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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 13507 

representative, the witnesses at a 

hearing, the disability determination 

services, or the security staff in the 

hearing office. 

The HOCALJ will determine whether 

the individual poses a reasonable threat 

to the safety of our employees or other 

participants in the hearing based on the 

available evidence and after 

consultation with the presiding ALJ. 

Based on the HOCALJ’s finding, we will 

take the necessary steps to protect the 

public and our employees. In making 

this finding, the HOCALJ will consider 

the evidence in the claimant’s record 

and any other information we have 

regarding the claimant’s or other 

individual’s past conduct. If the 

HOCALJ determines that the individual 

poses a reasonable threat to the safety of 

our employees or other participants in 

the hearing, we will either require the 

presence of a guard at the hearing or 

require that the claimant’s hearing be 

held by video or telephone. We expect 

to exercise this authority infrequently; 

the vast majority of hearings will 

continue to be conducted under our 

standard procedures. 

In some cases, because of the 

claimant’s past actions, we will have 

banned him or her from our facilities. If 

we have banned a claimant from any of 

our facilities, he or she will be provided 

with the opportunity for a telephone 

hearing, at which he or she may testify 

and question any witnesses. While the 

Social Security Act provides a claimant 

with the opportunity for a hearing, we 

believe that, under these extraordinary 

circumstances, the opportunity for a 

telephone hearing fulfills this mandate. 

The HOCALJ’s findings as to whether 

or not an individual poses a reasonable 

threat and how we will conduct the 

hearing are not initial determinations 

and not subject to further review under 

20 CFR 404.903 and 416.1403. 

Clarity of These Rules 

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 this final 

rule, we invite your comments on how 

to make rules easier to understand. 

For example: 

• Would more, but shorter, sections 

be better? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

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 

rule easier to understand? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

• Would a different format make the 

rule easier to understand, e.g., grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing? 

When will we start to use this rule? 

We will start to use this final rule on 

the date shown under the ‘‘Effective 

Date’’ section earlier in this preamble. 

However, we are also inviting public 

comments on the changes made by this 

rule. We will consider any relevant 

comments we receive, and plan to 

publish another final rule document to 

respond to any such comments we 

receive, and to make any changes to the 

rules as appropriate based on the 

comments. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Justification for Issuing Final Rule 

Without Notice and Comment 

We follow the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking 

procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 

when developing regulations. Section 

702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 

U.S.C. 902(a)(5). Generally, the APA 

requires that an agency provide prior 

notice and opportunity for public 

comment before issuing a final rule. The 

APA provides exceptions to its notice 

and public comment procedures when 

an agency finds there is good cause for 

dispensing with such procedures 

because they are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest. We have determined that good 

cause exists for dispensing with the 

notice and public comment procedures 

for this rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

As we noted above, the number of 

reported threats to our employees and 

property has risen dramatically in 

recent years. In light of this increase, we 

believe we must take immediate action 

in order to implement this rule as 

quickly as possible. The changes we are 

making in these final rules will increase 

our ability to protect our claimants, 

employees, and other visitors to our 

hearing offices, while at the same time 

ensuring that claimants are provided 

with the opportunity for a full and fair 

hearing. Accordingly, we find that prior 

public comment would be contrary to 

the public interest. However, we are 

inviting public comment on these final 

rules and will consider any substantive 

comments we receive within 60 days of 

the publication of these final rules. 

In addition, for the reasons cited 

above, we also find good cause for 

dispensing with the 30-day delay in the 

effective date of this rule provided for 

in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). For the reasons 

stated above, we find it contrary to the 

public interest to delay the effective 

date of the changes we are making in 

this final rule. Accordingly, we are 

making this final rule effective upon 

publication. 

Executive Order 12866 as 

Supplemented by Executive Order 

13563 

We consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

determined that this interim final rule 

meets the criteria for a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 as supplemented by Executive 

Order 13563. Thus, OMB reviewed the 

final rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities as 

it affects individuals only. Therefore, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, as amended. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not create any new or 

affect any existing collections and, 

therefore, does not require OMB 

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; 

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; Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements; Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

Dated: March 8, 2011. 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we are amending subpart J of 

part 404 and subpart N of part 416 of 

title 20 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

13508 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, 

SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE (1950–ll) 

Subpart J—[Amended]. 

■ 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). 

■ 2. Add § 404.937 to read as follows: 

§ 404.937 Protecting the safety of the 

public and our employees in our hearing 

process. 

(a) Notwithstanding any other 

provision in this part or part 422 of this 

chapter, we are establishing the 

procedures set out in this section to 

ensure the safety of the public and our 

employees in our hearing process. 

(b)(1) At the request of any hearing 

office employee, the Hearing Office 

Chief Administrative Law Judge will 

determine, after consultation with the 

presiding administrative law judge, 

whether a claimant or other individual 

poses a reasonable threat to the safety of 

our employees or other participants in 

the hearing. The Hearing Office Chief 

Administrative Law Judge will find that 

a claimant or other individual poses a 

reasonable threat to the safety of our 

employees or other participants in the 

hearing 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. In making a finding under 

this paragraph, the Hearing Office Chief 

Administrative Law Judge will consider 

all relevant evidence, including any 

information we have in the claimant’s 

record and any information we have 

regarding the claimant’s or other 

individual’s past conduct. 

(2) If the Hearing Office Chief 

Administrative Law Judge determines 

that the claimant or other individual 

poses a reasonable threat to the safety of 

our employees or other participants in 

the hearing, the Hearing Office Chief 

Administrative Law Judge will either: 

(i) Require the presence of a security 

guard at the hearing; or 

(ii) Require that the hearing be 

conducted by video teleconference or by 

telephone. 

(c) If we have banned a claimant from 

any of our facilities, we will provide the 

claimant with the opportunity for a 

hearing that will be conducted by 

telephone. 

(d) The actions of the Hearing Office 

Chief Administrative Law Judge taken 

under this section are final and not 

subject to further review. 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart N—[Amended]. 

■ 3. The authority citation for subpart N 

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. Add § 416.1437 to read as follows: 

§ 416.1437 Protecting the safety of the 

public and our employees in our hearing 

process. 

(a) Notwithstanding any other 

provision in this part or part 422 of this 

chapter, we are establishing the 

procedures set out in this section to 

ensure the safety of the public and our 

employees in our hearing process. 

(b)(1) At the request of any hearing 

office employee, the Hearing Office 

Chief Administrative Law Judge will 

determine, after consultation with the 

presiding administrative law judge, 

whether a claimant or other individual 

poses a reasonable threat to the safety of 

our employees or other participants in 

the hearing. The Hearing Office Chief 

Administrative Law Judge will find that 

a claimant or other individual poses a 

reasonable threat to the safety of our 

employees or other participants in the 

hearing 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. In making a finding under 

this paragraph, the Hearing Office Chief 

Administrative Law Judge will consider 

all relevant evidence, including any 

information we have in the claimant’s 

record and any information we have 

regarding the claimant’s or other 

individual’s past conduct. 

(2) If the Hearing Office Chief 

Administrative Law Judge determines 

that the claimant or other individual 

poses a reasonable threat to the safety of 

our employees or other participants in 

the hearing, the Hearing Office Chief 

Administrative Law Judge will either: 

(i) Require the presence of a security 

guard at the hearing; or 

(ii) Require that the hearing be 

conducted by video teleconference or by 

telephone. 

(c) If we have banned a claimant from 

any of our facilities, we will provide the 

claimant with the opportunity for a 

hearing that will be conducted by 

telephone. 

(d) The actions of the Hearing Office 

Chief Administrative Law Judge taken 

under this section are final and not 

subject to further review. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5750 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 3 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0929] 

RIN 1625–ZA29 

Ninth Coast Guard District Sector 

Realignment; Northern Lake Michigan 

and Lake Huron 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule makes 

nonsubstantive, technical changes to 

Title 33 of the CFR to reflect the 

realignment of boundaries shared 

among Sector Lake Michigan, Sector 

Detroit, and Sector Sault Ste. Marie. 

This action is taken to rebalance 

workload and span of control among 

Ninth District sector commands. These 

changes affect internal Coast Guard 

organization and functioning only and 

will have no substantive effect on 

mariners or other members of the 

public. 

DATES: This final rule is effective at 

12:00:01 EDT on April 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2009– 

0929 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–0929 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Mr. Doug McCann, Ninth District 

Resources Planning Branch, U.S. Coast 

Guard, telephone 216–902–6008, e-mail 

douglas.a.mccann@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES