[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39781-39782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14463]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Rescission of Acquiescence Rulings 88-3(7), 92-6(10), 98-1(8), and 00-
5(6)]


Rescission of Social Security Acquiescence Rulings 88-3(7), 92-
6(10), 98-1(8), and 00-5(6)

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Rescission of Social Security Acquiescence Rulings 
(ARs) 88-3(7)--McDonald v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 153 (7th Cir. 1986), amended 
on reh'g, 818 F.2d 559 (7th Cir. 1987); 92-6(10)--Walker v. Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, 943 F.2d 1257 (10th Cir. 1991); 98-1(8)--
Newton v. Chater, 92 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1996) and 00-5(6)--Salamalekis 
v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2000).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2), 404.985(e), and 
416.1485(e), the Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of the 
rescission of Social Security ARs 88-3(7), 92-6(10), 98-1(8), and 00-
5(6).

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Sargent, Litigation Staff, Social 
Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-
6401, (410) 965-1695.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An AR explains how we will apply a holding 
in a decision of a United States Court of Appeals that we determine 
conflicts with our interpretation of a provision of the Social Security 
Act (the Act) or regulations when the Government has decided not to 
seek further review of that decision or is unsuccessful on further 
review.
    As provided by 20 CFR 404.985(e)(1) and 416.1485(e)(1), we may 
rescind an AR as obsolete and apply our interpretation of the Act or 
regulations if the Supreme Court overrules or limits a circuit court 
holding that was the basis of an AR.
    On March 1, 1988, we issued AR 88-3(7) (see 55 FR 28302) to reflect 
the holding in McDonald v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 153 (7th Cir. 1986), amended 
on reh'g, 818 F.2d 559 (7th Cir. 1987). On September 17, 1992, we 
published AR 92-6(10) (57 FR 43007) to reflect the holding in Walker v. 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 943 F.2d 1257 (10th Cir. 1991). 
On February 23, 1998, we published AR 98-1(8) (63 FR 9037) to reflect 
the holding in Newton v. Chater, 92 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1996). On 
November 15, 2000, we published AR 00-5(6) (65 FR 69116) to reflect the 
holding in Salamalekis v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2000). These 
circuit courts interpreted sections 222 and 223 of the Act to require 
the Social Security Administration (SSA) to allow a finding of 
disability and entitlement to a trial work period when a claimant 
returned to substantial gainful activity within 12 months of the 
alleged onset date of his or her disability and prior to an award of 
benefits. Accordingly, these four circuit courts held that Social 
Security

[[Page 39782]]

Ruling 82-52,\1\ which explains how SSA applies the 12-month statutory 
duration requirement when a claimant returns to work within 12 months 
of the alleged disability onset date,\2\ was inconsistent with the 
meaning of those sections of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Social Security Ruling (SSR) 91-7c superseded SSR 82-52, but 
only to the extent that SSR 82-52 discussed former procedures used 
to determine disability in children. The issue in these ARs did not 
relate to those former procedures and the cited policy statement in 
SSR 82-52 remained in effect.
    \2\ Final rules clarifying and providing a more detailed 
explanation and justification for the longstanding policy in SSR 82-
52 became effective on August 10, 2000 (65 FR 42772).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 18, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Walton v. Apfel, 235 F.3d 184 (4th 
Cir. 2000), joining these four other circuits by holding, among other 
things, that the claimant who returned to work within 12 months of the 
alleged date of disability onset and prior to adjudication of his claim 
was entitled to disability benefits and a 9-month trial work period 
under the clear language of the governing statute.
    On March 27, 2002, the United States Supreme Court reversed the 
Fourth Circuit's decision, and held that SSA's trial work period 
regulation and its interpretation of the 12-month duration requirement 
was lawful under the Act. Barnhart v. Walton, -- U.S. --, 122 S. Ct. 
1265 (2002). The Court stated that ``the Agency's regulation seems a 
reasonable, hence permissible, interpretation of the statute. * * * The 
statute's complexity, the vast number of claims it engenders, and the 
consequent need for agency expertise and administrative experience lead 
us to read the statute as delegating to the Agency considerable 
authority to fill in, through interpretation, matters of detail related 
to its administration. The interpretation at issue here is such a 
matter. The statute's language is ambiguous. And the Agency's 
interpretation is reasonable. We conclude that the Agency's regulation 
is lawful.'' Id. at 1273-1274 (citation omitted).
    Because, in Walton, the Supreme Court also overruled the circuit 
court holdings in McDonald, Walker, Newton, and Salamalekis by 
upholding SSA's regulations clarifying and explaining the policy 
interpretation that was the subject of the holdings in those cases, we 
are rescinding ARs 88-3(7), 92-6(10), 98-1(8) and 00-5(6).
    (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; 96.006--
Supplemental Security Income.)

    Dated: June 4, 2002.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner of Social Security.
[FR Doc. 02-14463 Filed 6-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-S