81_FR_13487 81 FR 13438 - Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 16-1(7), Boley v. Colvin: Judicial Review of an Administrative Law Judge's Order Finding No Good Cause for a Late Hearing Request and Dismissing the Request as Untimely-Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

81 FR 13438 - Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 16-1(7), Boley v. Colvin: Judicial Review of an Administrative Law Judge's Order Finding No Good Cause for a Late Hearing Request and Dismissing the Request as Untimely-Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 49 (March 14, 2016)

Page Range13438-13439
FR Document2016-05663

We are publishing this Social Security AR to explain how we will apply a holding in a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that we have determined conflicts with our interpretation of the law regarding judicial review of an administrative law judge's (ALJ's) order finding no good cause for a late hearing request and dismissing the request as untimely.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016) 
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13438-13439]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05663]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Docket No. SSA-2015-0070]


Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 16-1(7), Boley v. 
Colvin: Judicial Review of an Administrative Law Judge's Order Finding 
No Good Cause for a Late Hearing Request and Dismissing the Request as 
Untimely--Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR).

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

SUMMARY: We are publishing this Social Security AR to explain how we 
will apply a holding in a decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that we have determined conflicts with 
our interpretation of the law regarding judicial review of an 
administrative law judge's (ALJ's) order finding no good cause for a 
late hearing request and dismissing the request as untimely.

DATES: Effective: March 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Lewellen, Office of the General 
Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social Security Administration, 6401 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-3309, or TTY 
410-966-5609, 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 site, 
Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing this Social Security AR in 
accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2), 404.985(a), (b), and 416.1485(a), 
(b) to explain how we will apply a holding in Boley v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 
803 (7th Cir. 2014), regarding judicial review of an ALJ's order 
finding no good cause for a late hearing request and dismissing the 
request as untimely.
    An AR explains how we will apply a holding in a decision of a 
United States Court of Appeals that we determine conflicts with our 
interpretation of a provision of the Social Security Act (Act) or 
regulations when the Government has decided not to seek further review 
of that decision or is unsuccessful on further review.
    This AR explains how we will apply the holding in Boley v. Colvin 
to claims in which the claimant makes a late request for an ALJ 
hearing, the ALJ dismisses the hearing request and finds that the 
claimant lacked good cause for missing the appeal deadline, and then 
the claimant timely seeks review of the ALJ's dismissal by the Appeals 
Council (AC). We will apply this AR to all claims in the Seventh 
Circuit in which the AC denied a request for review of such a dismissal 
on or after March 14, 2016. If the AC denied a request for review of an 
ALJ dismissal between August 4, 2014 (the date of the Court of Appeals' 
decision) and March 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AR), the 
claimant may request that we apply the AR.
    When we received this precedential Court of Appeals' decision and 
determined that an AR might be required, we began to identify those 
claims that were pending before the agency that might be subject to 
readjudication if we subsequently issued an AR. Because we have 
determined that an AR is required and are publishing this AR, we will 
send a notice to those individuals whose claims we have identified. In 
the notice, we will provide information about the AR and the claimant's 
rights under the AR. However, claimants may request that we apply this 
AR to their claims even if they did not receive a notice, as provided 
in 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) and 416.1485(b)(2).
    If we later rescind this AR as obsolete, we will publish a notice 
in the Federal Register to that effect, as provided in 20 CFR 
404.985(e) and 416.1485(e). If we decide to relitigate the issue 
covered by this AR, as provided by 20 CFR 404.985(c) and 416.1485(c), 
we will publish a notice in the Federal Register stating that we will 
apply our interpretation of the Act or regulations involved and 
explaining why we have decided to relitigate the issue.

(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)

    Dated: March 3, 2016.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

ACQUIESCENCE RULING 16-1(7)

    Boley v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2014): Judicial Review of 
an Administrative Law Judge's Order Finding No Good Cause for a Late 
Hearing Request and Dismissing the Request as Untimely--Titles II and 
XVI of the Social Security Act.
    ISSUE: May a claimant obtain judicial review of an administrative 
law judge (ALJ)'s order finding no good cause for a late hearing 
request and dismissing the request as untimely?
    STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION: Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) 
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(g), 1383(c)(3)); 20 CFR 
404.900(a), 404.901, 404.903(j), 404.933(b)-(c), 404.955, 404.957, 
404.959, 416.1400(a), 416.1401, 416.1403(a)(8), 416.1433(b)-(c), 
416.1455, 416.1457, 416.1459.
    CIRCUIT: Seventh (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin).
    APPLICABILITY OF RULING: This ruling applies to claims in which a 
claimant resides in a State within the Seventh Circuit and in which an 
ALJ entered an order finding no good cause for a late hearing request, 
the ALJ dismissed the request as untimely, the claimant requested 
review by the Appeals Council (AC), and the AC denied review.
    DESCRIPTION OF CASE: Marilyn Boley filed a claim for disability 
insurance benefits. We denied her claim at the initial and 
reconsideration levels of administrative review. Although she was 
represented by an attorney at the time we denied her request for 
reconsideration, we sent notice of the reconsidered determination to 
Ms. Boley, but not to her attorney. After learning that we had denied 
Ms. Boley's request for reconsideration, the attorney requested a 
hearing. An ALJ dismissed that request as untimely because the 
regulations at 20 CFR 404.933(b) and 416.1433(b) require a claimant to 
request a hearing within 60 days of the claimant's receipt of a 
reconsidered

[[Page 13439]]

determination. While regulations allow the ALJ to extend the time for 
requesting a hearing when a claimant has ``good cause'' for the late 
request, the ALJ ruled that Ms. Boley lacked good cause because she had 
received the reconsideration notice and could have filed a hearing 
request herself. Ms. Boley filed a timely request for review of the 
ALJ's dismissal order with the AC. When the AC denied her request for 
review of the ALJ's dismissal order, Ms. Boley sought judicial review.
    HOLDING: The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 
concluded that a claimant for Social Security benefits may obtain 
judicial review of an ALJ's dismissal order finding no good cause for a 
late hearing request after exhausting all available administrative 
remedies.
    STATEMENT AS TO HOW BOLEY DIFFERS FROM THE AGENCY'S POLICY:
    Unlike the holding in Boley, our policy provides that an ALJ's 
order finding no good cause for a late hearing request and dismissing 
the request as untimely is not subject to judicial review. Section 
205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), ``clearly limits 
judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a `final 
decision of the [Commissioner of Social Security] made after a 
hearing.' '' Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). The Supreme 
Court has also recognized that ``the term `final decision' is left 
undefined by the Act and its meaning is to be fleshed out by the 
[Commissioner's] regulations.'' Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 751 
(1975).
    Under our regulations, the claimant must first obtain an ``initial 
determination'' and then complete an administrative review process 
consisting of several steps, ``which usually must be requested within 
certain time periods,'' 20 CFR 404.900(a), 416.1400(a), before 
obtaining a judicially reviewable ``decision.'' Not all agency actions 
constitute ``initial determinations'' subject to the administrative 
review process and, ultimately, judicial review. 20 CFR 404.903, 
416.1403(a) (identifying numerous administrative actions that are not 
initial determinations). For example, although we will extend the time 
to seek a hearing upon a showing of good cause, 20 CFR 404.933(c), 
416.1433(c), an administrative action denying a request to extend a 
time period is not an initial determination subject to the 
administrative review process or judicial review. 20 CFR 404.903(j), 
416.1403(a)(8).
    Further, our regulations provide that a ``decision'' means ``the 
decision made by the administrative law judge or the Appeals Council.'' 
20 CFR 404.901, 416.1401. Of direct relevance here, the regulations 
distinguish between an ALJ's ``decision'' and an ALJ's dismissal of a 
claimant's request for a hearing. An ALJ's decision is subject to 
review by the agency's AC and ultimately may be subject to judicial 
review. 20 CFR 404.955, 416.1455. An ALJ's dismissal of a hearing 
request, 20 CFR 404.957, 416.1457, on the other hand, is not a 
``decision'' within the meaning of section 205(g) of the Act. Rather, 
it is binding unless vacated by an ALJ or the AC, and the dismissal of 
a hearing request is not subject to judicial review. 20 CFR 404.959, 
416.1459.
    EXPLANATION OF HOW WE WILL APPLY THE BOLEY DECISION WITHIN THE 
CIRCUIT:
    This Ruling applies only to claims in which all the following 
criteria are met:
    1. The claimant did not timely request a hearing before an ALJ;
    2. The ALJ dismissed the claimant's request for a hearing;
    3. The basis for the ALJ's dismissal of the hearing request was 
that the claimant failed to show good cause for untimely filing of the 
hearing request;
    4. The claimant timely filed a request for the AC to review the 
ALJ's dismissal of the hearing request;
    5. The AC denied the claimant's request for review; and
    6. The claimant resided in Indiana, Illinois, or Wisconsin at the 
time the AC denied review.
    If a case meets these criteria, we will send notice explaining that 
the claimant may appeal the dismissal to the Federal district court for 
the judicial district in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin in which the 
claimant resides.

[FR Doc. 2016-05663 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4191-02-P

13438 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices 2. After a redetermination, an benefits, call our national toll-free this AR, as provided by 20 CFR individual may appeal our number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 404.985(c) and 416.1485(c), we will determination that after disregarding 1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet publish a notice in the Federal Register evidence, the remaining evidence does site, Social Security Online, at http:// stating that we will apply our not support that individual’s www.socialsecurity.gov. interpretation of the Act or regulations entitlement to or eligibility for benefits SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are involved and explaining why we have and results in termination of such publishing this Social Security AR in decided to relitigate the issue. entitlement or eligibility. The individual accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2), (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, may appeal any overpayments we assess 404.985(a), (b), and 416.1485(a), (b) to Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security— based on such evidence. explain how we will apply a holding in Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social 3. An individual may appeal our Boley v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004 finding of fraud or similar fault. 2014), regarding judicial review of an Social Security—Survivors Insurance) However, we will not administratively ALJ’s order finding no good cause for a Dated: March 3, 2016. review information provided by SSA’s late hearing request and dismissing the Carolyn W. Colvin, Office of the Inspector General under request as untimely. Acting Commissioner of Social Security. section 1129(l) of the Act regarding its An AR explains how we will apply a reason to believe that fraud was holding in a decision of a United States ACQUIESCENCE RULING 16–1(7) involved in the individual’s application Court of Appeals that we determine Boley v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. for benefits. conflicts with our interpretation of a 2014): Judicial Review of an DATES: Effective Date: This SSR is provision of the Social Security Act Administrative Law Judge’s Order effective on March 14, 2016. (Act) or regulations when the Finding No Good Cause for a Late CROSS-REFERENCES: SSR 85–23, ‘‘Title Government has decided not to seek Hearing Request and Dismissing the XVI: Reopening Supplemental Security further review of that decision or is Request as Untimely—Titles II and XVI Income Determinations at Any Time for unsuccessful on further review. of the Social Security Act. ‘Similar Fault.’ ’’ SSR 16–2p, ‘‘Titles II This AR explains how we will apply ISSUE: May a claimant obtain judicial and XVI: Evaluation of Claims Involving the holding in Boley v. Colvin to claims review of an administrative law judge the Issue of ‘‘Similar Fault’’ in the in which the claimant makes a late (ALJ)’s order finding no good cause for Providing of Evidence.’’ request for an ALJ hearing, the ALJ a late hearing request and dismissing [FR Doc. 2016–05661 Filed 3–11–16; 8:45 am] dismisses the hearing request and finds the request as untimely? BILLING CODE 4191–02–P that the claimant lacked good cause for STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING missing the appeal deadline, and then CITATION: Sections 205(g) and the claimant timely seeks review of the 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ALJ’s dismissal by the Appeals Council U.S.C. 405(g), 1383(c)(3)); 20 CFR (AC). We will apply this AR to all 404.900(a), 404.901, 404.903(j), [Docket No. SSA–2015–0070] claims in the Seventh Circuit in which 404.933(b)–(c), 404.955, 404.957, Social Security Acquiescence Ruling the AC denied a request for review of 404.959, 416.1400(a), 416.1401, (AR) 16–1(7), Boley v. Colvin: Judicial such a dismissal on or after March 14, 416.1403(a)(8), 416.1433(b)–(c), Review of an Administrative Law 2016. If the AC denied a request for 416.1455, 416.1457, 416.1459. Judge’s Order Finding No Good Cause review of an ALJ dismissal between CIRCUIT: Seventh (Illinois, Indiana, for a Late Hearing Request and August 4, 2014 (the date of the Court of Wisconsin). Dismissing the Request as Untimely— Appeals’ decision) and March 14, 2016 APPLICABILITY OF RULING: This Titles II and XVI of the Social Security (the effective date of this AR), the ruling applies to claims in which a Act claimant may request that we apply the claimant resides in a State within the AR. Seventh Circuit and in which an ALJ AGENCY: Social Security Administration. When we received this precedential entered an order finding no good cause ACTION:Notice of Social Security Court of Appeals’ decision and for a late hearing request, the ALJ Acquiescence Ruling (AR). determined that an AR might be dismissed the request as untimely, the required, we began to identify those claimant requested review by the SUMMARY: We are publishing this Social claims that were pending before the Appeals Council (AC), and the AC Security AR to explain how we will agency that might be subject to denied review. apply a holding in a decision of the readjudication if we subsequently DESCRIPTION OF CASE: Marilyn United States Court of Appeals for the issued an AR. Because we have Boley filed a claim for disability Seventh Circuit that we have determined that an AR is required and insurance benefits. We denied her claim determined conflicts with our are publishing this AR, we will send a at the initial and reconsideration levels interpretation of the law regarding notice to those individuals whose of administrative review. Although she judicial review of an administrative law claims we have identified. In the notice, was represented by an attorney at the judge’s (ALJ’s) order finding no good we will provide information about the time we denied her request for cause for a late hearing request and AR and the claimant’s rights under the reconsideration, we sent notice of the dismissing the request as untimely. AR. However, claimants may request reconsidered determination to Ms. DATES: Effective: March 14, 2016. that we apply this AR to their claims Boley, but not to her attorney. After FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: even if they did not receive a notice, as learning that we had denied Ms. Boley’s jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Todd Lewellen, Office of the General provided in 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) and request for reconsideration, the attorney Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social 416.1485(b)(2). requested a hearing. An ALJ dismissed Security Administration, 6401 Security If we later rescind this AR as obsolete, that request as untimely because the Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, we will publish a notice in the Federal regulations at 20 CFR 404.933(b) and (410) 965–3309, or TTY 410–966–5609, Register to that effect, as provided in 20 416.1433(b) require a claimant to for information about this notice. For CFR 404.985(e) and 416.1485(e). If we request a hearing within 60 days of the information on eligibility or filing for decide to relitigate the issue covered by claimant’s receipt of a reconsidered VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Notices 13439 determination. While regulations allow Further, our regulations provide that clarifies the definitions of knowingly the ALJ to extend the time for requesting a ‘‘decision’’ means ‘‘the decision made and preponderance of the evidence. The a hearing when a claimant has ‘‘good by the administrative law judge or the Ruling also clarifies that we may find cause’’ for the late request, the ALJ ruled Appeals Council.’’ 20 CFR 404.901, that any individual or entity has that Ms. Boley lacked good cause 416.1401. Of direct relevance here, the committed fraud or similar fault, and because she had received the regulations distinguish between an that we may disregard evidence reconsideration notice and could have ALJ’s ‘‘decision’’ and an ALJ’s dismissal submitted by any individual or entity filed a hearing request herself. Ms. of a claimant’s request for a hearing. An that we find has committed fraud or Boley filed a timely request for review ALJ’s decision is subject to review by similar fault. In addition, the Ruling of the ALJ’s dismissal order with the the agency’s AC and ultimately may be provides examples of such individuals AC. When the AC denied her request for subject to judicial review. 20 CFR and entities. review of the ALJ’s dismissal order, Ms. 404.955, 416.1455. An ALJ’s dismissal Boley sought judicial review. of a hearing request, 20 CFR 404.957, DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2016. HOLDING: The United States Court of 416.1457, on the other hand, is not a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ‘‘decision’’ within the meaning of O’Brien, Director of Office of Vocational concluded that a claimant for Social section 205(g) of the Act. Rather, it is Evaluation and Process Policy in the Security benefits may obtain judicial binding unless vacated by an ALJ or the AC, and the dismissal of a hearing Office of Disability Policy, Social review of an ALJ’s dismissal order finding no good cause for a late hearing request is not subject to judicial review. Security Administration, 6401 Security request after exhausting all available 20 CFR 404.959, 416.1459. Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, administrative remedies. EXPLANATION OF HOW WE WILL (410) 597–1632 or TTY 410–966–5609, STATEMENT AS TO HOW BOLEY APPLY THE BOLEY DECISION WITHIN for information about this notice. For DIFFERS FROM THE AGENCY’S THE CIRCUIT: information on eligibility or filing for POLICY: This Ruling applies only to claims in benefits, call our national toll-free Unlike the holding in Boley, our which all the following criteria are met: number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1– policy provides that an ALJ’s order 1. The claimant did not timely request 800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, finding no good cause for a late hearing a hearing before an ALJ; Social Security Online, at http:// request and dismissing the request as 2. The ALJ dismissed the claimant’s www.socialsecurity.gov. untimely is not subject to judicial request for a hearing; 3. The basis for the ALJ’s dismissal of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although review. Section 205(g) of the Social the hearing request was that the we are not required to do so pursuant Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), ‘‘clearly claimant failed to show good cause for to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are limits judicial review to a particular untimely filing of the hearing request; publishing this SSR in accordance with type of agency action, a ‘final decision 4. The claimant timely filed a request 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). of the [Commissioner of Social Security] for the AC to review the ALJ’s dismissal made after a hearing.’ ’’ Califano v. Through SSRs, we convey to the of the hearing request; Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). The 5. The AC denied the claimant’s public precedential decisions relating to Supreme Court has also recognized that request for review; and the Federal old-age, survivors, ‘‘the term ‘final decision’ is left 6. The claimant resided in Indiana, disability, supplemental security undefined by the Act and its meaning is Illinois, or Wisconsin at the time the AC income, and special veterans benefits to be fleshed out by the denied review. programs. We may base SSRs on [Commissioner’s] regulations.’’ If a case meets these criteria, we will determinations or decisions made at all Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 751 send notice explaining that the claimant levels of administrative adjudication, (1975). may appeal the dismissal to the Federal Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s Under our regulations, the claimant district court for the judicial district in decisions, opinions of the Office of the must first obtain an ‘‘initial Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin in which General Counsel, or other determination’’ and then complete an the claimant resides. interpretations of the law and administrative review process regulations. [FR Doc. 2016–05663 Filed 3–11–16; 8:45 am] consisting of several steps, ‘‘which usually must be requested within BILLING CODE 4191–02–P Although SSRs do not have the same certain time periods,’’ 20 CFR force and effect as statutes or 404.900(a), 416.1400(a), before obtaining regulations, they are binding on all SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION a judicially reviewable ‘‘decision.’’ Not components of the Social Security all agency actions constitute ‘‘initial [Docket No. SSA–2015–0038] Administration, in accordance with 20 determinations’’ subject to the CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are binding as administrative review process and, Social Security Ruling, SSR 16–2p; precedents in adjudicating cases. ultimately, judicial review. 20 CFR Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Claims Involving Similar Fault in the Providing This SSR will remain in effect until 404.903, 416.1403(a) (identifying we publish a notice in the Federal numerous administrative actions that of Evidence Register that rescinds it, or we publish are not initial determinations). For AGENCY: Social Security Administration. a new SSR that replaces or modifies it. example, although we will extend the ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling time to seek a hearing upon a showing (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES (SSR). of good cause, 20 CFR 404.933(c), Programs Nos. 96.001, Social Security— 416.1433(c), an administrative action SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social denying a request to extend a time 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, period is not an initial determination Security gives notice of SSR 16–2p. This Social Security—Survivors Insurance; subject to the administrative review Ruling supersedes and replaces 96.006—Supplemental Security Income.) process or judicial review. 20 CFR previously published SSR 00–2p. It 404.903(j), 416.1403(a)(8). provides the definition of fraud, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:27 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM 14MRN1


Document Created: 2016-03-12 01:00:53
Document Modified: 2016-03-12 01:00:53
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionNotice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR).
DatesEffective: March 14, 2016.
ContactTodd Lewellen, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Program Law, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-3309, or TTY 410-966-5609, 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 site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.
FR Citation81 FR 13438 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR