in the integrated model

and in a control sample of cases

processed under the current

administrative review steps in the

disability claims process, we request

court-remand of a case within the

period during which the Commissioner

of Social Security may file his answer to

a civil action under section 205(g) of the

Act. The Appeals Council, working with

agency counsel, will evaluate the claims

in the integrated model and in the

control sample to identify instances in

which a court should be requested (as

courts may be under existing

procedures) to remand a case for further

administrative action. The information

we will collect and evaluate will

include data on the agency’s ability to

assess the legal sufficiency of cases on

a timely basis without having to file

court motions requesting extensions of

the time in which the agency’s answer

may be filed.

Public Comments

These regulatory provisions were

published in the Federal Register as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

on May 16, 1997 (62 FR 26997). We

provided the public a 30-day comment

period. We received statements in

response to this notice from 10

individuals, including employees of

SSA and attorney and nonattorney

representatives of claimants. We also

received comments from a legal services

organization, the American Bar

Association, and the Administrative

Office of the United States Courts.

Many of the commenters discussed

reasons for believing that the request for

Appeals Council review should be

retained either as a mandatory or an

optional step in the disability claim

process. These comments can be viewed

as opposing testing of the elimination of

the request for review step on the basis

that the need for the step, as it now

exists or as it might be changed under

the commenter’s suggestions, is

sufficiently clear to rule out testing its

elimination. We have summarized these

statements in a single comment to this

effect that we address below with the

other substantive comments received.

The American Bar Association

welcomed SSA’s proposal to study the

Appeals Council’s role and endorsed the

plan to examine the impact of

eliminating the request for review step,

without taking a position with respect to

the specific procedures proposed for

testing that impact. The Administrative

Office of the United States Courts

reported that the Federal judiciary

continues to be seriously concerned

about the impact of eliminating the

request for review by the Appeals

Council on the caseloads of the Federal

courts. However, this office supported

careful testing of the proposed changes

and thorough analysis of the results as

consistent with the common interests of

SSA and the courts in providing

efficient and legally sufficient decisions,

and made specific recommendations,

which we address below in our

responses to the comments received, as

to how to ensure such testing and

analysis.

Because some of the comments were

detailed, we condensed, summarized or

paraphrased them. We have, however,

tried to summarize the commenters’

views accurately and respond to all of

the significant issues raised by the

commenters that are within the scope of

the proposed rules. As we discuss below

in responding to the comments, we have

made an addition to the proposed rules

to clarify their intent. We have also

responded to comments received by

adding to our planned evaluation

design.

Comment: A number of the

commenters implicitly or explicitly
49600 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

opposed testing elimination of the

request for review step in the disability

claim process on the basis that the step

is necessary or worthwhile and should

not be eliminated. The wide-ranging

reasons cited for this view included the

following: that a shorter process is not

necessarily a fairer process, that SSA

should deal with the increase in the

Appeals Council’s workloads by

increasing its staff and other support,

that claimants may drop out of the

process prematurely because of the costs

and other difficulties involved in filing

civil actions, that SSA’s workloads will

be increased by the filing of new claims

by individuals who leave the

administrative appeals process

prematurely, and that the change will

result in large increases in caseloads in

the Federal courts.

Response: The reasons cited in

support of this comment are generally

similar to reasons for not eliminating

the request for review step we received

and considered in developing and

publishing the Plan for a New Disability

Claim Process. Many of these reasons

have merit, to one degree or another.

However, there are also sound reasons

for believing that eliminating the

request for review step would improve

the disability claim process, if carried

out in conjunction with other changes to

that process. After reviewing these

additional statements in opposition to

eliminating the request for review step,

we continue to believe that we should

test eliminating this step in conjunction

with other possible changes for the

purpose of gaining additional

information needed to make a fully

informed decision.

Comment: One individual opposed

the proposed testing of the elimination

of the request for review step on the

basis that such testing could itself

adversely affect over 30,000 claimants,

lessening their chances of receiving a

favorable ALJ decision (because ALJs

will know in advance that less than

wholly favorable decisions in certain

cases will not be subject to a request for

Appeals Council review), without

providing the claimants involved in the

testing any offsetting benefits stemming

from process unification and changes to

the front-end of the disability claim

process.

Response: As we stated in the NPRM,

these rules will authorize elimination of

the request for review in only a

relatively small number of cases, which

we project at approximately 1900. The

test will apply only in those cases in the

integrated model that give rise to a

request for an ALJ hearing (projected at

approximately 10,000 cases), that are

then randomly selected for inclusion in

the request for review elimination

(contingent on an ALJ’s issuance of a

less than wholly favorable decision),

and that result in a less than wholly

favorable decision.

We do not know that there would be,

as this comment indicates, a reduction

in the likelihood of an allowance

decision because the ALJ in a case

knows that the case will not be subject

to a request by the claimant for review

by the Appeals Council and will,

instead, be subject to the immediate

filing of a civil action to secure judicial

review. However, we believe that we

should maximize the relevant, advance

notice that we can give individuals that

their cases will be included in these test

procedures of the integrated model (if

an ALJ issues a decision that is less than

wholly favorable) and will, therefore,

provide notice of that circumstance in

the acknowledgment letter issued by the

adjudication officer at the start of the

ALJ hearing process. We also believe it

is important to test these changes at the

ALJ hearing level with the advance

knowledge of the participants in that, if

the request for review step were

ultimately eliminated, all the

participants in the hearing process

would know that the appeal available to

a dissatisfied claimant would be to file

a civil action in Federal district court.

The test of eliminating the request for

review will be accompanied by changes

in the front-end of the disability claim

process and by process unification

changes. Individuals participating in

this test will participate in other

changes being tested in the integrated

model, including the opportunity for a

face-to-face interview with the initial

decisionmaker and elimination of the

reconsideration step. In addition, like

all claims for benefits based on

disability, the claims involved in the

test of eliminating the request for

Appeals Council review will be decided

under the significant process unification

changes we have already made to the

disability claims process. These changes

include the publication of a series of

Social Security Rulings on some of the

most significant issues in disability

adjudication (61 FR 34466–34492, July

2, 1996), and the training of all of our

adjudicators, at all adjudicative levels,

in the correct application of these

rulings.

Comment: One individual expressed

doubt about the methodology of the

proposed test, questioning whether

testing elimination of the request for

Appeals Council review in only about

1900 cases will provide a statistically

valid universe for deriving useful

information relative to a process that

involves, at the ALJ level, hundreds of

thousands of cases and varied factors

affecting case outcome.

Response: Prior to implementing the

integrated model in April 1997, we

secured an independent analytical

assessment of the completeness,

adequacy, and statistical soundness of

our plans for conducting and evaluating

the testing to be carried out in that

model, including our plans for testing

elimination of the request for Appeals

Council review. Performed by the Lewin

Group, Inc., this assessment concluded

that our test design was fundamentally

sound and that, even if

recommendations for improving the test

were not implemented, the test would

likely produce valid findings and

provide information that

decisionmakers and stakeholders need.

Final Report, An Independent

Assessment of the Proposed Structure,

Operation, and Evaluation Plans of the

Full Process Model Pilot (hereafter,

Final Report), prepared by the Lewin

Group, Inc., March 14, 1997, p. 2. (The

‘‘Full Process Model Pilot’’ is same test

that we are herein referring to as the

‘‘integrated model.’’)

We have implemented most of the

recommendations the Lewin Group

made for improving our test and

evaluation procedures. The

recommendations implemented include

the recommendation the Lewin Group

made relative to testing elimination of

the request for Appeals Council review

(which recommendation concerned

when in the process individuals should

be notified that they will not have an

opportunity to request Council review).

Final Report, p. 21.

Comment: The Administrative Office

of the United States Courts requested

clarification as to which judicial

districts will be affected.

Response: The test of eliminating the

request for Appeals Council review will

affect claims of individuals residing in

the following ten States: Arizona,

Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, New York,

Pennsylvania, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

District courts in these States will be

affected by procedures for testing and

evaluating the request for Appeals

Council review elimination.

Comment: The Administrative Office

of the United States Courts also

recommended that follow-up surveys be

conducted with participants in the test

of eliminating the request for Appeals

Council review to determine what

factors went into the decisions of

claimants either to pursue or to forgo

appeals to district courts.

Response: Under our evaluation

design for the integrated model, we
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49601

intend to conduct surveys to collect

information on multiple issues we are

assessing in this model. We believe it

would be helpful to collect and evaluate

information regarding the factors

concerning court filings identified by

this commenter, and we will do that.

Collecting such information requires no

change in the regulatory provisions as

proposed.

Comment: The Administrative Office

of the United States Courts also thought

that it would be advantageous to have

a set period for the test, followed by a

meaningful review of the results,

particularly the impact upon Federal

court filings, prior to a determination

being made as to whether permanent

changes would be made to the Appeals

Council review step. This commenter

also noted in this regard that the Federal

judiciary would like to be made aware

of the results of the proposed test.

Response: We project that the

operational aspects of the integrated

model will be completed within two

and a half to three years of our initiation

of testing in the front-end parts of the

model in April 1997. This projection

includes the estimated time we will

require to conduct pre-answer

assessments of the legal sufficiency of

new court cases that arise in cases in the

integrated model. No fixed term for the

test can be set because completion of its

operational aspects will depend on

when the last civil action is filed in

cases in the integrated model in which

the request for review is eliminated or

the Appeals Council denies review. We

will then require an additional period to

conclude our evaluation of the test

results.

We agree that we should not decide

to propose elimination of the request for

review step in the disability claim

process until we have undertaken

preliminary consultation with key

stakeholders, including the

Administrative Office of the United

States Courts, about the results

demonstrated in our testing of the

integrated model, and about the

multiple issues that would be involved

in proposing such a change. If a

decision were made to propose

elimination of the request for review

step after analysis of the test results, we

would, of course, publish an NPRM

soliciting public comments on the

various changes in our regulations that

would be required to implement this

change.

Comment: A private attorney

representative of claimants commented

that the proposed regulations are

‘‘contrary to the Act in that they purport

to use the first part of sentence six [of

§ 205(g) of the Act] to reclaim ALJ

decisions the agency concludes are

indefensible or that the agency does not

otherwise want to defend.’’ This

commenter believes that the first part of

sentence six is properly used only in

very narrow circumstances, such as

when a hearing transcript cannot be

prepared, and that Congress did not

enact part one of sentence six to provide

the agency with a chance to rehear or

redo an inadequate ALJ decision for the

purpose of avoiding a ruling on the

merits of the decision under sentence

four of § 205(g).

Response: The agency’s procedures

for assessing the legal defensibility of

cases filed in Federal court will not be

affected by the final rules, and any court

action requested in light of such

assessment will continue to be subject

to the relevant provisions of § 205(g) of

the Act. We do not, however, agree that

the first clause of sentence six of

§ 205(g) must be construed in the

restrictive manner suggested by the

commenter, who believed that sentence

six allows remands prior to the filing of

the answer only in ‘‘very narrow

circumstances, such as when a hearing

transcript cannot be prepared.’’ The first

clause of sentence six expressly allows

the court to remand cases for further

proceedings ‘‘for good cause shown.’’ It

neither delineates nor limits the

circumstances which may be sufficient

for a demonstration of good cause.

Moreover, the legislative history of this

provision recognizes the type of

procedural difficulty suggested by the

commenter to be an example of ‘‘good

cause,’’ not an exclusive delineation of

the circumstances that may constitute

good cause. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 944,

96th Cong., 2d Sess. 58–59 (1980).

Significantly, virtually every court

which has addressed the issue has held

that the defining characteristic of a

sentence six, clause one remand lies in

the timing of the remand request, not in

its characterization as either substantive

or technical, i.e., if the remand is

requested by the Commissioner prior to

the filing of his answer, it falls under

sentence six, and if the Commissioner’s

request is made subsequent to the filing

of an answer, it may fall under sentence

four.

Comment: This same individual also

commented that the proposed rules

represent an implicit assertion by the

agency that it may extend the 60 days

for taking own motion review to any

time before the Commissioner files his

answer.

Response: It is our intent that the

Appeals Council shall have authority to

review a case on its own motion under

these final rules only if it decides to

review the case, and issues a notice

establishing the occurrence of such a

decision, within the 60-day period

prescribed in §§ 404.969 and 416.1469

(i.e., within 60 days of the date of the

hearing decision). We believe this intent

is clear in the rules as proposed, which

indicate in §§ 404.966(b)(2) and

416.1466(b)(2) that the own-motion

authority the Appeals Council will have

under these rules is the authority

provided in §§ 404.969 and 416.1469.

In test cases in which the request for

review by the Appeals Council is

eliminated and the notice of the ALJ’s

decision advises the parties of the right

to file a civil action, it is also our intent

that the authority of the Appeals

Council to decide to review a case on its

own motion shall cease to exist, even if

60 days have not yet lapsed after the

date of the ALJ’s decision, as of the date,

if any, upon which the jurisdiction of a

Federal district court is established by

the filing of a civil action as provided

in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

We have clarified §§ 404.966(b)(2) and

416.1466(b)(2) to make this intention

clearer. The agency’s assessment of a

case following establishment of the

jurisdiction of a Federal court will occur

under the provisions of § 205(g) of the

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

In a case in which we test elimination

of the request for Appeals Council

review, a decision by the Appeals

Council to review an ALJ’s decision

under §§ 404.969 or 416.1469 will mean

that the Council has assumed

jurisdiction of the case, thereby causing

the decision not to be a final decision

of the Commissioner of Social Security

subject to judicial review under § 205(g)

of the Act. If the Appeals Council

decides to review one of these cases on

its own motion, it must issue a notice

establishing its decision to do so before

a civil action is filed establishing the

jurisdiction of a Federal district court.

To clarify our intent in these respects,

we have revised §§ 404.966(b)(2) and

416.1466(b)(2) in the final rules to

include a provision specifying that the

Appeals Council must issue a notice

announcing its decision to review the

case on its own motion before the filing

date of any civil action establishing the

jurisdiction of a Federal district court.

Comment: This same individual also

commented that the proposed

regulations invite unnecessary litigation

over motions for extension of time to

file answer.

Response: As we discussed in the

NPRM, our intent is that the Appeals

Council, working with agency counsel,

will evaluate the legal sufficiency of

cases in the integrated model and in a
49602 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

control sample to determine, within the

time in which the Commissioner of

Social Security may file his answer, if

we should request the court to remand

the case. We do not expect that these

activities will require the agency

frequently to request extensions of time

to file answers in these cases. However,

our ability to carry out these evaluations

in a timely fashion is an important

consideration and will be one of the

matters we assess in the testing to be

conducted under these final rules.

Based on our analysis of the

comments, we are adopting the

proposed rules with the abovediscussed addition to §§ 404.966(b)(2)

and 416.1466(b)(2). This addition

clarifies the time during which the

Appeals Council may decide on its own

motion to review a case to which these

final rules apply. We have also made the

following minor editorial changes in the

rules as proposed: we have inserted the

words ‘‘in which’’ in the final clause of

the last sentence of §§ 404.966(a) and

416.1466(a), and we have made

technical corrections in the numbering

of the subparagraphs of §§ 404.966(b)

and 416.1466(b). The additions we have

made to our evaluation plans based on

consideration of the comments require

no changes in the regulatory provisions

as proposed.

Regulatory Procedures

We find good cause for dispensing in

this instance with the 30-day delay in

the effective date of a substantive rule

provided for by 5 U.S.C. 553(d). For the

reasons set forth below, we find that it

is unnecessary and contrary to the

public interest to delay the effective

date of these final rules.

We find that delay of the effective

date is unnecessary because the affected

individuals will be notified of the

possibility of elimination of the Appeals

Council review step more than 30 days

before any such elimination actually

occurs. Under new §§ 404.966 and

416.1466, we will randomly select cases

in the integrated model for contingent

inclusion in the test of eliminating the

request for Appeals Council review after

a request for an ALJ hearing is filed and

before the adjudication officer

acknowledges receipt of the request for

a hearing. In the cases selected, as we

have previously discussed, the

acknowledgement letter the

adjudication officer sends will notify

the individual filing the request (and

any appointed representative of the

individual) that if an ALJ issues a

decision that is less than wholly

favorable, the right of appeal available

to the individual will be to file a civil

action in Federal district court.

Elimination of the request for Appeals

Council review step will not occur in a

case, if it occurs at all, until after the

adjudication officer sends the case to an

ALJ, a hearing is scheduled and held

(except where the parties waive an oral

hearing), and the ALJ issues a decision

that is less than wholly favorable.

Therefore, even with elimination of the

30-day delay in the effective date of

these final rules, the substantive change

authorized by §§ 404.966 and 416.1466,

elimination of the request for Appeals

Council review step for test purposes,

will not actually occur until after more

than 30 days have elapsed from the date

of the publication of these final rules in

the Federal Register.

We also find that delay of the effective

date is contrary to the public interest

because it would compromise our

ability to evaluate the effects of the test.

By making the rules effective upon

publication, we can immediately

implement the planned selection and

notice procedures and thereby make it

possible to test elimination of the

request for Appeals Council review in

the greatest number of cases in the

integrated model that can be used

without reducing our ability also to test,

as we believe we should, use of the

other new procedures in the integrated

model with the request for review step.

We believe that maximizing the number

of cases in the integrated model in

which we can test elimination of the

request for Appeals Council review step,

while also testing retention of that step

in conjunction with the other changes in

the integrated model, will contribute to

the soundness of our evaluation of the

effects of eliminating this step from the

disability claim process.

Executive Order 12866

We have consulted with the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and

determined that these rules meet the

criteria for a significant regulatory

action under Executive Order 12866.

Thus, they were subject to OMB review.

These rules do not adversely affect

State, local or tribal governments. The

administrative costs of the test will be

covered within budgeted resources. No

program costs are expected to result

from the processing of the test cases. We

have not, therefore, prepared a cost/

benefit analysis under Executive Order

12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

We certify that these regulations will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

because these rules affect only

individuals. Therefore, a regulatory

flexibility analysis as provided in the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended,

is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These regulations impose no new

reporting or record keeping

requirements requiring OMB clearance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 96.001, Social SecurityDisability Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental

Security Income)

List of Subjects

20 CFR Part 404

Administrative practice and

procedure, Death benefits, 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,

Supplemental Security Income (SSI),

Reporting and record keeping

requirements.

Dated: August 26, 1997.

John J. Callahan,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, subpart J of part 404 and

subpart N of part 416 of chapter III of

title 20 of the Code of Federal

Regulations are amended as set forth

below.

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE,

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY

INSURANCE (1950– )

20 CFR part 404, subpart J, is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for subpart J

of part 404 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201(j), 205(a), (b), (d)–(h),

and (j), 221, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 405(a), (b),

(d)–(h), and (j), 421, 425, and 902(a)(5)); 31

U.S.C. 3720A; sec. 5, Pub. L. 97–455, 96 Stat.

2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)–(e),

and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42

U.S.C. 421 note).

2. New § 404.966 is added under the

undesignated center heading ‘‘APPEALS

COUNCIL REVIEW’’ to read as follows:

§ 404.966 Testing elimination of the

request for Appeals Council review.

(a) Applicability and scope.

Notwithstanding any other provision in

this part or part 422 of this chapter, we

are establishing the procedures set out

in this section to test elimination of the

request for review by the Appeals

Council. These procedures will apply in

randomly selected cases in which we

have tested a combination of model
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49603

procedures for modifying the disability

claim process as authorized under

§§ 404.906 and 404.943, and in which

an administrative law judge has issued

a decision (not including a

recommended decision) that is less than

wholly favorable to you.

(b) Effect of an administrative law

judge’s decision. In a case to which the

procedures of this section apply, the

decision of an administrative law judge

will be binding on all the parties to the

hearing unless —

(1) You or another party file an action

concerning the decision in Federal

district court;

(2) The Appeals Council decides to

review the decision on its own motion

under the authority provided in

§ 404.969, and it issues a notice

announcing its decision to review the

case on its own motion no later than the

day before the filing date of a civil

action establishing the jurisdiction of a

Federal district court; or

(3) The decision is revised by the

administrative law judge or the Appeals

Council under the procedures explained

in § 404.987.

(c) Notice of the decision of an

administrative law judge. The notice of

decision the administrative law judge

issues in a case processed under this

section will advise you and any other

parties to the decision that you may file

an action in a Federal district court

within 60 days after the date you receive

notice of the decision.

(d) Extension of time to file action in

Federal district court. Any party having

a right to file a civil action under this

section may request that the time for

filing an action in Federal district court

be extended. The request must be in

writing and it must give the reasons

why the action was not filed within the

stated time period. The request must be

filed with the Appeals Council. If you

show that you had good cause for

missing the deadline, the time period

will be extended. To determine whether

good cause exists, we will use the

standards in § 404.911.

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED,

BLIND, AND DISABLED

20 CFR part 416, subpart N, is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for subpart N

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633

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

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

2. New § 416.1466 is added under the

undesignated center heading ‘‘APPEALS

COUNCIL REVIEW’’ to read as follows:

§ 416.1466 Testing elimination of the

request for Appeals Council review.

(a) Applicability and scope.

Notwithstanding any other provision in

this part or part 422 of this chapter, we

are establishing the procedures set out

in this section to test elimination of the

request for review by the Appeals

Council. These procedures will apply in

randomly selected cases in which we

have tested a combination of model

procedures for modifying the disability

claim process as authorized under

§§ 416.1406 and 416.1443, and in which

an administrative law judge has issued

a decision (not including a

recommended decision) that is less than

wholly favorable to you.

(b) Effect of an administrative law

judge’s decision. In a case to which the

procedures of this section apply, the

decision of an administrative law judge

will be binding on all the parties to the

hearing unless —

(1) You or another party file an action

concerning the decision in Federal

district court;

(2) The Appeals Council decides to

review the decision on its own motion

under the authority provided in

§ 416.1469, and it issues a notice

announcing its decision to review the

case on its own motion no later than the

day before the filing date of a civil

action establishing the jurisdiction of a

Federal district court; or

(3) The decision is revised by the

administrative law judge or the Appeals

Council under the procedures explained

in § 416.1487.

(c) Notice of the decision of an

administrative law judge. The notice of

decision the administrative law judge

issues in a case processed under this

section will advise you and any other

parties to the decision that you may file

an action in a Federal district court

within 60 days after the date you receive

notice of the decision.

(d) Extension of time to file action in

Federal district court. Any party having

a right to file a civil action under this

section may request that the time for

filing an action in Federal district court

be extended. The request must be in

writing and it must give the reasons

why the action was not filed within the

stated time period. The request must be

filed with the Appeals Council. If you

show that you had good cause for

missing the deadline, the time period

will be extended. To determine whether

good cause exists, we will use the

standards in § 416.1411.

[FR Doc. 97–25124 Filed 9–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR 157

[CGD 91–045]

RIN 2115–AF51

Operational Measures To Reduce Oil

Spills From Existing Tank Vessels

Without Double Hulls

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions

for rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On July 30, 1996, the Coast

Guard published a final rule requiring

the owners, masters, or operators of tank

vessels of 5,000 gross tons or more that

do not have double hulls and that carry

oil in bulk as cargo to comply with

certain operational measures. This final

rule included a provision requiring, in

some cases, owner notification of the

vessel’s calculated anticipated underkeel clearance which was scheduled to

go into effect on November 27, 1996.

Following issuance of the final rule, the

Coast Guard received comments, several

in the form of petitions for rulemaking,

expressing concern about the

implementation of the owner

notification portion of the under-keel

clearance provision and requesting an

additional opportunity to comment on

the provision. On November 27, 1996,

the Coast Guard granted this request by

suspending the provision and giving the

public 90 days to comment on the

under-keel clearance requirement in

general. After reviewing the additional

public comments, the Coast Guard

issues a final rule which revises the

under-keel clearance requirement for

single-hull tank vessels and responds to

the petitions for rulemaking.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

January 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Documents as indicated in

this preamble are available for

inspection or copying at the office of the

Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406), U.S. Coast

Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street

SW., room 3406, Washington, DC

20593–0001, between 9:30 a.m. and 2

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number

is 202–267–1477.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR Suzanne Englebert, Project

Manager, Project Development Division,

at 202–267–1492 or LT Brian Willis,

Vessel Compliance Division, at 202–

267–2735.