Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 13505 

additional administrative flexibility. As 

such, the final rule is not subject to the 

30-day delayed effective date 

requirement. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to 

describe any significant economic 

impact any regulation may have on a 

substantial number of small credit 

unions (those under $10 million in 

assets). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Only a few 

credit unions convert in a given year. 

Accordingly, the NCUA Board certifies 

that the final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small credit 

unions, and, therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) applies to rulemakings in which 

an agency by rule creates a new 

paperwork burden on regulated entities 

or modifies an existing burden. 44 

U.S.C. 3507(d). For purposes of the 

PRA, a paperwork burden may take the 

form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or 

disclosure requirement, each referred to 

as an information collection. The 

revised definition does not impose any 

new paperwork burden. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 encourages 

independent regulatory agencies to 

consider the impact of their actions on 

state and local interests. In adherence to 

fundamental federalism principles, 

NCUA, an independent regulatory 

agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), 

voluntarily complies with the executive 

order. The final rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the connection between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. NCUA has 

determined that this rule does not 

constitute a policy that has federalism 

implications for purposes of the 

executive order. 

The Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment 

of Federal Regulations and Policies on 

Families 

NCUA has determined that the final 

rule will not affect family well-being 

within the meaning of section 654 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 

105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, 

provides generally for congressional 

review of agency rules. A reporting 

requirement is triggered in instances 

where NCUA issues a final rule as 

defined by section 551 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

551. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 

Management and Budget has 

determined that this final rule is not a 

major rule for purposes of SBREFA. 

List of Subjects 

12 CFR Part 708a 

Charter conversions, Credit unions. 

12 CFR Part 708b 

Credit unions, Mergers of credit 

unions, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

By the National Credit Union 

Administration Board on March 7, 2011. 

Mary F. Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the National Credit Union 

Administration confirms as final the 

interim rule, which amended 12 CFR 

parts 708a and 708b, and was published 

December 23, 2010, at 75 FR 80678, 

with the following changes: 

PART 708a—BANK CONVERSIONS 

AND MERGERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 708a 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1766, 1785(b), and 

1785(c). 

■ 2. In § 708a.101, revise the definition 

of regional director to read as follows: 

§ 708a.101 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Regional director means either the 

director of the NCUA regional office for 

the region where a natural person credit 

union’s main office is located or the 

director of the NCUA’s Office of 

Consumer Protection. For corporate 

credit unions, regional director means 

the director of NCUA’s Office of 

Corporate Credit Unions. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–5675 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1030; Airspace 

Docket No. 10–AGL–18] 

Amendment of Class E Airspace; La 

Porte, IN 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects errors in 

the geographic coordinates of a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

February 1, 2011, that amends Class E 

airspace in the La Porte, IN area. 

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC May 5, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Enander, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321– 

7716. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On February 1, 2011, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a final 

rule amending Class E airspace in the La 

Porte, IN area (76 FR 5471), Docket No. 

FAA–2010–1030. Subsequent to 

publication, errors were discovered in 

the geographic coordinates for the La 

Porte Hospital Heliport point in space 

and the La Porte NDB. This action 

corrects these coordinates. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005, of FAA 

Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, 

and effective September 15, 2010, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. 

Correction to Final Rule 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, on page 5472, 

column one, in the airspace description, 

under La Porte NDB, remove ‘‘lat. 

41°29′56′′ N., long. 86°46′17′′ W.’’, and 

insert ‘‘lat. 41°29′56′′ N., long. 86°46′16′′ 

W.’’. 

On page 5472, column one, in the 

regulatory text, remove ‘‘* * * and 

within a 6-mile radius of the La Porte 

Hospital point in space at lat. 41°29′56′′ 

N., long. 86°46′17′′ W.’’ and insert ‘‘and 

within a 6-mile radius of the La Porte 

Hospital point in space at lat. 41°36′11′′ 

N., long. 86°44′10′′ W.’’ 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

13506 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Downing v. Kunzig, 454 F.2d 1230, 1232 

(6th Cir. 1972) (noting that, ‘‘federal buildings 

housing federal courts and other governmental 

agencies are designed to be used strictly for 

governmental purposes. Although members of the 

public ordinarily have free access to such buildings, 

* * * responsible agencies are free to adopt and 

enforce reasonable rules restricting such public use. 

***’’); cf. United States v. Cassiagnol, 420 F.2d 

868, 875 (4th Cir. 1970) (‘‘Even where government 

property is generally open to the public, reasonable 

nondiscriminatory regulation is appropriate to 

prevent interference with the designated and 

intended governmental use thereof.’’) 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 4, 

2011. 

Walter L. Tweedy, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5744 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2011–0008] 

RIN 0960–AH29 

Protecting the Public and Our 

Employees in Our Hearing Process 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Interim final rules with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We are clarifying our 

regulatory procedures to ensure the 

safety of the public and our employees 

in our hearing process. Due to 

increasing reports of threats to our 

hearing office employees, we are taking 

steps to explicitly increase the level of 

protection we provide to our staff and 

to the public during the hearing process. 

We expect these changes to result in a 

safer work environment for our 

employees, while at the same time 

ensuring that our claimants continue to 

receive a full and fair hearing on their 

claims for benefits. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective March 14, 2011. 

Comment date: To ensure that your 

comments are considered, we must 

receive them no later than May 13, 

2011. 

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–2011–0008 so that we may 

associate your comments with the 

correct regulation. 

Caution: You should be careful to include 

in your comments only information that you 

wish to make publicly available. We strongly 

urge you not to include in your comments 

any personal information, such as SSN or 

medical information. 

1. Internet: We strongly recommend 

that you submit your comments via the 

Internet. Please visit the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Use the Search 

function to find docket number SSA– 

2011–0008. The system will issue a 

tracking number to confirm your 

submission. You will not be able to 

view your comment immediately 

because we must 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: Mail your comments to the 

Office of Regulations, Social Security 

Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21235–6401. 

Comments are available for public 

viewing on the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov or 

in person, during regular business 

hours, by arranging with the contact 

person identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen 

Colvin, Social Security Administration, 

5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3260, 703–605–8444, for 

information about this final rule. 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 http:// 

www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We touch the lives of virtually every 

American, often during times of 

personal hardship, transition, and 

uncertainty. In FY2010, we had 45 

million visits to our field offices, 

738,000 hearings before an 

administrative law judge (ALJ), and over 

67 million calls to our 800 number. 

Most interactions occur without 

incident, and 90% of visitors 

responding to our annual surveys rated 

the service as excellent, very good or 

good. However, some people who visit 

or call our offices make inappropriate 

statements to and against our 

employees. Unfortunately, some people 

go beyond verbal threats and physically 

assault our employees and guards. As 

our workloads have risen in recent 

years, the number of reported threats to 

our employees has increased 

significantly. In FY2010, we received 

2,777 reports of threats to our 

employees across all offices, an increase 

of 43% from FY2009. We take these 

incidents very seriously, and we 

promptly investigate them and refer 

them to law enforcement for further 

action, when appropriate. We have 

increased security measures in our field 

and hearing offices and are using the 

resources provided by Congress to 

handle benefit claims more quickly and 

accurately. We expect these actions will 

minimize the anxiety that claimants 

may experience when they seek 

disability benefits from us. In deciding 

what further actions we should take, we 

must balance the risks to the public and 

our employees against our service 

delivery obligations. 

We are addressing concerns about 

security agency-wide, and many of the 

actions we are taking do not require 

regulatory changes. However, some of 

the actions we need to take require us 

to change the regulations that govern 

our hearing process. 

Explanation of Changes 

Agencies have the inherent authority 

to enforce reasonable restrictions on 

access to Federally owned property. In 

addition, courts have held that an 

individual’s right of access to Federal 

property can reasonably be limited in 

the interest of public safety.1 In 

developing these final rules, we are 

balancing the individual’s right to 

obtain services against the threat that 

the individual poses to the safety of our 

employees and our visitors. 

In these final rules, we describe the 

process we will follow when one of our 

hearing office employees requests that 

we provide additional security at a 

hearing because the claimant or another 

individual poses a threat to the safety of 

our employees or other participants in 

the hearing. When one of our employees 

makes such a request, the Hearing Office 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

(HOCALJ) will determine whether the 

individual poses a reasonable threat to 

the safety of our employees or other 

participants in the hearing. The 

HOCALJ will make this finding when he 

or she determines that the individual 

has made a threat and there is a 

reasonable likelihood that the claimant 

or other individual could act on the 

threat. The threats that we will consider 

under these procedures would include, 

but are not limited to, a declaration of 

intent to injure another person, or 

deface or destroy property by some 

unlawful act. For example, we would 

use the procedures in these rules when 

a claimant or other individual makes a 

threat of physical harm or death against 

the ALJ, the ALJ’s family, Social 

Security employees, the claimant’s 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES