Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level, 63717-63719 [2015-26747]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 203 / Wednesday, October 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules
6. Conflict of interest. SBA recognizes
that lenders that participate in any of
the three guaranteed disaster loan
programs may be more likely to use the
program(s) to lend to their existing
depositors and borrowers. This could be
the result of the lender’s greater
familiarity and experience with the
depositor or borrower, which would be
particularly useful if business or
personal records have been destroyed in
the disaster. SBA 7(a) lenders and IDAP
lenders are subject to the requirements
of 13 CFR 120.140 (What ethical
requirements apply to participants?).
SBA invites comments on whether there
are any additional relationships or
transactions that should be restricted in
the guaranteed disaster loan programs
due to the potential for a conflict of
interest on the part of the lender that
might put the SBA-guaranteed disaster
loan at greater risk than would
otherwise be the case.
IDAP Specific Issues
7. Term of loan. IDAP loans are
designed to be interim loans that will be
repaid with the proceeds of a direct
disaster loan from SBA. If SBA does not
approve an IDAP borrower for a direct
disaster loan in the amount of the IDAP
loan, the remaining balance of the IDAP
loan, by statute, must have a term of at
least ten years from the date of final
disbursement. Lenders have indicated
concern that a ten year repayment
period is too long. What is the
appropriate repayment term for an IDAP
loan if a direct disaster loan sufficient
to repay the IDAP loan is not approved
by SBA?
8. Servicing and Liquidation. Unlike
servicing and liquidation for regular 7(a)
loans, SBA regulations require an IDAP
lender to service and liquidate IDAP
loans in accordance with the existing
practices and procedures that the IDAP
lender uses for its non-SBA guaranteed
commercial loans. See 13 CFR
123.706(d) and (e). What concerns, if
any, do lenders have regarding these
requirements?
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EDAP Specific Issues
9. Guaranty percentage. Unlike for
IDAP and PDAP, the statute did not set
a guaranty percentage for EDAP. What
guaranty percentage would lenders
require in order to make EDAP loans?
10. Refinancing option. Even though
the term of an EDAP loan is limited to
180 days (with extensions on a case-bycase basis), the statute gives SBA the
authority to refinance EDAP loans with
the proceeds of direct disaster loans.
Would a refinancing option make EDAP
a more attractive loan product?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 20, 2015
Jkt 238001
11. Use of proceeds. The statute
requires SBA to specify whether EDAP
proceeds may be used for the following
purposes: Paying employees; paying
bills and other financial obligations;
making repairs; purchasing inventory;
restarting or operating a small business
concern in the community in which it
was conducting operations prior to the
applicable major disaster, or to a
neighboring area, county, or parish in
the disaster area; or covering additional
costs until the small business concern is
able to obtain funding through
insurance claims, Federal assistance
programs, or other sources. SBA seeks
input on which uses of proceeds,
included those listed above or others
recommended by commenters, would be
appropriate for EDAP loans.
PDAP Specific Issues
12. Term of loan. The term of an SBA
direct disaster loan is determined based
on the borrower’s ability to repay. The
maximum term is 30 years, and the
average loan term is 18.5 years. PDAP
loans may have maturities of up to 30
years. Would lenders be willing to make
a PDAP loan of up to 30 years? If not,
what is the maximum loan term that
lenders would consider suitable in the
PDAP program.
13. Amount of loan. The amount of
direct disaster loans to homeowners and
renters are capped by regulation.
Generally, the regulations allow up to
$40,000 for personal property, $200,000
for repair or replacement of a primary
residence, and $200,000 for refinancing.
See 13 CFR 123.105. Are lenders willing
to make guaranteed disaster loans to
homeowners and renters in these
amounts? If not, what is the range of
loan amounts that lenders would prefer?
14. Collateral. SBA does not require
collateral for direct disaster loans made
in response to major disasters if the loan
is $25,000 or less. See 13 CFR 123.11.
Are lenders willing to make guaranteed
disaster loans of up to $25,000 with no
collateral? Additionally, SBA permits
liens on direct disaster loans to be in a
subordinate position. Are lenders
willing to make guaranteed disaster
loans if the loan will be secured by a
lien in a subordinate position?
15. Consumer lending. Only PLP
lenders are eligible to make PDAP loans
to homeowners and renters. PLP lenders
are authorized by SBA to make
commercial loans, and are not screened
in any way for capacity to make and
service loans to individuals for
residential mortgages or improvements.
Do PLP lenders have the expertise to
make non-commercial guaranteed
disaster loans, or should they be made
by other lender units organized to make
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63717
consumer loans? What training would
be required for a PLP or other lender,
and what are the concerns about the
costs associated with developing the
requisite skills? In addition, guaranteed
loans to homeowners and renters may
require compliance with consumer
lending requirements. Do lenders have
any concerns about the costs associated
with compliance with such
requirements? Should SBA’s guarantee
be conditioned upon a lender’s
compliance with these consumer
lending requirements?
16. Delegated authority lending. PLP
lenders are authorized to make PDAP
loans to homeowners and renters, as
well as small businesses. Will PLP
lenders want all PDAP loans to be made
under delegated authority? Other
lenders are authorized to make loans to
small businesses. Do other lenders want
PDAP loans to small businesses to be
made under delegated authority? If SBA
determines that a PLP lender
participating in PDAP knowingly fails to
comply with the underwriting standards
for PDAP loans, the statute requires SBA
to exclude the PLP lender from
participating in PDAP or exclude the
PLP lender from the 7(a) PLP program
for up to five years. Are PLP lenders less
likely to participate in PDAP given these
compliance requirements?
17. Sale of the Guarantee. SBA
permits the sale of the guarantee on
loans made in its other business loan
programs. Would the sale of guarantees
be a key factor in determining lender
participation in PDAP?
Maria Contreras-Sweet,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–26532 Filed 10–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Parts 404 and 416
[Docket No. SSA–2013–0061]
RIN 0960–AH64
Returning Evidence at the Appeals
Council Level
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
We propose to amend our
regulations by revising our rules
regarding the return of evidence at the
Appeals Council (AC) level. Our current
rules state that the AC will return to the
claimant additional evidence it receives
when the AC finds the evidence does
not relate to the period on or before the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63718
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 203 / Wednesday, October 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules
date of the administrative law judge’s
(ALJ) hearing decision. We are
proposing these revisions to give the AC
discretion in returning additional
evidence that it receives when the AC
determines the additional evidence does
not relate to the period on or before the
date of the ALJ decision.
DATES: To ensure that we consider your
comments, we must receive them by no
later than November 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of three methods—Internet,
fax, or mail. Do not submit the same
comments multiple times or by more
than one method. Regardless of which
method you choose, please state that
your comments refer to Docket No.
SSA–2013–0061 so that we may
associate your comments with the
correct regulation.
Caution: You should be careful to
include in your comments only
information you wish to make publicly
available. We strongly urge you not to
include in your comments any personal
information, such as Social Security
numbers or medical information.
1. Internet: We strongly recommend
this method for submitting your
comments. Visit the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Use the Web
page’s Search function to find docket
number SSA–2013–0061. Once you
submit your comment, the system will
issue you a tracking number to confirm
your submission. You will not be able
to view your comment immediately
because we post each comment
manually. It may take up to a week for
your comment to be viewable.
2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966–
2830.
3. Mail: Address your comments to
the Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, Social Security
Administration, 3100 West High Rise
Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401.
Comments are available for public
viewing on the Federal eRulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov or
in person, during regular business
hours, by arranging with the contact
person identified below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maren Weight, Office of Appellate
Operations, Social Security
Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 605–
7100. 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
site, Social Security Online, at https://
www.socialsecurity.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 20, 2015
Jkt 238001
Background
The AC will consider new and
material evidence submitted with a
request for review when the evidence
relates to the period on or before the
date of the ALJ hearing decision.1 When
the AC does not find that the additional
evidence relates to the period on or
before the date of the ALJ hearing
decision, our current rules state that the
AC will return the additional evidence
to the claimant.2
When we published it in 1987 (52 FR
4004, February 9, 1987), the rule
requiring the AC to return the additional
evidence to the claimant made sense
because cases pending at the AC level
involved paper claim(s) files. Returning
evidence provided a public service
because claimants often submitted
original documentation to the AC. Our
primary purpose in returning the
original documentation was to allow the
claimant to use the information if he or
she filed a new application. Because the
AC worked with paper claim(s) files, it
was more administratively efficient and
cost effective to return the evidence by
mail directly to the claimant.
We now use many electronic services
that make the practice of returning
evidence unnecessary. For example, we
now scan most of the medical evidence
into the electronic claim(s) file or
appointed representatives submit it
through our Electronic Records Express
system. This technology immediately
uploads records into a claimant’s
electronic folder, making the records
available for review in real time. It is
neither administratively efficient nor
cost effective for us to print out
documents that have been submitted to
us electronically by a claimant or
appointed representative in order to
return them to the claimant.
Additionally, in the electronic folder,
we are able to identify and retain the
additional information in a part of the
claim(s) file that is not part of the record
associated with the current application.
This means that all of the evidence
submitted on a prior application is
immediately available for review if the
claimant files a subsequent application.
Most claimants have representation at
and above the hearing level. In
approximately 85% of the claims
pending with an appointed
representative at the hearing level, the
representatives have online access to the
electronic folder. This means that most
representatives can determine in real
time whether we received and
associated evidence with the claim(s)
1 20
2 20
PO 00000
CFR 404.970(b) and 416.1470(b).
CFR 404.976(b) and 416.1476(b).
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
file. It is impractical and unnecessary to
return evidence in these claims because
the appointed representative has
immediate access to the additional
evidence while the claim is pending
before the AC.
The administrative burden of
processing and returning evidence also
has increased significantly over the last
few years. As the number of appeals
filed with the AC continues to increase,
we have experienced a corresponding
increase in the number of claims that
involve the submission of additional
evidence. Each year, the AC receives
additional evidence submissions in
approximately one-third of its pending
cases, most of which are multi-page
submissions.
In addition to the increased costs
associated with printing a significant
amount of electronically submitted
documents, there are many other
administrative and processing time
costs to returning evidence. When the
AC returns evidence, employees must
separate the evidence returned from the
other evidence in the electronic claim(s)
file, remove the notice of action from
the automated printing and mailing
process, and manually print, package,
and mail the evidence to the claimant.
This process is time-consuming, uses
our scarce administrative resources with
little benefit either to the public or to us,
requires action by multiple employees,
and delays release of the AC action
document. This delay is burdensome
and unnecessary in most instances
because the claimant already has copies
of or access to the information.
We recognize that there may be some
instances in which it would remain
appropriate for the AC to return
evidence to the claimant, such as when
the submitted evidence is an original or
a certified copy of a marriage or birth
certificate. In evaluating whether
returning the evidence is necessary, the
AC considers who submitted the
information and by what means,
whether the claimant is represented,
and whether the claimant otherwise has
access to the information. Our subregulatory instructions will incorporate
procedures that explain when the AC
will return evidence. We are not
changing how the AC considers
additional evidence or when the AC
will give protective filing based on the
receipt of additional evidence.
Given the change in our operating
environment since we first published
these rules in 1987, both in terms of our
administrative resources and the
electronic availability of evidence, we
believe it is no longer administratively
efficient or cost effective to return
additional evidence when the AC
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 203 / Wednesday, October 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules
determines it does not relate to the
period on or before the date of the ALJ
decision. We expect these proposed
changes will benefit the public by
reducing the time it takes to release an
AC action document.
Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social
Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004,
Social Security—Survivors Insurance; and
96.006, Supplemental Security Income)
Clarity of This Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
20 CFR Part 404
Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563, 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:
• Would more, but shorter, sections
be better?
• Are the requirements in the
proposed rules clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to
suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the
rules easier to understand?
• Do the proposed rules contain
technical language or jargon that is not
clear?
• Would a different format make the
proposed rules easier to understand, e.g.
grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing?
Regulatory Procedures
List of Subjects
Administrative practice and
procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Social Security.
20 CFR Part 416
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability
benefits, Public assistance programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Supplemental Security
Income (SSI).
Dated: September 14, 2015.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR
chapter III parts 404 and 416 as set forth
below:
PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE,
SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY
INSURANCE (1950– )
Subpart J—Determinations,
Administrative Review Process, and
Reopening of Determinations and
Decisions
Executive Order 12866 as
Supplemented by Executive Order
13563
■
We consulted with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
determined that these proposed rules do
not meet the criteria for a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, as supplemented by Executive
Order 13563. Thus, OMB did not review
these proposed rules.
Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)–(b),
(d)–(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j),
404(f), 405(a)–(b), (d)–(h), and (j), 421, 423(i),
425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97–455, 96
Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)–
(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42
U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203,
118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
■
1. The authority citation for subpart J
of part 404 continues to read as follows:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
We certify that these proposed rules
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because they affect individuals
only. Therefore, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended, does not
require us to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These proposed rules do not create
any new or affect any existing
collections and, therefore, do not
require Office of Management and
Budget approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Oct 20, 2015
Jkt 238001
2. In § 404.976, revise paragraph (b)(1)
to read as follows:
§ 404.976 Procedures before Appeals
Council on review.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * * (1) The Appeals Council
will consider all the evidence in the
administrative law judge hearing record
as well as any new and material
evidence submitted to it that relates to
the period on or before the date of the
administrative law judge hearing
decision. If you submit evidence that
does not relate to the period on or before
the date of the administrative law judge
hearing decision, the Appeals Council
will explain why it did not accept the
additional evidence and will advise you
of your right to file a new application.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
63719
The notice will also advise you that if
you file a new application within 6
months after the date of the Appeals
Council’s notice, your request for review
will constitute a written statement
indicating an intent to claim benefits in
accordance with § 404.630. If you file a
new application within 6 months of the
date of this notice, we will use the date
of the request for review as the filing
date for your application.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL
SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED,
BLIND, AND DISABLED
Subpart N—Determinations,
Administrative Review Process, and
Reopening of Determinations and
Decisions
3. The authority citation for subpart N
of part 416 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L.
108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
4. In § 416.1476, revise paragraph
(b)(1) to read as follows:
■
§ 416.1476 Procedures before Appeals
Council on review.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * * (1) In reviewing decisions
based on an application for benefits, the
Appeals Council will consider the
evidence in the administrative law
judge hearing record as well as any new
and material evidence submitted to it
that relates to the period on or before
the date of the administrative law judge
hearing decision. If you submit evidence
that does not relate to the period on or
before the date of the administrative law
judge hearing decision, the Appeals
Council will explain why it did not
accept the additional evidence and will
advise you of your right to file a new
application. The notice will also advise
you that if you file a new application
within 60 days after the date of the
Appeals Council’s notice, your request
for review will constitute a written
statement indicating an intent to claim
benefits in accordance with § 416.340. If
you file a new application within 60
days of the date of this notice, we will
use the date of the request for review as
the filing date for your application.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–26747 Filed 10–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
E:\FR\FM\21OCP1.SGM
21OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63717-63719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26747]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Parts 404 and 416
[Docket No. SSA-2013-0061]
RIN 0960-AH64
Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to amend our regulations by revising our rules
regarding the return of evidence at the Appeals Council (AC) level. Our
current rules state that the AC will return to the claimant additional
evidence it receives when the AC finds the evidence does not relate to
the period on or before the
[[Page 63718]]
date of the administrative law judge's (ALJ) hearing decision. We are
proposing these revisions to give the AC discretion in returning
additional evidence that it receives when the AC determines the
additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date
of the ALJ decision.
DATES: To ensure that we consider your comments, we must receive them
by no later than November 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of three methods--
Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times
or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose,
please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2013-0061 so
that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only
information you wish to make publicly available. We strongly urge you
not to include in your comments any personal information, such as
Social Security numbers or medical information.
1. Internet: We strongly recommend this method for submitting your
comments. Visit the Federal eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Use the Web page's Search function to find docket
number SSA-2013-0061. Once you submit your comment, the system will
issue you a tracking number to confirm your submission. You will not be
able to view your comment immediately because we post each comment
manually. It may take up to a week for your comment to be viewable.
2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966-2830.
3. Mail: Address your comments to the Office of Regulations and
Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, 3100 West High Rise
Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov or in person, during
regular business hours, by arranging with the contact person identified
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maren Weight, Office of Appellate
Operations, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041, (703) 605-7100. For information on eligibility or
filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-
1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social
Security Online, at https://www.socialsecurity.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The AC will consider new and material evidence submitted with a
request for review when the evidence relates to the period on or before
the date of the ALJ hearing decision.\1\ When the AC does not find that
the additional evidence relates to the period on or before the date of
the ALJ hearing decision, our current rules state that the AC will
return the additional evidence to the claimant.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 20 CFR 404.970(b) and 416.1470(b).
\2\ 20 CFR 404.976(b) and 416.1476(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we published it in 1987 (52 FR 4004, February 9, 1987), the
rule requiring the AC to return the additional evidence to the claimant
made sense because cases pending at the AC level involved paper
claim(s) files. Returning evidence provided a public service because
claimants often submitted original documentation to the AC. Our primary
purpose in returning the original documentation was to allow the
claimant to use the information if he or she filed a new application.
Because the AC worked with paper claim(s) files, it was more
administratively efficient and cost effective to return the evidence by
mail directly to the claimant.
We now use many electronic services that make the practice of
returning evidence unnecessary. For example, we now scan most of the
medical evidence into the electronic claim(s) file or appointed
representatives submit it through our Electronic Records Express
system. This technology immediately uploads records into a claimant's
electronic folder, making the records available for review in real
time. It is neither administratively efficient nor cost effective for
us to print out documents that have been submitted to us electronically
by a claimant or appointed representative in order to return them to
the claimant. Additionally, in the electronic folder, we are able to
identify and retain the additional information in a part of the
claim(s) file that is not part of the record associated with the
current application. This means that all of the evidence submitted on a
prior application is immediately available for review if the claimant
files a subsequent application.
Most claimants have representation at and above the hearing level.
In approximately 85% of the claims pending with an appointed
representative at the hearing level, the representatives have online
access to the electronic folder. This means that most representatives
can determine in real time whether we received and associated evidence
with the claim(s) file. It is impractical and unnecessary to return
evidence in these claims because the appointed representative has
immediate access to the additional evidence while the claim is pending
before the AC.
The administrative burden of processing and returning evidence also
has increased significantly over the last few years. As the number of
appeals filed with the AC continues to increase, we have experienced a
corresponding increase in the number of claims that involve the
submission of additional evidence. Each year, the AC receives
additional evidence submissions in approximately one-third of its
pending cases, most of which are multi-page submissions.
In addition to the increased costs associated with printing a
significant amount of electronically submitted documents, there are
many other administrative and processing time costs to returning
evidence. When the AC returns evidence, employees must separate the
evidence returned from the other evidence in the electronic claim(s)
file, remove the notice of action from the automated printing and
mailing process, and manually print, package, and mail the evidence to
the claimant. This process is time-consuming, uses our scarce
administrative resources with little benefit either to the public or to
us, requires action by multiple employees, and delays release of the AC
action document. This delay is burdensome and unnecessary in most
instances because the claimant already has copies of or access to the
information.
We recognize that there may be some instances in which it would
remain appropriate for the AC to return evidence to the claimant, such
as when the submitted evidence is an original or a certified copy of a
marriage or birth certificate. In evaluating whether returning the
evidence is necessary, the AC considers who submitted the information
and by what means, whether the claimant is represented, and whether the
claimant otherwise has access to the information. Our sub-regulatory
instructions will incorporate procedures that explain when the AC will
return evidence. We are not changing how the AC considers additional
evidence or when the AC will give protective filing based on the
receipt of additional evidence.
Given the change in our operating environment since we first
published these rules in 1987, both in terms of our administrative
resources and the electronic availability of evidence, we believe it is
no longer administratively efficient or cost effective to return
additional evidence when the AC
[[Page 63719]]
determines it does not relate to the period on or before the date of
the ALJ decision. We expect these proposed changes will benefit the
public by reducing the time it takes to release an AC action document.
Clarity of This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
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:
Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
Are the requirements in the proposed rules clearly stated?
Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rules easier to
understand?
Do the proposed rules contain technical language or jargon
that is not clear?
Would a different format make the proposed rules easier to
understand, e.g. grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing?
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
determined that these proposed rules do not meet the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB did not review these
proposed rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that these proposed rules will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
affect individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These proposed rules do not create any new or affect any existing
collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and
Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 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
20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
20 CFR Part 416
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability
benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Dated: September 14, 2015.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR
chapter III parts 404 and 416 as set forth below:
PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
(1950- )
Subpart J--Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and
Reopening of Determinations and Decisions
0
1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j),
221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i),
425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42
U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98
Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118
Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
0
2. In Sec. 404.976, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 404.976 Procedures before Appeals Council on review.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) The Appeals Council will consider all the evidence in
the administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and
material evidence submitted to it that relates to the period on or
before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. If
you submit evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the
date of the administrative law judge hearing decision, the Appeals
Council will explain why it did not accept the additional evidence and
will advise you of your right to file a new application. The notice
will also advise you that if you file a new application within 6 months
after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review
will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim
benefits in accordance with Sec. 404.630. If you file a new
application within 6 months of the date of this notice, we will use the
date of the request for review as the filing date for your application.
* * * * *
PART 416--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND
DISABLED
Subpart N--Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and
Reopening of Determinations and Decisions
0
3. The authority citation for subpart N of part 416 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub.
L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
0
4. In Sec. 416.1476, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.1476 Procedures before Appeals Council on review.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) In reviewing decisions based on an application for
benefits, the Appeals Council will consider the evidence in the
administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and material
evidence submitted to it that relates to the period on or before the
date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. If you submit
evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of
the administrative law judge hearing decision, the Appeals Council will
explain why it did not accept the additional evidence and will advise
you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also
advise you that if you file a new application within 60 days after the
date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will
constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits
in accordance with Sec. 416.340. If you file a new application within
60 days of the date of this notice, we will use the date of the request
for review as the filing date for your application.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-26747 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P