Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss, 47103-47113 [E8-18718]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of the safety, power quality, or
reliability on the borrower’s electric
power system or other electric power
systems interconnected to the
borrower’s electric power system. The
Agency encourages borrowers to
consider model policy templates
developed by knowledgeable and expert
institutions, such as, but not limited to,
the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and the
National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association. The Agency encourages all
related electric borrowers to cooperate
in the development of a common
Distributed Resource policy.
§ 1730.62
Definitions.
‘‘Distributed Resources’’ as used in
this subpart means sources of electric
power that are not directly connected to
a bulk power transmission system,
having an installed capacity of not more
than 10 MVA, connected to the
borrower’s electric power system
through a point of common coupling.
Distributed resources include both
generators and energy storage
technologies.
‘‘Responsible Party’’ as used in this
subpart means the owner, operator or
any other person or entity that is
accountable to the borrower under the
borrower’s interconnection policy for
Distributed Resources.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1730.63
IDR policy criteria.
(a) General.
(1) The borrower’s IDR policy and
procedures shall be readily available to
the public and include, but not limited
to, a standard application, application
process, application fees, and
agreement.
(2) All costs to be recovered from the
applicant regarding the application
process or the actual interconnection are
to be clearly explained to the applicant
and authorized by the applicant prior to
the borrower incurring these costs. The
borrower may require separate
nonrefundable deposits sufficient to
insure serious intent by the applicant
prior to proceeding either with the
application or actual interconnection
process.
(3) IDR policies must be approved by
the borrower’s Board of Directors.
(4) The borrower may establish a new
rate classification for customers with
Distributed Resources.
(5) IDR policies must provide for
reconsideration and updates every three
years or more frequently as
circumstances warrant.
(b) Technical requirements.
(1) IDR policies must be consistent
with prudent electric utility practice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
(2) IDR policies must incorporate the
standard 1547 as promulgated and
amended by the Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). The
title of IEEE Standard 1547 is ‘‘IEEE
Standard for Interconnecting Distributed
Resources with Electric Power
Systems’’. You may obtain a copy of
IEEE Standard 1547 from: IEEE, 3 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5997.
(3) IDR policies must provide for
appropriate electric power system
disconnect facilities, as determined by
the borrower, which shall include a
lockable disconnect, a visible open, and
fusing, that are readily accessible to and
operable by authorized personnel at all
times.
(4) IDR policies must provide for
borrower access to the Distributed
Resources facility during normal
business hours and all emergency
situations.
(c) Responsible party obligations. IDR
policies must provide for appropriate
Responsible Parties to assume the
following risks and responsibilities:
(1) A Responsible Party must agree to
maintain appropriate liability insurance
as outlined in the borrower’s
interconnection policy.
(2) A Responsible Party must be
responsible for the Distributed
Resources compliance with all national,
State, local government requirements
and electric utility standards for the
safety of the public and personnel
responsible for utility electric power
system operations, maintenance and
repair.
(3) A Responsible Party must be
responsible for the safe and effective
operation and maintenance of the
facility.
(4) Only Responsible Parties may
apply for interconnection and the
Responsible Party must demonstrate the
financial and managerial capability to
develop, construct and operate the
distributed resources.
§ 1730.64
Power purchase agreements.
Nothing in this subpart requires the
borrower to enter into purchase power
arrangements with the owner of the
Distributed Resources.
§ 1730.65
Effective dates.
(a) Each electric program borrower
with an approved electric program loan
as of [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE] shall have an IDR policy
board approved and in effect no later
than [DATE 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(b) An electric program borrower that
submits an application to the Agency for
financial assistance on or after [DATE 2
YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47103
OF THE FINAL RULE] shall include
with its application package a letter of
certification executed by the General
Manager that the borrower meets the
requirements of this subpart.
§ 1730.66
Administrative waiver.
The Administrator may waive in all or
part, for good cause, the requirements
and procedures of this subpart.
§§ 1730.67–1730.99
[Reserved]
Dated: July 11, 2008.
James M. Andrew,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. E8–18800 Filed 8–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 404
[Docket No. SSA–2008–0016]
RIN 0960–AG20
Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating
Hearing Loss
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: We propose to revise the
criteria in the Listing of Impairments
(the listings) that we use to evaluate
claims involving hearing loss. We apply
these criteria when you claim benefits
based on disability under title II and
title XVI of the Social Security Act (the
Act). The proposed revisions reflect
current medical knowledge, treatment,
and methods of evaluating hearing loss,
as well as our adjudicative experience
since the publication of the current
rules.
To be sure that your comments
are considered, we must receive them
by October 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of four methods—Internet,
facsimile, regular mail, or handdelivery. Commenters should not
submit the same comments multiple
times or by more than one method.
Regardless of which of the following
methods you choose, please state that
your comments refer to Docket No.
SSA–2008–0016 to ensure that we can
associate your comments with the
correct regulation:
1. Federal eRulemaking portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. (This is the
most expedient method for submitting
your comments, and we strongly urge
you to use it.) In the Comment or
Submission section of the webpage, type
‘‘SSA–2008–0016,’’ select ‘‘Go,’’ and
then click ‘‘Send a Comment or
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
47104
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Submission.’’ The Federal eRulemaking
portal issues you a tracking number
when you submit a comment.
2. Telefax to (410) 966–2830.
3. Letter to the Commissioner of
Social Security, P.O. Box 17703,
Baltimore, MD 21235–7703.
4. Deliver your comments to the
Office of Regulations, Social Security
Administration, 922 Altmeyer Building,
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21235–6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. on regular business days.
All comments are posted on the
Federal eRulemaking portal, although
they may not appear for several days
after receipt of the comment. You may
also inspect the comments on regular
business days by making arrangements
with the contact person shown in this
preamble.
Caution: All comments we receive
from members of the public are
available for public viewing in their
entirety on the Federal eRulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, you should be careful to
include in your comments only
information that you wish to make
publicly available on the Internet. We
strongly urge you not to include any
personal information, such as your
Social Security number or medical
information, in your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Braunstein, Director, Office of
Compassionate Allowances and Listings
Improvement, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, (410) 965–
1020. For information on eligibility or
filing for benefits, call our national tollfree number 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1–
800–325–0778, or visit our Internet Web
site, Social Security Online, at https://
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 https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Why are we proposing to revise the
listings for hearing loss?
We are proposing to revise the listings
for hearing loss to update the medical
criteria in the listings, to provide more
information about how we evaluate
hearing loss, and to reflect our
adjudicative experience. The listings for
hearing loss are in the special senses
and speech body system. That body
system also includes listings for visual
disorders, disturbances of labyrinthinevestibular function, and loss of speech.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we are proposing changes only
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
to the listings for hearing loss. We
published final rules revising the
listings for visual disorders in the
Federal Register on November 20, 2006
(71 FR 67037). We intend to publish
separately proposed rules that would
update the criteria for disturbances of
labyrinthine-vestibular function and
loss of speech.
Prior to the publication of the final
rules for evaluating visual disorders
mentioned above, we last published
final rules making comprehensive
revisions to the part A special senses
and speech listings in the Federal
Register on March 27, 1979 (44 FR
18170), and final rules making
comprehensive revisions to the part B
special senses and speech listings in the
Federal Register on March 16, 1977 (42
FR 14705). The current special senses
and speech listings will no longer be
effective on February 20, 2015, unless
we extend them, or revise and issue
them again.
How did we develop these proposed
rules?
We developed these proposed rules
based on our adjudicative experience
and advances in medical knowledge,
treatment, and methods of evaluating
hearing loss. These proposed rules also
reflect comments we asked the public to
provide to help us develop the
proposals.
We published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2005 (70
FR 19353). The purpose of the ANPRM
was to inform the public that we were
planning to update and revise the rules
we use to evaluate hearing impairments
and disturbance of labyrinthinevestibular function and to invite
interested individuals and organizations
to send us comments and suggestions
for updating and revising the listings for
these disorders. In the ANPRM, we
provided a 60-day period for comments
and suggestions; that period ended on
June 13, 2005. We received 13 letters
and e-mails from medical experts,
advocates, and State agencies that
adjudicate claims for us, commenting on
our criteria for hearing loss. Although
we are not summarizing or responding
to the comments in this notice, we read
and considered them carefully. We are
proposing changes to our rules for
evaluating hearing loss based on some
of the suggestions we received.
We also hosted a policy conference on
‘‘Hearing Impairments and Disturbance
of Labyrinthine-Vestibular Function’’ at
Gallaudet University in Washington,
DC, on November 7 and 8, 2005. At this
conference, we heard comments and
suggestions for updating and revising
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the rules we use to evaluate these
disorders from individuals who have
hearing loss or vestibular disorders,
their family members, physicians who
treat them, other professionals who
work with them, and advocates who
represent them. The transcript of this
conference is available on our Web site
at https://policy.ssa.gov/erm/rules.nsf/
5da82b031a6677dc85256b41006b7f8d/
9314dd803ad5579885256fe200496264
!OpenDocument.
Several of the changes to the criteria
for evaluating hearing loss that we
propose in these rules are based on
information we obtained from
individuals at this conference.
How are we proposing to change the
introductory text to the special senses
and speech listings for adults?
2.00 Special Senses and Speech
We propose to reorganize and expand
the second through fifth paragraphs of
current 2.00B1, ‘‘Hearing impairment,’’
to provide additional guidance. We
propose to remove the guidance in the
first paragraph of current 2.00B1, which
states that hearing ability should be
evaluated in terms of the person’s
ability to hear and distinguish speech.
Because our current and proposed
listings provide for using tones to
evaluate hearing loss, this language may
be misleading. We also propose to
remove the guidance in the last
paragraph of current 2.00B1, which
provides that cases of alleged ‘‘deaf
mutism’’ should be documented by a
hearing evaluation. This guidance refers
only to the evaluation of deaf mutism as
a hearing impairment; however, we can
also evaluate cases of alleged mutism
under listing 2.09, for loss of speech. In
that case, we would not need a hearing
test. We are not proposing special
requirements for evaluating hearing loss
if you have deaf mutism; we would
require the same documentation as for
other hearing disorders.
We also propose to redesignate
current 2.00B2, ‘‘Vertigo associated with
disturbances of labyrinthine-vestibular
function, including Meniere’s disease,’’
as proposed 2.00C, and to redesignate
current 2.00B3, ‘‘Loss of speech,’’ as
proposed 2.00D. We are proposing
separate sections for these disorders to
recognize that they are not always
associated with hearing loss. Although
we are not proposing any substantive
changes to these sections at this time,
we are proposing to make minor
editorial changes so that the format of
these sections will be consistent with
other sections of the introductory text in
these proposed rules. Because of these
changes, we also propose to redesignate
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
current 2.00C, ‘‘How do we evaluate
impairments that do not meet one of the
special senses and speech listings?’’ as
proposed 2.00E.
The following is a detailed
explanation of proposed 2.00B.
Proposed 2.00B—How do we evaluate
hearing loss?
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Proposed 2.00B1—What evidence do we
need to evaluate hearing loss?
This proposed section revises the
fourth and fifth paragraphs of current
2.00B1as follows:
• The fourth paragraph of current
2.00B1 provides that an otolaryngologic
examination should precede
audiometric testing. We propose to
remove the requirement for an
otolaryngologic examination and
instead require a complete otologic
examination. We would make this
change because an otolaryngologic
examination contains elements, such as
an evaluation of the head, face, and
neck, that are not needed to assess
hearing loss. As we describe in
proposed 2.00B1b, a complete otologic
examination must include the medical
history, a description of how the hearing
loss affects the individual, a description
of the appearance of the external ear
(pinna and the external ear canal), an
evaluation of the tympanic membrane,
and an assessment of any middle ear
abnormalities.
• We also propose to revise the
guidance in the current rules that the
otolaryngologic examination should
precede the audiometric testing and
instead provide that the audiometric
testing should be performed within 2
months of the complete otologic
examination. Having the otologic
examination precede the audiometric
testing can help identify conditions that
could interfere with the audiometric
testing. However, having the otologic
examination follow the audiometric
testing will allow the physician to
consider the results of that testing in
reaching his or her conclusions about
the individual’s hearing loss. We believe
that either sequence is acceptable for
determining whether the individual has
a medically determinable impairment
that has resulted in hearing loss.
However, we would appreciate having
specific comments on this change,
replacing an otolaryngologic
examination with an otologic
examination.
• Lastly, we propose to revise the
current requirement in the fifth
paragraph of 2.00B1 that an
otolaryngologic examination be
performed in conjunction with any
audiometric testing used to assess the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
severity of the hearing loss. As indicated
above, we propose to require a complete
otologic examination instead of an
otolaryngologic examination.
Additionally, we propose that the
complete otologic examination be
required only to establish that a
medically determinable impairment
exists. After the impairment is
established, we propose to allow the
severity of the hearing loss to be
determined based on audiometric
testing without another complete
otologic examination.
Proposed 2.00B2—What audiometric
testing do we need when you do not
have a cochlear implant?
This proposed section expands and
clarifies the guidance in the second,
third, and fifth paragraphs of current
2.00B1 as follows:
• We would replace the term ‘‘speech
discrimination’’ with ‘‘word recognition
testing’’ to reflect current medical
terminology. In addition, we would add
a parenthetical statement to explain that
this testing may also be referred to as
word discrimination or speech
discrimination testing.
• We would clarify that we require
that pure tone air conduction and bone
conduction testing must be conducted
in accordance with the most recently
published American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standards for air
conduction and bone conduction
stimuli. Our current rules provide that
audiometric testing be conducted in
accordance with the 1969 and 1972
ANSI standards or subsequent
comparable revisions.
• We would clarify that each ear must
be tested separately and that hearing
aids must not be worn during the
testing. Our reasons for proposing to
remove the current requirement that
hearing be tested with aids in place are
discussed in our explanation of
proposed listing 2.10 below. We also
propose to require that the testing be
conducted in a soundproof booth. Our
current rules require that hearing
measurements be performed in an
environment which meets the 1977
ANSI standard for maximal permissible
background sound.
• We would require that an otoscopic
examination be performed immediately
before the audiometric testing to ensure
that there are no conditions present that
would prevent valid testing. In
proposed 2.00B2b, we explain that an
otoscopic examination provides a
description of the appearance of the
external ear canal and an evaluation of
the tympanic membrane.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47105
• We would describe the frequencies
at which pure tone air conduction and
bone conduction are usually measured.
• We would incorporate the guidance
in current listing 2.08A that explains
that we average the pure tone hearing
thresholds for air conduction and bone
conduction at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hertz
(Hz) to determine whether the listing
criteria are met.
• We would explain that the speech
reception threshold (SRT) is generally
within 10 decibels (dB) of the average
pure tone air conduction hearing
thresholds at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. If
it is not, the reason for the discrepancy
should be documented.
• We would expand the guidance on
word recognition testing and clarify that
the words should be presented at a level
of amplification that will measure your
maximum discrimination ability, which
is usually 35 to 40 dB above your SRT.
We would also provide that the
amplification level used in the testing
must be medically appropriate and that
you must be able to tolerate it.
Proposed 2.00B3—What audiometric
testing do we need when you have a
cochlear implant?
In this new section, we propose to
explain that we will consider you to be
disabled until 1 year after implantation
of a cochlear implant. We propose to
add this criterion to recognize the length
of the rehabilitation and training period
needed to use a cochlear implant
effectively.
After that period, we propose to
evaluate your hearing loss by measuring
your word recognition ability on the
Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). We
propose to use the HINT because the
American Academy of Neurology
indicated in their comments in response
to our ANPRM that the HINT is the
‘‘accepted standard used to assess
hearing outcome after cochlear
implantation.’’ We would also explain
our requirements for how that testing
should be conducted. Our proposed
requirements are based on
recommendations we received at our
policy conference.
Proposed 2.00B4—How do we evaluate
your word recognition ability if you are
not fluent in English?
Word recognition testing should be
conducted using an appropriate word
list. If you are not fluent in English, the
testing should be conducted using an
appropriate word list for the language in
which you are most fluent. However,
appropriate word lists are not available
in all languages. Additionally, the
individual conducting the test should
also be fluent in the language used for
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
47106
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
the test. If the test needs to be
conducted in a language other than
English, there may not be individuals
available who are qualified to perform
the testing in that language. Therefore,
we propose to add this section to
provide guidance on how we would
evaluate your word recognition ability if
you are not fluent in English.
In this new section, we would provide
that, if you are not fluent in English, it
may not be possible to measure your
word recognition ability. We would also
explain that, if we cannot measure your
word recognition ability because you are
not fluent in English, your hearing loss
cannot meet listing 2.10B or 2.11B. In
this situation, we would consider the
facts of your case to determine whether
you have difficulty understanding
words in the language in which you are
most fluent, and if so, whether that
degree of difficulty medically equals
listing 2.10B or 2.11B. For example, we
will consider how you interact with
family members, interpreters, and other
individuals who speak the language in
which you are most fluent.
We welcome and are very interested
in receiving comments about other
methods that you think we can use to
evaluate word recognition ability for
individuals who are not fluent in
English and who have listing-level
hearing disorders.
How are we proposing to change the
criteria in the special senses and speech
listings for adults?
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2.01 Category of Impairments, Special
Senses and Speech
Under our current listings, we do not
consider the effects of treatment with
cochlear implantation on an
individual’s hearing loss. Due to
advances in the technology used in
cochlear implants, we believe it is now
appropriate to consider the effects of
cochlear implantation on an
individual’s hearing loss. Therefore, we
propose to add a separate listing to
evaluate hearing loss treated with
cochlear implantation. Because we are
proposing to add a listing, we also
propose to renumber the listings for ease
of reference. We would revise current
listing 2.08, ‘‘Hearing impairments,’’
renumber it as listing 2.10, ‘‘Hearing
loss not treated with cochlear
implantation,’’ and add listing 2.11,
‘‘Hearing loss treated with cochlear
implantation.’’
Proposed Listing 2.10—Hearing Loss
Not Treated With Cochlear Implantation
In this proposed listing, we would
revise current listing 2.08, ‘‘Hearing
impairments,’’ and specify that these
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
criteria apply to individuals who do not
have cochlear implants.
Current listing 2.08 provides that a
hearing loss is of listing-level severity
when ‘‘hearing [is] not restorable by a
hearing aid’’ and satisfies either of the
criteria in the listing. Our longstanding
interpretation of the phrase ‘‘hearing not
restorable by a hearing aid’’ is that the
hearing loss is so severe that a hearing
aid would not improve it to a level at
which it no longer satisfies the listing
criteria. To determine this, we need
testing with a hearing aid.
We propose to remove the
requirement for testing with hearing
aids for the following reasons:
• At our policy conference, we were
advised that aided hearing testing is not
usually performed in clinical practice.
• Audiometric testing with a hearing
aid does not demonstrate whether the
individual will be able to use the aid
effectively.
• When we published the current
listings, generic hearing aids were
available for testing purposes. However,
advances in technology have resulted in
hearing aids that are programmed to
address each individual’s specific
hearing loss. Due to this degree of
specificity, generic aids are no longer
widely available.
Although we propose to no longer
require aided testing, we are not
proposing to change the level of hearing
loss needed to demonstrate a listinglevel impairment. Based on our
adjudicative experience and the
comments we received in response to
our ANPRM and at our policy
conference, we have determined that
individuals with this level of hearing
loss do not usually obtain significant
improvement in their ability to hear and
communicate from hearing aids.
Therefore, we believe that without a
cochlear implant, a hearing loss at the
level specified in the current listing is
indicative of listing-level severity even
if the individual were to use hearing
aids.
Current listing 2.08A requires
‘‘[a]verage hearing threshold sensitivity
for air conduction of 90 decibels or
greater, and for bone conduction to
corresponding maximal levels, in the
better ear, determined by the simple
average of hearing threshold levels at
500, 1000, and 2000 hz.’’ We would
clarify the criterion in current listing
2.08A for ‘‘bone conduction to
corresponding maximal levels’’ by
specifying that this means that the
average bone conduction hearing
threshold must be 60 dB or greater in
the better ear.
Current listing 2.08B requires
‘‘[s]peech discrimination scores of 40
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
percent or less in the better ear.’’ As we
mentioned above, ‘‘speech
discrimination’’ is now referred to as
‘‘word recognition testing.’’ When we
published the current rules, word
recognition testing was usually
conducted using a standardized list of
phonetically balanced monosyllabic
words. Other types of word recognition
testing, such as sentence testing, are
now available. Therefore, we propose to
specify the type of word recognition
testing to be used.
Proposed Listing 2.11—Hearing Loss
Treated With Cochlear Implantation
We propose to add criteria to evaluate
individuals who have cochlear
implants. Cochlear implants are devices
that attempt to replace the function of
damaged inner ear hair cells. The
implant may destroy any remaining
hearing in the implanted ear.
Cochlear implants are not hearing
aids. Hearing aids amplify sound, while
cochlear implants provide direct
electrical stimulation of the auditory
nerve. Therefore, even individuals with
profound hearing loss may receive
enough benefit from a cochlear implant
to be able to engage in gainful activity.
However, we recognize that if you are
treated with cochlear implantation, you
will need a period of rehabilitation and
training to use the implant effectively.
Therefore, if you have a cochlear
implant, we propose to consider you to
be under a disability for one year from
the date of implantation.
After the 1-year period, we propose to
determine whether your hearing loss
meets the listing by assessing your word
recognition ability using the HINT. We
propose to use the HINT to assess your
word recognition ability because, as
mentioned in our discussion of
proposed section 2.00B3, the American
Academy of Neurology indicated in
their comments in response to our
ANPRM that the HINT is the ‘‘accepted
standard used to assess hearing outcome
after cochlear implantation.’’
The HINT is a sentence test.
Individuals generally have higher word
recognition scores when tested with a
sentence test as opposed to a
monosyllabic word test because
sentences provide context for the words
in them. Therefore, we propose to find
that your hearing loss meets the listing
if your word recognition score on the
HINT is 60 percent or less.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
How are we proposing to change the
introductory text to the special senses
and speech listings for children?
102.00
Special Senses and Speech
We have repeated much of the
introductory text of proposed 2.00B in
the introductory text to proposed
102.00B. This is because the same basic
rules for evaluating hearing loss in
adults also apply to evaluating hearing
loss in children age 5 and older.
Because we have already described
these provisions under the explanation
of proposed 2.00B, the following
discussion of proposed 102.00B
describes only those provisions that
apply to children under age 5, are
unique to the childhood rules, or
require further explanation specific to
evaluating disability in children.
We propose to remove the first
paragraph of current 102.00B, ‘‘Hearing
impairments in children.’’ This
paragraph explains that the criteria for
hearing impairments in children take
into account that a lesser impairment in
hearing which occurs at an early age
may result in a severe speech or
language disorder. While this paragraph
does explain why we use a lower
threshold for children, it is not needed
in the introductory text as it does not
provide any guidance about how to
evaluate hearing loss under these
listings.
We also propose to remove the second
paragraph of current 102.00B. This
paragraph provides guidance on how to
consider improvement in hearing due to
use of a hearing aid. As we discussed in
our explanation of proposed listing 2.10
above, we are proposing to remove the
requirement for aided hearing testing.
Therefore, this guidance is no longer
needed.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Proposed 102.00B2—What audiometric
testing do we need when you do not
have a cochlear implant?
This proposed section expands and
clarifies the guidance in the third and
fourth paragraphs of current 102.00B as
follows:
• We would clarify that we generally
need behavioral or physiologic testing
(other than screening testing) that is
appropriate for your age at the time of
testing.
• We would clarify that we require
that audiometric testing be conducted in
accordance with the most recently
published American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standards for air
conduction and, if appropriate, bone
conduction stimuli. Our current rules
provide that audiometric testing be
conducted in accordance with the 1969
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
and 1972 ANSI standards or subsequent
comparable revisions.
• We would provide that hearing aids
not be used during audiometric testing.
• We would require that an otoscopic
examination be performed immediately
before the audiometric testing to ensure
that there are no conditions present that
would prevent valid testing.
• We would provide that we will not
purchase physiologic testing. We are
proposing this rule because such testing
may require sedation.
• We would describe the hearing
testing that is appropriate for children
in the age ranges of birth to the
attainment of age 6 months, age 6
months to the attainment of age 2, age
2 to the attainment of age 5, and age 5
to the attainment of age 18. The
proposed guidance for hearing testing
for children age 5 to the attainment of
age 18 is similar to the proposed
guidance for hearing testing in adults,
except for the frequencies needed to
determine the hearing threshold.
• We would revise the frequency
levels used to determine the pure tone
air conduction or bone conduction
threshold from 500, 1000, 2000, and
3000 Hz to 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000
Hz. We received several comments in
response to our ANPRM recommending
that we make this change in how we
determine the hearing threshold.
Additionally, our adjudicative
experience has shown that testing is
often not done at 3000 Hz. We
considered using the same hearing
thresholds as in adults, but propose to
continue to use 4000 Hz because of the
importance of hearing at higher
frequencies to a child’s ability to learn
speech.
• We would describe screening tests,
such as otoacoustic emissions (OAE),
and explain how we use them. We
propose to provide this guidance
because hearing screening tests are
commonly given to children in newborn
nurseries and schools. We do not
propose to add this guidance to the
introductory text for adults because
hearing screening tests are not
commonly given to adults.
Proposed 102.00B3—What audiometric
testing do we need when you have a
cochlear implant?
This new section is similar to
proposed 2.00B3 except that we provide
that a child who has a cochlear implant
will be disabled until age 5 or until 1
year after implantation, whichever is
later. We propose to consider children
with cochlear implants to be disabled
until age 5 because of the extensive
rehabilitation and training needed for
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47107
young children with cochlear implants
to acquire speech and language skills.
We would also explain that after that
period, we will evaluate your hearing
loss by measuring your word
recognition ability on the HINT or the
Hearing in Noise Test for Children
(HINT–C).
Proposed 102.00B5—What do we mean
by a marked limitation in speech or
language as used in 102.10B2?
In this new section, we explain when
we will consider you to have a marked
limitation in speech or language.
How are we proposing to change the
criteria in the special senses and speech
listings for children?
102.01 Category of Impairments,
Special Senses and Speech
For the reasons mentioned in our
discussion of 2.01 above, we propose to
add a separate listing to evaluate
hearing loss treated with cochlear
implantation. Because we are proposing
to add a listing, we also propose to
renumber the listings for ease of
reference. We would revise current
listing 102.08, ‘‘Hearing impairments,’’
renumber it as listing 102.10, ‘‘Hearing
loss not treated with cochlear
implantation,’’ and add listing 102.11,
‘‘Hearing loss treated with cochlear
implantation.’’
Proposed 102.10—Hearing Loss Not
Treated With Cochlear Implantation
This proposed listing would revise
current listing 102.08, ‘‘Hearing
impairments,’’ and specify that it
applies to children who do not have
cochlear implants.
The current childhood listing requires
that we assess your ability to hear with
a hearing aid unless we determine that
you are not able to use the aid
effectively. For the reasons we stated in
the discussion of proposed listing 2.10
above, we propose to no longer require
aided hearing testing to determine if
your hearing loss meets the listing.
Proposed listing 102.10A would
replace current listing 102.08A. This
proposed listing contains the criterion
for evaluating hearing loss in children
under age 5 who do not have a cochlear
implant. We propose to replace the
current criterion for an aided average
hearing threshold of 40 dB in the better
ear with a criterion for an unaided
average air conduction hearing
threshold of 50 dB or greater in the
better ear. We propose to use a
threshold of 50 dB because we believe
that, even with the use of a hearing aid,
a child under age 5 who has a 50 dB
hearing loss will also have a marked
limitation in speech or language.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
47108
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Proposed listing 102.10B would
replace current listing 102.08B. This
proposed listing contains the criteria for
evaluating hearing loss in children from
age 5 to the attainment of age 18. For the
reasons we explained earlier, we
propose to no longer require aided
hearing testing.
Proposed listing 102.10B1 would
correspond to current listing 102.08B1.
Current listing 102.08B1 generally
requires an aided average air conduction
hearing threshold of 70 dB or greater in
the better ear. We would expect hearing
loss at that level to have a sensorineural
component. (A sensorineural hearing
loss is caused by permanent damage to
the inner ear or to the nerve pathways
from the inner ear to the brain.) We
propose to replace the criterion in
current listing 102.08B1 with an
unaided average air conduction hearing
threshold of 70 dB or greater in the
better ear. In order to ensure that
hearing loss at this level has a
sensorineural component, we also
propose to add a criterion in proposed
listing 102.10B1 for an average bone
conduction hearing threshold of 40 dB
or greater in the better ear. We would
continue to use a 70 dB average air
conduction hearing threshold because
we believe a hearing loss with a
sensorineural component at this level
will significantly affect a child’s ability
to engage in learning. Also, we do not
use the same hearing threshold levels
for children from age 5 to the attainment
of age 18 as we use for adults because
of the importance of hearing to a child’s
ability to communicate and learn.
Proposed listing 102.10B2 would
correspond to current listing 102.08B2.
We propose to make the same editorial
changes as we did in proposed listing
2.10B.
Proposed listing 102.10B3 would
correspond to current listing 102.08B3.
As we discussed in our explanation of
proposed listing 102.10A above, we
propose to use an unaided hearing
threshold of 50 dB in the better ear.
Because children typically acquire basic
speech and language skills by age 5, we
believe that it is not appropriate to
presume that a child over age 5 who has
a 50 dB hearing loss will also have a
marked limitation in speech or
language. Therefore, for children over
age 5, we also propose to require an
assessment of speech and language
skills.
Proposed 102.11—Hearing Loss Treated
With Cochlear Implantation
This proposed listing is similar to
proposed listing 2.11 except that we
propose to consider you to be under a
disability until age 5, or for 1 year after
implantation, whichever is later. We
also propose to use either the HINT or
the HINT–C to assess your word
recognition ability.
What programs would these proposed
regulations affect?
These proposed rules would affect
disability determinations and decisions
that we make under titles II and XVI of
the Act. In addition, to the extent that
Medicare entitlement and Medicaid
eligibility are based on whether you
qualify for disability benefits under title
II or title XVI, these proposed rules
would also affect the Medicare and
Medicaid programs.
Who can get disability benefits?
Under title II of the Act, we provide
for the payment of disability benefits if
you are disabled and belong to one of
the following three groups:
• Workers insured under the Act,
• Children of insured workers, and
• Widows, widowers, and surviving
divorced spouses (see § 404.336) of
insured workers.
Under title XVI of the Act, we provide
for Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
payments on the basis of disability if
you are disabled and have limited
income and resources.
How do we define disability?
Under both the title II and title XVI
programs, disability must be the result
of any medically determinable physical
or mental impairment or combination of
impairments that is expected to result in
death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period
of at least 12 months. Our definitions of
disability are shown in the following
table:
If you file a claim under . . .
And you are . . .
Disability means you have a medically determinable impairment(s) as
described above and that results in . . .
title II ................................................
title XVI ............................................
title XVI ............................................
an adult or a child ..........................
an individual age 18 or older .........
an individual under age 18 ............
the inability to do any substantial gainful activity (SGA).
the inability to do any SGA.
marked and severe functional limitations.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
How do we decide whether you are
disabled?
If you are applying for benefits under
title II of the Act, or if you are an adult
applying for payments under title XVI of
the Act, we use a five-step ‘‘sequential
evaluation process’’ to decide whether
you are disabled. We describe this fivestep process in our regulations at
§§ 404.1520 and 416.920. We follow the
five steps in order and stop as soon as
we can make a determination or
decision. The steps are:
1. Are you working, and is the work
you are doing substantial gainful
activity? If you are working and the
work you are doing is substantial
gainful activity, we will find that you
are not disabled, regardless of your
medical condition or your age,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
education, and work experience. If you
are not, we will go on to step 2.
2. Do you have a ‘‘severe’’
impairment? If you do not have an
impairment or combination of
impairments that significantly limits
your physical or mental ability to do
basic work activities, we will find that
you are not disabled. If you do, we will
go on to step 3.
3. Do you have an impairment(s) that
meets or medically equals the severity
of an impairment in the listings? If you
do, and the impairment(s) meets the
duration requirement, we will find that
you are disabled. If you do not, we will
go on to step 4.
4. Do you have the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to do your past relevant
work? If you do, we will find that you
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
are not disabled. If you do not, we will
go on to step 5.
5. Does your impairment(s) prevent
you from doing any other work that
exists in significant numbers in the
national economy, considering your
RFC, age, education, and work
experience? If it does, and it meets the
duration requirement, we will find that
you are disabled. If it does not, we will
find that you are not disabled.
We use a different sequential
evaluation process for children who
apply for payments based on disability
under SSI. If you are already receiving
benefits, we also use a different
sequential evaluation process when we
decide whether your disability
continues. See §§ 404.1594, 416.924,
416.994, and 416.994a of our
regulations. However, all of these
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
processes include steps at which we
consider whether your impairment(s)
meets or medically equals one of our
listings.
What are the listings?
The listings are examples of
impairments that we consider severe
enough to prevent you as an adult from
doing any gainful activity. If you are a
child seeking SSI payments based on
disability, the listings describe
impairments that we consider severe
enough to result in marked and severe
functional limitations. Although the
listings are contained only in appendix
1 to subpart P of part 404 of our
regulations, we incorporate them by
reference in the SSI program in
§ 416.925 of our regulations and apply
them to claims under both title II and
title XVI of the Act.
How do we use the listings?
The listings are in two parts. There
are listings for adults (part A) and for
children (part B). If you are an
individual age 18 or over, we apply the
listings in part A when we assess your
claim, and we never use the listings in
part B.
If you are an individual under age 18,
we first use the criteria in part B of the
listings. Part B contains criteria that
apply only to individuals who are under
age 18. If the criteria in part B do not
apply, we may use the criteria in part A
when those criteria give appropriate
consideration to the effects of the
impairment(s) in children. (See
§§ 404.1525 and 416.925.)
If your impairment(s) does not meet
any listing, we will also consider
whether it medically equals any listing;
that is, whether it is as medically severe
as an impairment in the listings. (See
§§ 404.1526 and 416.926.)
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
What if you do not have an
impairment(s) that meets or medically
equals a listing?
We use the listings only to decide that
you are disabled or that you are still
disabled. We will not deny your claim
or decide that you no longer qualify for
benefits because your impairment(s)
does not meet or medically equal a
listing. If you have a severe
impairment(s) that does not meet or
medically equal any listing, we may still
find you disabled based on other rules
in the ‘‘sequential evaluation process.’’
Likewise, we will not decide that your
disability has ended only because your
impairment(s) no longer meets or
medically equals a listing.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
Also, when we conduct reviews to
determine whether your disability
continues, we will not find that your
disability has ended because we have
changed a listing. Our regulations
explain that, when we change our
listings, we continue to use our prior
listings when we review your case, if
you qualified for disability benefits or
SSI payments based on our
determination or decision that your
impairment(s) met or medically equaled
a listing. In these cases, we determine
whether you have experienced medical
improvement, and if so, whether the
medical improvement is related to the
ability to work. If your condition(s) has
medically improved so that your
impairment(s) no longer meets or
medically equals the prior listing, we
evaluate your case further to determine
whether you are currently disabled. We
may find that you are currently
disabled, depending on the full
circumstances of your case. See
§§ 404.1594(c)(3)(i) and
416.994(b)(2)(iv)(A). If you are a child
who is eligible for SSI payments, we
follow a similar rule when we decide
that you have experienced medical
improvement in your condition(s). See
§ 416.994a(b)(2).
When will we start to use these rules?
We will not use these rules until we
evaluate the public comments we
receive on them, determine whether
they should be issued as final rules, and
issue final rules in the Federal Register.
If we publish final rules, we will
explain in the preamble how we will
apply them, and summarize and
respond to the public comments. Until
the effective date of any final rules, we
will continue to use our current rules.
How long would these proposed rules
be effective?
If we publish these proposed rules as
final rules, they will remain in effect for
8 years after the date they became
effective, unless we extend them, or
revise and issue them again.
Clarity of these proposed rules
Executive Order 12866, as amended,
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?
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47109
• Do the rules contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rules easier to
understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections
be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rules easier to understand?
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
determined that these proposed rules
meet the requirements for a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, as amended. Thus, they were
subject to OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that these proposed rules
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because they affect only
individuals. Thus, a regulatory
flexibility analysis as provided in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended,
is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In these regulations, we are proposing
to: (1) Revise the listings for hearing loss
to update the medical criteria in the
listings; (2) provide more information
about how we evaluate hearing loss; and
(3) reflect our adjudicative experience.
The listings for hearing loss are in the
special senses and speech body system.
That body system also includes listings
for visual disorders, disturbances of
labyrinthine-vestibular function and
loss of speech. In this NPRM, we are
proposing changes only to the listings
for hearing loss. As part of the listings,
we identify specific documentation
requirements used in evaluating
impairments within a body system,
including medical and other evidence.
The documentation and evidentiary
requirements are public reporting
burdens that must be cleared by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
However, the public reporting burdens
are accounted for in the Information
Collection Requests for the various
forms that the public uses to submit the
information to SSA. Consequently, we
are reporting no burden for this
regulation aside from a 1-hour
placeholder burden shown in the chart
below, for the sections listed.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
47110
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
Title/section &
collection description
Annual
number
of respondents
Frequency
of response
Average
burden per
response
(minutes)
Hearing Loss (2.00B and 102.00B) .................................................................
........................
........................
........................
An Information Collection Request
has been submitted to OMB for
clearance. We are soliciting comments
on the burden estimate; the need for the
information; its practical utility; ways to
enhance its quality, utility and clarity;
and ways to minimize the burden on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Requests for the Information Collection
Request package and/or comments
should be directed to SSA and OMB at
the following addresses/phone numbers:
Office of Management and Budget, Attn:
Desk Officer for SSA, Fax Number:
202–395–6974, E-mail address: OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Social Security Administration, Attn:
Reports Clearance Officer, 1333
Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd.,
Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410–965–
6400, E-mail address:
OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov.
Comments on the paperwork burdens
associated with this rule can be received
for up to 60 days after publication of
this notice and will be most useful if
received within 30 days of publication.
This does not affect the deadline for the
public to comment to SSA on the
proposed regulations. These information
collection requirements will not become
effective until approved by OMB. When
OMB has approved these information
collection requirements, SSA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register.
List of References
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
During the development of these
proposed rules, we reviewed the
following information:
American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA). (2004). Guidelines for
the audiologic assessment of children from
birth to 5 years of age [Guidelines].
(Available at https://www.asha.org/NR/
rdonlyres/0BB7C840–27D2–4DC6–861B–
1709ADD78BAF/0/v2GLAudAssess
Child.pdf.)
ASHA. (2004). Technical report: Cochlear
implants. ASHA Supplement 24.
(Available at https://www.asha.org/NR/
rdonlyres/215CC9B8–6831–494F–83ED–
E02A6832A8A9/0/v2TRcochlear
implants.pdf.)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
(2005). MLN Matters Number MM3796:
Cochlear Implantation. (Available at https://
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/
downloads/MM3796.pdf.)
Cunningham. M. and Cox, E.O. (2003).
Hearing assessment in infants and
children: Recommendations beyond
neonatal screening. Pediatrics, 111(2), 436–
440.
Dale, D.C. and Federman, D.D., eds.
Neurology. ACP Medicine. (2004) Elliot M.
Frohman, New York: WebMD Professional
Publishing.
Gifford, R.H. and Shallop, J.K. (2007).
Hearing preservation in patients with a
cochlear implant. The ASHA Leader,
12(14), 15, 17, 34.
Gorga, M.P., et al. (2006). Using a
combination of click- and tone burstevoked auditory brain stem response
measurements to estimate pure-tone
thresholds. Ear & Hearing, 27(1), 60–74.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2000).
Year 2000 position statement: Principles
and guidelines for early hearing detection
and intervention programs. Pediatrics,
106(4), 798–817.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2007).
Year 2007 position statement: Principles
and guidelines for early hearing detection
and intervention programs. Pediatrics,
120(4), 898–921.
National Research Council (NRC): Committee
on Disability Determination for Individuals
with Hearing Impairments. (2005). Hearing
Loss: Determining Eligibility for Social
Security Benefits. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. (Available at
https://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=11099#toc.)
Pittman, A.L., & Stelmachowicz, P.G. (2003).
Hearing loss in children and adults:
Audiometric configuration, asymmetry,
and progression. Ear & Hearing, 24(3),
198–205.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center
for Devices and Radiological Health.
(2007). Benefits and Risks of Cochlear
Implants. (Available at: https://
www.fda.gov/cdrh/cochlear/
RiskBenefit.html.)
These references are included in the
rulemaking record for these proposed
rules and are available for inspection by
interested individuals making
arrangements with the contact person
shown in this preamble.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Program Nos.
96.001, Social Security—Disability
Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—
Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social
Security—Survivors Insurance; and 96.006,
Supplemental Security Income)
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Estimated
annual
burden (hours)
1
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and
procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability
Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Social Security.
Dated: May 12, 2008.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Editorial Note: This document was
received at the Office of the Federal Register
on August 8, 2008.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, we propose to amend part
404 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– )
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).
Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404—
[Amended]
2. Appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404
is amended as follows:
a. Revise item 3 of the introductory
text before part A of appendix 1.
b. Revise section 2.00B of part A of
appendix 1.
c. Redesignate section 2.00C of part A
of appendix 1 as section 2.00E.
d. Add new sections 2.00C and 2.00D
to part A of appendix 1.
e. Remove listing 2.08 of part A of
appendix 1.
f. Add listings 2.10 and 2.11 to part
A of appendix 1.
g. Revise section 102.00B of part B of
appendix 1.
h. Remove listing 102.08 of part B of
appendix 1.
i. Add listings 102.10 and 102.11 to
part B of appendix 1.
The revised text is set forth as follows:
Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404—
Listing of Impairments
*
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
*
*
13AUP1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
3. Special Senses and Speech (2.00
and 102.00): [Insert date 8 years from
the effective date of the final rules].
*
*
*
*
*
Part A
*
*
*
*
*
2.00
Special Senses and Speech
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
B. How do we evaluate hearing loss?
1. What evidence do we need to
evaluate hearing loss?
a. To establish that you have a
medically determinable impairment that
causes your hearing loss, we require
both a complete otologic examination
and audiometric testing. The
audiometric testing should be
performed within 2 months of the
complete otologic examination.
b. A complete otologic examination
must include your medical history, your
description of how your hearing loss
affects you, a description of the
appearance of the external ear (pinna
and the external ear canal), an
evaluation of the tympanic membrane,
and an assessment of any middle ear
abnormalities.
c. After your impairment has been
established, we can use the results of
subsequent audiometric testing to assess
the severity of your hearing loss without
another complete otologic examination.
d. Audiometric testing must be
performed by, or under the supervision
of, an otolaryngologist or by an
audiologist qualified to perform such
tests. We consider an audiologist to be
qualified if the audiologist is currently
and fully licensed or registered as a
clinical audiologist by the state or U.S.
territory in which he or she practices. If
no licensure or registration is available,
the audiologist must be currently
certified by the American Board of
Audiology or have a Certificate of
Clinical Competence (CCC–A) from the
American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA).
2. What audiometric testing do we
need when you do not have a cochlear
implant?
a. We generally need pure tone air
conduction and bone conduction
testing, speech reception threshold
(SRT) testing, and word recognition
testing. (Word recognition testing may
be referred to as word discrimination or
speech discrimination testing.) This
testing must be conducted in a
soundproof booth and each ear must be
tested separately. Pure tone air
conduction and bone conduction testing
must be conducted in accordance with
the most recently published standards
of the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) for air conduction and
bone conduction stimuli.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
b. You must not wear hearing aids
during the testing. Additionally, we
require that an otoscopic examination
be performed immediately before the
audiometric testing. An otoscopic
examination provides a description of
the appearance of the external ear canal
and an evaluation of the tympanic
membrane. The otoscopic examination
must also show that there are no
conditions present that would prevent
valid audiometric testing. Examples of
such conditions are fluid in the ear, an
ear infection, or an obstruction in the
ear canal.
c. An audiological examination
usually includes pure tone air
conduction and bone conduction testing
measured at 250, 500, 1000, 2000, and
4000 Hertz (Hz). To determine whether
your hearing loss meets the air
conduction criterion in 2.10A, we will
average the air conduction hearing
thresholds at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz.
To determine whether your hearing loss
meets the bone conduction criterion in
2.10A, we will average the bone
conduction hearing thresholds at 500,
1000, and 2000 Hz.
d. The SRT is the minimal decibel
(dB) level required for you to recognize
a standard list of words. The SRT is
usually within 10 dB of the average pure
tone air conduction hearing thresholds
at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. If the SRT
is not within 10 dB of the average pure
tone air conduction threshold, the
reason for the discrepancy should be
documented.
e. Word recognition testing
determines your ability to recognize a
standardized list of phonetically
balanced monosyllabic words in the
absence of any visual cues. This testing
must be performed in quiet. The words
should be presented at a level of
amplification that will measure your
maximum ability to discriminate words,
usually 35 to 40 dB above your SRT.
However, the amplification level used
in the testing must be medically
appropriate and you must be able to
tolerate it. The individual who performs
the test should report your word
recognition testing score at your highest
comfortable level of amplification.
3. What audiometric testing do we
need when you have a cochlear
implant?
a. If you have a cochlear implant, we
will consider you to be disabled until 1
year after implantation.
b. After that period, we need word
recognition testing performed with the
Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). This
testing must be conducted in quiet in a
sound field with your implant adjusted
to your normal settings. The sentences
should be presented at 60 dB HL
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47111
(hearing level) and without any visual
cues.
4. How do we evaluate your word
recognition ability if you are not fluent
in English?
If you are not fluent in English, it may
not be possible to measure your word
recognition ability. If your word
recognition ability cannot be measured,
your hearing loss cannot meet 2.10B or
2.11B. Instead, we will consider the
facts of your case to determine whether
you have difficulty understanding
words in the language in which you are
most fluent, and if so, whether that
degree of difficulty medically equals
2.10B or 2.11B. For example, we will
consider how you interact with family
members, interpreters, and other
individuals who speak the language in
which you are most fluent.
C. How do we evaluate vertigo
associated with disturbances of
labyrinthine-vestibular function,
including Meniere’s disease?
1. These disturbances of balance are
characterized by a hallucination of
motion or a loss of position sense and
a sensation of dizziness which may be
constant or may occur in paroxysmal
attacks. Nausea, vomiting, ataxia, and
incapacitation are frequently observed,
particularly during the acute attack. It is
important to differentiate the report of
rotary vertigo from that of ‘‘dizziness,’’
which is described as light-headedness,
unsteadiness, confusion, or syncope.
2. Meniere’s disease is characterized
by paroxysmal attacks of vertigo,
tinnitus, and fluctuating hearing loss.
Remissions are unpredictable and
irregular, but may be long-lasting;
hence, the severity of the impairment is
best determined after prolonged
observation and serial reexaminations.
3. The diagnosis of a vestibular
disorder requires a comprehensive
neuro-otolaryngologic examination with
a detailed description of the vertiginous
episodes, including notation of
frequency, severity, and duration of the
attacks. Pure tone and speech
audiometry with the appropriate special
examinations, such as Bekesy
audiometry, are necessary. Vestibular
function is assessed by positional and
caloric testing, preferably by
electronystagmography. When
polytomograms, contrast radiography, or
other special tests have been performed,
copies of the reports of these tests
should be obtained in addition to
appropriate medically acceptable
imaging reports of the skull and
temporal bone. Medically acceptable
imaging includes, but is not limited to,
x-ray imaging, computerized axial
tomography (CAT scan) or magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), with or
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
47112
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
without contrast material, myelography,
and radionuclear bone scans.
‘‘Appropriate’’ means that the technique
is the proper one to support the
evaluation and diagnosis of the
impairment.
D. Loss of speech. In evaluating the
loss of speech, the ability to produce
speech by any means includes the use
of mechanical or electronic devices that
improve voice or articulation.
Impairments of speech may also be
evaluated under the body system for the
underlying disorders, such as
neurological disorders, 11.00ff.
*
*
*
*
*
2.01 Category of Impairments, Special
Senses and Speech
*
*
*
*
*
2.10 Hearing loss not treated with
cochlear implantation.
A. An average air conduction hearing
threshold of 90 decibels or greater in the
better ear and an average bone
conduction hearing threshold of 60
decibels or greater in the better ear (see
2.00B2c); or
B. A word recognition score of 40
percent or less in the better ear
determined using a standardized list of
phonetically balanced monosyllabic
words (see 2.00B2e).
2.11 Hearing loss treated with
cochlear implantation.
A. Consider under a disability for 1
year after implantation; or
B. If more than 1 year after
implantation, a word recognition score
of 60 percent or less determined using
the HINT (see 2.00B3b).
*
*
*
*
*
Part B
*
*
*
*
*
102.00
Special Senses and Speech
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
B. How do we evaluate hearing loss?
1. What evidence do we need to
evaluate hearing loss?
a. To establish that you have a
medically determinable impairment that
causes your hearing loss, we require
both a complete otologic examination
and audiometric testing. The
audiometric testing should be
performed within 2 months of the
complete otologic examination.
b. A complete otologic examination
must include your medical history, your
description of how your hearing loss
affects you, a description of the
appearance of the external ear (pinna
and the external ear canal), an
evaluation of the tympanic membrane,
and an assessment of any middle ear
abnormalities.
c. After your impairment has been
established, we can use the results of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
subsequent audiometric testing to assess
the severity of your hearing loss without
another complete otologic examination.
d. Audiometric testing must be
performed by, or under the supervision
of, an otolaryngologist or by an
audiologist qualified to perform such
tests. We consider an audiologist to be
qualified if the audiologist is currently
and fully licensed or registered as a
clinical audiologist by the state or U.S.
territory in which he or she practices. If
no licensure or registration is available,
the audiologist must be currently
certified by the American Board of
Audiology or have a Certificate of
Clinical Competence (CCC–A) from the
American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA).
2. What audiometric testing do we
need when you do not have a cochlear
implant?
a. General. We generally need
behavioral or physiologic testing (other
than screening testing, see 102.00B3g)
that is appropriate for your age at the
time of testing. We will make every
reasonable effort to obtain the results of
physiologic testing that has been done.
However, if this testing has not been
done, or, if we cannot obtain the results,
we will not purchase it. In these
situations, we will evaluate your
hearing loss based on the other evidence
in your case record.
b. Testing requirements. The testing
must be conducted in accordance with
the most recently published standards
of the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) for air conduction
stimuli, and if appropriate, bone
conduction stimuli. You must not wear
hearing aids during the testing.
Additionally, we require that an
otoscopic examination be performed
immediately before the audiometric
testing. An otoscopic examination
provides a description of the appearance
of the external ear canal and an
evaluation of the tympanic membrane.
The otoscopic examination must also
show that there are no conditions
present that would prevent valid
audiometric testing. Examples of such
conditions are fluid in the ear, an ear
infection, or an obstruction in the ear
canal.
c. Children from birth to the
attainment of age 6 months.
i. We need physiologic testing, such
as auditory brainstem response (ABR)
testing, that measures the frequencies
needed to recognize speech; that is, the
range from 500 to 4000 Hertz (Hz). We
also need an acoustic immittance
assessment; that is, a tympanogram and
acoustic reflex testing.
ii. To determine whether your hearing
loss meets listing 102.10A, we will
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
average the hearing thresholds at 500,
1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
d. Children from age 6 months to the
attainment of age 2.
i. We need air conduction thresholds
determined by a behavioral assessment,
usually visual reinforcement
audiometry (VRA), and an acoustic
immittance assessment. We can use
ABR testing results if the behavioral
assessment cannot be completed or if
the results of the behavioral assessment
are inconclusive or unreliable.
ii. To determine whether your hearing
loss meets listing 102.10A, we will
average the hearing thresholds at 500,
1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
iii. For this age group, behavioral
assessments are often performed in a
sound field, and each ear is not tested
separately. If each ear is not tested
separately, we will consider the test
results to represent the hearing in the
better ear.
e. Children from age 2 to the
attainment of age 5.
i. We need air conduction thresholds
determined by a behavioral assessment,
such as conditioned play audiometry
(CPA), tangible or visually reinforced
operant conditioning audiometry
(TROCA, VROCA), or VRA, and an
acoustic immittance assessment. We can
use ABR testing results if the behavioral
assessment cannot be completed or if
the results of the behavioral assessment
are inconclusive or unreliable.
ii. To determine whether your hearing
loss meets listing 102.10A, we will
average the hearing thresholds at 500,
1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
iii. For this age group, behavioral
assessments are often performed in a
sound field and each ear is not tested
separately. If each ear is not tested
separately, we will consider the test
results to represent the hearing in the
better ear.
f. Children from age 5 to the
attainment of age 18.
i. We generally need pure tone air
conduction and bone conduction
testing, speech reception threshold
(SRT) testing, and word recognition
testing. (Word recognition testing may
be referred to as word discrimination or
speech discrimination testing.) This
testing must be conducted in a
soundproof booth and each ear must be
tested separately.
ii. An audiological examination
usually includes pure tone air
conduction and bone conduction testing
measured at 250, 500, 1000, 2000, and
4000 Hz. To determine whether your
hearing loss meets the air conduction
criterion in 102.10B1 or 102.10B3, we
will average the air conduction hearing
thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Hz. To determine whether your hearing
loss meets the bone conduction criterion
in 102.10B1, we will average the bone
conduction hearing thresholds at 500,
1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
iii. The SRT is the minimal decibel
(dB) level required for you to recognize
a standard list of words. The SRT is
usually within 10 dB of the average pure
tone air conduction hearing thresholds
at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. If the SRT
is not within 10 dB of the average pure
tone air conduction threshold, the
reason for the discrepancy should be
documented.
iv. Word recognition testing
determines your ability to recognize a
standardized list of phonetically
balanced monosyllabic words in the
absence of any visual cues. This testing
must be performed in quiet. The words
should be presented at a level of
amplification that will measure your
maximum ability to discriminate words,
usually 35 to 40 dB above your SRT.
However, the amplification level used
in the testing must be medically
appropriate and you must be able to
tolerate it. The individual who performs
the test should report your word
recognition testing score at your highest
comfortable level of amplification.
g. Screening Testing. ABR and other
physiologic testing, such as otoacoustic
emissions (OAE), can be used as hearing
screening tests. When such testing is
used as hearing screening tests, we will
not use the results to determine that
your hearing loss meets or medically
equals a listing, or to assess functional
limitations due to your hearing loss. We
can, however, consider normal results
from hearing screening tests to
determine whether your hearing loss is
severe when these test results are
consistent with the other evidence in
your case record. See § 416.924(c).
3. What audiometric testing do we
need when you have a cochlear
implant?
a. If you have a cochlear implant, we
will consider you to be disabled until
age 5, or for 1 year after implantation,
whichever is later.
b. After that period, we need word
recognition testing performed with the
Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) or the
Hearing in Noise Test for Children
(HINT–C). This testing must be
conducted in quiet in a sound field with
your implant adjusted to your normal
settings. The sentences should be
presented at 60 dB HL (hearing level)
and without any visual cues.
4. How do we evaluate your word
recognition ability if you are not fluent
in English? If you are not fluent in
English, it may not be possible to
measure your word recognition ability.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Aug 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
If your word recognition ability cannot
be measured, your hearing loss cannot
meet 102.10B2 or 102.11B. Instead, we
will consider the facts of your case to
determine whether you have difficulty
understanding words in the language in
which you are most fluent, and if so,
whether that degree of difficulty
medically equals 102.10B2 or 102.11B.
For example, we will consider how you
interact with family members,
interpreters, and other individuals who
speak the language in which you are
most fluent.
5. What do we mean by a marked
limitation in speech or language as used
in 102.10B3?
a. We will consider you to have a
marked limitation in speech if:
i. According to the unfamiliar listener,
entire phrases or sentences in your
conversation are intelligible
approximately 60 percent of the time or
less on the first attempt; and
ii. Your sound production or
phonological patterns (the ways in
which you combine speech sounds) are
atypical for your age.
b. We will consider you to have a
marked limitation in language when
your current and valid test score on an
appropriate comprehensive,
standardized test of overall language
functioning is at least two standard
deviations below the mean. In addition,
the evidence of your daily
communication functioning must be
consistent with your test score. If you
are not fluent in English, it may not be
possible to test your language
performance. If we cannot test your
language performance, your hearing loss
cannot meet 102.10B3. Instead, we will
consider the facts of your case to
determine whether your hearing loss
medically equals 102.10B3.
*
*
*
*
*
102.01 Category of Impairments,
Special Senses and Speech
*
*
*
*
*
102.10 Hearing loss not treated with
cochlear implantation.
A. For children from birth to the
attainment of age 5, an average air
conduction hearing threshold of 50
decibels or greater in the better ear (see
102.00B2); or
B. For children from age 5 to the
attainment of age 18:
1. An average air conduction hearing
threshold of 70 decibels or greater in the
better ear and an average bone
conduction hearing threshold of 40
decibels or greater in the better ear (see
102.00B2f); or
2. A word recognition score of 40
percent or less in the better ear
determined using a standardized list of
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47113
phonetically balanced monosyllabic
words (see 102.00B2f); or
3. An average air conduction hearing
threshold of 50 decibels or greater in the
better ear and a marked limitation in
speech or language (see 102.00B2f and
102.00B5).
102.11 Hearing loss treated with
cochlear implantation.
A. Consider under a disability until
the attainment of age 5, or for 1 year
after implantation, whichever is later; or
B. Upon the attainment of age 5 or 1
year after implantation, whichever is
later, a word recognition score of 60
percent or less determined using the
HINT or the HINT–C (see 102.00B3b).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–18718 Filed 8–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201 and 255
[Docket No. RM 2000–7]
Compulsory License for Making and
Distributing Phonorecords, Including
Digital Phonorecord Deliveries
Copyright Office, Library of
Congress.
ACTION: Extension of time to file
comments and reply comments; Notice
of Hearing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is
extending the time in which comments
and reply comments may be filed in
response to its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing to amend its
regulations to clarify the scope and
application of the Section 115
compulsory license to make and
distribute phonorecords of a musical
work by means of digital phonorecord
deliveries. 73 FR 40802. The Office is
also announcing a hearing on the
proposed rulemaking to take place on
September 19, 2008.
DATES: Comments must be received in
the Office of the General Counsel of the
Copyright Office no later than Thursday,
August 28, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. Reply
Comments must be received no later
than Monday, September 15, 2008 at
5:00 p.m. The hearing will take place on
Friday, September 19, 2008,
commencing at 10:00 a.m. in the
Copyright Hearing Room at the Library
of Congress, Room LM–408, 4th Floor,
James Madison Building, 101
Independence Avenue, SE, Washington,
DC. Requests to testify at the hearing
must be received in writing no later
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47103-47113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18718]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 404
[Docket No. SSA-2008-0016]
RIN 0960-AG20
Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to revise the criteria in the Listing of
Impairments (the listings) that we use to evaluate claims involving
hearing loss. We apply these criteria when you claim benefits based on
disability under title II and title XVI of the Social Security Act (the
Act). The proposed revisions reflect current medical knowledge,
treatment, and methods of evaluating hearing loss, as well as our
adjudicative experience since the publication of the current rules.
DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive
them by October 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of four methods--
Internet, facsimile, regular mail, or hand-delivery. Commenters should
not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method.
Regardless of which of the following methods you choose, please state
that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2008-0016 to ensure that we
can associate your comments with the correct regulation:
1. Federal eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. (This
is the most expedient method for submitting your comments, and we
strongly urge you to use it.) In the Comment or Submission section of
the webpage, type ``SSA-2008-0016,'' select ``Go,'' and then click
``Send a Comment or
[[Page 47104]]
Submission.'' The Federal eRulemaking portal issues you a tracking
number when you submit a comment.
2. Telefax to (410) 966-2830.
3. Letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703,
Baltimore, MD 21235-7703.
4. Deliver your comments to the Office of Regulations, Social
Security Administration, 922 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on
regular business days.
All comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking portal, although
they may not appear for several days after receipt of the comment. You
may also inspect the comments on regular business days by making
arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble.
Caution: All comments we receive from members of the public are
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, you should
be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish
to make publicly available on the Internet. We strongly urge you not to
include any personal information, such as your Social Security number
or medical information, in your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Braunstein, Director, Office of
Compassionate Allowances and Listings Improvement, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on
eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number
1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet Web site,
Social Security Online, at https://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 https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/
index.html.
Why are we proposing to revise the listings for hearing loss?
We are proposing to revise the listings for hearing loss to update
the medical criteria in the listings, to provide more information about
how we evaluate hearing loss, and to reflect our adjudicative
experience. The listings for hearing loss are in the special senses and
speech body system. That body system also includes listings for visual
disorders, disturbances of labyrinthine-vestibular function, and loss
of speech. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we are
proposing changes only to the listings for hearing loss. We published
final rules revising the listings for visual disorders in the Federal
Register on November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67037). We intend to publish
separately proposed rules that would update the criteria for
disturbances of labyrinthine-vestibular function and loss of speech.
Prior to the publication of the final rules for evaluating visual
disorders mentioned above, we last published final rules making
comprehensive revisions to the part A special senses and speech
listings in the Federal Register on March 27, 1979 (44 FR 18170), and
final rules making comprehensive revisions to the part B special senses
and speech listings in the Federal Register on March 16, 1977 (42 FR
14705). The current special senses and speech listings will no longer
be effective on February 20, 2015, unless we extend them, or revise and
issue them again.
How did we develop these proposed rules?
We developed these proposed rules based on our adjudicative
experience and advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of
evaluating hearing loss. These proposed rules also reflect comments we
asked the public to provide to help us develop the proposals.
We published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in
the Federal Register on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19353). The purpose of
the ANPRM was to inform the public that we were planning to update and
revise the rules we use to evaluate hearing impairments and disturbance
of labyrinthine-vestibular function and to invite interested
individuals and organizations to send us comments and suggestions for
updating and revising the listings for these disorders. In the ANPRM,
we provided a 60-day period for comments and suggestions; that period
ended on June 13, 2005. We received 13 letters and e-mails from medical
experts, advocates, and State agencies that adjudicate claims for us,
commenting on our criteria for hearing loss. Although we are not
summarizing or responding to the comments in this notice, we read and
considered them carefully. We are proposing changes to our rules for
evaluating hearing loss based on some of the suggestions we received.
We also hosted a policy conference on ``Hearing Impairments and
Disturbance of Labyrinthine-Vestibular Function'' at Gallaudet
University in Washington, DC, on November 7 and 8, 2005. At this
conference, we heard comments and suggestions for updating and revising
the rules we use to evaluate these disorders from individuals who have
hearing loss or vestibular disorders, their family members, physicians
who treat them, other professionals who work with them, and advocates
who represent them. The transcript of this conference is available on
our Web site at https://policy.ssa.gov/erm/rules.nsf/
5da82b031a6677dc85256b41006b7f8d/
9314dd803ad5579885256fe200496264!OpenDocument.
Several of the changes to the criteria for evaluating hearing loss
that we propose in these rules are based on information we obtained
from individuals at this conference.
How are we proposing to change the introductory text to the special
senses and speech listings for adults?
2.00 Special Senses and Speech
We propose to reorganize and expand the second through fifth
paragraphs of current 2.00B1, ``Hearing impairment,'' to provide
additional guidance. We propose to remove the guidance in the first
paragraph of current 2.00B1, which states that hearing ability should
be evaluated in terms of the person's ability to hear and distinguish
speech. Because our current and proposed listings provide for using
tones to evaluate hearing loss, this language may be misleading. We
also propose to remove the guidance in the last paragraph of current
2.00B1, which provides that cases of alleged ``deaf mutism'' should be
documented by a hearing evaluation. This guidance refers only to the
evaluation of deaf mutism as a hearing impairment; however, we can also
evaluate cases of alleged mutism under listing 2.09, for loss of
speech. In that case, we would not need a hearing test. We are not
proposing special requirements for evaluating hearing loss if you have
deaf mutism; we would require the same documentation as for other
hearing disorders.
We also propose to redesignate current 2.00B2, ``Vertigo associated
with disturbances of labyrinthine-vestibular function, including
Meniere's disease,'' as proposed 2.00C, and to redesignate current
2.00B3, ``Loss of speech,'' as proposed 2.00D. We are proposing
separate sections for these disorders to recognize that they are not
always associated with hearing loss. Although we are not proposing any
substantive changes to these sections at this time, we are proposing to
make minor editorial changes so that the format of these sections will
be consistent with other sections of the introductory text in these
proposed rules. Because of these changes, we also propose to
redesignate
[[Page 47105]]
current 2.00C, ``How do we evaluate impairments that do not meet one of
the special senses and speech listings?'' as proposed 2.00E.
The following is a detailed explanation of proposed 2.00B.
Proposed 2.00B--How do we evaluate hearing loss?
Proposed 2.00B1--What evidence do we need to evaluate hearing loss?
This proposed section revises the fourth and fifth paragraphs of
current 2.00B1as follows:
The fourth paragraph of current 2.00B1 provides that an
otolaryngologic examination should precede audiometric testing. We
propose to remove the requirement for an otolaryngologic examination
and instead require a complete otologic examination. We would make this
change because an otolaryngologic examination contains elements, such
as an evaluation of the head, face, and neck, that are not needed to
assess hearing loss. As we describe in proposed 2.00B1b, a complete
otologic examination must include the medical history, a description of
how the hearing loss affects the individual, a description of the
appearance of the external ear (pinna and the external ear canal), an
evaluation of the tympanic membrane, and an assessment of any middle
ear abnormalities.
We also propose to revise the guidance in the current
rules that the otolaryngologic examination should precede the
audiometric testing and instead provide that the audiometric testing
should be performed within 2 months of the complete otologic
examination. Having the otologic examination precede the audiometric
testing can help identify conditions that could interfere with the
audiometric testing. However, having the otologic examination follow
the audiometric testing will allow the physician to consider the
results of that testing in reaching his or her conclusions about the
individual's hearing loss. We believe that either sequence is
acceptable for determining whether the individual has a medically
determinable impairment that has resulted in hearing loss. However, we
would appreciate having specific comments on this change, replacing an
otolaryngologic examination with an otologic examination.
Lastly, we propose to revise the current requirement in
the fifth paragraph of 2.00B1 that an otolaryngologic examination be
performed in conjunction with any audiometric testing used to assess
the severity of the hearing loss. As indicated above, we propose to
require a complete otologic examination instead of an otolaryngologic
examination. Additionally, we propose that the complete otologic
examination be required only to establish that a medically determinable
impairment exists. After the impairment is established, we propose to
allow the severity of the hearing loss to be determined based on
audiometric testing without another complete otologic examination.
Proposed 2.00B2--What audiometric testing do we need when you do not
have a cochlear implant?
This proposed section expands and clarifies the guidance in the
second, third, and fifth paragraphs of current 2.00B1 as follows:
We would replace the term ``speech discrimination'' with
``word recognition testing'' to reflect current medical terminology. In
addition, we would add a parenthetical statement to explain that this
testing may also be referred to as word discrimination or speech
discrimination testing.
We would clarify that we require that pure tone air
conduction and bone conduction testing must be conducted in accordance
with the most recently published American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) standards for air conduction and bone conduction stimuli. Our
current rules provide that audiometric testing be conducted in
accordance with the 1969 and 1972 ANSI standards or subsequent
comparable revisions.
We would clarify that each ear must be tested separately
and that hearing aids must not be worn during the testing. Our reasons
for proposing to remove the current requirement that hearing be tested
with aids in place are discussed in our explanation of proposed listing
2.10 below. We also propose to require that the testing be conducted in
a soundproof booth. Our current rules require that hearing measurements
be performed in an environment which meets the 1977 ANSI standard for
maximal permissible background sound.
We would require that an otoscopic examination be
performed immediately before the audiometric testing to ensure that
there are no conditions present that would prevent valid testing. In
proposed 2.00B2b, we explain that an otoscopic examination provides a
description of the appearance of the external ear canal and an
evaluation of the tympanic membrane.
We would describe the frequencies at which pure tone air
conduction and bone conduction are usually measured.
We would incorporate the guidance in current listing 2.08A
that explains that we average the pure tone hearing thresholds for air
conduction and bone conduction at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hertz (Hz) to
determine whether the listing criteria are met.
We would explain that the speech reception threshold (SRT)
is generally within 10 decibels (dB) of the average pure tone air
conduction hearing thresholds at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. If it is not,
the reason for the discrepancy should be documented.
We would expand the guidance on word recognition testing
and clarify that the words should be presented at a level of
amplification that will measure your maximum discrimination ability,
which is usually 35 to 40 dB above your SRT. We would also provide that
the amplification level used in the testing must be medically
appropriate and that you must be able to tolerate it.
Proposed 2.00B3--What audiometric testing do we need when you have a
cochlear implant?
In this new section, we propose to explain that we will consider
you to be disabled until 1 year after implantation of a cochlear
implant. We propose to add this criterion to recognize the length of
the rehabilitation and training period needed to use a cochlear implant
effectively.
After that period, we propose to evaluate your hearing loss by
measuring your word recognition ability on the Hearing in Noise Test
(HINT). We propose to use the HINT because the American Academy of
Neurology indicated in their comments in response to our ANPRM that the
HINT is the ``accepted standard used to assess hearing outcome after
cochlear implantation.'' We would also explain our requirements for how
that testing should be conducted. Our proposed requirements are based
on recommendations we received at our policy conference.
Proposed 2.00B4--How do we evaluate your word recognition ability if
you are not fluent in English?
Word recognition testing should be conducted using an appropriate
word list. If you are not fluent in English, the testing should be
conducted using an appropriate word list for the language in which you
are most fluent. However, appropriate word lists are not available in
all languages. Additionally, the individual conducting the test should
also be fluent in the language used for
[[Page 47106]]
the test. If the test needs to be conducted in a language other than
English, there may not be individuals available who are qualified to
perform the testing in that language. Therefore, we propose to add this
section to provide guidance on how we would evaluate your word
recognition ability if you are not fluent in English.
In this new section, we would provide that, if you are not fluent
in English, it may not be possible to measure your word recognition
ability. We would also explain that, if we cannot measure your word
recognition ability because you are not fluent in English, your hearing
loss cannot meet listing 2.10B or 2.11B. In this situation, we would
consider the facts of your case to determine whether you have
difficulty understanding words in the language in which you are most
fluent, and if so, whether that degree of difficulty medically equals
listing 2.10B or 2.11B. For example, we will consider how you interact
with family members, interpreters, and other individuals who speak the
language in which you are most fluent.
We welcome and are very interested in receiving comments about
other methods that you think we can use to evaluate word recognition
ability for individuals who are not fluent in English and who have
listing-level hearing disorders.
How are we proposing to change the criteria in the special senses and
speech listings for adults?
2.01 Category of Impairments, Special Senses and Speech
Under our current listings, we do not consider the effects of
treatment with cochlear implantation on an individual's hearing loss.
Due to advances in the technology used in cochlear implants, we believe
it is now appropriate to consider the effects of cochlear implantation
on an individual's hearing loss. Therefore, we propose to add a
separate listing to evaluate hearing loss treated with cochlear
implantation. Because we are proposing to add a listing, we also
propose to renumber the listings for ease of reference. We would revise
current listing 2.08, ``Hearing impairments,'' renumber it as listing
2.10, ``Hearing loss not treated with cochlear implantation,'' and add
listing 2.11, ``Hearing loss treated with cochlear implantation.''
Proposed Listing 2.10--Hearing Loss Not Treated With Cochlear
Implantation
In this proposed listing, we would revise current listing 2.08,
``Hearing impairments,'' and specify that these criteria apply to
individuals who do not have cochlear implants.
Current listing 2.08 provides that a hearing loss is of listing-
level severity when ``hearing [is] not restorable by a hearing aid''
and satisfies either of the criteria in the listing. Our longstanding
interpretation of the phrase ``hearing not restorable by a hearing
aid'' is that the hearing loss is so severe that a hearing aid would
not improve it to a level at which it no longer satisfies the listing
criteria. To determine this, we need testing with a hearing aid.
We propose to remove the requirement for testing with hearing aids
for the following reasons:
At our policy conference, we were advised that aided
hearing testing is not usually performed in clinical practice.
Audiometric testing with a hearing aid does not
demonstrate whether the individual will be able to use the aid
effectively.
When we published the current listings, generic hearing
aids were available for testing purposes. However, advances in
technology have resulted in hearing aids that are programmed to address
each individual's specific hearing loss. Due to this degree of
specificity, generic aids are no longer widely available.
Although we propose to no longer require aided testing, we are not
proposing to change the level of hearing loss needed to demonstrate a
listing-level impairment. Based on our adjudicative experience and the
comments we received in response to our ANPRM and at our policy
conference, we have determined that individuals with this level of
hearing loss do not usually obtain significant improvement in their
ability to hear and communicate from hearing aids. Therefore, we
believe that without a cochlear implant, a hearing loss at the level
specified in the current listing is indicative of listing-level
severity even if the individual were to use hearing aids.
Current listing 2.08A requires ``[a]verage hearing threshold
sensitivity for air conduction of 90 decibels or greater, and for bone
conduction to corresponding maximal levels, in the better ear,
determined by the simple average of hearing threshold levels at 500,
1000, and 2000 hz.'' We would clarify the criterion in current listing
2.08A for ``bone conduction to corresponding maximal levels'' by
specifying that this means that the average bone conduction hearing
threshold must be 60 dB or greater in the better ear.
Current listing 2.08B requires ``[s]peech discrimination scores of
40 percent or less in the better ear.'' As we mentioned above, ``speech
discrimination'' is now referred to as ``word recognition testing.''
When we published the current rules, word recognition testing was
usually conducted using a standardized list of phonetically balanced
monosyllabic words. Other types of word recognition testing, such as
sentence testing, are now available. Therefore, we propose to specify
the type of word recognition testing to be used.
Proposed Listing 2.11--Hearing Loss Treated With Cochlear Implantation
We propose to add criteria to evaluate individuals who have
cochlear implants. Cochlear implants are devices that attempt to
replace the function of damaged inner ear hair cells. The implant may
destroy any remaining hearing in the implanted ear.
Cochlear implants are not hearing aids. Hearing aids amplify sound,
while cochlear implants provide direct electrical stimulation of the
auditory nerve. Therefore, even individuals with profound hearing loss
may receive enough benefit from a cochlear implant to be able to engage
in gainful activity. However, we recognize that if you are treated with
cochlear implantation, you will need a period of rehabilitation and
training to use the implant effectively. Therefore, if you have a
cochlear implant, we propose to consider you to be under a disability
for one year from the date of implantation.
After the 1-year period, we propose to determine whether your
hearing loss meets the listing by assessing your word recognition
ability using the HINT. We propose to use the HINT to assess your word
recognition ability because, as mentioned in our discussion of proposed
section 2.00B3, the American Academy of Neurology indicated in their
comments in response to our ANPRM that the HINT is the ``accepted
standard used to assess hearing outcome after cochlear implantation.''
The HINT is a sentence test. Individuals generally have higher word
recognition scores when tested with a sentence test as opposed to a
monosyllabic word test because sentences provide context for the words
in them. Therefore, we propose to find that your hearing loss meets the
listing if your word recognition score on the HINT is 60 percent or
less.
[[Page 47107]]
How are we proposing to change the introductory text to the special
senses and speech listings for children?
102.00 Special Senses and Speech
We have repeated much of the introductory text of proposed 2.00B in
the introductory text to proposed 102.00B. This is because the same
basic rules for evaluating hearing loss in adults also apply to
evaluating hearing loss in children age 5 and older. Because we have
already described these provisions under the explanation of proposed
2.00B, the following discussion of proposed 102.00B describes only
those provisions that apply to children under age 5, are unique to the
childhood rules, or require further explanation specific to evaluating
disability in children.
We propose to remove the first paragraph of current 102.00B,
``Hearing impairments in children.'' This paragraph explains that the
criteria for hearing impairments in children take into account that a
lesser impairment in hearing which occurs at an early age may result in
a severe speech or language disorder. While this paragraph does explain
why we use a lower threshold for children, it is not needed in the
introductory text as it does not provide any guidance about how to
evaluate hearing loss under these listings.
We also propose to remove the second paragraph of current 102.00B.
This paragraph provides guidance on how to consider improvement in
hearing due to use of a hearing aid. As we discussed in our explanation
of proposed listing 2.10 above, we are proposing to remove the
requirement for aided hearing testing. Therefore, this guidance is no
longer needed.
Proposed 102.00B2--What audiometric testing do we need when you do not
have a cochlear implant?
This proposed section expands and clarifies the guidance in the
third and fourth paragraphs of current 102.00B as follows:
We would clarify that we generally need behavioral or
physiologic testing (other than screening testing) that is appropriate
for your age at the time of testing.
We would clarify that we require that audiometric testing
be conducted in accordance with the most recently published American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for air conduction and,
if appropriate, bone conduction stimuli. Our current rules provide that
audiometric testing be conducted in accordance with the 1969 and 1972
ANSI standards or subsequent comparable revisions.
We would provide that hearing aids not be used during
audiometric testing.
We would require that an otoscopic examination be
performed immediately before the audiometric testing to ensure that
there are no conditions present that would prevent valid testing.
We would provide that we will not purchase physiologic
testing. We are proposing this rule because such testing may require
sedation.
We would describe the hearing testing that is appropriate
for children in the age ranges of birth to the attainment of age 6
months, age 6 months to the attainment of age 2, age 2 to the
attainment of age 5, and age 5 to the attainment of age 18. The
proposed guidance for hearing testing for children age 5 to the
attainment of age 18 is similar to the proposed guidance for hearing
testing in adults, except for the frequencies needed to determine the
hearing threshold.
We would revise the frequency levels used to determine the
pure tone air conduction or bone conduction threshold from 500, 1000,
2000, and 3000 Hz to 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. We received several
comments in response to our ANPRM recommending that we make this change
in how we determine the hearing threshold. Additionally, our
adjudicative experience has shown that testing is often not done at
3000 Hz. We considered using the same hearing thresholds as in adults,
but propose to continue to use 4000 Hz because of the importance of
hearing at higher frequencies to a child's ability to learn speech.
We would describe screening tests, such as otoacoustic
emissions (OAE), and explain how we use them. We propose to provide
this guidance because hearing screening tests are commonly given to
children in newborn nurseries and schools. We do not propose to add
this guidance to the introductory text for adults because hearing
screening tests are not commonly given to adults.
Proposed 102.00B3--What audiometric testing do we need when you have a
cochlear implant?
This new section is similar to proposed 2.00B3 except that we
provide that a child who has a cochlear implant will be disabled until
age 5 or until 1 year after implantation, whichever is later. We
propose to consider children with cochlear implants to be disabled
until age 5 because of the extensive rehabilitation and training needed
for young children with cochlear implants to acquire speech and
language skills.
We would also explain that after that period, we will evaluate your
hearing loss by measuring your word recognition ability on the HINT or
the Hearing in Noise Test for Children (HINT-C).
Proposed 102.00B5--What do we mean by a marked limitation in speech or
language as used in 102.10B2?
In this new section, we explain when we will consider you to have a
marked limitation in speech or language.
How are we proposing to change the criteria in the special senses and
speech listings for children?
102.01 Category of Impairments, Special Senses and Speech
For the reasons mentioned in our discussion of 2.01 above, we
propose to add a separate listing to evaluate hearing loss treated with
cochlear implantation. Because we are proposing to add a listing, we
also propose to renumber the listings for ease of reference. We would
revise current listing 102.08, ``Hearing impairments,'' renumber it as
listing 102.10, ``Hearing loss not treated with cochlear
implantation,'' and add listing 102.11, ``Hearing loss treated with
cochlear implantation.''
Proposed 102.10--Hearing Loss Not Treated With Cochlear Implantation
This proposed listing would revise current listing 102.08,
``Hearing impairments,'' and specify that it applies to children who do
not have cochlear implants.
The current childhood listing requires that we assess your ability
to hear with a hearing aid unless we determine that you are not able to
use the aid effectively. For the reasons we stated in the discussion of
proposed listing 2.10 above, we propose to no longer require aided
hearing testing to determine if your hearing loss meets the listing.
Proposed listing 102.10A would replace current listing 102.08A.
This proposed listing contains the criterion for evaluating hearing
loss in children under age 5 who do not have a cochlear implant. We
propose to replace the current criterion for an aided average hearing
threshold of 40 dB in the better ear with a criterion for an unaided
average air conduction hearing threshold of 50 dB or greater in the
better ear. We propose to use a threshold of 50 dB because we believe
that, even with the use of a hearing aid, a child under age 5 who has a
50 dB hearing loss will also have a marked limitation in speech or
language.
[[Page 47108]]
Proposed listing 102.10B would replace current listing 102.08B.
This proposed listing contains the criteria for evaluating hearing loss
in children from age 5 to the attainment of age 18. For the reasons we
explained earlier, we propose to no longer require aided hearing
testing.
Proposed listing 102.10B1 would correspond to current listing
102.08B1. Current listing 102.08B1 generally requires an aided average
air conduction hearing threshold of 70 dB or greater in the better ear.
We would expect hearing loss at that level to have a sensorineural
component. (A sensorineural hearing loss is caused by permanent damage
to the inner ear or to the nerve pathways from the inner ear to the
brain.) We propose to replace the criterion in current listing 102.08B1
with an unaided average air conduction hearing threshold of 70 dB or
greater in the better ear. In order to ensure that hearing loss at this
level has a sensorineural component, we also propose to add a criterion
in proposed listing 102.10B1 for an average bone conduction hearing
threshold of 40 dB or greater in the better ear. We would continue to
use a 70 dB average air conduction hearing threshold because we believe
a hearing loss with a sensorineural component at this level will
significantly affect a child's ability to engage in learning. Also, we
do not use the same hearing threshold levels for children from age 5 to
the attainment of age 18 as we use for adults because of the importance
of hearing to a child's ability to communicate and learn.
Proposed listing 102.10B2 would correspond to current listing
102.08B2. We propose to make the same editorial changes as we did in
proposed listing 2.10B.
Proposed listing 102.10B3 would correspond to current listing
102.08B3. As we discussed in our explanation of proposed listing
102.10A above, we propose to use an unaided hearing threshold of 50 dB
in the better ear. Because children typically acquire basic speech and
language skills by age 5, we believe that it is not appropriate to
presume that a child over age 5 who has a 50 dB hearing loss will also
have a marked limitation in speech or language. Therefore, for children
over age 5, we also propose to require an assessment of speech and
language skills.
Proposed 102.11--Hearing Loss Treated With Cochlear Implantation
This proposed listing is similar to proposed listing 2.11 except
that we propose to consider you to be under a disability until age 5,
or for 1 year after implantation, whichever is later. We also propose
to use either the HINT or the HINT-C to assess your word recognition
ability.
What programs would these proposed regulations affect?
These proposed rules would affect disability determinations and
decisions that we make under titles II and XVI of the Act. In addition,
to the extent that Medicare entitlement and Medicaid eligibility are
based on whether you qualify for disability benefits under title II or
title XVI, these proposed rules would also affect the Medicare and
Medicaid programs.
Who can get disability benefits?
Under title II of the Act, we provide for the payment of disability
benefits if you are disabled and belong to one of the following three
groups:
Workers insured under the Act,
Children of insured workers, and
Widows, widowers, and surviving divorced spouses (see
Sec. 404.336) of insured workers.
Under title XVI of the Act, we provide for Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) payments on the basis of disability if you are disabled
and have limited income and resources.
How do we define disability?
Under both the title II and title XVI programs, disability must be
the result of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
or combination of impairments that is expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of
at least 12 months. Our definitions of disability are shown in the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability means you
have a medically
If you file a claim under . . And you are . . . determinable
. impairment(s) as
described above and
that results in . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
title II...................... an adult or a the inability to do
child. any substantial
gainful activity
(SGA).
title XVI..................... an individual age the inability to do
18 or older. any SGA.
title XVI..................... an individual marked and severe
under age 18. functional
limitations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do we decide whether you are disabled?
If you are applying for benefits under title II of the Act, or if
you are an adult applying for payments under title XVI of the Act, we
use a five-step ``sequential evaluation process'' to decide whether you
are disabled. We describe this five-step process in our regulations at
Sec. Sec. 404.1520 and 416.920. We follow the five steps in order and
stop as soon as we can make a determination or decision. The steps are:
1. Are you working, and is the work you are doing substantial
gainful activity? If you are working and the work you are doing is
substantial gainful activity, we will find that you are not disabled,
regardless of your medical condition or your age, education, and work
experience. If you are not, we will go on to step 2.
2. Do you have a ``severe'' impairment? If you do not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits your
physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find
that you are not disabled. If you do, we will go on to step 3.
3. Do you have an impairment(s) that meets or medically equals the
severity of an impairment in the listings? If you do, and the
impairment(s) meets the duration requirement, we will find that you are
disabled. If you do not, we will go on to step 4.
4. Do you have the residual functional capacity (RFC) to do your
past relevant work? If you do, we will find that you are not disabled.
If you do not, we will go on to step 5.
5. Does your impairment(s) prevent you from doing any other work
that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, considering
your RFC, age, education, and work experience? If it does, and it meets
the duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled. If it
does not, we will find that you are not disabled.
We use a different sequential evaluation process for children who
apply for payments based on disability under SSI. If you are already
receiving benefits, we also use a different sequential evaluation
process when we decide whether your disability continues. See
Sec. Sec. 404.1594, 416.924, 416.994, and 416.994a of our regulations.
However, all of these
[[Page 47109]]
processes include steps at which we consider whether your impairment(s)
meets or medically equals one of our listings.
What are the listings?
The listings are examples of impairments that we consider severe
enough to prevent you as an adult from doing any gainful activity. If
you are a child seeking SSI payments based on disability, the listings
describe impairments that we consider severe enough to result in marked
and severe functional limitations. Although the listings are contained
only in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations, we
incorporate them by reference in the SSI program in Sec. 416.925 of
our regulations and apply them to claims under both title II and title
XVI of the Act.
How do we use the listings?
The listings are in two parts. There are listings for adults (part
A) and for children (part B). If you are an individual age 18 or over,
we apply the listings in part A when we assess your claim, and we never
use the listings in part B.
If you are an individual under age 18, we first use the criteria in
part B of the listings. Part B contains criteria that apply only to
individuals who are under age 18. If the criteria in part B do not
apply, we may use the criteria in part A when those criteria give
appropriate consideration to the effects of the impairment(s) in
children. (See Sec. Sec. 404.1525 and 416.925.)
If your impairment(s) does not meet any listing, we will also
consider whether it medically equals any listing; that is, whether it
is as medically severe as an impairment in the listings. (See
Sec. Sec. 404.1526 and 416.926.)
What if you do not have an impairment(s) that meets or medically equals
a listing?
We use the listings only to decide that you are disabled or that
you are still disabled. We will not deny your claim or decide that you
no longer qualify for benefits because your impairment(s) does not meet
or medically equal a listing. If you have a severe impairment(s) that
does not meet or medically equal any listing, we may still find you
disabled based on other rules in the ``sequential evaluation process.''
Likewise, we will not decide that your disability has ended only
because your impairment(s) no longer meets or medically equals a
listing.
Also, when we conduct reviews to determine whether your disability
continues, we will not find that your disability has ended because we
have changed a listing. Our regulations explain that, when we change
our listings, we continue to use our prior listings when we review your
case, if you qualified for disability benefits or SSI payments based on
our determination or decision that your impairment(s) met or medically
equaled a listing. In these cases, we determine whether you have
experienced medical improvement, and if so, whether the medical
improvement is related to the ability to work. If your condition(s) has
medically improved so that your impairment(s) no longer meets or
medically equals the prior listing, we evaluate your case further to
determine whether you are currently disabled. We may find that you are
currently disabled, depending on the full circumstances of your case.
See Sec. Sec. 404.1594(c)(3)(i) and 416.994(b)(2)(iv)(A). If you are a
child who is eligible for SSI payments, we follow a similar rule when
we decide that you have experienced medical improvement in your
condition(s). See Sec. 416.994a(b)(2).
When will we start to use these rules?
We will not use these rules until we evaluate the public comments
we receive on them, determine whether they should be issued as final
rules, and issue final rules in the Federal Register. If we publish
final rules, we will explain in the preamble how we will apply them,
and summarize and respond to the public comments. Until the effective
date of any final rules, we will continue to use our current rules.
How long would these proposed rules be effective?
If we publish these proposed rules as final rules, they will remain
in effect for 8 years after the date they became effective, unless we
extend them, or revise and issue them again.
Clarity of these proposed rules Executive Order 12866, as amended,
requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition
to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your
comments on how to make them easier to understand.
For example:
Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated?
Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rules easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rules easier to
understand?
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and determined that these proposed rules meet the requirements for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended.
Thus, they were subject to OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that these proposed rules would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
affect only individuals. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis as
provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In these regulations, we are proposing to: (1) Revise the listings
for hearing loss to update the medical criteria in the listings; (2)
provide more information about how we evaluate hearing loss; and (3)
reflect our adjudicative experience. The listings for hearing loss are
in the special senses and speech body system. That body system also
includes listings for visual disorders, disturbances of labyrinthine-
vestibular function and loss of speech. In this NPRM, we are proposing
changes only to the listings for hearing loss. As part of the listings,
we identify specific documentation requirements used in evaluating
impairments within a body system, including medical and other evidence.
The documentation and evidentiary requirements are public reporting
burdens that must be cleared by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
However, the public reporting burdens are accounted for in the
Information Collection Requests for the various forms that the public
uses to submit the information to SSA. Consequently, we are reporting
no burden for this regulation aside from a 1-hour placeholder burden
shown in the chart below, for the sections listed.
[[Page 47110]]
Part 404--Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Annual number Frequency of burden per Estimated
Title/section & collection description of response response annual burden
respondents (minutes) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing Loss (2.00B and 102.00B)................ .............. .............. .............. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Information Collection Request has been submitted to OMB for
clearance. We are soliciting comments on the burden estimate; the need
for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its
quality, utility and clarity; and ways to minimize the burden on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. Requests for the Information
Collection Request package and/or comments should be directed to SSA
and OMB at the following addresses/phone numbers:
Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax
Number: 202-395-6974, E-mail address: OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Social Security Administration, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333
Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-
6400, E-mail address: OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov.
Comments on the paperwork burdens associated with this rule can be
received for up to 60 days after publication of this notice and will be
most useful if received within 30 days of publication. This does not
affect the deadline for the public to comment to SSA on the proposed
regulations. These information collection requirements will not become
effective until approved by OMB. When OMB has approved these
information collection requirements, SSA will publish a notice in the
Federal Register.
List of References
During the development of these proposed rules, we reviewed the
following information:
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2004).
Guidelines for the audiologic assessment of children from birth to 5
years of age [Guidelines]. (Available at https://www.asha.org/NR/
rdonlyres/0BB7C840-27D2-4DC6-861B-1709ADD78BAF/0/
v2GLAudAssessChild.pdf.)
ASHA. (2004). Technical report: Cochlear implants. ASHA Supplement
24. (Available at https://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/215CC9B8-6831-
494F-83ED-E02A6832A8A9/0/v2TRcochlearimplants.pdf.)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2005). MLN Matters Number
MM3796: Cochlear Implantation. (Available at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM3796.pdf.)
Cunningham. M. and Cox, E.O. (2003). Hearing assessment in infants
and children: Recommendations beyond neonatal screening. Pediatrics,
111(2), 436-440.
Dale, D.C. and Federman, D.D., eds. Neurology. ACP Medicine. (2004)
Elliot M. Frohman, New York: WebMD Professional Publishing.
Gifford, R.H. and Shallop, J.K. (2007). Hearing preservation in
patients with a cochlear implant. The ASHA Leader, 12(14), 15, 17,
34.
Gorga, M.P., et al. (2006). Using a combination of click- and tone
burst-evoked auditory brain stem response measurements to estimate
pure-tone thresholds. Ear & Hearing, 27(1), 60-74.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2000). Year 2000 position
statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and
intervention programs. Pediatrics, 106(4), 798-817.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2007). Year 2007 position
statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and
intervention programs. Pediatrics, 120(4), 898-921.
National Research Council (NRC): Committee on Disability
Determination for Individuals with Hearing Impairments. (2005).
Hearing Loss: Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (Available at https://
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11099#toc.)
Pittman, A.L., & Stelmachowicz, P.G. (2003). Hearing loss in
children and adults: Audiometric configuration, asymmetry, and
progression. Ear & Hearing, 24(3), 198-205.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health. (2007). Benefits and Risks of Cochlear
Implants. (Available at: https://www.fda.gov/cdrh/cochlear/
RiskBenefit.html.)
These references are included in the rulemaking record for these
proposed rules and are available for inspection by interested
individuals making arrangements with the contact person shown in this
preamble.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security--
Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security--Retirement Insurance;
96.004, Social Security--Survivors Insurance; and 96.006,
Supplemental Security Income)
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
Dated: May 12, 2008.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on August 8, 2008.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend part
404 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- )
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).
Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404--[Amended]
2. Appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 is amended as follows:
a. Revise item 3 of the introductory text before part A of appendix
1.
b. Revise section 2.00B of part A of appendix 1.
c. Redesignate section 2.00C of part A of appendix 1 as section
2.00E.
d. Add new sections 2.00C and 2.00D to part A of appendix 1.
e. Remove listing 2.08 of part A of appendix 1.
f. Add listings 2.10 and 2.11 to part A of appendix 1.
g. Revise section 102.00B of part B of appendix 1.
h. Remove listing 102.08 of part B of appendix 1.
i. Add listings 102.10 and 102.11 to part B of appendix 1.
The revised text is set forth as follows:
Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404--Listing of Impairments
* * * * *
[[Page 47111]]
3. Special Senses and Speech (2.00 and 102.00): [Insert date 8
years from the effective date of the final rules].
* * * * *
Part A
* * * * *
2.00 Special Senses and Speech
* * * * *
B. How do we evaluate hearing loss?
1. What evidence do we need to evaluate hearing loss?
a. To establish that you have a medically determinable impairment
that causes your hearing loss, we require both a complete otologic
examination and audiometric testing. The audiometric testing should be
performed within 2 months of the complete otologic examination.
b. A complete otologic examination must include your medical
history, your description of how your hearing loss affects you, a
description of the appearance of the external ear (pinna and the
external ear canal), an evaluation of the tympanic membrane, and an
assessment of any middle ear abnormalities.
c. After your impairment has been established, we can use the
results of subsequent audiometric testing to assess the severity of
your hearing loss without another complete otologic examination.
d. Audiometric testing must be performed by, or under the
supervision of, an otolaryngologist or by an audiologist qualified to
perform such tests. We consider an audiologist to be qualified if the
audiologist is currently and fully licensed or registered as a clinical
audiologist by the state or U.S. territory in which he or she
practices. If no licensure or registration is available, the
audiologist must be currently certified by the American Board of
Audiology or have a Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC-A) from the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).
2. What audiometric testing do we need when you do not have a
cochlear implant?
a. We generally need pure tone air conduction and bone conduction
testing, speech reception threshold (SRT) testing, and word recognition
testing. (Word recognition testing may be referred to as word
discrimination or speech discrimination testing.) This testing must be
conducted in a soundproof booth and each ear must be tested separately.
Pure tone air conduction and bone conduction testing must be conducted
in accordance with the most recently published standards of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for air conduction and
bone conduction stimuli.
b. You must not wear hearing aids during the testing. Additionally,
we require that an otoscopic examination be performed immediately
before the audiometric testing. An otoscopic examination provides a
description of the appearance of the external ear canal and an
evaluation of the tympanic membrane. The otoscopic examination must
also show that there are no conditions present that would prevent valid
audiometric testing. Examples of such conditions are fluid in the ear,
an ear infection, or an obstruction in the ear canal.
c. An audiological examination usually includes pure tone air
conduction and bone conduction testing measured at 250, 500, 1000,
2000, and 4000 Hertz (Hz). To determine whether your hearing loss meets
the air conduction criterion in 2.10A, we will average the air
conduction hearing thresholds at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. To determine
whether your hearing loss meets the bone conduction criterion in 2.10A,
we will average the bone conduction hearing thresholds at 500, 1000,
and 2000 Hz.
d. The SRT is the minimal decibel (dB) level required for you to
recognize a standard list of words. The SRT is usually within 10 dB of
the average pure tone air conduction hearing thresholds at 500, 1000,
and 2000 Hz. If the SRT is not within 10 dB of the average pure tone
air conduction threshold, the reason for the discrepancy should be
documented.
e. Word recognition testing determines your ability to recognize a
standardized list of phonetically balanced monosyllabic words in the
absence of any visual cues. This testing must be performed in quiet.
The words should be presented at a level of amplification that will
measure your maximum ability to discriminate words, usually 35 to 40 dB
above your SRT. However, the amplification level used in the testing
must be medically appropriate and you must be able to tolerate it. The
individual who performs the test should report your word recognition
testing score at your highest comfortable level of amplification.
3. What audiometric testing do we need when you have a cochlear
implant?
a. If you have a cochlear implant, we will consider you to be
disabled until 1 year after implantation.
b. After that period, we need word recognition testing performed
with the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). This testing must be conducted
in quiet in a sound field with your implant adjusted to your normal
settings. The sentences should be presented at 60 dB HL (hearing level)
and without any visual cues.
4. How do we evaluate your word recognition ability if you are not
fluent in English?
If you are not fluent in English, it may not be possible to measure
your word recognition ability. If your word recognition ability cannot
be measured, your hearing loss cannot meet 2.10B or 2.11B. Instead, we
will consider the facts of your case to determine whether you have
difficulty understanding words in the language in which you are most
fluent, and if so, whether that degree of difficulty medically equals
2.10B or 2.11B. For example, we will consider how you interact with
family members, interpreters, and other individuals who speak the
language in which you are most fluent.
C. How do we evaluate vertigo associated with disturbances of
labyrinthine-vestibular function, including Meniere's disease?
1. These disturbances of balance are characterized by a
hallucination of motion or a loss of position sense and a sensation of
dizziness which may be constant or may occur in paroxysmal attacks.
Nausea, vomiting, ataxia, and incapacitation are frequently observed,
particularly during the acute attack. It is important to differentiate
the report of rotary vertigo from that of ``dizziness,'' which is
described as light-headedness, unsteadiness, confusion, or syncope.
2. Meniere's disease is characterized by paroxysmal attacks of
vertigo, tinnitus, and fluctuating hearing loss. Remissions are
unpredictable and irregular, but may be long-lasting; hence, the
severity of the impairment is best determined after prolonged
observation and serial reexaminations.
3. The diagnosis of a vestibular disorder requires a comprehensive
neuro-otolaryngologic examination with a detailed description of the
vertiginous episodes, including notation of frequency, severity, and
duration of the attacks. Pure tone and speech audiometry with the
appropriate special examinations, such as Bekesy audiometry, are
necessary. Vestibular function is assessed by positional and caloric
testing, preferably by electronystagmography. When polytomograms,
contrast radiography, or other special tests have been performed,
copies of the reports of these tests should be obtained in addition to
appropriate medically acceptable imaging reports of the skull and
temporal bone. Medically acceptable imaging includes, but is not
limited to, x-ray imaging, computerized axial tomography (CAT scan) or
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or
[[Page 47112]]
without contrast material, myelography, and radionuclear bone scans.
``Appropriate'' means that the technique is the proper one to support
the evaluation and diagnosis of the impairment.
D. Loss of speech. In evaluating the loss of speech, the ability to
produce speech by any means includes the use of mechanical or
electronic devices that improve voice or articulation. Impairments of
speech may also be evaluated under the body system for the underlying
disorders, such as neurological disorders, 11.00ff.
* * * * *
2.01 Category of Impairments, Special Senses and Speech
* * * * *
2.10 Hearing loss not treated with cochlear implantation.
A. An average air conduction hearing threshold of 90 decibels or
greater in the better ear and an average bone conduction hearing
threshold of 60 decibels or greater in the better ear (see 2.00B2c); or
B. A word recognition score of 40 percent or less in the better ear
determined using a standardized list of phonetically balanced
monosyllabic words (see 2.00B2e).
2.11 Hearing loss treated with cochlear implantation.
A. Consider under a disability for 1 year after implantation; or
B. If more than 1 year after implantation, a word recognition score
of 60 percent or less determined using the HINT (see 2.00B3b).
* * * * *
Part B
* * * * *
102.00 Special Senses and Speech
* * * * *
B. How do we evaluate hearing loss?
1. What evidence do we need to evaluate hearing loss?
a. To establish that you have a medically determinable impairment
that causes your hearing loss, we require both a complete otologic
examination and audiometric testing. The audiometric testing should be
performed within 2 months of the complete otologic examination.
b. A complete otologic examination must include your medical
history, your description of how your hearing loss affects you, a
description of the appearance of the external ear (pinna and the
external ear canal), an evaluation of the tympanic membrane, and an
assessment of any middle ear abnormalities.
c. After your impairment has been established, we can use the
results of subsequent audiometric testing to assess the severity of
your hearing loss without another complete otologic examination.
d. Audiometric testing must be performed by, or under the
supervision of, an otolaryngologist or by an audiologist qualified to
perform such tests. We consider an audiologist to be qualified if the
audiologist is currently and fully licensed or registered as a clinical
audiologist by the state or U.S. territory in which he or she
practices. If no licensure or registration is available, the
audiologist must be currently certified by the American Board of
Audiology or have a Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC-A) from the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).
2. What audiometric testing do we need when you do not have a
cochlear implant?
a. General. We generally need behavioral or physiologic testing
(other than screening testing, see 102.00B3g) that is appropriate for
your age at the time of testing. We will make every reasonable effort
to obtain the results of physiologic testing that has been done.
However, if this testing has not been done, or, if we cannot obtain the
results, we will not purchase it. In these situations, we will evaluate
your hearing loss based on the other evidence in your case record.
b. Testing requirements. The testing must be conducted in
accordance with the most recently published standards of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) for air conduction stimuli, and if
appropriate, bone conduction stimuli. You must not wear hearing aids
during the testing. Additionally, we require that an otoscopic
examination be performed immediately before the audiometric testing. An
otoscopic examination provides a description of the appearance of the
external ear canal and an evaluation of the tympanic membrane. The
otoscopic examination must also show that there are no conditions
present that would prevent valid audiometric testing. Examples of such
conditions are fluid in the ear, an ear infection, or an obstruction in
the ear canal.
c. Children from birth to the attainment of age 6 months.
i. We need physiologic testing, such as auditory brainstem response
(ABR) testing, that measures the frequencies needed to recognize
speech; that is, the range from 500 to 4000 Hertz (Hz). We also need an
acoustic immittance assessment; that is, a tympanogram and acoustic
reflex testing.
ii. To determine whether your hearing loss meets listing 102.10A,
we will average the hearing thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
d. Children from age 6 months to the attainment of age 2.
i. We need air conduction thresholds determined by a behavioral
assessment, usually visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA),