[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46742-46752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-22472]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46742]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 852
RIN 1901-AA90
Guidelines for Physicians Panel Determinations on Worker Requests
for Assistance in Filing for State Workers' Compensation Benefits
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing procedures to
implement Subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000 under which a DOE contractor employee
or the employee's estate can seek assistance from the DOE Program
Office in filing a claim with the appropriate State workers'
compensation system based on an illness or death caused by exposure to
a toxic substance during the course of employment at a DOE facility.
These procedures deal with how: An individual may submit an application
to the Program Office for review and assistance; the Program Office
determines whether to submit an application to a physicians panel;
physicians panels determine whether the illness or death of a DOE
contract employee arose out of and in the course of employment by a DOE
contractor and through exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility;
the Program Office accepts or rejects a determination by a physicians
panel; and appeals may be undertaken.
DATES: Submit written comments on or before October 9, 2001 to the
address listed under the ADDRESSES section. You may present oral views,
data, and arguments at the public hearing, which will be held in
Washington, DC, at the address listed under the ADDRESSES section
beginning at 9 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 24, 2001. DOE
must receive requests to speak at the public hearing and a copy of your
statements no later than 4 p.m., September 14, 2001. For more
information concerning public participation in this rulemaking
proceeding, see section IV of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
ADDRESSES: Send three (3) copies of written comments and your prepared
statements for the public hearing to Ms. Loretta Young, Office of
Advocacy, EH-8, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
Washington, DC 20585, Attention: Physicians Panel Rule.
A public hearing will be held at the following address: U.S.
Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Room 1E-245, Washington, DC.
You may read and copy written comments received by DOE, the public
hearing transcript, and any other docket material at the DOE Freedom of
Information Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1E-190,
Washington, DC 20585 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more information
concerning public participation in this rulemaking proceeding, see
section IV of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loretta Young, telephone: 202-586-
2819; fax: 202-586-6010; e-mail: [email protected]; address:
Office of Advocacy, EH-8, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, Washington, DC 20585.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
III. Regulatory Review and Procedural Requirements
A. Review under Executive Order 12866
B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review under the National Environmental Policy Act
E. Review under Executive Order 13132
F. Review under Executive Order 12988
G. Review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
H. Review under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review under Executive Order 13211
IV. Opportunity for Public Comment
A. Written Comments
B. Public Hearing
I. Introduction
The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act
of 2000 (``Act'') (Pub. L. No. 106-398, 42 U.S.C. 7384, et seq)
establishes a program for compensating covered workers made ill during
nuclear weapons production for DOE. Covered workers with certain
illnesses, including chronic beryllium disease, radiation-induced
cancers, and silicosis, may be eligible for specified benefits under
the program. Executive Order 13179 (65 FR 77487, December 7, 2000)
assigns the Department of Labor primary responsibility for this
program.
While not eligible for Federal compensation under EEOICPA, workers
with other illnesses that may be related to workplace toxic exposures
may qualify and apply for compensation through their respective State
workers' compensation systems. Subtitle D of the Act authorizes the
Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement with each State to
provide assistance to a DOE contractor employee in filing a claim under
that State's workers' compensation system. After DOE enters into such
an agreement with a State, an applicant can submit an application to
the Program Office in DOE for assistance in filing a claim with that
State's workers' compensation system. If the application comes within
the terms and conditions of the relevant State Agreement and contains
reasonable evidence that the illness or death of a covered employee may
be related to employment at a DOE facility, then DOE must submit the
application to a physicians panel established under the Act to
determine the validity of the applicant's claim. Under the Act, DOE
specifies the number of physicians panels required, the number of
physicians per panel, and each panel's jurisdiction, while the
Secretary of Health and Human Services appoints the members of the
physicians panels. Section 3661(d) of Subtitle D of the Act provides
that a physicians panel must make its determination ``under guidelines
established by the Secretary [of Energy], by regulation.'' If a
physicians panel makes a positive determination and the Program Office
accepts it, then the Program Office must assist the applicant in filing
a claim with the relevant State's workers' compensation system. In
addition, DOE may not contest the claim or any award
[[Page 46743]]
made regarding the claim and, to the extent permitted by law, may
direct a DOE contractor not to contest the claim or award. Furthermore,
any costs of contesting the claim or award is not an allowable cost
under a DOE contract.
The proposed procedures are consistent with existing DOE Notice
350.6 that sets forth Departmental policy to pay all valid State
workers' compensation claims. DOE Notice 350.6 provides for the
expeditious validation of claims that meet the criteria for
compensation under a State workers' compensation system. The proposed
procedures would achieve the same result.
The linkage to the criteria for compensation under a State workers'
compensation system is consistent with the structure of the Act.
Specifically, Subtitle D of the Act authorizes DOE to assist a worker
in filing a claim under the appropriate State workers' compensation
system. DOE does not interpret Subtitle D as calling for federalizing
the operation of State workers compensation standards. Rather, Subtitle
D is intended to ensure that DOE will assist and not hinder the
processing of valid claims under a State workers' compensation system.
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed Rule?
The proposed rule establishes procedures for implementing Subtitle
D of the Act. Proposed section 852.1(a) provides that these regulations
address how (1) an individual may submit an application to the Program
Office for review and assistance, (2) the Program Office determines
whether to submit an application to a physician panel, (3) physicians
panels determine whether the illness or death of a DOE contract
employee arose out of and in the course of employment by a DOE
contractor and through exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility,
(4) the Program Office accepts or rejects a determination by a
physicians panel, and (5) appeals may be undertaken.
B. What Is the Scope of This Proposed Rule?
Proposed section 852.1(b) makes clear that the procedures only
cover applications that meet three conditions. First, the application
must be based on the illness or death of a DOE contractor employee.
Second, the illness or death must be caused by exposure to a toxic
substance. And third, the exposure must have occurred during the course
of employment at a DOE facility.
Consistent with the statutory emphasis on State Agreements as a
precondition for action under Subtitle D of the Act, proposed section
852.1(c) provides that all actions under the procedures must be
pursuant to a relevant State Agreement and consistent with its terms
and conditions.
C. What Definitions Are Used in This Proposed Rule?
This proposed rule contains definitions of ``Act'', ``Applicant'',
``DOE'', ``DOE Contractor Employee'', ``DOE Facility'', ``Program
Office'', ``Physicians Panel'', ``State Agreement'', and ``Toxic
Substance''.
D. What Is the Act?
The Act is the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.
E. Who Is an Applicant?
An applicant is a DOE contractor employee or the employee's estate
seeking assistance from the Program Office in filing a claim with the
relevant State workers' compensation system.
F. Who Is a DOE Contractor Employee?
Proposed section 852.2 defines a DOE contractor employee to be a
``Department of Energy contractor employee'' as defined by section
3621(11) of the Act. The statutory definition focuses on employment by
a DOE contractor at a DOE facility and establishes one of the subsets
of employees eligible for the DOL program. Thus, the term ``DOE
contractor employee'' does not include all those employees eligible for
the DOL program. For example, it does not include atomic weapon
employees who were not employed by a DOE contractor at a DOE facility.
In addition, it does not include Federal employees.
G. What Is a DOE Facility?
Proposed section 852.2 defines ``DOE facility'' to be a
``Department of Energy facility'' as defined by section 3621(12) of the
Act. DOE has published a list of facilities it considers to be
Department of Energy facilities for purposes of the Act. (66 FR 4003,
January 17, 2001; revised 66 FR 31218, June 11, 2001). DOE took a broad
view of what constitutes a Department of Energy facility in compiling
this list and solicits comments as to whether this broad view is
appropriate for implementing Subtitle D of the Act.
H. What Is the Program Office?
The Program Office is the DOE Office of Worker Advocacy or any
other DOE office subsequently designated by the Secretary of Energy.
The Program Office exercises most of the functions of the Secretary of
Energy under Subtitle D of the Act.
I. What Is a Physicians Panel?
Physicians panels are appointed by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services in response to requests by DOE pursuant to Subtitle D of
the Act. Physicians panels provide DOE with impartial and independent
determinations as to whether the illness or death of a DOE contractor
worker arose out of and in the course of employment by a DOE contractor
and exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility. Physicians panels
may be asked to review new applications that have not undergone prior
physicians panel review, or to re-examine applications that have
already undergone physicians panel review.
J. What Is a State Agreement?
Proposed section 852.2 defines ``State Agreement'' as an agreement
negotiated between DOE and a State that sets forth the terms and
conditions for dealing with an application for assistance under
Subtitle D of the Act in filing a claim with the State's workers'
compensation system. The existence of a State Agreement with a
particular State is a condition precedent for any action by the Program
Office on an application for assistance in filing a claim with that
State's workers compensation system. Once in effect, a State Agreement
sets the parameters within which the Program Office can take action
with respect to an application.
K. What Provisions Does a State Agreement Contain?
Proposed section 852.6 provides for three standard provisions in
State Agreements which are subject to negotiation. First, a State will
identify the applicable criteria used to determine the validity of a
workers' compensation claim under State law and describe how those
criteria are applied in a State worker's compensation proceeding.
Second, only those applications that satisfy the identified applicable
criteria law will be submitted to a physicians panel. And third, the
Program Office will provide assistance to only those applications that
meet the identified applicable criteria.
The standard provisions indicate that DOE will rely on State
standards for screening applications prior to submission to physicians
panels for a causation determination. DOE has considered prescribing
Federal standards without regard to State law,
[[Page 46744]]
and proposes not to do so for a variety of reasons. First, the text of
the Act does not require DOE to prescribe such standards. Second, in
the absence of statutory text and legislative history to the contrary,
DOE construes the purpose of the Act to be provision of DOE assistance
to contractor employees or their estates to enable them to qualify for
compensation under State law. Third, there is nothing in the text of
the Act or its legislative history indicating that Congress intended to
bypass State law or to provide for affirmative physician panel
determinations that may not have any operative impact because of State
law. Although the Act provides for DOE to deny reimbursement of
contractor litigation expenses in defense of claims for which there are
affirmative physician panel determinations, that provision would have
no impact in circumstances where the contractor's defense is in the
hands of an insurance company. DOE invites comments on its proposal to
rely on State standards to screen applications for assistance. DOE also
solicits comments as to what other provisions should be included in
State Agreements. For example, should a State Agreement contain a
provision under which the State would consider the opinion of a
physicians panel on medical issues and, if appropriate, delay State
proceedings in order to obtain such an opinion?
L. What Is a Toxic Substance?
Proposed section 852.2 defines ``toxic substance'' as any material
that has the potential to cause illness or death because of its
radioactive, chemical, or biological nature. This is a relatively broad
definition of the term, which could be interpreted to encompass not
only toxic chemicals, but also infectious agents and external radiation
sources. However, this definition does not include all workplace
conditions that might cause illness or death. For example, workplace
noise is not considered a toxic substance and thus hearing loss
resulting from exposure to workplace noise could not provide a basis
for an application for assistance under Subtitle D of the Act. An
example of a narrower definition of ``toxic substance'' would be, ``any
chemical or compound capable of causing illness as a result of
exposure.'' DOE solicits comments on its definition, including whether
``toxic substance'' should be defined more precisely.
M. How Does an Individual Obtain and Submit an Application for Review
and Assistance?
Proposed section 852.3 defines how an individual obtains and
submits an application for review and assistance. An application can be
obtained in person from the Program Office, from any Resource Center,
and from any DOE-sponsored Former Worker Program. There are currently
approximately one dozen Former Worker Programs throughout the U.S. The
Former Worker Programs currently offer screening examinations for the
detection of occupational illnesses for individuals formerly employed
at some but not all DOE facilities. An application can also be obtained
by mail or telephone request to the Program Office, or, in a printable
format, from the Program Office's web site.
Proposed section 852.3 also describes how an application is
submitted. An application can be submitted in person to the Program
Office, to any Resource Center, or to any DOE-sponsored Former Worker
Program, where staff will be available to answer questions and assist
the individual in filling out the application. An application can also
be submitted by mail to the Program Office.
Proposed section 852.4 describes the information and materials that
the individual must submit as a part of the application for physicians
panel review. First, the individual must sign a request for review by a
physicians panel of the individual's application for assistance.
Additional information requirements flow out of Subtitle D of the Act,
which requires that, in order to qualify for physicians panel review,
the applicant must submit reasonable evidence that (a) the application
was filed by or on behalf of a DOE contractor employee or employees
estate; and (b) the illness or death of the employee may have been
related to employment at a DOE facility. In order to assure that the
Program Office has sufficient information to determine whether an
individual meets these eligibility criteria, and in order to provide a
physicians panel with sufficient information to make a causation
determination on an application, the applicant is also required in
proposed section 852.4, to provide (a) a signed medical release,
authorizing non-DOE sources of medical information to provide the
Program Office with medical records documenting the individual's
diagnosis or providing an opinion as to the relationship between the
applicant's medical condition and exposure to a toxic substance while
employed at a DOE facility; (b) a signed release permitting the Program
Office to obtain any records under the control of DOE and relevant to
the individual's eligibility for the program or relevant to the
physicians panel's adjudication of the application, including
employment, exposure and medical records; (c) an employment history,
filled out by the individual; and (d) any other information or
materials deemed by the Program Office to be relevant to a
determination of the individual's eligibility for the review and
assistance program, or relevant to adjudication of the application by a
physicians panel. As the program is implemented, the Program Office may
find that it needs additional information or materials for the
processing of an application for review and assistance.
N. How Does the Program Office Decide What Applications To Submit to a
Physicians Panel?
Proposed section 852.5 establishes a screening mechanism by which
the Program Office determines whether to submit an application to a
physicians panel. Specifically, an application must contain adequate
information to permit the Program Office to make a reasonable initial
determination that the following three conditions are met. First, the
application was filed by or on behalf of a DOE contractor employee or
employee's estate. Second, the illness or death of the DOE contractor
employee may have been related to employment at a DOE facility. And
third, the conditions in the relevant State Agreement are or can be
satisfied. DOE solicits comment on whether the proposed conditions are
appropriate and what, if any, additional conditions should be used.
Proposed section 852.5 provides that the Program Office will screen
applications prior to sending them to a physicians panel for a
causation determination. Among other things, under the proposed rule,
the Program Office may decide not to forward an application to a
physicians panel at this stage because the Program Office determines
that the application would not satisfy the conditions in the relevant
State Agreement, including the applicable criteria used to determine
the validity of a workers' compensation claim under State law.
Potential criteria would include: (1) Whether the disease or condition
is covered under the State workers' compensation system, (2) whether
there is a prescribed time period for bringing a claim, and (3) what
level and type of evidence is required to support a claim. DOE solicits
comment on whether the suggested criteria are appropriate and what, if
any, alternative or additional criteria should be used. In addition,
DOE specifically solicits comments on whether State claims' timeliness
requirements should be excluded from the screening criteria developed
under this part.
[[Page 46745]]
DOE also seeks comment on a more limited alternative screening
mechanism. This alternative would provide for the negotiation of
agreements with the States to identify particular criteria that are
relevant to the question, under state law, whether a particular disease
caused by a toxic substance arises out of employment at a DOE facility.
Under this alternative screening mechanism, the Program Office would
take into consideration the relevant State criteria in determining
whether an application alleges an illness or death that may have been
related to employment at a DOE facility and should be submitted to a
physicians panel to determine whether the medical evidence supports the
applicable criteria. The Program Office would refer to a physicians
panel any application that alleges the appropriate criteria, along with
specific questions that the panel should address, based on criteria
identified in the relevant State Agreement, in order to determine
whether the condition in question arises out of employment and exposure
to toxic substances. DOE invites comments on this alternative screening
mechanism that would limit the use of state criteria to those related
to the question of whether a disease arose from exposure to a toxic
substance during employment at a DOE facility and that would not use
other State criteria related to the broader question of whether an
application presents a valid claim for compensation under the State's
workers' compensation system. In particular, comments should address
what type of criteria might be identified in a State Agreement under
this alternative screening mechanism. Potential criteria might include:
(1) Whether the disease originated from a hazard to which workers would
have been equally exposed outside of the employment, (2) whether there
is a causal connection between the work conditions and the disease, (3)
whether the disease is peculiar to the occupation in which the employee
is or was engaged, (4) whether the disease was contracted after a
period of exposure to the toxic substance specified under state law, or
(5) the level of medical probability that the disease was the material
and direct result of the conditions under which the work.
DOE is considering an additional alternative that would provide for
this screening determination to be made by State officials on a
reimbursable basis. This would take advantage of the in-house expertise
of the State workers' compensation offices. DOE invites affected States
and interested members of the public to comment on this alternative
screening mechanism. Under this alternative, DOE would contract with
States to do the initial screening prior to submission of applications
to the physician panels. States most likely have an existing structure
within their workers' compensation office that could make these
determinations. The determinations would not be compensation
determinations, but rather a basic threshold test for eligibility based
on pre-established determination criteria. Such criteria could include
eligibility under that State's workers compensation laws; evidence that
the application was filed on behalf of a DOE contractor employee or
employee's estate; and evidence that the illness or death of the DOE
contractor employee may have been related to employment at a DOE
facility. If the State determines that an individual meets that test,
the Program Office would then submit the necessary information to a
physicians panel. DOE solicits comment on this alternative. DOE is
specifically interested in receiving comment regarding the burden this
would place on States and whether utilizing State expertise to make
these determinations (rather than the Program Office) would justify
this burden.
As a general matter, DOE requests comments as to: (1) whether the
use of a screening mechanism is consistent with the statutory
framework; and (2) whether the use of applicable State criteria or
uniform Federal criteria better achieves the statutory objectives.
O. What Guidelines Does a Physicians Panel Use To Determine Whether an
Illness Arose Out of and in the Course of Employment by a DOE
Contractor and Exposure To a Toxic Substance at a DOE Facility?
Proposed section 852.7 provides that a physicians panel determines
whether the illness or death arose out of and in the course of
employment by a DOE contractor and exposure to a toxic substance at a
DOE facility on the basis of whether there is sufficient information to
support two findings. First, the physician panel must find there is an
adequate factual basis for a prima facie case that exposure to a toxic
substance at a DOE facility during the course of employment by a DOE
contractor caused the illness or death. Second, taking into account all
the information, the physicians panel must make a reasonable finding
that it is more likely than not that exposure to a toxic substance at a
DOE facility during the course of employment by a DOE contractor caused
the illness or death. This two-pronged test focuses on both adequacy of
information and likelihood of causation.
Proposed section 852.7 sets the burden of proof as ``more likely
than not.'' DOE considered and decided not to propose the ``as likely
as not'' standard used in subtitles of the Act other than Subtitle D.
In DOE's view, the ``more likely than not'' standard better reflects
the proof of causation required by the statute's physicians panel
provisions. DOE solicits comments on what is the appropriate burden of
proof for assistance under the DOE program.
DOE considered and rejected proposing guidelines under which a
physicians panel must determine whether an illness arose out of and in
the course of employment by a DOE contractor and exposure to a toxic
substance at a DOE facility by using the applicable criteria under
State law in the manner used to determine the validity of a workers'
compensation claim under State law. DOE decided it is more appropriate
to take State criteria into account during the initial screening
process. DOE does believe it is appropriate to have a physicians panel
examine one or more of the medical criteria identified in a State
Agreement if it is not possible during the initial screening to
determine whether a particular criterion is satisfied. DOE solicits
comments on the extent, if any, to which physicians panels should be
expected to examine criteria used in State workers' compensation
proceedings.
P. What Materials Should a Physicians Panel Review Prior to Making a
Determination?
Proposed section 852.8 provides that each physicians panel member
will receive from the Program Office a complete set of materials
related to the applicant's diagnosis, medical history, work history,
and history of exposures so that the panel will have an adequate body
of information for making a determination. The panel must review all
materials it receives from the Program Office.
Q. How May a Physicians Panel Obtain Additional Information or a
Consultation That It Needs To Make a Determination?
A physicians panel may, on occasion, need additional information or
consultations to make its determination. For expediency, documentation
of evidence, maintenance of confidentiality, and records control,
proposed section 852.9 requires the panel to make all requests for
additional information through the Program Office.
[[Page 46746]]
The panel may request an interview with the applicant, if the panel
believes that only the applicant can supply the necessary information.
Based upon the experiences of similar physicians panels, including the
Expert Panel of the Fernald II Settlement Fund, it is anticipated that
such a request will be unusual, but may be necessary in rare cases in
order to obtain essential information. The panel can also request that
the applicant provide additional medical information. The physicians
panel may request consultation with specialists in fields relevant to
its deliberations, if needed, as provided for in section 3661(d)(4) of
the Act, or refer to relevant medical and scientific literature. The
Program Office will maintain a roster of available specialists for this
purpose.
Subtitle D neither specifically authorizes nor specifically bars
DOE from paying for the development of medical evidence (e.g. medical
examinations) to support an individual's application for assistance
under Subpart D. Although today's proposed regulations do not provide
for DOE to pay for the development of the applicant's medical
documentation, DOE considered proposing regulations to permit such
activities. DOE elected not to make such a proposal because of doubts
about statutory authorization and whether this approach is appropriate.
DOE invites comment on this choice and the desirability of including
regulations permitting such activities in the notice of final
rulemaking.
R. How Is a Physicians Panel To Carry out Its Deliberations and Arrive
at a Determination?
After each member of a physicians panel reviews the information,
the panel members discuss an application and arrive at a determination
by unanimous agreement of its members. Because it is anticipated that
physicians panels will be spread out geographically, proposed section
852.10 permits teleconferencing. This system has worked well for prior
physicians panels, such as the Expert Panel of the Fernald II
Settlement Fund.
S. How Must a Physicians Panel Issue Its Determination?
In order to ensure that a physicians panel has made its
determination based upon the relevant evidence and that it has provided
the basis for its determination, proposed section 852.11 requires the
panel to identify the materials it has reviewed in making its
determination, and express the determination and its basis in a series
of findings that logically links the evidence reviewed to the
conclusions drawn. The panel must also cite, for the Program Office's
consideration, any evidence to the contrary of the panel's
determination, and explain why the panel finds this evidence to be not
persuasive.
DOE anticipates that some covered workers who have applied for
benefits under the DOL program will also apply for assistance from the
Program Office in filing a claim with a State workers' compensation
system. However, filing a claim under the DOL program is not a
requirement for the DOE program. In addition, receiving benefits under
the DOL program does not automatically entitle an applicant to receive
assistance from the Program Office or a positive determination from a
physicians panel. For example, under the DOL program a member of a
Special Exposure Cohort who has a specified cancer could establish
entitlement to benefits for a specified cancer in the absence of clear
evidence that the disease is the result of exposure to a toxic
substance. A physicians panel, however, can make a positive
determination only if sufficient evidence is provided. Factual findings
made by DOL, including findings based on dose reconstructions performed
by HHS regarding the likelihood that cancer was caused by occupational
exposure to radiation, while relevant to a panel's assessment, are not
binding on a physicians panel. A physicians panel is free to make
different causation determinations, or to base those determinations on
different factual premises. A physicians panel would be expected to
explain the extent to which it based its determination on the findings
of any agency in its report to the Program Office.
T. When Must a Physicians Panel Issue Its Determination?
Proposed section 852.12 requires a physicians panel to submit its
determination within 30 working days of receiving the application
materials, unless granted an extension by the Program Office.
U. What Precautions Must Each Physicians Panel Member and Each
Specialist Take in Order To Keep an Applicant's Personal and Medical
Information Confidential?
Because records for review by the physicians panels and by medical
specialists consulted at the request of these panels contain
confidential, personal, and medical information, this section is
included to provide safeguards that physicians panels and specialists
must follow to preserve the confidentiality of this information.
Physicians panel members and specialists are required to comply with
all provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 applicable to Worker Advocacy
records. Safeguards specified include maintaining paper records in
locked cabinets and desks, and not including personally identifiable
information in published or unpublished reports, studies, or surveys.
V. What Actions Must a Physicians Panel Member Take if That Member Has
a Potential Conflict of Interest in Relation To a Specific Application?
In order to ensure objectivity and fairness, proposed section
852.14 requires each panel member to report any real or perceived
conflict of interest with regard to a particular application to the
Program Office, and to cease reviewing the application pending
instruction by the Program Office. The Program Office will then take
appropriate actions to remedy the situation, generally referring the
application to a different physicians panel. At least two physicians
panels are designated to review applications submitted by employees of
each DOE facility. The Program Office may also employ other remedies,
such as substituting an alternate panel member for the panel member
with the conflict of interest. The Program Office has alternate panel
members available for this purpose if needed.
W. When May the Program Office Ask a Physicians Panel To Re-Examine an
Application That Has Undergone Prior Physicians Panel Review?
Proposed section 852.15 provides that the Program Office may refer
a case back to the original panel or to a different panel, after the
original panel has made a determination, in the following
circumstances: if the Program Office obtains additional information
whose consideration could result in a different determination,
including information provided by the applicant, for quality assurance
purposes, or if an additional review is otherwise necessary for the
fair determination of the application. The Program Office may refer an
application to a different panel, but not the original panel, if the
office has concerns that the available evidence does not support the
original panel's determination, as one possible remedy for a conflict
of interest involving a panel member, as described in section 852.14,
or to ensure consistency between panels in their decision making.
[[Page 46747]]
X. Must the Program Office Accept the Determination of a Physicians
Panel?
Proposed section 852.16 requires the Program Office, except as
provided in section 852.15, to accept the determination by a physicians
panel unless there is significant evidence to the contrary.
Y. Is There an Appeals Process?
Proposed section 852.17 provides that an applicant may request the
Office of Hearings and Appeals to review: (1) A decision by the Program
Office not to submit an application to a physicians panel, (2) a
negative determination by a physicians panel that is accepted by the
Program Office, or (3) a decision by the Program Office not to accept a
positive determination by a physicians panel if the Program Office does
not return the application to a physicians panel for further
consideration. Proposed section 852.17 is clear that an applicant must
request review by the Office of Hearings and Appeals in order to
exhaust administrative remedies. An applicant must file a notice of
appeal with the Office of Hearings and Appeals on or before 60 days
from the date of a letter from the Program Office notifying the
applicant of a determination appealable under this section. The Office
of Hearings and Appeals will consider appeals in accordance with its
procedures set forth in 10 CFR part 1003. A decision by the Office of
Hearings and Appeals shall constitute final agency action.
Z. What Is the Effect of the Acceptance by the Program Office of a
Positive Determination by a Physicians Panel?
In the event the Program Office accepts a positive determination by
a physicians panel, the Program Office must assist the applicant in
filing a claim with the relevant State's workers' compensation system
and cannot contest the claim or any award made regarding the claim. In
addition, the Program Office may, to the extent permitted by law,
direct a DOE contractor not to contest the claim or award. Furthermore,
any costs of contesting the claim or award is not an allowable cost
under a DOE contract.
AA. How Much Will This Program Cost?
DOE estimates that the worker assistance program will result in
costs of $127,122,251 over the next ten years. This total cost estimate
includes benefit costs for State workers' benefits paid to ill workers
or their families, and operational costs for the operation of the
Advocacy Office, Resource Centers, physicians panels and advisory
committee. Of this total, $92,645,500 is attributed to administering
the program. The administrative cost estimates are distributed among
DOE Resource Center costs of $16,500,000, records search costs
estimated at $45,895,500, physicians panel costs of $19,500,000,
casework and hotline costs of $9,950,000 and Federal Advisory Committee
costs of $800,000. DOE estimates that more than $45,000,000 of the
$45,895,000 estimated costs for records searches will be in support of
the DOL portion of the program, based on DOL estimates of the number of
claimants. The highest annual administrative costs are anticipated in
fiscal year 2003, and are estimated to be approximately $19,000,000.
DOE estimates the total benefit costs over the next ten years to be
$34,476,751. The highest anticipated annual costs would be in fiscal
year 2003, and are estimated at $29,695,098. Costs are expected to
decrease each year thereafter throughout the estimation period. The
total benefit costs will be distributed across a number of claimant and
benefit types, including medical care, wage replacement, and permanent
partial disability (PPD). The highest total costs for benefits are
anticipated in fiscal year 2003, and are estimated to be just above
$10,000,000. Medical cost estimates are based on Workers Compensation
for Radiation Induced Illness: A Re-Examination of Past Practices and
Options for Change by N. A. Ashford et al, January 1996, with costs
escalated to1999 dollars. These cost estimates, as well as estimates of
the number of claimants, are taken from DOE and DOL estimates for a
prior legislative proposal covering some of the same workers and
conditions covered by the Subtitle D worker assistance program. PPD
benefits vary by State, worker attributes like age and employability,
and worker wage. These estimates reflect a range of costs for
disability payments.
DOE contractors will see increased costs in the form of insurance
payments or premiums and increased contributions to State workers'
compensation funds in some cases. Ultimately, DOE bears the cost of the
additional workers' compensation claims, as DOE contractors pass on
these costs.
III. Regulatory Review and Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today's regulatory action has been determined to be ``a significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action
was subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule would provide guidelines for the operation and
determinations of physicians panels established to provide expert
opinion to DOE on the cause of a worker's illness or death. It would
not impose costs or burdens on any small business or other small
entity. DOE, therefore, certifies that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule provides that an individual may submit an
application for review and assistance to the Program Office that
contains information relating to the individual's employment by a DOE
contractor, the nature of the illness or death, and the relationship
between the illness or death and the individual's employment at a DOE
facility. The application is required for DOE to determine whether
reasonable evidence exists for submitting the individual's application
to a physician panel.
DOE is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
simultaneously with the publication of this proposed rule, this
collection of information for review and approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless the collection has been reviewed and assigned a
control number by OMB. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the
Paperwork Reduction Act Submission from the contact person named in
this notice.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments to OMB addressed
to: Department of Energy Desk Officer, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Persons submitting comments to OMB also are requested to send a copy to
the DOE contact person at the address given in the ADDRESSES section of
this notice.
[[Page 46748]]
OMB is particularly interested in comments on: (1) The necessity for
the proposed collection of information, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of DOE's
estimates of the burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
DOE assumes that most applications for assistance under this part
will be made in the first and second years after the worker assistance
process is established. It is not possible to give precise estimates of
the number of applications that will be filed. However, DOE previously
has estimated the number of workers potentially eligible for State
compensation at 1,200. For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act
Submission, DOE is multiplying 1,200 by 5 to reach an estimate of the
total number of applications that may be filed. DOE further assumes
that one hour will be required to complete an application. Using these
assumptions, DOE estimates the total annual paperwork burden to be
approximately 6,000 hours.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
DOE has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls into a class
of actions that would not individually or cumulatively have a
significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this proposed rule deals only
with physicians panel procedures, and, therefore, is covered under the
Categorical Exclusion for rulemakings that are strictly procedural in
paragraph A6 of Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly,
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on Agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have federalism implications. Agencies are required to develop an
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
``federalism implications.'' Policies that have federalism implications
are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects 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.'' On March
14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined today's
proposed rule and has determined that it does 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. The scope of
this proposed rule is limited to defining how a physicians panel
established under the Act will determine whether the illness or death
that is the subject of an application for assistance in filing a claim
under a State's workers' compensation system arose out of and in the
course of employment by the Department of Energy and exposure to a
toxic substance at a Department of Energy Facility. Referral of an
application to a physicians panel can occur only by agreement with the
applicable State, and the proposed rule would require the application
of that State's statutory workers' compensation criteria, if provided
for in the agreement. Thus, this proposed rule would not preempt State
workers' compensation law. No further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Federal Agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear, legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear, legal
standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal Agency to prepare a written assessment of the
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final rule that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any 1 year.
The Act also requires a Federal Agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,''
and it requires an Agency to develop a plan for giving notice and
opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirement that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule published today
does not contain any Federal mandate, so these requirements do not
apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal Agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. This rulemaking would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
has not prepared a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and
[[Page 46749]]
Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant
energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA, as a significant energy action. For any proposed
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action
and their expected benefits energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's proposed rule is not a significant energy action.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
IV. Opportunity for Public Comment
A. Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to participate in this proceeding by
submitting data, views, or comments with respect to this proposed rule.
To help the Department review the submitted comments, commenters are
requested to reference the paragraph(s) (e.g., 852.2(a)) to which they
refer when possible.
Three copies of written comments should be submitted to the address
indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. All comments
received will be available for public inspection as part of the
administrative record on file for this rulemaking in the Department of
Energy Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202)
586-3142, between the hours of 9 a.m.and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. All written comments received by the date
indicated in the DATES section of this notice of proposed rulemaking
and all other relevant information in the record will be carefully
assessed and fully considered prior to the publication of the final
rule. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, anyone submitting
information or data that he or she considers to be confidential and
exempt from public disclosure by law should submit one complete copy of
the document, as well as two copies, if possible, from which the
information has been deleted. The Department will make its own
determination as to the confidentiality of the information and treat it
accordingly.
B. Public Hearing
1. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak
You will find the time and place of the public hearing listed at
the beginning of this notice. We invite any person who has an interest
in today's notice, or who is a representative of a group or class of
persons that has an interest in these issues, to request an opportunity
to make an oral presentation. If you would like to speak at this
hearing, contact Ms. Loretta Young, telephone: 202-586-2819; fax: 202-
586-6010; e-mail: [email protected]; address: Office of
Advocacy, EH-8, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,
Washington, DC 20585, no later than 10 days in advance of the hearing.
The person making the request should briefly describe the nature of
the interest in the rulemaking, and provide a telephone number for
contact. We request each person selected to be heard to submit an
advance copy of his or her statement at least 10 days prior to the date
of this hearing. Also, each presenter is to bring three copies of the
prepared oral statement to the hearing. At our discretion, we may
permit any person who cannot do this to participate if that person has
made alternative arrangements with Ms. Young in advance.
2. Conduct of Hearing
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public hearing.
The public hearing will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and section 501
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7191). Each
oral presentation is limited to 10 minutes. At the conclusion of all
initial oral statements, each person who has made an oral statement
will be given the opportunity, if he or she so desires, to make a
rebuttal or clarifying statement. The statements will be given in the
order in which the initial statements were made and will be subject to
time limitations. Only those conducting the hearing may ask questions.
The hearing will last as long as there are persons who have requested
an opportunity to speak.
DOE will prepare a transcript of the hearing. DOE will retain the
transcript and other records of this rulemaking and make them available
for inspection in DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room, as
provided at the beginning of this notice. Any person may purchase a
copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.
The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules
needed for the proper conduct of the hearing.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 852
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts,
Hazardous substances, Workers' Compensation.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2001.
Francis Blake,
Deputy Secretary of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE hereby proposes to
amend chapter III of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations by
adding part 852 to read as follows:
PART 852--GUIDELINES FOR PHYSICIAN PANEL DETERMINATIONS ON WORKER
REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE IN FILING FOR STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BENEFITS
Sec.
852.1 What is the purpose and scope of this part?
852.2 What are the definitions of terms used in this part?
852.3 How does an individual submit an application for review and
assistance?
852.4 What information and materials must an individual submit as
a part of the application for review and assistance?
852.5 What applications are submitted to a physician panel?
852.6 What conditions will be set forth in State Agreements?
852.7 How does a physicians panel determine whether an illness
arose out of and in the course of employment by a DOE contractor and
exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility?
852.8 What materials should a physicians panel review prior to
making a determination?
852.9 How may a physicians panel obtain additional information or
a consultation that it needs to make a determination?
852.10 How is a physicians panel to carry out its deliberations
and arrive at a determination?
852.11 How must a physicians panel issue its determination?
852.12 When must a physicians panel issue its determination?
852.13 What precautions must each physicians panel member and each
specialist take in order to keep an applicant's personal and medical
information confidential?
852.14 What actions must a physicians panel member take if that
member has a potential conflict of interest in relation to a
specific application?
852.15 When may the Program Office ask a physicians panel to re-
examine an application that has undergone prior physicians panel
review?
[[Page 46750]]
852.16 Must the Program Office accept the determination of a
physicians panel?
852.17 Is there an appeals process?
852.18 What is the effect of the acceptance by the Program Office
of a positive determination by a physicians panel?
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7384, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2201 and 7101, et
seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.
Sec. 852.1 What is the purpose and scope of this part?
(a) This part implements Subtitle D of the Act by establishing the
procedures under which:
(1) An individual may submit an application to the Program Office
for review and assistance;
(2) The Program Office determines whether to submit an application
to a physician panel;
(3) Physicians panels determine whether the illness or death of a
DOE contractor employee arose out of and in the course of employment by
a DOE contractor and through exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE
facility;
(4) The Program Office accepts or rejects a determination by a
physicians panel; and
(5) Appeals may be undertaken.
(b) This part covers applications based on the illness or death of
a DOE contractor employee caused by exposure to a toxic substance
during the course of employment at a DOE facility.
(c) All actions under this part must be pursuant to the relevant
State Agreement and consistent with its terms and conditions.
Sec. 852.2 What are the definitions of terms used in this part?
Act means the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.
Applicant means a DOE contractor employee or the employee's estate
seeking assistance from the Program Office in filing a claim with the
relevant State workers' compensation system.
DOE means the U.S. Department of Energy.
DOE contractor employee means a ``Department of Energy contractor
employee'' as defined by section 3621(11) of the Act.
DOE facility means a facility designated by DOE as a ``Department
of Energy facility'' as defined by section 3621(12) of the Act.
Physicians panel means a group of physicians appointed by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to Subtitle D of the
Act to evaluate potential claims of DOE contractor employees under the
appropriate State workers' compensation system.
Program Office means the Office of Worker Advocacy within DOE's
Office of Environment, Safety and Health, or any other DOE office
subsequently assigned to perform the functions of the Secretary of
Energy under Subtitle D of the Act.
State Agreement means an agreement negotiated between DOE and a
State that sets forth the terms and conditions for dealing with an
application for assistance under Subpart D of the Act in filing a claim
with the State's workers' compensation system.
Toxic substance means any material that has the potential to cause
illness or death because of its radioactive, chemical, or biological
nature.
Sec. 852.3 How does an individual submit an application for review and
assistance?
(a) An individual obtains an application for review and
assistance--
(1) In person from the Program Office, from any Resource Center or
from any DOE-sponsored Former Worker Program;
(2) By mail or telephone request to the Program Office; or
(3) In printable format, from the Program Office's web site.
(b) An individual submits an application for review and
assistance--
(1) In person to the Program Office, to any Resource Center or to
any DOE-sponsored Former Worker Program.
(2) By mail to the Program Office.
Sec. 852.4 What information and materials must an individual submit as
a part of the application for review and assistance?
As a part of the application for review and assistance, an
individual must submit, in writing:
(a) A signed request for a review of the application by a medical
panel;
(b) A signed medical release, whereby the individual permits health
care providers and health care facilities to release to the Program
Office any medical records providing documentation of the individual's
diagnosis or an opinion as to the relationship between the applicant's
medical condition and exposure to a toxic substance while employed at a
DOE facility;
(c) A signed release permitting the Program Office to obtain any
records under the control of DOE and relevant to the individual's
eligibility for the review and assistance program, or relevant to the
adjudication of the application by a physicians panel, including
employment, exposure and medical records;
(d) An employment history; and
(e) Any other information or materials deemed by the Program Office
to be relevant to a determination of the individual's eligibility for
the review and assistance program, or relevant to adjudication of the
application by a physicians panel.
Sec. 852.5 What applications are submitted to a physician panel?
(a) The Program Office will submit an application to a physicians
panel if the application contains adequate information to make a
reasonable initial determination that:
(1) The application was filed by or on behalf of a DOE contractor
employee or employee's estate;
(2) The illness or death of the DOE contractor employee may have
been related to employment at a DOE facility; and
(3) The conditions in the relevant State Agreement are or can be
satisfied.
(b) The Program Office shall notify the applicant promptly in
writing of a negative determination under this section.
Sec. 852.6 What conditions will be set forth in State Agreements?
Subject to negotiations between DOE and a State, a State Agreement
must contain provisions that:
(a) A State will identify the applicable criteria used to determine
the validity of a workers' compensation claim under State law and
describe how those criteria are applied in a State workers'
compensation proceeding;
(b) Only those applications that can satisfy the identified
applicable criteria will be submitted to a Physicians Panel; and
(c) The Program Office will provide assistance to only those
applications that satisfy the identified applicable criteria.
Sec. 852.7 How does a physicians panel determine whether an illness
arose out of and in the course of employment by a DOE contractor and
exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility?
A panel shall determine whether the illness or death arose out of
and in the course of employment by a DOE contractor and exposure to a
toxic substance at a DOE facility on the basis of whether there is
sufficient information to support:
(a) A prima facie case that exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE
facility during the course of employment by a DOE contractor caused the
illness or death; and
(b) A reasonable finding that it is more likely than not that
exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility during the course of
employment by a DOE contractor caused the illness or death.
[[Page 46751]]
Sec. 852.8 What materials should a physicians panel review prior to
making a determination?
The physicians panel should review all records relating to the
application that are provided by the Program Office. Such records may
include:
(a) Medical records;
(b) Employment records;
(c) Exposure records;
(d) Job history obtained by interview with the applicant;
(e) Medical Examiner's report or Coroner's report and death
certificate;
(f) Workers' compensation records;
(g) Medical literature or reports;
(h) Information (e.g., dose reconstruction data) included as part
of a claim under the Act filed with the Department of Labor; and
(i) Any other records or evidence pertaining to the applicant's
request for assistance.
Sec. 852.9 How may a physicians panel obtain additional information or
a consultation that it needs to make a determination?
If, after reviewing all materials provided by the Program Office, a
physicians panel finds that it needs additional information or
consultation with a specialist in order to make a determination, it
must request this information or consultation through the Program
Office. A physicians panel may request:
(a) A recorded interview under oath with the applicant by an
individual designated by the Program Office if the physicians panel
believes only the applicant can provide the necessary information.
(b) That the applicant provide additional medical information.
(c) Consultation with designated specialists in fields relevant to
its deliberations.
(d)Specific articles or reports, or assistance searching the
medical or scientific literature.
(e) Other needed information or materials.
Sec. 852.10 How is a physicians panel to carry out its deliberations
and arrive at a determination?
(a) Each panel member reviews all materials relating to the
application.
(b) All panel members meet in conference, in person, or by
teleconference in order to discuss the application and arrive at a
common determination.
Sec. 852.11 How must a physicians panel issue its determination?
A physicians panel must submit its determination and the findings
that provide the basis for its determination to the Program Office. The
determination of whether the illness or death that is the subject of
the application arose out of and in the course of employment by DOE and
exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility, and the findings must
be in writing and signed by all panel members. These findings must
include:
(a) Each illness or cause of death that is the subject of the
application.
(b) For each illness or cause of death listed under paragraph (a)
of this section:
(1) Diagnosis.
(2) Approximate date of onset.
(3) Date of death, where applicable.
(4) Whether the illness or death arose out of and in the course of
employment by a DOE contractor and exposure to a toxic substance at a
DOE facility.
(5) The basis for the determination under paragraph (a)(4) of this
section.
(c) The physicians panel must provide the program office with:
(1) Any evidence to the contrary of the panel's determination, and
why the panel finds that this evidence is not persuasive.
(2) A listing of information and materials reviewed by the panel in
making its determination, including:
(i) Information and materials provided by the Program Office.
(ii) Information and materials obtained by the panel, including
consultations with specialists, scientific articles, and the record of
an interview with an applicant.
(3) Any other information the panel concludes that the Program
Office should have in order to understand the panel's deliberations and
determination.
(4) If explicitly requested by DOE with respect to a specific
criteria identified in the relevant State Agreement, a finding as to
whether the specified criteria is satisfied, to the extent such a
finding is within the expertise of the physicians panel.
Sec. 852.12 When must a physicians panel issue its determination?
A physicians panel must submit its determination and findings to
the Program Office within 30 working days of the time that panel
members have received the application for review from the Program
Office; provided that, the Office may grant an extension of the time
period if requested by the physicians panel.
Sec. 852.13 What precautions must each physicians panel member and
each specialist take in order to keep an applicant's personal and
medical information confidential?
In order to maintain the confidentiality of an applicant's personal
and medical information, each physicians panel member and each
specialist consulted at the request of a physicians panel must take the
following precautions:
(a) After receiving applicant records from the Program Office,
maintain the confidentiality of these records, keep them in a secure,
locked location, and, upon completion of panel deliberations, follow
the instructions of the Program Office with regard to the disposal or
temporary retention of these records;
(b) Conduct all case reviews and conferences in private, in such a
fashion as to prevent the disclosure of personal applicant information
to any individual who has not been authorized to access this
information;
(c) Release no information to a third party, unless authorized to
do so in writing by the applicant; and
(d) Adhere to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 regarding
Worker Advocacy Records.
Sec. 852.14 What actions must a physicians panel member take if that
member has a potential conflict of interest in relation to a specific
application?
(a) If a panel member has a past or present relationship with an
applicant, an applicant's employer, or an interested third party that
may affect the panel member's ability to objectively review the
application, or that may create the appearance of a conflict of
interest, then that panel member must immediately:
(1) Cease review of the application; and
(2) Notify the Program Office and await further instruction from
the Office.
(b) The Program Office must then take such action as is necessary
to assure an objective review of the application.
Sec. 852.15 When may the Program Office ask a physicians panel to re-
examine an application that has undergone prior physicians panel
review?
(a) Under the following circumstances, the Program Office may
direct the original physicians panel or a different physicians panel to
re-examine an application that has undergone prior physicians panel
review:
(1) If the Program Office obtains new information whose
consideration could result in a different determination.
(2) For quality assurance purposes.
(3) In any other situation in which the Program Office concludes
that there is good cause for re-examination of an application, except
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Under the following circumstances, the Program Office may
direct a different physicians panel, but
[[Page 46752]]
not the original physicians panel, to re-examine an application that
has undergone prior physicians panel review:
(1) The Program Office concludes that there is doubt whether the
available evidence supports the original panel's determination;
(2) The Program Office becomes aware of a real or potential
conflict of interest of a member of the original panel in relation to
the application under review; or
(3) In order to ensure consistency among panels.
Sec. 852.16 Must the Program Office accept the determination of a
physicians panel?
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 852.15 of this part, the Program
Office must accept the determination by a physicians panel unless there
is significant evidence to the contrary.
(b) The Program Office must promptly notify an applicant of its
acceptance or rejection of a determination by a physicians panel.
Sec. 852.17 Is there an appeals process?
(a) In order to exhaust administrative remedies, an applicant must
request the Office of Hearings and Appeals to review:
(1) A decision by the Program Office not to submit an application
to a physicians panel;
(2) A negative determination by a physicians panel that is accepted
by the Program Office; or
(3) A decision by the Program Office not to accept a positive
determination by a physicians panel and not to return the application
to a physicians panel for further consideration.
(b) An applicant must file a notice of appeal with the Office of
Hearings and Appeals on or before 60 days from the date of a letter
from the Program Office notifying the applicant of a determination
appealable under this section.
(c) An appeal under this section is subject to the procedures of
the Office of Hearings and Appeals in 10 CFR part 1003.
(d) A decision by the Office of Hearings and Appeals shall
constitute final agency action.
Sec. 852.18 What is the effect of the acceptance by the Program Office
of a positive determination by a physicians panel?
In the event the Program Office accepts a positive determination by
a physicians panel:
(a) The Program Office must:
(1) Assist the applicant in filing a claim with the relevant
State's workers' compensation system; and
(2) Not contest the claim or any award made regarding the claim;
(b) The Program Office may, to the extent permitted by law, direct
a DOE contractor not to contest the claim or award; and
(c) Any costs of contesting the claim or award shall not be an
allowable cost under a DOE contract.
[FR Doc. 01-22472 Filed 9-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P