Federal Register: January 5, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 4)
DOCID: FR Doc 01-319
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Social Security Administration
CFR Citation: 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416
RIN ID: RIN 0960-AE97
DOCUMENT ID: [Regs. Nos. 4 and 16]
NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES
ACTION: Social security benefits and supplemental security income:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
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
DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than March 6, 2001.
DOCUMENT 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, inperson 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
[[Page 1060]]
another service delivery option to our customers.
SUMMARY:
Federal old age, survivors, and disability insurance, and aged, blind, and disabled—; Administrative law judges; scheduling video teleconference hearings,
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 lesspopulous 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) 9610p, Electronic Service Delivery (61 FR 68808). In SSR 9610p, 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 tiein 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 AlbuquerqueEl Paso and Huntington Prestonburg 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 HuntingtonPrestonburg and AlbuquerqueEl 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 inperson 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 inperson remote location hearing.
Based on all these factorscustomer satisfaction, ability to provide more timely hearings, savings in ALJ travel time, faster case processing, and higher ratio of hearings held to hearings scheduledwe 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, inperson hearings where all the participants are
[[Page 1061]]
at the same location. We foresee initially scheduling VTC hearings
where we could provide faster access to a hearing because otherwise:
At first, we plan to locate most remote VTC hearing sites either in space where we have a longterm 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:
We will follow the same procedures for audiotaping VTC hearings that we do for inperson 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 inperson 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:
We will collect information about VTC hearings to ensure that individuals:
and to ensure that:
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 inperson 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 inperson hearing, we will schedule an inperson 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 Secs. 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 [[Page 1062]]
should direct them to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, New Executive Office Building, Room 3208, Washington, DC 20503,
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 212356401, (410) 9653632 or TTY 18009885906, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national tollfree number, 18007721213 or TTY 18003250778, or visit our Internet web site, Social Security Online, at www.SSA.gov.