DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

 

20 CFR Parts 1 and 30

 

RIN 1215-AB51

 

Performance of Functions; Claims for Compensation Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

 

AGENCY:  Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Employment Standards Administration, Labor.

 

ACTION:  Interim final rule; request for comments.

 

SUMMARY:  This document contains the interim final regulations governing the administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA or Act) by the Department of Labor (Department or DOL).  Part B of the Act provides uniform lump-sum payments and medical benefits to covered employees and, where applicable, to survivors of such employees, of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies and certain of its vendors, contractors and subcontractors.  Part B of the Act also provides smaller uniform lump-sum payments and medical benefits to individuals found eligible by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for benefits under section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) and, where applicable, to their survivors.  Part E of the Act provides variable lump-sum payments (based on a worker’s permanent impairment and/or years of established wage-loss) and medical benefits for covered DOE contractor employees and, where applicable, provides variable lump-sum payments to survivors of such employees (based on a worker’s death due to a covered illness and any years of established wage-loss).  Part E of the Act also provides these same payments and benefits to uranium miners, millers and ore transporters covered by section 5 of the RECA and, where applicable, to survivors of such employees.  The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the adjudication of claims and the payment of benefits under EEOICPA, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimating the amounts of radiation received by employees alleged to have sustained cancer as a result of such exposure and establishing guidelines to be followed by OWCP in determining whether such cancers are at least as likely as not related to employment.  Both DOE and DOJ are responsible for notifying potential claimants and for submitting evidence necessary for OWCP’s adjudication of claims under EEOICPA.

 

DATES:  Effective Date:  This interim final rule is effective on June 8, 2005.

     Applicability date: This interim final rule applies to all claims filed on or after June 8, 2005.  This rule also applies to any claims that are pending before OWCP on June 8, 2005.

    Compliance Date:  Affected parties do not have to comply with the new information collection requirements in §§ 30.102, 30.231, 30.232, 30.806, 30.905 and 30.907 until DOL publishes in the Federal Register the control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to these information collection requirements.  Publication of the control number will notify the public that OMB has approved the new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).  It should be noted that OMB approval of the new information collection requirements will be a revision to the currently approved collection in OMB Control No. 1215-0197.

    Comments:  The Department invites comments on the interim final rule from interested parties.  Comments on the interim final rule must be received by

August 8, 2005.  Written comments on the new information collection requirements in this rule must be received by July 8, 2005.

 

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments on the interim final rule, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1215-AB51, by any ONE of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:  The Internet address to submit comments on the rule is www.regulations.gov.  Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.

    E-mail:  Comments on the rule may be submitted by e-mail to OWCP-DEEOIC-REG-1215-AB51@dol.gov.  You must include “RIN 1215-AB51” in the subject line of the e-mail containing your comments.

    Mail:  Submit written comments to Shelby Hallmark, Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3524, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC  20210.  Because of security measures, mail directed to Washington, DC is sometimes delayed.  We will only consider comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or other delivery service on or before the deadline for comments.

    Instructions:  All comments must include the RIN 1215-AB51 for this rulemaking.  Receipt of any comments, whether by mail, Internet, or e-mail, will not be acknowledged.   Because DOL continues to experience delays in receiving postal mail in the Washington, DC area, commenters are encouraged to submit any comments by mail early.

    Comments on the interim final rule will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the address listed above for mailed comments.  Persons who need assistance to review the comments will be provided with appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers.  Copies of this interim final rule may be obtained in alternative formats (e.g., large print, audiotape or disk) upon request.  To schedule an appointment to review the comments and/or to obtain the interim final rule in an alternative format, contact OWCP at 202-693-0031 (this is not a toll-free number).

    Written comments on the new information collection requirements described in this interim final rule should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention:  Desk Officer for Employment Standards Administration, Washington, DC  20503.

 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Shelby Hallmark, Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3524, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone:  202-693-0031 (this is not a toll-free number).

    Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 

I.  Background

 

    The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA or Act), 42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq., was originally enacted on October 30, 2000.  The initial version of EEOICPA established a compensation program (known as Part B of the Act) to provide a uniform lump-sum payment of $150,000 and medical benefits as compensation to covered employees who had sustained designated illnesses due to their exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica while in the performance of duty for DOE and certain of its vendors, contractors and subcontractors.  Part B of the Act also provided for payment of compensation to certain survivors of these covered employees, and for payment of a smaller uniform lump-sum ($50,000) to individuals (who would also receive medical benefits), or their survivors, who were determined to be eligible for compensation under section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), 42 U.S.C. 2210 note, by DOJ.  Primary responsibility for the administration of  Part B of the Act was assigned to DOL by Executive Order 13179 (“Providing Compensation to America’s Nuclear Weapons Workers”) of December 7, 2000 (65 FR 77487).  On May 25, 2001, the Department issued interim final regulations (66 FR 28948) governing its administration of Part B of the Act, commenced administration of Part B of the Act on July 31, 2001, and issued final regulations on December 26, 2002 (67 FR 78874) that went into effect on February 24, 2003.

    The initial version of EEOICPA also created a second program (known as Part D of the Act) that required DOE to establish a system by which DOE contractor employees (and their eligible survivors) could seek assistance from DOE in obtaining state workers’ compensation benefits if a Physicians Panel determined that the employee in question had sustained a covered illness as a result of work-related exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility.  A positive panel finding that was accepted by DOE required DOE, to the extent permitted by law, to order its contractor not to contest the claim for state workers’ compensation benefits.  However, Congress amended EEOICPA in Subtitle E of Title XXXI of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375, 118 Stat. 1811, 2178 (October 28, 2004), by abolishing Part D of the Act and creating a new Part E (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7385s through 7385s-15) that it assigned to DOL for administration.  Part E establishes a new system of variable federal payments for DOE contractor employees, uranium workers covered by section 5 of RECA, and eligible survivors of such employees.  Congress also amended several of the other provisions contained in EEOICPA that applied to Part B and specified that DOL was to prescribe regulations implementing the amendments to EEOICPA and commence administration of Part E within 210 days of its enactment.

 

II.  Administrative Procedure Act Issues

 

    Section 7385s-10(e) of EEOICPA clearly directs the Secretary of Labor to “prescribe regulations necessary for the administration of [Part E]. . .not later than 210 days after the date” the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 was enacted, and further authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe interim final regulations necessary to meet” this 210-day deadline.  The Department believes that this grant of authority to the Secretary to prescribe interim final regulations by May 26, 2005 contemplates displacement of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice and comment procedures and allows the publication of interim final regulations as an initial matter.

    Therefore, the Department believes that the “good cause” exception to APA notice and comment rulemaking applies to this rule.  Under that exception, pre-adoption procedures are not required “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).  DOL cannot fully adjudicate claims under Part E of EEOICPA until these regulations are promulgated.  The steps necessary for the usual notice and comment under the APA could not be completed in time for the Department of Labor to commence administration of Part E by the deadline of May 26, 2005:  approval of the notice of proposed rulemaking by the Secretary and OMB; publication in the Federal Register; receipt of, consideration of, and response to comments submitted by interested parties; modification of the proposed rules, if appropriate; final approval by the Secretary; clearance by OMB; and publication in the Federal Register.  Accordingly, the Department believes that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), good cause exists for waiver of notice and comment rulemaking procedures because issuance of proposed rules would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

    While notice and comment rulemaking is being waived, the Department is interested in comments and advice regarding changes that should be made to these interim regulations.  The Department will carefully consider all comments on the regulations contained in this interim final rule received on or before August 8, 2005, and will publish the final regulations with any necessary changes.

    Under the APA, substantive rules generally cannot take effect until 30 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register.  However, section 553(d)(3) of the APA states that agencies may waive this 30-day requirement for “good cause” and establish an earlier effective date.  As explained above, the Department believes that there is “good cause” for waiver of the APA requirement for notice and comment rulemaking because it would be both impractical and contrary to the public interest for the Department to fulfill that requirement.  Similarly, the Department believes that the “good cause” exception to the 30-day effective date requirement for substantive rules in the APA applies to this rule, because observing this requirement would be both impractical and contrary to the public interest.  As noted above, DOL will not be able to fully adjudicate claims under Part E of  EEOICPA until the regulations in this rule are in effect.   Since Congress has directed DOL to commence administration of Part E no later than May 26, 2005 in section 7385s-10(f)(1) of EEOICPA, the Department believes that “good cause” exists for waiver of the usual 30-day effective date requirement for substantive rules and for this rule to become effective immediately upon the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

 

III.  Overview of Regulatory Changes

 

    Congress, in enacting Part B of EEOICPA, created a program to ensure an efficient, uniform, and adequate compensation system for certain employees of DOE, its vendors, contractors, and subcontractors, who contracted beryllium-, silica-, and radiation-related health conditions as a result of their employment in the development of nuclear weapons.  When it amended EEOICPA to create Part E, Congress established a second program in an effort to also ensure an equally efficient, uniform, and adequate compensation system for DOE contractor employees and RECA section 5 workers who contracted illnesses due to their exposures to toxic substances as a result of employment at a DOE facility or a RECA section 5 facility, as appropriate.  These regulations describe the processes that  OWCP will use so that employees, and, when applicable, their survivors, will receive the benefits provided by Part B and Part E of EEOICPA in the efficient and uniform manner intended by Congress.  The following discussion describes the many significant changes to the regulations that currently appear as 20 CFR parts 1 and 30, but does not include any discussion of corrections of typographical errors, or minor wording changes and clarifications that do not affect the substance of the existing regulations.

 

20 CFR Part 1

 

    This part is the same as current part 1 (§§ 1.1 through 1.6), with the exception of the authority citation, and is reprinted in full for the ease of the reader.  The authority citation has been updated to reflect that Congress assigned responsibility for administration of the new Part E of EEOICPA established by Public Law 108-375 to DOL.

 

20 CFR Part 30

 

Subpart A—General Provisions

 

    This subpart is substantially the same as the current subpart A (§§ 30.0 through 30.17).  The amended subpart adds material describing the expanded responsibilities of DOL under EEOICPA, as well as definitions necessary for administration of Part E of the Act.

 

Introduction

 

    Section 30.0 now describes, in general terms, the types of compensation available under both Parts B and E of EEOICPA, the persons to whom this compensation may be paid, and the differing eligibility requirements that apply to claimants under Part B and Part E.  Section 30.2 has been updated to briefly describe how the tasks involved in administering Part B and Part E of EEOICPA have been assigned, both within DOL and among the Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Energy, and the Attorney General, following the amendments enacted on October 28, 2004, while § 30.3 summarizes how the existing and new regulations in this part are organized by subject area.

 

Definitions

 

    Amended § 30.5 compiles the definitions for the principal terms used in this part and is substantially unchanged from the existing section.  It includes terms specifically defined in EEOICPA that, for the convenience of the user of this part, are repeated in this section.  The Department seeks comments on all of the definitions provided in § 30.5, including, in particular, those addressed in the following paragraphs.

    Section 3168 of Public Law 108-375 amended the prior statutory definition of atomic weapons employee at 42 U.S.C. 7384l(3) to add employees who did not work during the period their employer had a contract with DOE and were instead only employed during a period of residual radioactive contamination as determined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  Thus, the regulatory definition of this term in § 30.5(c) has been modified to reflect this amendment.

    The § 30.5(p) definition of covered Part E employee is intended to serve as a shorthand term and refers to both DOE contractor employees (defined in section 7385s(1) of the Act) and RECA section 5 uranium workers (defined in section 7385s-5(b)(3) of the Act) who have been determined by OWCP to have contracted covered illnesses through an exposure to toxic substances at a DOE facility or a RECA section 5 facility, as appropriate.  In order to make it consistent with (and also distinguish it from) § 30.5(p), the definition of covered employee in existing § 30.5(p) has been amended to read as covered Part B employee and has been moved to amended § 30.5(q).

    In order to allow readers of this rule to readily distinguish between the illnesses that are compensable under Parts B and E, this section also includes regulatory definitions of covered illness in amended § 30.5(r) and occupational illness in amended § 30.5(bb).  While neither of these terms are altered in any fashion in this rule, they are both defined in this section to highlight the need to differentiate between an occupational illness that is compensable under Part B of the Act, and a covered illness that is compensable under Part E.

    The Department defines Department of Energy facility in § 30.5(v) by repeating the definition found in section 7384l(12) of the Act.  As noted in amended § 30.5(x)(2), DOL adopts the list of facilities established by the Department of Energy that is in effect on the date of publication of this Interim Final Rule (69 FR 51825).  DOL will periodically update this list as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion by publishing a revised list of covered facilities in the Federal Register.  Determinations of the Director that a facility is a Department of Energy facility is solely for the purpose of administering the EEOICPA.

    As noted above, Public Law 108-375 abolished Part D of the Act and, at the same time, established a new Part E that maintained the former Part D’s focus on covered illnesses of employees who were exposed to a “toxic substance” at a DOE facility.  Because section 7385s-4(c) of EEOICPA requires DOL to use the causation standard from DOE’s former Part D regulations when it determines if an employee has sustained a covered illness due to exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility, § 30.5(ii) sets out the same definition for toxic substance that originally appeared in DOE’s regulations for former Part D at 10 CFR 852.2 for use under Part E.  As DOE explicitly indicated when it published its final regulations on August 14, 2002 (67 FR 52843), noise is not considered to be a “toxic substance” for purposes of the compensation program.

 

Information in Program Records

 

    Existing § 30.11 describes how all records relating to claims for benefits filed under the Act are covered by the Privacy Act and are described in a system of records entitled DOL/ESA-49.  This system of records is maintained by and under the control of OWCP.  All records relating to a claim obtained by OWCP from the claimant or any other source are maintained by OWCP in a case record.  A claimant may obtain, without charge, one complete copy of the records in the case record.  This will allow a claimant to obtain a copy of any medical, employment, exposure or other evidence that might be of use to a physician of the claimant’s choosing in providing medical evidence to OWCP necessary to establish a claimant’s entitlement to benefits available under the Act.  Should OWCP obtain further records after furnishing a free copy of a case record to a claimant, the claimant can obtain one copy of those further records, without charge, by requesting them from OWCP.

 

Subpart B—Filing Claims; Evidence and Burden of Proof; Special Procedures for Certain Cancer Claims

 

    This subpart is substantially similar to the current subpart B, which describes the early steps in OWCP’s claims adjudication process and includes a general description of the evidence an employee or survivor must submit to meet his or her burden of proof under Parts B and E of the Act.  As explained in § 30.111, the claimant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of each and every criterion necessary to establish eligibility under any claim category in Part B or Part E.  It also explains the special procedures used in the adjudication of claims for radiogenic cancer under Parts B and E that do not involve members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

 

Filing Claims for Benefits Under Part B and Part E of EEOICPA

 

    Current §§ 30.100, 30.101 and 30.102 (renumbered as § 30.103 in this rule) have been revised to accommodate the addition of Part E claims to the existing claims adjudication process.  Sections 30.100 and 30.101 now include new language that a claim for benefits under Part E, including a claim originally filed with DOE as a claim for assistance under former Part D (which was repealed on October 28, 2004), will not be considered to be “filed” earlier than October 30, 2000.  Also, the language in these same two sections that employees or survivors can choose to file a claim for benefits for only certain potentially compensable conditions and forgo filing for a condition for which a payment has been received that would necessitate an offset of EEOICPA benefits is new, although it describes the current policy of OWCP.  New § 30.102 describes how covered Part E employees who have previously been awarded impairment or wage-loss benefits under Part E of the Act can file claims for additional periods of wage-loss and/or an increased percentage of permanent impairment.

 

Verification of Alleged Employment

 

    Current § 30.106, which describes DOE’s employment verification responsibilities in the context of claims of survivors, is consolidated into § 30.105 in this rule, which now describes these responsibilities in the context of both survivors’ and employees’ claims.  New § 30.106 sets out the current practice of OWCP and DOE of arranging for other entities to provide OWCP with information needed to verify alleged employment, when necessary.

 

Evidence and Burden of Proof

 

    Existing § 30.111 describes how a claimant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of each and every criterion necessary to establish eligibility under any compensable claim category.  OWCP collects a variety of evidence that will assist a claimant in meeting his or her burden of proof.  In addition to employment verification information obtained by OWCP, discussed above, in the course of developing a case OWCP obtains from DOE and its contractors and subcontractors and other sources a variety of medical, environmental, exposure and other information relevant to individual employees or the facilities in general. 

    When a claims examiner reviews a submission by a claimant and determines that the medical evidence is insufficient to meet the claimant’s burden of proof, the claimant can be referred to one or more physicians with appropriate expertise for an opinion on any issue or issues relevant to adjudication of the claim.  When OWCP makes these referrals, the physician will be asked relevant questions and provided with a Statement of Accepted Facts prepared by OWCP and all relevant records from the case file.  Alternatively, and in the case of a claim by a survivor, a Statement of Accepted Facts prepared by OWCP and all relevant records can be forwarded to one or more physicians for their review without the necessity of an examination.  Thus, in a case where the claimant is unable to provide sufficient medical evidence from a physician with the necessary expertise, OWCP can, at its expense, obtain the opinion of a physician with the appropriate expertise.

 

Special Procedures for Certain Radiogenic Cancer Claims

 

    Section 30.115, which explains the special procedures used in the early adjudication of claims for radiogenic cancers that do not seek Part B benefits under the Special Exposure Cohort provisions, has been modified slightly to include new language stating that except for Part B claims previously accepted under section 7384u of the Act, all claims seeking benefits under Part E for radiogenic cancers will be forwarded to HHS for dose reconstruction.

 

Subpart C—Eligibility Criteria

 

    This subpart is substantially the same as current subpart C (§§ 30.200 through 30.226), with a number of small changes in language to reflect the new responsibilities of DOL under EEOICPA that have resulted from the enactment of Part E.  In addition to these small changes (and other changes to reflect existing administrative practices), subpart C has been amended to include the substantive changes discussed below.

 

Eligibility Criteria for Claims Relating to Radiogenic Cancer Under Parts B and E

 

    Current § 30.210 sets forth the criteria for eligibility for claims relating to radiogenic cancer under Part B of EEOICPA; these criteria are quite specific and reflect Part B’s focus on a narrowly defined list of occupational illnesses.  The criteria for claims relating to radiogenic cancer under Part E of EEOICPA differ (due to differences between Parts B and E) from the more specific eligibility criteria for radiogenic cancer claims under Part B and describe a particular subset of the broad range of covered illnesses that may be compensated under Part E.  However, both Part B and Part E provide coverage for radiogenic cancer.  Therefore, current § 30.210 has been designated as subsection (a) of amended § 30.210, and new subsection (b) sets forth the statutory eligibility criteria for claims relating to radiogenic cancer under new Part E.  Under Part E, a claim for radiogenic cancer will be compensable if it is “at least as likely as not” that the cancer is due to an employee’s work-related exposure to radiation; thus, using the “probability of causation” (PoC) guidelines established by HHS, this type of claim will be compensable if the probability of causation is 50% or higher.

    Current § 30.213, which describes how OWCP makes a finding whether a radiogenic cancer claimed under Part B was sustained in the performance of duty under section 7384n of the Act, has been modified slightly to more fully describe OWCP’s required use of HHS’s regulatory PoC guidelines in its adjudication of those questions.  OWCP has also decided to utilize the same HHS PoC guidelines to determine whether exposure to radiation at a DOE facility or a RECA section 5 facility was at least as likely as not a significant factor in causing or contributing to a cancer for the purposes of Part E.

    The radioepidemiological tables upon which the PoC guidelines are based were originally developed in response to a 1983 congressional directive in the Orphan Drug Act (Pub. L. 97-414, 42 U.S.C. 241 note), which required HHS to “devise and publish radioepidemiological tables that estimate the likelihood that persons who have or have had any of the radiation-developed cancers and who have received specific doses prior to the onset of such disease developed cancer as a result of such doses.”  Congress required determinations whether radiogenic cancers were to be considered sustained in the performance of duty for the purposes of Part B to be based upon those tables in section 7384n(c) of EEOICPA.

    OWCP has decided to use those same HHS regulatory PoC guidelines in its adjudication of claims for radiogenic cancer under Part E for several reasons.  First, it recognizes that while it is not practical to legislate specific mechanisms to determine causation for the numerous medical conditions that exposure to tens of thousands of toxic substances at covered facilities could potentially cause, Congress has acknowledged that use of HHS’s PoC guidelines is an appropriate mechanism to determine whether a cancer was at least as likely as not caused by work-related radiation exposure.  In view of the lack of a scientific basis for attributing any particular case of cancer to any cause, the epidemiological approach taken by Congress in Part B, and now to be utilized by OWCP for Part E, is more likely to result in a scientifically valid and consistent determination process than merely attempting to reach a determination based on opinions likely to contain a substantial speculative component.  Thus, the requirement in amended § 30.213 that OWCP use HHS’s PoC guidelines to adjudicate claims for radiogenic cancer under Part E is both appropriate and rational.

    This conclusion finds further support in the Report of the NCI-CDC Working Group to Revise the 1985 NIH Radioepidemiological Tables (September 2003), which found that the PoC model was a viable method to adjudicate claims for radiation-related instances of cancer that appropriately summarized “the likelihood that prior radiation exposure might be causally related to cancer occurrence.”  Use of the PoC guidelines for claims under  both Part B and Part E will allow OWCP to adjudicate the entitlement of radiogenic cancers that are potentially compensable under Part B and Part E in a uniform manner.  Any process for determining coverage of claims for radiogenic cancers that would yield inconsistent results as to whether that cancer is covered under Parts B and E is unlikely to be understood or accepted by claimants and other stakeholders.

    The determination by OWCP to utilize the HHS PoC guidelines will only apply to a determination whether a cancer was contracted solely through exposure to radiation at a DOE facility or a RECA section 5 facility, as appropriate.  The HHS PoC guidelines will not be used to determine if a cancer claimed under Part E was contracted through exposure to radiation combined with exposure to one or more other toxic substances because the risk models that were used by HHS to develop the PoC guidelines for cancer at 42 CFR part 81 only address radiation exposure.  When it issued those regulations on May 2, 2002 (67 FR 22297-22298), HHS expressly noted that “[n]one of the risk models explicitly accounts for exposure to other occupational, environmental, or dietary carcinogens.  Models accounting for these factors have not been developed and may not be possible to develop based on existing research.”

    Thus, when a claim for cancer under Part E cannot be accepted based on exposure to radiation alone, because the PoC was found to be less than 50%, the claimant will be given an opportunity to establish that the cancer was caused by a combination of exposure to radiation and exposure to one or more other toxic substances.  OWCP will adjudicate those claims for cancer allegedly due to exposures to radiation combined with exposure to one or more other toxic substances using the eligibility criteria for other covered illnesses in new §§ 30.230 through 30.232 discussed below.

 

Eligibility Criteria for Other Claims Under Part E

 

    New § 30.230 sets forth the criteria established by section 7385s-4 of EEOICPA that OWCP uses to determine if an employee contracted a covered illness.  In addition, this new section also states that these criteria are satisfied by showing that the covered illness at issue was accepted in a prior claim under Part B of EEOICPA or section 5 of RECA, or that the Secretary of Energy under the former Part D accepted a Physicians Panel positive determination regarding the existence of the covered illness prior to the effective date of this rule.  Section 30.230(d)(2) is included for the purpose of informing claimants of the kinds of information that OWCP will consider in determining whether it is “at least as likely as not” that exposure to a toxic substance at a Department of Energy facility or at a RECA section 5 facility, as appropriate, was a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the illness.  OWCP will make that determination after carefully weighing all of the evidence supplied by the claimant or obtained by OWCP from other sources.

    Two of the elements that a claimant must establish before OWCP can determine that an employee contracted a covered illness are that the employee was employed at either a DOE facility or a RECA section 5 facility, and that he or she was exposed to a toxic substance at work.  New § 30.231 describes how to prove employment at either a DOE facility or a RECA section 5 facility, as well as how to prove that the employee was exposed to a toxic substance while so employed.

    New § 30.232 sets forth how a claimant can prove that the employee was diagnosed with a covered illness, or has sustained an injury, illness, impairment or disease as a consequence of a covered illness.  This section describes the type of medical information, releases, and work histories that must be submitted to enable OWCP to make this finding.  The section also makes it clear that the claimant may present other evidence deemed necessary by OWCP to establish the diagnosis or prove the existence of an injury, illness, impairment or disease.

 

Subpart D—Adjudicatory Process

 

    This subpart is substantially the same as current subpart D (§§ 30.300 through 30.320), with a number of small changes in language to emphasize that this subpart only applies when OWCP adjudicates claims for entitlement under the Act; certain other decisions are made using other administrative processes (such as those used to resolve medical billing disputes).  In addition to these small changes, subpart D has been amended to include new § 30.301, which implements new section 7384w in Part B of the Act, providing that an OWCP district office claims examiner and/or a Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) reviewer may, in the exercise of their discretion, issue subpoenas for persons and documents when adjudicating a Part B claim.  A subpoena will be issued at the request of a claimant only by a FAB reviewer in connection with FAB’s adjudication process for Part B claims.  Section 30.301 also sets forth the methods for requesting issuance of the subpoenas. 

    Section 30.302 is also new and contains information about the fees and costs payable to lay and expert witnesses who are subpoenaed by OWCP.  The section explains who is responsible for making the payment to the witness, and the factors that will govern this determination.  New § 30.303 is intended to clarify the duties of both DOE and/or DOE contractors to provide information or documents in response to a request from OWCP under Part E of EEOICPA.

 

Hearings and Final Decisions on Claims

 

    Section 30.317 has been rewritten to better describe the FAB’s discretion to return a claim to the district office for the issuance of a new recommended decision before issuing a final decision.  This new language is being added so the regulations reflect OWCP’s current administrative practice and is not intended to change the substance of the current regulation.  Similar minor edits of a non-substantive nature were made to § 30.318(a) and (b).  Section 30.318(c) is new and is being added to more fully explain OWCP’s existing policy regarding objections to the PoC methodology established by HHS regulations, and to OWCP’s application of that methodology.  Section 30.319(c), regarding requests for reconsideration of FAB decisions, has been revised to describe current procedures for reviewing these requests, granting or denying them, and determining the effective date of a resulting new final decision.  This revision reflects current OWCP practice with no substantive changes intended.

 

Subpart E—Medical and Related Benefits

 

    This subpart is substantially the same as current subpart E (§§ 30.400 through 30.422), since only minor modifications were necessary in order to accommodate the addition of approved claims under Part E of EEOICPA to OWCP’s existing processes for providing authorized medical benefits and treatment.  No changes were made to the sections that describe the processes OWCP uses to refer employees for directed medical examinations, which will also occur in the adjudication of claims under Part E.

 

Subpart F—Survivors; Payments and Offsets; Overpayments

 

    The overall organization of this subpart is substantially the same as the current subpart F (§§ 30.500 through 30.513), other than the slight modifications that were necessary throughout the subpart to accommodate the addition of approved claims under Part E of  EEOICPA to OWCP’s existing claims payment processes.  The amended subpart also contains regulatory language implementing OWCP’s newly granted statutory authority to waive the required recovery of such benefits.

 

Survivors

 

    The amended versions of §§ 30.500 through 30.502 now identify those persons who may be potentially eligible to receive monetary compensation under Part B and/or Part E, based on their relationship to a deceased covered Part B employee or a deceased covered Part E employee.  These sections also highlight the differences in the order of precedence that OWCP must use to determine which eligible surviving beneficiary or beneficiaries to pay under Parts B and E of EEOICPA.

    Section 30.500(a)(2) contains the statutory definition of a “child” and also includes the more restrictive statutory criteria that an individual must satisfy to be a “covered” child under Part E.  These criteria for Part E of the Act include the same statutory definition of a “child” used in Part B of the Act, as well as specific age, educational or self-sufficiency criteria that must be met as of the date of the deceased Part E employee’s death.  As amended by this rule, § 30.501 still describes the order of precedence among survivors under EEOICPA; the order of precedence that OWCP must use under Part B now appears without substantive change as § 30.501(a), while new § 30.501(b) describes the order of precedence for Part E survivor claims.  It should be noted that survivors who are either grandparents, grandchildren or parents of a deceased Part E employee are not considered  eligible surviving beneficiaries of that individual under Part E.  Also, the comparable alternative order of precedence provisions in § 30.501(a)(6) for Part B and § 30.501(b)(3) for Part E, which describe those statutorily mandated instances when a surviving spouse must share a lump-sum payment with minor children of the deceased employee, are not triggered under the exact same circumstances—§ 30.501(a)(6) requires that the child of the deceased Part B employee be a minor at the time benefits are paid by OWCP, while § 30.501(b)(3) only requires that the child of the deceased Part E employee satisfy the additional criteria for a “covered” child (as described above) as of the time of the death of the employee, not also at the time of payment of benefits by OWCP.

 

Payments and Offsets

    Amended §§ 30.505 through 30.507 and newly added § 30.509 set out the rules for the payment of monetary compensation to claimants under EEOICPA for both Part B and Part E.  Although the process for paying claims under both parts of the Act is similar, there are some differences that are reflected in these amended sections.  New § 30.505(d) describes the maximum aggregate compensation that is payable under Part E (exclusive of medical benefits), as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 7385s-12.  The statute limits the aggregate compensation (other than medical benefits) that OWCP may pay under Part E to all claimants for each individual whose illness or death serves as a basis for compensation or benefits under Part E to a total of $250,000.  This is the only reading of the statutory language that is consistent with the statutory requirement that the computation of both impairment benefits and wage-loss benefits under § 7385s-2 be based upon impairment or wage-loss that is “the result of any covered illness.”  This reading is also consistent with congressional intent, as reflected in the Conference Report for Public Law 108-375, which states that the “maximum aggregate benefit available under [Part] E of EEOICPA is $250,000.”  See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-767, at 894 (2004). 

    Newly added § 30.509 describes the option that certain claimants under Part E have to choose between receiving the benefits payable to them as a survivor, and the benefits that would have been payable to the deceased covered Part E employee if he or she were still living at the time of payment.  This option is contained in 42 U.S.C. 7385s-1(2)(B), and new § 30.509 notes that claimants will only have the opportunity to make this choice in certain limited circumstances.  First, a survivor of a covered Part E employee may choose to exercise this option only if the employee died after filing his or her Part E claim (or a claim under former Part D), but prior to receiving any compensation under the Act.  In addition, the covered Part E employee’s death must have been solely caused by a non-covered illness or illnesses for this option to be available to the survivor.  If both of these requirements are met, it is likely that a survivor would choose to receive the benefits that the deceased covered Part E employee would have received since, in that situation, no survivor benefits would be payable for the death.  Section 30.509(c) points out, however,  that since impairment determinations can only be made in conformance with subpart J of these regulations, and therefore can only be made if the case record contains rationalized medical evidence that is sufficiently detailed to meet the pertinent requirements of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA’s Guides), OWCP will not make an impairment determination for a deceased covered Part E employee if the medical evidence in the case record does not satisfy those requirements.

 

Overpayments

    Amended §§ 30.510 through 30.512 are substantially the same as the current versions of these sections and continue to describe how OWCP identifies overpayments, notifies individuals that they were overpaid, and together with new §§ 30.513 through 30.520, considers requests by individuals to waive recovery of such overpayments under the new statutory authority granted DOL by Congress in section 7385j-2 of EEOICPA.

    New § 30.513 sets out the initial requirement in 42 U.S.C. 7385j-2(b) that only those individuals who were “without fault” in the creation of an overpayment of EEOICPA benefits may request waiver of recovery of the overpayment.  If the individual satisfies this threshold requirement, new § 30.514 describes the two statutory criteria, also found in section 7385j-2(b), that OWCP will use to evaluate the individual’s request for waiver.  Waiver of recovery may be granted by OWCP if either:  (1) recovery of the overpayment would defeat the purpose of the EEOICPA; or (2) recovery of the overpayment would be against equity and good conscience.  These two criteria are discussed in greater detail in new §§ 30.516 and 30.517, respectively, which set out the general parameters that OWCP will observe when it decides if a request for waiver satisfies either of the two statutory criteria.  New § 30.515 also notes that OWCP will not automatically find the individual to be “without fault” in the creation of an overpayment simply because OWCP erred in making the payment.  Any such error on OWCP’s part cannot vitiate the statutory criteria for eligibility to any benefits payable out of the fund established by Congress in section 7384e(d) of the Act.

    To enable OWCP to consider requests for waiver of recovery of overpayments, and to set a reasonable schedule for repayment of the overpayment if waiver is denied, new § 30.518 notes that OWCP may require the recipient of an overpayment of compensation to submit pertinent information relating to his or her income, expenses and assets.  This same section also notes that a failure to submit this requested information within 30 days of the request from OWCP will result in the denial of any request for waiver of recovery, and that no further requests for waiver will be considered until the requested information is provided to OWCP.  New § 30.519 notes that after considering any such evidence or argument submitted in support of a waiver request, OWCP will issue a final decision on the matter of the overpayment, and that the adjudicatory processes described in subpart D will not be used to issue these particular decisions.  Since a decision whether to waive recovery of  an overpayment is not a decision on an individual’s underlying entitlement under the Act and is similar to certain other decisions that OWCP issues (like decisions on medical billing disputes) without using the adjudicatory processes described in subpart D, any such decision will be issued by the OWCP district office with jurisdiction over the claim.

    Existing § 30.513 has been modified and now appears as new § 30.520 in this rule.  As the former § 30.513 did, this new section notes the statutory authority, independent from  EEOICPA, that OWCP has to recover overpayments of EEOICPA benefits.  It also notes OWCP’s new authority, derived from 42 U.S.C. 7385j-2(a), to recover an overpayment of EEOICPA benefits by decreasing any later benefit payments to which the overpaid individual is entitled.

 

Subpart G—Special Provisions

 

    This subpart is substantially the same as current subpart G (§§ 30.600 through 30.620), other than the slight modifications that were necessary in order to accommodate the addition of claims under Part E of the Act to the existing regulations governing third party liability, and some minor clarifications of the regulations describing the effect of tort suits against beryllium vendors and atomic weapons employers on claims under Part B of the Act.  This subpart also contains a fuller regulatory description of the restrictions on representative fees in sections 7385g and 7385s-9 of EEOICPA, as well as several new sections that describe how OWCP will “coordinate” its payment of Part E benefits with benefits received under a state workers’ compensation system for the same covered illness or illnesses.

 

Representation

 

    While §§ 30.600, 30.601 and 30.602 remain substantially the same as in the current rule, § 30.603 has been amended to better describe the fees that may be collected by a representative who assists with an EEOICPA claim.  This section also identifies DOJ as the executive branch department with the authority for prosecuting violations of the fee-for-service limitations in the Act.  Lastly, amended § 30.603 clarifies the statement in existing § 30.603 that the fee limitations do not apply to representative services rendered in connection with a petition filed with a U.S. District Court or any subsequent appeal.

 

Coordination of Part E Benefits with State Workers’ Compensation Benefits

 

    Section 7385s-11 of EEOICPA requires that Part E benefits be coordinated with state workers’ compensation benefits.  This reduces the possibility of claimants receiving duplicate payments for the same covered illness.  While this provision appears to create tension between it and section 7385 of EEOICPA (now applicable to both Parts B and E), which excludes workers’ compensation benefits from the general offset required by that section, OWCP is implementing the provisions of section 7385s-11 in order to effectuate all of the provisions of the recent amendments.  Section 7385s-11 provides specific authority to coordinate Part E benefits and amounts received under state workers’ compensation laws.  OWCP views the more specific authority in that section as taking precedence over the general exclusion in section 7385, because failing to do so would, in effect, negate the enactment of section 7385s-11.  New §§ 30.625, 30.626 and 30.627 thus briefly describe how OWCP may coordinate benefits payable under Part E with certain payments the claimant receives under a state workers’ compensation program for the same covered illness.  Section 30.625 generally discusses what “coordination of benefits” means for purposes of administering Part E.  Section 30.626 discusses how OWCP will perform this required coordination of benefits, including how it will calculate the amount of any coordination.  Section 30.627 indicates that OWCP has sole authority to waive the coordination of benefits, in accordance with the explicit terms of section 7385s-11(b) of the Act, and discusses circumstances that might warrant such a waiver.

 

Subpart H—Information for Medical Providers

 

    This subpart is substantially the same as current subpart H (§§ 30.700 through 30.726), modified slightly throughout to reflect current forms and billing terminology, and also to accommodate minor changes to OWCP’s medical bill processing system.  It also contains one change of a substantive nature in § 30.722, which is one of the sections that describes the process OWCP uses to exclude medical providers from participation in the EEOICPA program.  The substance of current § 30.722 now appears as subsection (b) of amended § 30.722, and a new subsection (a) has been added to permit medical providers to request subpoenas upon a showing of good cause in exclusion proceedings that involve medical services provided under Part B of EEOICPA.  Subpoenas are now available under those particular circumstances, pursuant to the authority granted by new section 7384w in Part B of EEOICPA.

 

Subpart I—Wage-Loss Determinations Under Part E of EEOICPA

 

    Subpart I is new and sets forth the procedures that OWCP uses to determine whether a covered Part E employee sustained wage-loss as a result of contracting a covered illness, and the amount of any such wage-loss that is compensable under Part E of EEOICPA to covered Part E employees, and survivors of deceased covered Part E employees.

 

General Provisions

 

    Section 30.800 indicates that pursuant to section 7385s-2(a)(2) of EEOICPA, years of wage-loss occurring up to and including the calendar year that a covered Part E employee reaches “normal retirement age” may be compensable under Part E.  This section further notes that in making these determinations, OWCP is required to make findings regarding the “average annual wage” of the covered Part E employee prior to contracting a covered illness, the percentage of such average annual wage the covered Part E employee earned  during the alleged subsequent calendar years of wage-loss, and whether the wage-loss during the years in question was due to the covered illness.

    Certain terms used in determining compensation based on wage-loss are defined in the statute or these regulations, and are compiled in § 30.801.  Average annual wage refers to the baseline wage against which OWCP will measure a subsequent calendar-year wage earned by a covered Part E employee, and is defined in § 30.801(a) the same way that the term is defined in section 7385s-2(a)(2)(A)(ii) of EEOICPA.  Given the specific language  used in that section of the Act, OWCP will determine that the average annual wage of a covered Part E employee is $0 if he or she was retired during the 12 quarters immediately preceding the quarter during which he or she first experienced wage-loss due to exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility or RECA section 5 facility, as appropriate.  Section  30.801(b) defines normal retirement age as the age at which an employee may receive an unreduced Social Security retirement benefit, which is the same way this statutory term is described in section 7385s-2(a)(2)(A)(iii).  That age varies (by date of birth) and is set by section 216(l) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(l).  Because OWCP will make its determinations under this subpart using quarterly periods, many of the regulatory terms used in subpart I refer to quarters of years rather than months.  Section  30.801(c) thus defines quarter as the three-month period January through March, April through June, July through September, or October through December.  Section 30.801(d) indicates that a quarter during which the employee was unemployed means any quarter during which the covered Part E employee had $700 (in constant 2005 dollars) or less in wages, unless the quarter is one during which the employee was retired.  However, claimants have the opportunity to submit probative factual evidence that the employee was actually unemployed during a time period other than a quarter as defined in § 30.801(c).  If probative evidence of unemployment using a time period other than a quarter is submitted, OWCP will decide if, in the sole exercise of its discretion, it should modify its finding regarding the average annual wage of the covered Part E employee.

    Finally, § 30.801(e) defines a year of wage-loss as a calendar year in which the employee’s earnings were less than what OWCP fo