Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1059

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national Government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland,

Inc.): Docket 99–NM–371–AD.

Applicability: Model DHC–8–100, –200,

and –300 series airplanes, having serial

numbers 003 through 528 inclusive and 531;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent damage of the upper wing

ladder plates, which could result in

displacement of the adjacent channel seals

and consequent reduced lightning strike

protection of the fuel tanks, accomplish the

following:

Inspection and Repair

(a) Within 9 months or at the next

maintenance period during which the fuel

tanks are accessed after the effective date of

this AD, whichever occurs earlier: Perform a

one-time detailed visual inspection to detect

damage (i.e., fretting and/or corrosion) of the

ladder plates and access cover areas of the

upper surface of the wings per paragraph

III.A., III.B., or III.C., as applicable, of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier

Service Bulletin 8–57–41, Revision ‘C’, dated

August 4, 2000.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc. may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

(1) If no damage is detected, prior to

further flight, install new 0.103-inchdiameter O-ring seals per paragraph III.A.,

III.B., or III.C., as applicable, of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(2) If any damage is detected that is within

the limits specified in Generic Structural

Repair Schemes Manual PSM 1–8–3RS or

PSM 1–82–3RS (Chapter 57 Contents and

Repair Index), before further flight, repair the

damage per Generic Structural Repair

Schemes Manual PSM 1–8–3RS or PSM 1–

82–3RS (Chapter 57 Contents and Repair

Index), and install new 0.103-inch-diameter

O-ring seals per paragraph III.A., III.B., or

III.C., as applicable, of the Accomplishment

Instructions of the service bulletin.

(3) If any damage is detected that is outside

the limits specified in Generic Structural

Repair Schemes Manual PSM 1–8–3RS or

PSM 1–82–3RS (Chapter 57 Contents and

Repair Index), before further flight, repair per

a method approved by the Manager, New

York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, and install new 0.103-inch-diameter Oring seals.

Note 3: Although the Bombardier service

bulletin includes references to solvents that

are not available for use in the United States,

operators may use appropriate substitute

solvents per standard industry maintenance

practices.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, New York

ACO, FAA. Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, New York ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the New York ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued per

§§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to

operate the airplane to a location where the

requirements of this AD can be

accomplished.

Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Canadian airworthiness directive CF–99–

20, dated July 20, 1999.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 29, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–342 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416

[Regs. Nos. 4 and 16]

RIN 0960–AE97

Federal Old-Age, Survivors and

Disability Insurance and Supplemental

Security Income for the Aged, Blind,

and Disabled; Scheduling Video

Teleconference Hearings Before

Administrative Law Judges

AGENCY: Social Security Administration

(SSA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: We propose to revise our

rules to allow us to schedule video

teleconference (VTC) hearings before

administrative law judges (ALJs). We

also propose to revise our rules so that

if we schedule a VTC hearing for

someone who does not want one, we

will schedule a traditional, in-person

hearing; that is, a hearing where all

participants are at the same location. We

also will schedule an in-person hearing

if an individual objects to an expert

witness testifying by VTC. We are

proposing these revisions to provide us

with greater flexibility in scheduling

and holding hearings, to improve

hearing process efficiency and to extend

1060 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

another service delivery option to our

customers.

DATES: To be sure that your comments

are considered, we must receive them

no later than March 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in writing to the

Commissioner of Social Security, P.O.

Box 17703, Baltimore, MD 21235–7703;

sent by telefax to (410) 966–2830; sent

by e-mail to regulations@ssa.gov; or

delivered to the Office of Process and

Innovation Management, Social Security

Administration, L2109 West Low Rise

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,

Baltimore, MD 21235–6401 between 8

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business

days. Comments may be inspected

during these hours by making

arrangements with the contact person

shown below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Georgia E. Myers, Regulations Officer,

Office of Process and Innovation

Management, Social Security

Administration, L2109 West Low Rise,

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD

21235–6401, (410) 965–3632 or TTY 1–

800–988–5906, for information about

this notice. 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 www.SSA.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Nationally, over 500,000 requests for

a hearing before an ALJ are filed with us

each year. Hearings have traditionally

been held with all participants (the

party(ies) to the hearing, the ALJ, and,

as appropriate, the representative,

medical and/or vocational expert

witness(es), or a translator) present at

the same location: either a hearing office

or a remote hearing location. (To

accommodate those individuals who do

not live near a hearing office ALJs hold

hearings at remote hearing locations

which are generally at least 75 miles

from a hearing office.) Approximately

40 percent of hearings are held at

remote hearing locations.

To make travel to remote hearing

locations as cost effective as possible,

hearing offices wait until they have a

sufficient number of requests for hearing

to schedule a full day or, if travel to a

remote hearing location requires an

overnight stay, more than one day of

hearings. Because of the need to accrue

a docket, ALJs travel to some remote

hearing locations infrequently. Because

many remote hearing locations are in

less-populous areas, it can be difficult to

find an appropriate expert witness(es),

which may further delay scheduling a

hearing. ALJs also travel from their

assigned hearing offices to assist other

hearing offices when the need arises.

Whether to conduct hearings at

remote locations or assist other hearing

offices, the time ALJs spend traveling

could be used to perform other

adjudicatory responsibilities.

In 1996 we published Social Security

Ruling (SSR) 96–10p, Electronic Service

Delivery (61 FR 68808). In SSR 96–10p,

we explained that we planned to

explore ways for our customers to do

business with us electronically. We also

explained that we would not require

customers to do business with us

electronically, but that we would use

technology to provide options for

different service deliveries. Video

teleconferencing was one of the

technologies we identified as having the

potential to serve our customers better.

(A video teleconference provides realtime transmission of audio and video

between two or more locations and

permits individuals to see, hear, and

speak with each other as though they

were at the same location.)

We recently completed tests in which

we conducted video teleconference

hearings between the Huntington, West

Virginia, hearing office and its

Prestonburg, Kentucky, remote location;

the Albuquerque, New Mexico, hearing

office and its El Paso, Texas, remote

location; and the West Des Moines,

Iowa, hearing office with tie-in to the

Iowa Communications Network (ICN).

(The ICN is a statewide network that

places video teleconferencing facilities

within about 20 miles of most Iowa

residents.) We asked individuals to

participate in the tests, but did not

schedule a VTC hearing until we

received an individual’s written

concurrence.

All three sites had some equipment

problems, particularly at the beginning

of the tests. Although we rescheduled

delayed hearings as quickly as possible,

some representatives advised their

clients not to elect a video

teleconference hearing based on their

initial experiences, especially in the

Albuquerque-El Paso and HuntingtonPrestonburg tests. In those two tests, an

individual who elected a video

teleconference hearing still had to travel

to a remote hearing location; the same

remote hearing location to which he or

she would have had to travel for an inperson hearing. Thus, although having a

video teleconference hearing at either of

these sites had the potential to provide

a more expeditious hearing, there was

no travel benefit to the individual.

Because participation rates at

Huntington-Prestonburg and

Albuquerque-El Paso were low we have

not attempted to draw inferences about

customer service or satisfaction from

these tests.

Our experience was very different in

Iowa, where we were not limited to

using an established remote hearing

location but had the benefit of the wideranging ICN. In Iowa, no one electing a

video teleconference hearing had to

travel more than about 20 miles from his

or her home to have a hearing. The

participation rate for the Iowa test was

over 40 percent; that is, of the

individuals to whom we offered a

hearing, over 40 percent agreed to have,

and had, a video teleconference hearing.

SSA surveyed participants from the

three tests to assess customer

satisfaction with video teleconference

hearings. A large percentage of the Iowa

respondents rated the VTC hearing as

‘‘convenient’’ or ‘‘very convenient,’’ and

overall service as either ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘very

good.’’ Test data show that processing

time for video teleconference hearings

was substantially less than for in-person

remote location hearings during the

same time period, and that the ratio of

hearings held to hearings scheduled was

significantly higher for video

teleconference hearings than for inperson hearings. Being able to hold

hearings as scheduled increases our

efficiency because we do not have to

recontact the individual to determine

why he or she did not appear at a

scheduled hearing nor reschedule the

hearing (which can be time consuming,

especially when an expert witness(es)

has been scheduled to testify). Further,

an ALJ does not spend time waiting for

someone who does not appear, as would

be the case in an in-person remote

location hearing.

Based on all these factors—customer

satisfaction, ability to provide more

timely hearings, savings in ALJ travel

time, faster case processing, and higher

ratio of hearings held to hearings

scheduled—we decided that conducting

hearings by VTC is an efficient service

delivery alternative. We also decided

that scheduling a VTC hearing, rather

than asking someone to elect a VTC

hearing, would improve hearing office

efficiency and would permit us to

provide faster access to a hearing for

some individuals.

We plan to begin using video

teleconferencing facilities in the

servicing area of a hearing office when

the Associate Commissioner of the

Office of Hearings and Appeals

determines that hearings can be

conducted more efficiently in that area

by video teleconferencing than by

conducting traditional, in-person

hearings where all the participants are

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1061

at the same location. We foresee initially

scheduling VTC hearings where we

could provide faster access to a hearing

because otherwise:

• We would need to accrue a docket

for a remote hearing location.

• An ALJ would need to travel to

assist another hearing office.

• An expert witness(es) or

appropriate medical specialist(s) would

not be available for a hearing location.

(In such a case, all participants could be

at different locations; for example, the

ALJ at a hearing office, the individual at

a remote hearing site or another hearing

office, and the expert witness(es) at a

third location.)

At first, we plan to locate most remote

VTC hearing sites either in space where

we have a long-term lease or in another

federal building. We are investigating

sharing VTC facilities with other federal

agencies and states, and, if we can

ensure privacy, we may eventually rent

commercial space to expand VTC

hearings as a service delivery option.

Regardless of the type of facility, we

will make certain that:

• The individual has the same access

to the hearing record as he or she would

have with an in-person hearing.

• There is a means of transmitting

and receiving additional evidence

between all locations and all

participants.

• An assistant is present at the VTC

hearing site to operate the equipment

and provide other help, as required.

• The audio/video transmission is

secure and the individual’s privacy is

protected.

We will follow the same procedures

for audiotaping VTC hearings that we do

for in-person hearings but will not

videotape VTC hearings. We also will

not necessarily schedule a VTC hearing

for someone who asks for one. In many

locations, especially in the near term,

we may not have the capability to

accommodate the request. As access to

video teleconferencing expands, we will

accommodate requests for VTC hearings

as space and time permit. Should there

be a problem with the VTC equipment,

before or during a hearing, we will

reschedule the hearing as we do now

when unforeseen circumstances require

us to reschedule a hearing: at the

earliest time possible based on the

request for hearing filing date.

Despite the fact that conducting

hearings by VTC has the potential to

improve customer service, under these

regulations we will not require anyone

to have a VTC hearing who does not

want one. Under these regulations, if an

individual objects to having a VTC

hearing or to an expert witness(es)

testifying by VTC we will schedule an

in-person hearing. In both instances, we

will reschedule the hearing at the

earliest time possible based on the

request for hearing filing date.

To ensure that an individual fully

understands the right to decline to have

a VTC hearing or to have an expert

witness(es) testify by VTC, the notice of

VTC hearing will clearly state:

• What it means to have a VTC

hearing.

• That we have scheduled a VTC

hearing for him or her or have

scheduled an expert witness(es) to

testify by VTC.

• That we will schedule an in-person

hearing if the individual tells us he or

she does not want a VTC hearing or

does not want an expert witness(es) to

testify by VTC.

• How to tell us if he or she does not

want to have a VTC hearing or does not

want an expert witness(es) to testify by

VTC.

We will collect information about

VTC hearings to ensure that individuals:

• Understand they are not required to

have a VTC hearing or to have an expert

witness(es) testify by VTC.

• Know how to tell us if they do not

want a VTC hearing or do not want an

expert witness(es) to testify by VTC.

• Receive a full and fair hearing.

and to ensure that:

• There is no significant difference in

the outcome of in-person and VTC

hearings.

• We maintain a high degree of

accuracy in our hearing decisions.

Proposed Changes

We propose to revise 20 CFR 404.929

and 416.1429 to state that we will

conduct hearings by VTC, in addition to

in-person hearings at which all

participants are present at the same

location. We propose to revise 20 CFR

404.936 and 416.1436 to state that we

may schedule a VTC hearing or an

expert witness(es) to testify by Video

teleconference, and if we do, and an

individual tells us he or she wants an

in-person hearing, we will schedule an

in-person hearing. We propose to revise

20 CFR 404.938 and 416.1438 to state

that if we schedule your hearing as a

video teleconference hearing, or if we

schedule a witness to appear at the

hearing by video teleconference, the

notice of hearing will provide

information about a VTC hearing and

about how you can tell us that you do

not want to have a VTC hearing or have

an expert witness testify by video

teleconference.

Electronic Version

The electronic file of this document is

available on the date of publication in

the Federal Register on the Internet site

for the Government Printing Office,

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su docs/

aces/aces140.html. It is also available

on SSA’s Internet site, SSA Online, at

http://www.ssa.gov.

Clarity of the Proposed Rules

Executive Order 12866 and the

President’s memorandum of June 1,

1998, require 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 the rules

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 isn’t 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 do

not meet the criteria for a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. Therefore, they are not subject to

OMB review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

We certify that these proposed rules,

if promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because they affect only individuals.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis as provided in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, as amended, is not

required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

There is a reporting requirement in

proposed §§ 404.936 and 416.1436,

which requires individuals to notify us

if they object to having their hearing

conducted or an expert witness(es)

testify by video teleconference. As

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, we have submitted a copy

of this information collection

requirement to OMB for its review.

Other organizations and individuals

desiring to submit comments on the

information collection requirements

1062 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

should direct them to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

OMB, New Executive Office Building,

Room 3208, Washington, DC 20503,

ATTENTION: OMB Desk Officer for

SSA.

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 10 minutes per response. This

includes the time it will take to

understand what is needed, gather the

necessary facts, and provide the

information needed. Under our nearterm capability to conduct video

teleconference hearings, we expect there

will be 3,000 requests per year.

Therefore, the annual reporting burden

is expected to be 500 hours. If you have

any comments or suggestions on this

estimate, write to the Social Security

Administration, ATTN: Reports

Clearance Officer, 1–A–21 Operations

Building, Baltimore, MD 21235.

SSA is soliciting comments from the

public in order to:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques, or

other forms of information technology

(e.g., permitting electronic submission

of responses).

• (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 96.001, Social SecurityDisability Insurance; 96.002, Social SecurityRetirement Insurance; 96.003, Social

Security-Special Benefits for Persons Aged 72

and Over; 96.004, Social Security-Survivors

Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security

Income.)

List of Subjects

20 CFR Part 404

Administrative practice and

procedure, Aged, 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: December 22, 2000.

Kenneth S. Apfel,

Commissioner of Social Security.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, we propose to amend subpart

J of part 404 and subpart N of part 416

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 J

of part 404 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a), (b),

(d)-(h), and (j), 221, 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, 425, and

902(a)(5); 31 U.S.C. 3720A; 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).

2. Section 404.929 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 404.929 Hearing before an administrative

law judge—general.

If you are dissatisfied with one of the

determinations or decisions listed in

§ 404.930 of this part you may request

a hearing. The Associate Commissioner

for Hearings and Appeals, or his or her

delegate, shall appoint an

administrative law judge to conduct the

hearing. If circumstances warrant, the

Associate Commissioner, or his or her

delegate, may assign your case to

another administrative law judge. At the

hearing you may appear in person (that

is, where all participants are present at

the same location) or by video

teleconference, submit new evidence,

examine the evidence used in making

the determination or decision under

review, and present and question

witnesses. The administrative law judge

who conducts the hearing may ask you

questions. He or she shall issue a

decision based on the hearing record. If

you waive your right to appear at the

hearing, either in person or by video

teleconference, the administrative law

judge will make a decision based on the

evidence that is in the file and any new

evidence that may have been submitted

for consideration.

3. Section 404.936 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 404.936 Time, place and type of hearing

before an administrative law judge.

(a) We may schedule your hearing by

video teleconference if we determine

that it is more efficient to do so and the

technology is available in the area

where you live. You will receive a

written notice if we schedule a video

teleconference hearing for you. The

notice will tell you that if you do not

want the hearing held by video

teleconference, you must tell us so as

explained in the notice, and we will

schedule an in-person hearing for you.

(b) If we determine that it is not more

efficient or if the technology is not

available in the area where you live, we

will schedule an in-person hearing for

you. The administrative law judge sets

the time and the place for the in-person

hearing.

(c) The administrative law judge may

change the site and/or time of the

videoconference hearing or the time and

place of the in-person hearing, if it is

necessary. After sending you reasonable

notice of the proposed action, the

administrative law judge may adjourn or

postpone the hearing or reopen it to

receive additional evidence any time

before he or she notifies you of a hearing

decision. We hold hearings in the 50

States, the District of Columbia,

American Samoa, Guam, the Northern

Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

(d) If you object to the site and/or time

of your scheduled videoconference

hearing or to the time and/or place of

your scheduled in-person hearing, you

must notify the administrative law judge

at the earliest possible opportunity

before the time set for the hearing. You

must state the reason for your objection

and state the site and/or time you want

the videoconference hearing to be held

or the time and/or place you want the

in-person hearing to be held. If at all

possible, the request should be in

writing. The administrative law judge

will change the site and/or time of the

videoconference hearing or the time

and/or place of the in-person hearing if

you have good cause, as determined

under paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this

section. Section 404.938 of this part

provides procedures we will follow

when you do not respond to a notice of

hearing.

(e) The administrative law judge will

find good cause for changing the site

and/or time of your scheduled

videoconference hearing or the time

and/or place of your scheduled inperson hearing, and will reschedule

your hearing if your reason is one of the

following circumstances and is

supported by the evidence:

(1) You or your representative are

unable to attend or to travel to the

scheduled hearing because of a serious

physical or mental condition,

incapacitating injury, or death in the

family; or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1063

(2) Severe weather conditions make it

impossible to travel to the hearing.

(f) In determining whether good cause

exists in circumstances other than those

set out in paragraph (e) of this section,

the administrative law judge will

consider your reason for requesting the

change, the facts supporting it, and the

impact of the proposed change on the

efficient administration of the hearing

process. Factors affecting the impact of

the change include, but are not limited

to, the effect on the processing of other

scheduled hearings, delays which might

occur in rescheduling your hearing, and

whether any prior changes were granted

to you. Examples of such other

circumstances, which you might give for

requesting a change in the time or place

of the hearing, include, but are not

limited to, the following:

(1) You have attempted to obtain a

representative but need additional time;

(2) Your representative was appointed

within 30 days of the scheduled hearing

and needs additional time to prepare for

the hearing;

(3) Your representative has a prior

commitment to be in court or at another

administrative hearing on the date

scheduled for the hearing;

(4) A witness who will testify to facts

material to your case would be

unavailable to attend the scheduled

hearing and the evidence cannot be

otherwise obtained;

(5) Transportation is not readily

available for you to travel to the hearing;

(6) You live closer to another hearing

location; or

(7) You are unrepresented, and you

are unable to respond to the notice of

hearing because of any physical, mental,

educational, or linguistic limitations

(including any lack of facility with the

English language) which you may have.

4. Section 404.938 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 404.938 Notice of hearing before an

administrative law judge.

(a) General notice information: After

your hearing has been scheduled, we

will mail notice of the hearing to you at

your last known address, or give the

notice to you by personal service, unless

you have indicated in writing that you

do not wish to receive this notice. The

notice will be mailed or served at least

20 days before the hearing. The notice

of hearing will contain a statement of

the specific issues to be decided and tell

you that you may designate a person to

represent you during the proceedings.

The notice will also contain an

explanation of the procedures for

requesting a change in the time or place

of your hearing, a reminder that if you

fail to appear at your scheduled hearing

without good cause, the ALJ may

dismiss your hearing request and other

information about the scheduling and

conduct of your hearing. If you or your

representative do not acknowledge

receipt of the notice of hearing, we will

attempt to contact you for an

explanation. If you tell us that you did

not receive the notice of hearing, an

amended notice will be sent to you by

certified mail. See § 404.936 of this part

for the procedures we will follow in

deciding whether the time of your

scheduled videoconference hearing or

the time or place of your scheduled inperson hearing will be changed if you

do not respond to the notice of hearing.

(b) Hearing via video conferencing: If

we determine that it is more efficient

and if the technology is available in the

area where you live, we will schedule

your hearing as a video teleconference.

If we schedule a video teleconference

for you, your notice, in addition to the

information in paragraph (a) of this

section, will also clearly state what it

means to have a video teleconference

hearing and if we have scheduled an

expert witness(es) to testify by video

teleconference. The notice will contain

an explanation of how to let us know if

you do not want to have a video

teleconference hearing or do not want

an expert witness to testify via video

teleconference. We will schedule an inperson hearing for you if you tell us that

you do not want a video teleconference

hearing or do not want an expert

witness to testify via video

teleconference. Your notice will also

contain an explanation of the

procedures for requesting a change in

the time of your scheduled

videoconference hearing.

(c) For a hearing in-person before an

administrative law judge: If we

determine that it is not more efficient or

if the technology is not available in the

area where you live, an in-person

hearing will be scheduled for you.

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED,

BLIND AND DISABLED

Subpart N—[Amended]

5. 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); 31 U.S.C. 3720A.

6. Section 416.1429 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 416.1429 Hearing before an

administrative law judge—general.

If you are dissatisfied with one of the

determinations or decisions listed in

§ 416.1430 of this part you may request

a hearing. The Associate Commissioner

for Hearings and Appeals, or his or her

delegate, shall appoint an

administrative law judge to conduct the

hearing. If circumstances warrant, the

Associate Commissioner, or his or her

delegate, may assign your case to

another administrative law judge. At the

hearing you may appear in person (that

is, where all participants are present at

the same location) or by video

teleconference, submit new evidence,

examine the evidence used in making

the determination or decision under

review, and present and question

witnesses. The administrative law judge

who conducts the hearing may ask you

questions. He or she shall issue a

decision based on the hearing record. If

you waive your right to appear at a

hearing, either in person or by video

teleconference, the administrative law

judge will make a decision based on the

evidence that is in the file and any new

evidence that may have been submitted

for consideration.

7. Section 416.1436 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 416.1436 Time, place and type of hearing

before an administrative law judge.

(a) We may schedule your hearing by

video teleconference if we determine

that it is more efficient to do so and the

technology is available in the area

where you live. You will receive a

written notice if we schedule a video

teleconference hearing for you. The

notice will tell you that if you do not

want the hearing held by video

teleconference, you must tell us so as

explained in the notice, and we will

schedule an in-person hearing for you.

(b) If we determine that it is not more

efficient or if the technology is not

available in the area where you live, we

will schedule an in-person hearing for

you. The administrative law judge sets

the time and the place for the in-person

hearing.

(c) The administrative law judge may

change the site and/or time of the

videoconference hearing or the time and

place of the in-person hearing, if it is

necessary. After sending you reasonable

notice of the proposed action, the

administrative law judge may adjourn or

postpone the hearing or reopen it to

receive additional evidence any time

before he or she notifies you of a hearing

decision. We hold hearings in the 50

States, the District of Columbia, and the

Northern Mariana Islands.

(d) If you object to the site and/or time

of your scheduled videoconference

hearing or to the time and/or place of

your scheduled in-person hearing, you

must notify the administrative law judge

1064 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

at the earliest possible opportunity

before the time set for the hearing. You

must state the reason for your objection

and state the site and/or time you want

the videoconference hearing to be held

or the time and/or place you want the

in-person hearing to be held. If at all

possible, the request should be in

writing. The administrative law judge

will change the site and/or time of the

videoconference hearing or the time

and/or place of the in-person hearing if

you have good cause, as determined

under paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this

section. Section 416.1438 of this part

provides procedures we will follow

when you do not respond to a notice of

hearing.

(e) The administrative law judge will

find good cause for changing the site

and/or time of your scheduled

videoconference hearing or the time

and/or place of your scheduled inperson hearing, and will reschedule

your hearing if your reason is one of the

following circumstances and is

supported by the evidence:

(1) You or your representative are

unable to attend or to travel to the

scheduled hearing because of a serious

physical or mental condition,

incapacitating injury, or death in the

family; or

(2) Severe weather conditions make it

impossible to travel to the hearing.

(f) In determining whether good cause

exists in circumstances other than those

set out in paragraph (e) of this section,

the administrative law judge will

consider your reason for requesting the

change, the facts supporting it, and the

impact of the proposed change on the

efficient administration of the hearing

process. Factors affecting the impact of

the change include, but are not limited

to, the effect on the processing of other

scheduled hearings, delays which might

occur in rescheduling your hearing, and

whether any prior changes were granted

to you. Examples of such other

circumstances, which you might give for

requesting a change in the time or place

of the hearing, include, but are not

limited to, the following:

(1) You have attempted to obtain a

representative but need additional time;

(2) Your representative was appointed

within 30 days of the scheduled hearing

and needs additional time to prepare for

the hearing;

(3) Your representative has a prior

commitment to be in court or at another

administrative hearing on the date

scheduled for the hearing;

(4) A witness who will testify to facts

material to your case would be

unavailable to attend the scheduled

hearing and the evidence cannot be

otherwise obtained;

(5) Transportation is not readily

available for you to travel to the hearing;

(6) You live closer to another hearing

location; or

(7) You are unrepresented, and you

are unable to respond to the notice of

hearing because of any physical, mental,

educational, or linguistic limitations

(including any lack of facility with the

English language) which you may have.

8. Section 416.1438 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 416.1438 Notice of a hearing before an

administrative law judge.

(a) General notice information: After

your hearing has been scheduled, we

will mail notice of the hearing to you at

your last known address, or give the

notice to you by personal service, unless

you have indicated in writing that you

do not wish to receive this notice. The

notice will be mailed or served at least

20 days before the hearing. The notice

of hearing will contain a statement of

the specific issues to be decided and tell

you that you may designate a person to

represent you during the proceedings.

The notice will also contain an

explanation of the procedures for

requesting a change in the time or place

of your hearing, a reminder that if you

fail to appear at your scheduled hearing

without good cause, the ALJ may

dismiss your hearing request and other

information about the scheduling and

conduct of your hearing. If you or your

representative do not acknowledge

receipt of the notice of hearing, we will

attempt to contact you for an

explanation. If you tell us that you did

not receive the notice of hearing, an

amended notice will be sent to you by

certified mail. See § 416.1436 of this

part for the procedures we will follow

in deciding whether the time of your

scheduled videoconference hearing or

the time or place of your scheduled inperson hearing will be changed if you

do not respond to the notice of hearing.

(b) Hearing via video conferencing: If

we determine that it is more efficient

and if the technology is available in the

area where you live, we will schedule

your hearing as a video teleconference.

If we schedule a video teleconference

for you, your notice, in addition to the

information in paragraph (a) of this

section, will also clearly state what it

means to have a video teleconference

hearing and if we have scheduled an

expert witness(es) to testify by video

teleconference. The notice will contain

an explanation of how to let us know if

you do not want to have a video

teleconference hearing or do not want

an expert witness to testify via video

teleconference. We will schedule an inperson hearing for you if you tell us that

you do not want a video teleconference

hearing or do not want an expert

witness to testify via video

teleconference. Your notice will also

contain an explanation of the

procedures for requesting a change in

the time of your scheduled

videoconference hearing.

(c) For a hearing in-person before an

administrative law judge: If we

determine that it is not more efficient or

if the technology is not available in the

area where you live, an in-person

hearing will be scheduled for you.

[FR Doc. 01–319 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

22 CFR Part 41

[Public Notice 3533]

RIN 1400–AA48

Bureau of Consular Affairs; Visas:

Documentation of Nonimmigrants

Under the Immigration and Nationality

Act—Amendment of Transit Without

Visa (TWOV) List.

AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs,

Department of State.

ACTION: Proposed rule, with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend

the Department of State regulation that

allows for a waiver of the visa and

passport requirement under the Transit

Without Visa (TWOV) Program

authorized under section 233 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

for citizens of certain countries who are

in immediate and continuous transit

through the United States. The

Department proposes to remove from

the current regulation the list of

countries ineligible to participate in the

TWOV Program and to publish a

separate list which will be updated and

published periodically.

This rule also sets forth the criteria,

which among other factors, will be used

in determining which countries will be

ineligible for the TWOV privilege.

DATES: Interested persons should submit

comments on or before March 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, in

duplicate, to the Chief, Legislation and

Regulations Division, Visa Services,

Department of State, Washington, D.C.

20522–0113.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H.

Edward Odom, Chief, Legislation and

Regulations Division, Visa Office, Room

L603–C, SA–1, Department of State,

Washington, D.C. 20520–0106, (202)

663–1204; or e-mail: odomhe@state.gov.