Opinion ID: 670690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pertinent Agency Interpretations.

Text: 29 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is presently responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act, as was its predecessor, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). Both agencies have consistently taken the position that states have the option to treat a relative caretaker and minor children in her household for whom she is not legally responsible as a single AFDC assistance unit. 30 In a memorandum dated October 13, 1976 to a regional HEW official who had inquired regarding the proper definition of an AFDC assistance unit, the Administrator of HEW's Social and Rehabilitation Service opined that: 31 States may ... provide for two AFDC payments in the case of a mother who is the caretaker relative for her own children and her sister's children. In such a situation, the State may establish two budget units or it may include all children in one AFDC payment. Federal matching would be available in either budgeting method. 32 Memorandum dated October 13, 1976 from Robert Fulton, Administrator, Social and Rehabilitation Service to Alwyn L. Carty, Regional Commissioner, Region III, Social and Rehabilitation Service. 33 In Allen v. Hettleman, 494 F.Supp. 854 (D.Md.1980), the question was presented whether the State of Maryland could include a minor mother and her child in a single AFDC assistance unit with the minor mother's parent and siblings, all of whom lived in the same household. The court ruled that this arrangement was permissible, rejecting both statutory and constitutional challenges. See 494 F.Supp. at 872. Before ruling, the court solicited the views of the Secretary of HEW, who responded that  '[i]t is the position of the Secretary ... that the challenged portion of the Maryland regulation is fully permissible under Federal law and regulations,'  and that-- 34 The composition of an AFDC assistance unit is not defined in Federal law. So too, the budgeting methods a state may use to determine the level of an AFDC payment to a family is not mandated by Federal requirements. Therefore, states are free to prescribe the composition of an AFDC assistance unit and the budgeting method they will use for such unit. 35 Id. at 861 (quoting Secretary's letter). 36 Following the enactment of DEFRA, HHS addressed the filing unit provisions enacted by DEFRA Sec. 2640 (codified at Sec. 602(a)(38) & (39), supra note 10) in Action Transmittal No. SSA-AT-86-1 (Jan. 13, 1986). After discussing several specific situations that are not presented in this case, the transmittal stated that it is up to the State to establish policy on the number of assistance units in the household, e.g., when an individual not related to a member of an assistance unit as a parent, brother or sister lives in the household and files for assistance. Id. at 4. 37 After the argument of this appeal, HHS issued Action Transmittal No. ACF-AT-94-6 (Mar. 16, 1994), which re-state[s] the policy governing the authority of State agencies to consolidate assistance units and ... clarif[ies] that such a consolidation does not conflict with the Federal regulations that prohibit assuming the availability of income from certain persons without actually determining that it has been contributed. Id. at 1. 11 The transmittal specifies that aside from complying with two federal requirements (not applicable here) that mandate consolidation of AFDC assistance units, States are authorized to set the State-wide policy, to be applied to all cases, whether and under what conditions two or more assistance units in the same household are to be consolidated or retained as separate units. Id. at 2 (citing Action Transmittal No. SSA-AT-86-1; 57 Fed.Reg. 30,136-37 (1992)). 38 These consistent interpretations by the agencies entrusted with the administration of the Social Security Act are due deferential treatment in the courts. Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353, 358 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782-83, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)); see also Luyando v. Grinker, 8 F.3d 948, 952 (2d Cir.1993) (When Congress's intent is ambiguous, we normally confer agency interpretations considerable deference.); Vanscoter v. Sullivan, 920 F.2d 1441, 1449 & n. 14 (9th Cir.1990) (reasonable HHS interpretation of statute accorded deference); St. Mary's Hosp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 788 F.2d 888, 890 (2d Cir.1986) (interpretive guides regarding medicare and medicaid entitled to be given weight); cf. Liegl v. Webb, 802 F.2d 623, 626 (2d Cir.1986) (interpretive guidelines may be disregard[ed] after due consideration). 39 In this case, however, the district court f[ound] the cited agency determinations to be of little influence in its final determination. Bray I at  7. The court concluded that the federal agency abstained from making a determination as to the issue now before the court because the federal agency simply stated that the state may treat plaintiffs as one unit OR it may treat plaintiffs as two units. Id. at  6. We disagree with this assessment. In consistently stating that the states have the disjunctive option to which the district court refers, HEW/HHS can hardly be said to have abstained from deciding whether a state policy that selects one of the permitted options thereby violates federal law. Rather, as we view the matter, HEW/HHS has unequivocally sanctioned the Policy as consistent with federal law. 40 The remaining question, to which we now turn, is whether the Policy nonetheless contravenes the applicable regulations promulgated by HHS. 41