Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 06-1(2); Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005): Determining Whether an Individual Is a Fugitive Felon Under the Social Security Act (Act)-Titles II and XVI of the Act, 17551-17552 [06-3259]
Download as PDF
17551
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Notices
Reduced benefits are not payable to an
already entitled spouse, at least age 62
but under full retirement age, who no
longer has a child in care, unless the
spouse elects to receive reduced
benefits. The respondents are entitled
spouses seeking reduced Social Security
benefits.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection.
Number of Respondents: 30,000.
Frequency of Response: 1.
Average Burden Per Response: 2
minutes.
Estimated Annual Burden: 1,000
hours.
5. Voluntary Customer Satisfaction
Surveys in Accordance with E.O. 12862
for the Social Security Administration—
0960–0526. Under the auspices of E.O.
12862, Setting Customer Service
Standards, SSA conducts multiple
customer satisfaction surveys each year.
These voluntary customer satisfaction
assessments include paper, Internet, and
telephone surveys; mailed
questionnaires; focus groups; and
customer comment cards. The purpose
of these surveys is to assess customer
satisfaction with the timeliness,
appropriateness, access, and overall
quality of the services SSA provides.
The respondents are direct recipients of
SSA services and professionals and
other individuals who work on behalf of
SSA beneficiaries.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection.
Fiscal year 2006
Number of Respondents ................
Frequency of Response ................
Range of Response Times ............
Estimated Annual Burden ..............
Fiscal year 2007
1,352,181 ......................................
1 ....................................................
Varies (5 minutes to 11⁄2 hours) ...
119,646 .........................................
1,356,001 ......................................
1 ....................................................
Varies (5 minutes to 11⁄2 hours) ...
120,993 .........................................
Note: Please note that the figures above
differ slightly from those published in the 60day advance Notice. The reason for this
difference is that SSA obtained updated
burden data since publishing the 60-day
Federal Register Notice.
Dated: March 30, 2006.
Elizabeth A. Davidson,
Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–4913 Filed 4–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Social Security Acquiescence Ruling
06–1(2); Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d
90 (2d Cir. 2005): Determining Whether
an Individual Is a Fugitive Felon Under
the Social Security Act (Act)—Titles II
and XVI of the Act
Social Security Administration.
Notice of Social Security
Acquiescence Ruling.
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR
402.35(b)(2), the Commission of Social
Security gives notice of Social Security
Acquiescence Ruling 06–1(2).
DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Fishkin Kiley, Office of the
General Counsel, Social Security
Administration, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401,
(410) 965–3483, or TTY (800) 966–5609.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are
publishing this acquiescence ruling in
accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2).
An acquiescence ruling explain 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
when the Government has decided not
to seek further review of that decision
or is unsuccessful on further review.
We will apply the holding of the court
of appeals decision as explained in this
acquiescence ruling to all
determinations or decisions at all levels
of the administrative review process
that an individual is a fugitive felon
pursuant to sections 202(x)(1)(A),
205(j)(2)(C), 1611(e)(4)(A), and
1631(a)(2)(B) of the Act. The ruling
applies to all title II and title XVI
applicants, title II beneficiaries, and title
XVI recipients who live in Connecticut,
New York, or Vermont. If we made a
determination or decision that an
individual was a fugitive felon under
the relevant provisions of the Act,
which affected an individual’s
application for title II benefits or title
XVI payments, or resulted in
nonpayment of title II benefits or
suspension of title XVI payments,
between December 6, 2005, the date of
the court of appeals decision, and April
6, 2006, the effective date of this
acquiescence ruling, the individual may
request application of the acquiescence
ruling to the prior determination or
decision. The individual must
demonstrate, pursuant to 20 CFR
404.985(b)(2), 416.1485(b)(2), that
application of this acquiescence ruling
could change our prior determination or
decision.
Additionally, when we received this
precedential court of appeals decision
and determined that an acquiescence
ruling might be required, we began to
identify those cases within the circuit
that might be subject to readjudication
if an acquiescence ruling was
subsequently issued. Because we have
determined that an acquiescence ruling
is required, we will send a notice to
individuals we have identified whose
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Fiscal year 2008
1,357,851.
1.
Varies (5 minutes to 11⁄2 hours).
121,191.
title II or title XVI application, title II
benefits, or title XVI payments may be
affected by the acquiescence ruling. The
notice will provide information about
this ruling and the right to request
readjudication under it. It is not
necessary for an individual to receive a
notice in order to request relief based on
this acquiescence ruling.
If this acquiescence ruling is later
rescinded as obsolete, we will publish a
notice in the Federal Register to that
effect as provided for in 20 CFR
404.985(e), 416.148(e). If we decide to
relitigate the issue covered by this
acquiescence ruling as provided for by
20 CFR 404.985(c), 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;
96.006—Supplemental Security Insurance)
Dated: March 29, 2006.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Acquiescence Ruling 06–1(2)
Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.
2005): Determining Whether an Individual is
a Fugitive Felon Under the Social Security
Act (Act)—Titles II and XVI of the Act.1
Issue: Whether an outstanding warrant or
similar order for the arrest of an individual
on a felony charge is, on its own, sufficient
evidence for the Agency to determine that an
individual is a fugitive felon under the Act
and, therefore, not entitled to receive title II
1 Although Fowlkes was a title XVI case, the Act
provides the same standard under title II for
determining whether an individual is a fugitive
felon.
E:\FR\FM\06APN1.SGM
06APN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17552
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 2006 / Notices
benefits or ineligible to receive title XVI
payments.
Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation:
Sections 202(x)(1)(A) and 1611(e)(4) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(x)(1)(A)
and 1382(e)(4)); 20 CFR 416.202(f) and
416.1339.
Circuit: Second (Connecticut, New York,
Vermont). Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90
(2nd Cir. 2005).
Applicability of Ruling: This ruling applies
to all determinations or decisions at all levels
of the administrative review process that an
individual is a fugitive felon within the
meaning of sections 202(x)(1)(A) and
1611(e)(4) of the Act. This ruling applies to
all title II and title XVI applicants, title II
beneficiaries, and title XVI recipients who
live in Connecticut, New York, or Vermont.
Description of Case: In 1997, Felipe
Fowlkes applied for and was found eligible
to receive supplemental security income
(SSI) disability payments under title XVI of
the Act. In September 1999, he was indicted
in Virginia on two felony charges. On March
16, 2000, the Agency notified Mr. Fowlkes,
who at that time resided in New York, that
his eligibility for SSI payments would be
suspended retroactively to September 1999
because of two outstanding felony warrants
from Virginia. Mr. Fowlkes requested
administrative review and, after a hearing, an
ALJ issued a decision finding that because he
had not satisfied the outstanding felony
arrest warrants, Mr. Fowlkes was fleeing to
avoid prosecution as described in section
1611(e)(4) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(4).
Accordingly, the ALJ found that suspension
of Mr. Fowlkes’ SSI payments was proper
because he was a fugitive felon under the
Act.
Mr. Fowlkes sought judicial review, not
under the Act, but based on a claim that the
Agency violated his civil rights. The district
court dismissed Mr. Fowlkes’ civil rights
claim, without reaching the issue of whether
or not Mr. Fowlkes was a fugitive felon under
the Act. On appeal, the Second Circuit
converted the action into one seeking review,
under section 1631(c)(3) of the Act, of the
Agency’s fleeing felon determination and
remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with its
opinion.
Holding: The Second Circuit held that the
Agency could not conclude that an
individual is fleeing to avoid prosecution,
custody, or confinement from the mere fact
that an outstanding felony arrest warrant or
similar order exists. Specifically, the court
stated that ‘‘fleeing’’ is understood to mean
the conscious evasion of arrest or
prosecution. The court determined that for
‘‘flight’’ to result in a suspension of benefits,
it must be undertaken with the specific intent
to avoid prosecution. Accordingly, the court
concluded that for the Agency to suspend
benefits on the basis that an individual was
‘‘fleeing,’’ the Agency must have some
evidence that the individual knows that his
apprehension is sought. The court found the
implementing regulation consistent with this
construction of the Act. In addition, the court
interpreted the implementing regulation to
permit the Agency to suspend benefits only
as of the date of a warrant or order issued by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Apr 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
a court or other appropriate tribunal on the
basis of a finding that an individual has fled
or was fleeing from justice.
Statement as to How Fowlkes Differs from
the Agency’s Policy: We interpret section
1611(e)(4) of the Act to mean that a person
is ‘‘fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody, or
confinement’’ when a person has an
outstanding warrant for his or her arrest,
even if that person is unaware of that
warrant.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
rejected this interpretation. The Second
Circuit held the term ‘‘fleeing’’ to mean ‘‘the
conscious evasion of arrest or prosecution.’’
The court determined that for ‘‘flight’’ to
result in a suspension of benefits, it must be
undertaken with the specific intent to avoid
prosecution. Thus, for the Agency to take
adverse action against an individual
described in the Act as ‘‘fleeing to avoid
prosecution, custody, or confinement,’’ the
Agency must have some evidence that the
individual knew his apprehension was
sought.
Explanation of How SSA Will Apply the
Fowlkes Decision Within the Circuit: This
ruling applies to all determinations or
decisions at all levels of the administrative
review process that an individual is a fugitive
felon within the meaning of sections
202(x)(1)(A) and 1611(e)(4) of the Act. This
ruling applies to all title II and title XVI
applicants, title II beneficiaries and title XVI
recipients who live in Connecticut, New
York, or Vermont.
We will not use the existence of an
outstanding felony arrest warrant or similar
order as the sole basis for finding that an
individual is fleeing to avoid prosecution,
custody, or confinement and is, therefore, a
fugitive felon subject to withholding of title
II benefits or ineligibility to receive title XVI
payments. Before we determine that a title II
or title XVI applicant, title II beneficiary, or
title XVI recipient is a fugitive felon, we must
have evidence that the individual knows that
there is an outstanding felony arrest warrant,
and the outstanding arrest warrant must have
been issued on the basis that the individual
has fled or is fleeing from justice.
Cross References: Program Operations
Manual System, sections SI 00530.010 and
GN 02613.010.
[FR Doc. 06–3259 Filed 4–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–M
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 5368]
Bureau of Political—Military Affairs:
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls;
Notifications to the Congress of
Proposed Commercial Export Licenses
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the Department of State has forwarded
the attached Notifications of Proposed
Export Licenses to the Congress on the
dates indicated pursuant to sections
36(c) and 36(d) and in compliance with
section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control
Act (22 U.S.C. 2776).
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Effective Date: As shown on each
of the 30 letters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Peter J. Berry, Director, Office of Defense
Trade Controls Licensing, Directorate of
Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of
Political-Military Affairs, Department of
State (202) 663–2806.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act
mandates that notifications to the
Congress pursuant to sections 36(c) and
36(d) must be published in the Federal
Register when they are transmitted to
Congress or as soon thereafter as
practicable.
DATES:
September 27, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House
of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section
36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am
transmitting, herewith, certification of a
proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold
commercially under a contract in the amount
of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached
certification involves the export of technical
data, defense services and hardware to
related to the sale and inspection of U–125A
aircraft to Japan.
The United States Government is prepared
to license the export of this item having taken
into account political, military, economic,
human rights and arms control
considerations.
More detailed information is contained in
the formal certification which, though
unclassified, contains business information
submitted to the Department of State by the
applicant, publication of which could cause
competitive harm to the United States firm
concerned.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Reynolds,
Acting Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs.
Enclosure: Transmittal No. DDTC 038–05.
November 14, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House
of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section
36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am
transmitting, herewith, certification of a
proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold
commercially under a contract in the amount
of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached
certification involves the export to the United
Kingdom of technical data, defense services
and hardware for the manufacture of the AN/
VIC–3 Vehicle Intercommunications System.
The United States Government is prepared
to license the export of these items having
taken into account political, military,
economic, human rights and arms control
considerations.
More detailed information is contained in
the formal certification, which, though
unclassified, contains business information
submitted to the Department of State by the
applicant, publication of which could cause
competitive harm to the United States firm
concerned.
E:\FR\FM\06APN1.SGM
06APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17551-17552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3259]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 06-1(2); Fowlkes v. Adamec,
432 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005): Determining Whether an Individual Is a
Fugitive Felon Under the Social Security Act (Act)--Titles II and XVI
of the Act
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2), the Commission of
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Acquiescence Ruling 06-
1(2).
DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Fishkin Kiley, Office of the
General Counsel, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-3483, or TTY (800) 966-
5609.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing this acquiescence ruling
in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2).
An acquiescence ruling explain 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.
We will apply the holding of the court of appeals decision as
explained in this acquiescence ruling to all determinations or
decisions at all levels of the administrative review process that an
individual is a fugitive felon pursuant to sections 202(x)(1)(A),
205(j)(2)(C), 1611(e)(4)(A), and 1631(a)(2)(B) of the Act. The ruling
applies to all title II and title XVI applicants, title II
beneficiaries, and title XVI recipients who live in Connecticut, New
York, or Vermont. If we made a determination or decision that an
individual was a fugitive felon under the relevant provisions of the
Act, which affected an individual's application for title II benefits
or title XVI payments, or resulted in nonpayment of title II benefits
or suspension of title XVI payments, between December 6, 2005, the date
of the court of appeals decision, and April 6, 2006, the effective date
of this acquiescence ruling, the individual may request application of
the acquiescence ruling to the prior determination or decision. The
individual must demonstrate, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2),
416.1485(b)(2), that application of this acquiescence ruling could
change our prior determination or decision.
Additionally, when we received this precedential court of appeals
decision and determined that an acquiescence ruling might be required,
we began to identify those cases within the circuit that might be
subject to readjudication if an acquiescence ruling was subsequently
issued. Because we have determined that an acquiescence ruling is
required, we will send a notice to individuals we have identified whose
title II or title XVI application, title II benefits, or title XVI
payments may be affected by the acquiescence ruling. The notice will
provide information about this ruling and the right to request
readjudication under it. It is not necessary for an individual to
receive a notice in order to request relief based on this acquiescence
ruling.
If this acquiescence ruling is later rescinded as obsolete, we will
publish a notice in the Federal Register to that effect as provided for
in 20 CFR 404.985(e), 416.148(e). If we decide to relitigate the issue
covered by this acquiescence ruling as provided for by 20 CFR
404.985(c), 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; 96.006--
Supplemental Security Insurance)
Dated: March 29, 2006.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Acquiescence Ruling 06-1(2)
Fowlkes v. Adamec, 432 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005): Determining Whether
an Individual is a Fugitive Felon Under the Social Security Act
(Act)--Titles II and XVI of the Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although Fowlkes was a title XVI case, the Act provides the
same standard under title II for determining whether an individual
is a fugitive felon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue: Whether an outstanding warrant or similar order for the
arrest of an individual on a felony charge is, on its own,
sufficient evidence for the Agency to determine that an individual
is a fugitive felon under the Act and, therefore, not entitled to
receive title II
[[Page 17552]]
benefits or ineligible to receive title XVI payments.
Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation: Sections 202(x)(1)(A) and
1611(e)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(x)(1)(A) and
1382(e)(4)); 20 CFR 416.202(f) and 416.1339.
Circuit: Second (Connecticut, New York, Vermont). Fowlkes v.
Adamec, 432 F.3d 90 (2nd Cir. 2005).
Applicability of Ruling: This ruling applies to all
determinations or decisions at all levels of the administrative
review process that an individual is a fugitive felon within the
meaning of sections 202(x)(1)(A) and 1611(e)(4) of the Act. This
ruling applies to all title II and title XVI applicants, title II
beneficiaries, and title XVI recipients who live in Connecticut, New
York, or Vermont.
Description of Case: In 1997, Felipe Fowlkes applied for and was
found eligible to receive supplemental security income (SSI)
disability payments under title XVI of the Act. In September 1999,
he was indicted in Virginia on two felony charges. On March 16,
2000, the Agency notified Mr. Fowlkes, who at that time resided in
New York, that his eligibility for SSI payments would be suspended
retroactively to September 1999 because of two outstanding felony
warrants from Virginia. Mr. Fowlkes requested administrative review
and, after a hearing, an ALJ issued a decision finding that because
he had not satisfied the outstanding felony arrest warrants, Mr.
Fowlkes was fleeing to avoid prosecution as described in section
1611(e)(4) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(4). Accordingly, the ALJ
found that suspension of Mr. Fowlkes' SSI payments was proper
because he was a fugitive felon under the Act.
Mr. Fowlkes sought judicial review, not under the Act, but based
on a claim that the Agency violated his civil rights. The district
court dismissed Mr. Fowlkes' civil rights claim, without reaching
the issue of whether or not Mr. Fowlkes was a fugitive felon under
the Act. On appeal, the Second Circuit converted the action into one
seeking review, under section 1631(c)(3) of the Act, of the Agency's
fleeing felon determination and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Holding: The Second Circuit held that the Agency could not
conclude that an individual is fleeing to avoid prosecution,
custody, or confinement from the mere fact that an outstanding
felony arrest warrant or similar order exists. Specifically, the
court stated that ``fleeing'' is understood to mean the conscious
evasion of arrest or prosecution. The court determined that for
``flight'' to result in a suspension of benefits, it must be
undertaken with the specific intent to avoid prosecution.
Accordingly, the court concluded that for the Agency to suspend
benefits on the basis that an individual was ``fleeing,'' the Agency
must have some evidence that the individual knows that his
apprehension is sought. The court found the implementing regulation
consistent with this construction of the Act. In addition, the court
interpreted the implementing regulation to permit the Agency to
suspend benefits only as of the date of a warrant or order issued by
a court or other appropriate tribunal on the basis of a finding that
an individual has fled or was fleeing from justice.
Statement as to How Fowlkes Differs from the Agency's Policy: We
interpret section 1611(e)(4) of the Act to mean that a person is
``fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody, or confinement'' when a
person has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest, even if
that person is unaware of that warrant.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this
interpretation. The Second Circuit held the term ``fleeing'' to mean
``the conscious evasion of arrest or prosecution.'' The court
determined that for ``flight'' to result in a suspension of
benefits, it must be undertaken with the specific intent to avoid
prosecution. Thus, for the Agency to take adverse action against an
individual described in the Act as ``fleeing to avoid prosecution,
custody, or confinement,'' the Agency must have some evidence that
the individual knew his apprehension was sought.
Explanation of How SSA Will Apply the Fowlkes Decision Within
the Circuit: This ruling applies to all determinations or decisions
at all levels of the administrative review process that an
individual is a fugitive felon within the meaning of sections
202(x)(1)(A) and 1611(e)(4) of the Act. This ruling applies to all
title II and title XVI applicants, title II beneficiaries and title
XVI recipients who live in Connecticut, New York, or Vermont.
We will not use the existence of an outstanding felony arrest
warrant or similar order as the sole basis for finding that an
individual is fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody, or confinement
and is, therefore, a fugitive felon subject to withholding of title
II benefits or ineligibility to receive title XVI payments. Before
we determine that a title II or title XVI applicant, title II
beneficiary, or title XVI recipient is a fugitive felon, we must
have evidence that the individual knows that there is an outstanding
felony arrest warrant, and the outstanding arrest warrant must have
been issued on the basis that the individual has fled or is fleeing
from justice.
Cross References: Program Operations Manual System, sections SI
00530.010 and GN 02613.010.
[FR Doc. 06-3259 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-M