1997 FECA Circulars which have previously been issued by the DFEC but have since been superseded by another Circular or inclusion in the FECA Procedure Manual.
|
Circular |
Subject |
|---|---|
|
ADP--Access to OWCP Material on the World Wide Web |
|
|
Cost of Living Increase to SSA Benefits in FERS Cases |
|
|
Selected ECAB Decisions for July - September, 1996 |
|
|
Current Interest Rates for Prompt Payment Bills and Debt Collection |
|
|
Code Changes (0297A) |
|
|
Current Interest Rates for Prompt Payment Bills and Debt Collection-(0797B) |
|
|
Comp Pay--ACPS Reports (07/97A) |
|
|
Revised Forms OWCP-5a, OWCP-5b, OWCP-5c(August 25, 1997) |
Attention: This circular has been superseded and is inactive.
|
FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-01 |
November 11, 1996 |
SUBJECT: ADP--Access to OWCP Material on the World Wide Web
FECA Circular No. 95-10, "Making Folioviews Available Outside OWCP", was published in April 1995. This issuance described how employing agencies and other interested parties could obtain a variety of information about the Federal employees' compensation program through Folio VIEWS software and infobases, and a number of agencies and other parties have done so.
Most of the information available in the Folio VIEWS infobases, and a number of other resources, can now be found on two World Wide Web sites: the OWCP/DFEC Home Page and a Folio web server maintained by a private company. Each of these sites can be accessed directly, and they are also linked together so that the user can access each one from the other.
Material from either the OWCP/DFEC home page or the Folio web server can be downloaded into an ASCII file for translation into a word processing format. Material on the Folio web server can also be downloaded directly into existing Folio VIEWS software using the Folio Web Retriever software (available for $39.95 from the Folio Corporation at 1-800-543-6546).
Given this new means of access to program materials, parties who wish to obtain such materials should be asked if they have access to the World Wide Web. If so, they should be given the addresses (URLs) shown below. Users may still obtain information using the process described in FECA Circular No. 95-10, but they will probably find it more convenient to download material from the Web sites than to send discs to the National Office for copying.
Information Available on the OWCP Home Page. The address of the OWCP Home Page is:
http://www.dol.gov./dol/esa/owcp.htm
From here, the user can link to the DFEC home page, which lists all of the information about the program which is available to the public on line. The list as it appears on the DFEC Home Page is as follows:
- District Office Addresses and Telephone Contacts
- Customer Service Commitment
- FECA Program's Mission
- An Introduction to the FECA Program
- When Injured at Work (CA-11)
- Questions and Answers about the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (Pamphlet CA-550).
- Injury Compensation for Federal Employees (Pamphlet CA-810). Handbook for employing agencies.
- Resource Library in Folio VIEWS. Folio VIEWS gives you the ability to query the system and locate pertinent material.
LAW AND REGULATIONS
Federal Employees' Compensation Act
Regulations under the FECA
PROGRAM PROCEDURES
Overview (FECA Part 0)
Index and Files (FECA Part 1) (not available)
Claims (FECA Part 2)
Medical (FECA Part 3)
Special Case Procedures (FECA Part 4)
Benefit Payments (FECA Part 5)
Overpayments (FECA Part 6)
Vocational Rehabilitation (OWCP Part 3)
FECA Program Memorandums
OWCP Directives (OWCP Part 1)
Planning and Evaluation (OWCP Part 4)
DECISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD (ECAB)
ECAB Headnotes, Volumes 39-44
ECAB Decisions, Volume 44
INDEXES
Bulletins, Circulars, and Transmittals Issued in Fiscal Year 1996
Bulletins, Circulars and Transmittals, Fiscal Year 1986 to present
Information Available on the Folio Web Server. The address of the Folio Web Server is:
http://www.fiengroup.com/dol/index.html
The list of infobases shown under "Resource Library in Folio VIEWS" above will appear, along with a short description of each.
"Questions and Answers about the Federal Employees' Compensation Act" and "Injury Compensation for Federal Employees" will be included in the index under the heading "General Information".
THOMAS M. MARKEY
Director for
Federal Employees' Compensation
Distribution: List No. 1--Folioviews Groups A and D
(Claims Examiners, All Supervisors, District Medical Advisers, Systems Managers, Technical Assistants, Rehabilitation Specialists, and Staff Nurses)
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-01
Attention: This circular has been superseded and is inactive.
|
FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-02 |
November 12, 1996 |
SUBJECT: Cost of Living Increase to SSA Benefits in FERS Cases
The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to beneficiaries effective December 1 of each year. All cases that are in receipt of SSA benefits before December 1, receive the COLA for that year. The SSA check dated January 1 reflects the SSA COLA increase.
In all cases where a deduction is being made from FECA benefits for Social Security (SSA) benefits "attributable to Federal Service", the amount being deducted has to be increased by the SSA COLA effective December 1 each year.
SSA COLAs are as follows:
| Dates | Percentage |
|---|---|
|
Effective December 1, 1996 |
2.9 percent |
|
Effective December 1, 1995 |
2.6 percent |
|
Effective December 1, 1994 |
2.8 percent |
Please ensure that this adjustment is made in any case to which it applies.
THOMAS M. MARKEY
Director for
Federal Employees' Compensation
Distribution: List No. 1 -- Folioviews Groups A and D
(Claims Examiners, All Supervisors, District Medical Advisers, Systems Managers, Technical Assistants, Rehabilitation Specialists, and Staff Nurses)
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-02
Attention: This circular has been superseded and is inactive.
|
FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-03 |
December 5, 1996 |
SUBJECT: Selected ECAB Decisions for July - September, 1996
The attached group of summaries of selected ECAB decisions is provided for study and filing by subject.
As usual, decisions on a variety of topics are included. Of special interest are two decisions concerning chiropractic treatment and a decision concerning coverage under section 8191.
THOMAS M. MARKEY
Director for
Federal Employees' Compensation
Distribution: List No. 1--Folioviews Groups A and D
(Claims Examiners, All Supervisors, District Medical Advisers, Systems Managers, Technical Assistants, Rehabilitation Specialists, and Staff Nurses)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES - NOTIFICATION OF SECOND OPINION EVALUATION
Donald J. Knight, Docket No. 94-1931, Issued August 21, 1996
In this case, the Office found that the claimant's work-related disability had ceased as of a certain date, based upon the report of a second opinion physician. No notification of the second opinion evaluation had been sent to the claimant's authorized representative. This omission deprived the claimant of the right to have "a physician designated and paid by him present to participate in the examination" under section 8123(a) of the Act. The Board remanded the case for referral to another second opinion physician and precluded the Office from relying on the existing second opinion evaluation report.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-03
CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENT - DELAY IN TAKING X-RAYS
Marcia A. McGuire, Docket No. 94-2383, Issued August 21, 1996
The claimant in this decision was seven months pregnant when she injured her back at work. She was treated by a chiropractor, who declined to take x-rays because of her pregnancy. The office informed the claimant of the medical information required to establish her case. The Office rejected the claim on the basis that fact of injury was not established. The chiropractor had not taken x-rays due to the pregnancy, and without x-rays to establish the existence of a subluxation, his report was of no probative value.
The claimant requested written review of her case. A report was submitted by the chiropractor which indicated that x-rays were taken two months after the injury (after the baby had been born), which revealed a hypolordotic subluxation, and that taking x-rays earlier would have been a danger to both the mother and child. An office hearing representative found that the claimant had not met her burden of proof because x-ray evidence of subluxation had not been submitted.
The claimant requested reconsideration. Medical reports and x-rays were submitted to the Office. The Office denied modification of the prior decisions, stating that the delay between the injury and the x-rays was too long, and that the chiropractor had indicated that the claimant's condition was exacerbated by pregnancy. The chiropractor had in fact not so stated, but did state that the pregnancy would impede the claimant's recovery.
The claimant again requested reconsideration, and submitted a report from the chiropractor which stated that knowingly taking x-rays of a child in the womb was forbidden by professional statutes and would be malpractice. He stated that the x-rays clearly showed L5-S1 subluxation with pelvic rotation. The Office denied the request on the basis that the information submitted was repetitious and therefore insufficient to warrant review of the prior decision. The reconsideration examiner stated that the issue was whether the Office could consider any reasons, however justifiable, for not having x-rays at the time of or within a few days of the initial examination. She stated that the claimant's back problems were possibly due to her pregnancy, and that the chiropractor did not explain whether the subluxation found on x-ray was due to the work injury or to the pregnancy and child care which followed.
The Board found that the case was not in posture for a decision. They found that the timing of diagnostic testing alone should not be given dispositive weight to the exclusion of other circumstances. The chiropractor diagnosed a subluxation and submitted x-rays in support of the diagnosis, and must therefore be considered a physician under the Act, even though the x-rays were delayed. There was no medical evidence contradicting the chiropractor's opinion that the work injury caused a subluxation. The evidence was not sufficiently well-rationalized to meet the claimant's burden of proof, but was sufficient to require further development of the record. The case was remanded for a second opinion evaluation.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-03
CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENT - PRESCRIBING PHYSICAL THERAPY
Beverly G. Akins, Docket No. 94-2137, Issued July 8, 1996
The claimant was injured in December of 1991. She was treated by a chiropractor who referred her for physical therapy consisting of soft tissue and deep tissue massage in January of 1992, and who obtained x-rays and diagnosed a subluxation in February of 1992. The claimant requested reimbursement of the physical therapy expenses. The Office denied her request for reimbursement of the physical therapy.
The Board affirmed the Office's decision. They cited section 8103(a) of the FECA, which states, "The United States shall furnish to an employee who is injured while in the performance of duty, the services, appliances, and supplies prescribed or recommended by a qualified physician..." The term "physician" included chiropractors only to the extent that their services consist of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist. Physical examinations, related laboratory tests, and x-rays performed or requested by a chiropractor are also payable. The Act does not provide the authority for a chiropractor to refer a claimant for physical therapy.
It is noted that in other decisions, the Board has found that chiropractic treatment consisting of physical therapy was payable, where it had been prescribed by a qualified physician (M.D. or D.O.). In this instance, however, the chiropractor was doing the prescribing, and the physical therapy had not been recommended by an M.D. or D.O.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-03
FORFEITURE OF COMPENSATION - UNREPORTED EARNINGS
Carl C. Green, Jr., Docket No. 94-1478, Issued August 26, 1996
An overpayment was declared in this case due to periods of unreported earnings. The alleged unreported earnings were from burglaries for which the claimant had been incarcerated. During the same periods of time, the claimant had other earnings from working in legal jobs which he did report on CA-1032 forms. The Office found that the claimant's compensation for certain periods should be forfeited because he failed to report earnings from self-employment (burglary).
The Board found that the Office incorrectly found that the claimant had forfeited compensation due to unreported earnings. The Office made no finding that the claimant "knowingly" failed to report his work activities, and there was no evidence, such as police reports, statements, or other documents to show that the claimant had any "earnings" from the two burglaries. They distinguished the situation in this case from those found in Cooper (44 ECAB 498), Moon (42 ECAB 947), and Weathersby (Docket No. 94-1087, issued April 2, 1996), where the claimants were involved in criminal employment which resulted in documented earnings.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-03
NON-FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER - PREVENTION
Alfred A. Danna, Docket No. 95-1435, Issued September 9, 1995
The Board's decision in this case will be of special interest to the special claims unit in District 25, which adjudicates claims from non-federal law enforcement officers under Section 8191.
The claimant is a Florida state law enforcement officer who was injured as he exited an airplane following an air surveillance assignment. The claimant was participating in a joint Florida state/Federal Bureau of Investigation task force at the time of his injury. The claimant argued that he was not eligible for benefits under either section 8191 or 8101 of the FECA.
The claimant had been deputized as a special federal officer, and was assigned to the task force under Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program Guidelines. The purpose of the particular mission during which he was injured was to conduct surveillance. Arrests were made at a later date. The employer stated that the claimant was a state law enforcement officer, and had not been assigned to the FBI or to an FBI investigation. His deputization by the FBI gave him limited additional authority in working on the joint investigation.
The Office issued a decision, finding that the claim did not fall within the purview of section 8191, and the the claimant was a federal employee (under section 8101). In a subsequent decision, a hearing representative found that the claimant was not an employee under section 8101 and remanded the case for a reasoned decision on the issue of section 8191 coverage.
The Office then issued a decision accepting the claim under section 8191, finding that he was engaged in the prevention of a Federal crime at the time of his injury. The claimant requested a hearing and testified that there was no intent to make any arrests during the mission in which he sustained injury. The hearing representative affirmed the Office's decision, finding that the purpose of the mission was to observe, and that the information gathered as a result of that mission would have eventually been used to apprehend federal criminals, which would result in the prevention of future Federal crimes.
The Board found that the claimant was not entitled to coverage under section 8191. They found that there was no intent to prevent the commission of crimes on the date of injury, and that the "eventual apprehension" was too tenuous to sustain a finding of coverage under the Act.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-03
PERFORMANCE OF DUTY - NOT FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS
Lonnie B. Anderson, Docket No. 94-1842, Issued July 5, 1996
The Board set aside a previous decision in this case, in which the Office found that the claim was barred by the affirmative defense of willful misconduct. The Office had failed to raise this defense in its original adjudication of the case, and was therefore barred from invoking the defense in its later decisions.
On remand, after additional development of the record, the Office denied the claim on the basis that the evidence failed to establish that the injury occurred in the performance of duty. They found that by refusing his supervisor's legitimate order to interrupt his break and move a skid of mail, the claimant removed himself from the performance of duty.
The Board found that the injury arose in the course of employment, stating:
The Board noted long ago...that disobedience of orders does not necessarily place an employee outside the scope of employment, and that the employer is not entitled under the liberal terms of workers' compensation law to invoke in avoidance of liability any doctrine of added risk or contributory fault, as at common law. The workmen's compensation laws impose liability upon industry to take care of its casualties without regard to the fault or lack of fault of the employer...and similarly give rise to a claim for compensation on the part of the injured employee without regard to the employee's fault, unless the injury was caused by conduct of the employee amounting to the statutory bar of "willful misconduct."
The Board had found in the previous appeal that the statutory bar based on willful misconduct was no longer available in this instance. They set aside the Office's decision and remanded the case for development of fact of injury.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-03
REFUSAL TO REEOPEN CASE UNDER 8128(A)
Jacquelyn J. Woods, Docket No. 94-1682, Issued August 23, 1996
The claim was initially accepted as a work-related lumbar strain. Ten weeks after the work injury, the claimant was involved in a nonoccupational motor vehicle accident. The Office rejected claims for disability after the motor vehicle accident, and denied medical benefits several months later, on the basis that there was insufficient medical evidence to support that continuing disability was due to the work injury, as opposed to the automobile accident. A hearing representative upheld the decision to reject compensation for disability, but found that the claimant continued to be entitled to medical treatment for her accepted lumbar strain. The claimant requested reconsideration and submitted new medical evidence, but modification of the prior decision was denied.
The claimant continued to submit medical reports over a period of about two years. The Office referred her for a second opinion evaluation. The claimant submitted additional medical evidence, and the Office asked the second opinion physician to clarify his report. At about the same time that the Office requested clarification from the second opinion physician, the claimant again requested reconsideration. The Office denied reconsideration, finding that the request was untimely, and did not constitute clear evidence of error.
The Board found that the Office improperly refused to reopen the case for merit review, and that the Office applied an improper standard in reviewing her request. The Office had already exercised its discretionary authority under 5 U.S.C. 8128 to reopen the claim when they referred her for a second opinion evaluation. The Office could not therefore deny the claimant's request for reconsideration based upon the clear evidence of error standard. The decision was reversed and the case remanded for a merit review.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-03
RESCINDING DECISION BASED ON NEW LEGAL ARGUMENT
James C. Shores, Docket No. 95-2476, Issued September 9, 1996
The claimant in this case was a retired mechanic who was paid a schedule award for 36 percent binaural hearing loss. At the expiration of the award in 1986, the Office began payment for total disability. In December of 1986, the Office reduced his compensation to reflect his actual wages earned in self employment in "odd jobs." Shortly after the LWEC decision was issued, an Office medical advisor reviewed the case and stated that with proper amplification, the claimant's ability to communicate would not be severely impaired. The evaluating otolaryngologist to whom the claimant had been referred by the Office did not give an opinion on the claimant's ability to work.
In May of 1995, the Office notified the claimant that it proposed to terminate his disability compensation by rescinding the 1986 total disability and loss of wage-earning capacity awards. The Office explained that the medical evidence never showed that the claimant could not perform his work as a mechanic because of the hearing loss, and that the claimant had continued to perform mechanic duties until his position was abolished due to reorganization. They stated that the wage-earning capacity was in error because the claimant was a trained mechanic and should have had a much higher rating. The Office then terminated compensation in June of 1995, and rescinded the wage-loss awards made in 1986.
The Board found that the office properly rescinded acceptance of the claim for employment-related disability and the wage-earning capacity determination. They noted that section 8128(a) gives the Office the authority to reopen a claim at any time on its own motion, but that the power to annul an award is not an arbitrary one. Once the Office accepts a claim, it has the burden of justifying termination or modification. To justify rescission of acceptance, the Office must establish that the prior acceptance was erroneous based upon (1) new or different evidence, or (2) new legal argument and/or rationale.
In this case, the Board found that the Office had made sufficient new legal argument to justify the rescission by arguing that the award for work-related disability was invalid because the medical evidence did not support disability for work. They also found that the Office's arguments in support of rescinding the wage-earning capacity determination (that a finding of no employment-related disability had the result of showing that there was also no loss of wage-earning capacity, and that the claimant was not limited to the position of "self-employed, odd jobs") were valid.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-03
Attention: This circular has been superseded and is inactive.
|
FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-04 |
January 15, 1997 |
SUBJECT: Current Interest Rates for Prompt Payment Bills and Debt Collection
The interest rate to be assessed for the prompt payment bills is 6 3/8 percent for the period January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997.
Attached to this Circular is an updated listing of the prompt payment interest rates from January 1, 1985 through current date.
The rate for assessing interest charges on debts due the Government has not changed. The rate of 5 percent continues to be in effect through December 31, 1997.
Attached to this Circular is an updated listing of the DMS interest rates from January 1, 1984 through current date.
THOMAS M. MARKEY
Director for
Federal Employees' Compensation
Attachments
Distribution: List No. 2--Folioviews Groups A, B, and D
(Claims Examiners, All Supervisors, Systems Managers, District Medical Advisors, Technical Assistants, Rehabilitation Specialists, and Fiscal and Bill Pay Personnel)
| Dates | Rates |
|---|---|
|
1/1/97 - 6/30/97 |
6 3/8% |
|
7/1/96 - 12/31/96 |
7.0% |
|
1/1/96 - 6/30/96 |
5 7/8% |
|
7/1/95 - 12/31/95 |
6 3/8% |
|
1/1/95 - 6/30/95 |
8 1/8% |
|
7/1/94 - 12/31/94 |
7.0% |
|
1/1/94 - 6/30/94 |
5 1/2% |
|
7/1/93 - 12/31/93 |
5 5/8% |
|
1/1/93 - 6/30/93 |
6 1/2% |
|
7/1/92 - 12/31/92 |
7.0% |
|
1/1/92 - 6/30/92 |
6 7/8% |
|
7/1/91 - 12/31/91 |
8 1/2% |
|
1/1/91 - 6/30/91 |
8 3/8% |
|
7/1/90 - 12/31/90 |
9.0% |
|
1/1/90 - 6/30/90 |
8 1/2% |
|
7/1/89 - 12/31/89 |
9 1/8% |
|
1/1/89 - 6/30/89 |
9 3/4% |
|
7/1/88 - 12/31/88 |
9 1/4% |
|
1/1/88 - 6/30/88 |
9 3/8% |
|
7/1/87 - 12/31/87 |
8 7/8% |
|
1/1/87 - 6/30/87 |
7 5/8% |
|
7/1/86 - 12/31/86 |
8 1/2% |
|
1/1/86 - 6/30/86 |
9 3/4% |
|
7/1/85 - 12/31/85 |
10 3/8% |
|
1/1/85 - 6/30/85 |
12 1/8% |
|
ATTACHMENT TO FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-04 |
|
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-04
| Dates | Rates |
|---|---|
|
1/1/97 - 12/31/97 |
5% |
|
1/1/96 - 12/31/96 |
5% |
|
7/1/95 - 12/31/95 |
5% |
|
1/1/95 - 06/30/95 |
3% |
|
1/1/94 - 12/31/94 |
3% |
|
1/1/93 - 12/31/93 |
4% |
|
1/1/92 - 12/31/92 |
6% |
|
1/1/91 - 12/31/91 |
8% |
|
1/1/90 - 12/31/90 |
9% |
|
1/1/89 - 12/31/89 |
7% |
|
1/1/88 - 12/31/88 |
6% |
|
1/1/87 - 12/31/87 |
7% |
|
1/1/86 - 12/31/86 |
8% |
|
1/1/85 - 12/31/85 |
9% |
|
Prior to 1/1/84 |
not applicable |
|
ATTACHMENT TO FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-04 |
|
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-04
Attention: This circular has been superseded and is inactive.
|
FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-05 |
January 28, 1997 |
SUBJECT: Code changes for the Departments of Defense, Labor, Agriculture, Education, Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs, and the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Smithsonian Institution, and Other Establishments, Case Management Users' Manual, Appendix 4-7
The Case Management User's Manual is being updated and revised to reflect multiple changes, including the addition of several new codes. For the Department of Agriculture, multiple agencies have been renamed as noted below, and the Packers and Stockyards Admin-istration (chargeback code 8212) has been removed from the User's Manual. For the Department of Defense, a new code has been added for the Defense Polygraphic Institute (chargeback code 3059), and the Defense Nuclear Agency has been re-named the Defense Special Weapons Agency. For the Department of Education, chargeback code 7035 has been removed from the User's Manual, in view of the fact that employees of Gallaudet University are no longer covered under FECA. For the Department of Interior, the National Biological Survey (chargeback code 7118) has been re-named the National Bio-logical Service. For the Department of Labor, chargeback code 1107 has been added to reflect injuries sustained by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, a separate organization within Labor. For the Department of State, chargeback code 1304 has been added for employees of the Bureau of Finance and Management Policy, and two other organizations reflect name changes. For the Department of Veterans Affairs, 22 new codes have been added to reflect inju-ries reported by employees of Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN), and codes have also been added for employees of CHAMPVA and 5 different VA Headquarters organizations. For the Corpora-tion for National and Community Service (the agency formerly known as ACTION), chargeback codes have been added to reflect injuries by AMERICORPS Leaders (chargeback code 1389) and Literacy Corps workers (chargeback code 1393). For the Environmental Protection Agency, chargeback code 1903 is now used for employees of EPA's Headquarters Human Resources Office, replacing a prior entry for the National Enforcement Investigation Center. For the Smithson-ian Institution, chargeback code 1352 has been added to represent employees of the JFK Center for the Performing Arts, formerly part of the National Park Service but no longer part of that agency. Finally, in the Other Establishments category, chargeback code 1464 has been added to reflect a separate code for employees of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, and two other defunct agencies are being removed from the User's Manual.
Because the procedures for adding new chargeback codes to the Case Management File have changed, ADP Systems Managers no longer need to add the chargeback codes listed below; they will be added by National Office staff. However, changes in the titles for employ-ing agencies which already exist in the agency address field will have to be added to an individual agency address (though not on a case file by case file basis).
THOMAS M. MARKEY
Director for
Federal Employees' Compensation
|
Trans- |
Code |
Dept. |
Agency |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add |
3059 |
Defense |
Defense Polygraphic Institute |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
1107 |
Labor |
Office of the Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
1304 |
State |
Bureau of Finance & Management Policy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
4011 |
VA |
Phoenix, AZ VISN |
|
" " |
4020 |
" " |
San Francisco, CA VISN |
|
" " |
4034 |
" " |
Long Beach, CA VISN |
|
" " |
4041 |
" " |
Denver, CO VISN |
|
" " |
4056 |
" " |
Bay Pines, FL VISN |
|
" " |
4068 |
" " |
Atlanta, GA VISN |
|
" " |
4087 |
" " |
Hines, IL VISN |
|
" " |
4132 |
" " |
Linthicum, MD VISN |
|
" " |
4141 |
" " |
Boston, MA VISN |
|
" " |
4151 |
" " |
Ann Arbor, MI VISN |
|
" " |
4155 |
" " |
Minneapolis, MN VISN |
|
" " |
4164 |
" " |
Jackson, MS VISN |
|
" " |
4170 |
" " |
Kansas City, MO VISN |
|
" " |
4181 |
" " |
Omaha, NE VISN |
|
" " |
4203 |
" " |
Albany, NY VISN |
|
" " |
4207 |
" " |
Bronx, NY VISN |
|
" " |
4223 |
" " |
Durham, NC VISN |
|
" " |
4235 |
" " |
Cincinnati, OH VISN |
|
" " |
4253 |
" " |
Portland, OR VISN |
|
" " |
4266 |
" " |
Pittsburgh, PA VISN |
|
" " |
4295 |
" " |
Nashville, TN VISN |
|
" " |
4307 |
" " |
Dallas, TX VISN |
|
" " |
4503 |
" " |
Office of General Counsel |
|
" " |
4504 |
" " |
Board of Contract Appeals |
|
" " |
4509 |
" " |
DAS for Acquisition & Material Mgmt |
|
" " |
4518 |
" " |
Asst Sectry for Public & Intergov Affrs |
|
" " |
4519 |
" " |
Asst Sectry for Congressional Affrs |
|
" " |
4525 |
" " |
CHAMPVA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
1389 |
CNCS |
AMERICORPS Leaders |
|
" " |
1393 |
" " |
Literacy Corps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
1352 |
Smithsn |
JFK Center for the Performing Arts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
1464 |
Other Est |
Ofc of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
8310 |
Agricltre |
from: Federal Grain Inspection Service |
|
" " |
8409 |
" " |
from: Cooperative State Research Svce |
|
" " |
8504 |
" " |
from: Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and Committees |
|
" " |
8601 |
" " |
from: Farmers' Home Administration |
|
" " |
8606 |
" " |
from: Soil Conservation Service |
|
" " |
8705 |
" " |
from: Food and Nutrition Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
3004 |
Defense |
from: Defense Nuclear Agency |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
7118 |
Interior |
from: National Biological Survey |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
1328 |
State |
from: Bureau of Human Rights & Humanitarian Affairs |
|
" " |
1334 |
" " |
from: Bureau of Refugee Programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
1903 |
EPA |
from: Nat'l Enforcement Investigtn Cntr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delete |
8212 |
Agricltre |
Packers & Stockyards Administration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
7035 |
Education |
Gallaudet University |
|
|
|
|
|
|
" " |
1410 |
Other Est |
Comm on the Bicentennl of Constitution |
|
" " |
1426 |
" " |
Interstate Commerce Commission |
Distribution: List No. 5 - Folioviews Groups C and D
(All Supervisors, Index and Files Personnel, Systems Managers and Technical Assistants) Note: Immediate distribution to chargeback coding personnel is essential.
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-05
Attention: This circular has been superseded and is inactive.
|
FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-07 |
July 21, 1997 |
SUBJECT: Current Interest Rates for Prompt Payment Bills and Debt Collection
The interest rate to be assessed for the prompt payment bills is 6 3/4 percent for the period July 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997.
Attached to this Circular is an updated listing of the prompt payment interest rates from January 1, 1985 through current date.
The rate for assessing interest charges on debts due the Government has not changed. The rate of 5 percent continues to be in effect through December 31, 1997.
Attached to this Circular is an updated listing of the DMS interest rates from January 1, 1984 through current date.
THOMAS M. MARKEY
Director for
Federal Employees' Compensation
Attachments
Distribution: List No. 2--Folioviews Groups A, B, and D
(Claims Examiners, All Supervisors, Systems Managers, District Medical Advisors, Technical Assistants, Rehabilitation Specialists, and Fiscal and Bill Pay Personnel)
| Dates | Rates |
|---|---|
|
7/1/97 - 12/31/97 |
6 3/4% |
|
1/1/97 - 6/30/97 |
6 3/8% |
|
7/1/96 - 12/31/96 |
7.0% |
|
1/1/96 - 6/30/96 |
5 7/8% |
|
7/1/95 - 12/31/95 |
6 3/8% |
|
1/1/95 - 6/30/95 |
8 1/8% |
|
7/1/94 - 12/31/94 |
7.0% |
|
1/1/94 - 6/30/94 |
5 1/2% |
|
7/1/93 - 12/31/93 |
5 5/8% |
|
1/1/93 - 6/30/93 |
6 1/2% |
|
7/1/92 - 12/31/92 |
7.0% |
|
1/1/92 - 6/30/92 |
6 7/8% |
|
7/1/91 - 12/31/91 |
8 1/2% |
|
1/1/91 - 6/30/91 |
8 3/8% |
|
7/1/90 - 12/31/90 |
9.0% |
|
1/1/90 - 6/30/90 |
8 1/2% |
|
7/1/89 - 12/31/89 |
9 1/8% |
|
1/1/89 - 6/30/89 |
9 3/4% |
|
7/1/88 - 12/31/88 |
9 1/4% |
|
1/1/88 - 6/30/88 |
9 3/8% |
|
7/1/87 - 12/31/87 |
8 7/8% |
|
1/1/87 - 6/30/87 |
7 5/8% |
|
7/1/86 - 12/31/86 |
8 1/2% |
|
1/1/86 - 6/30/86 |
9 3/4% |
|
7/1/85 - 12/31/85 |
10 3/8% |
|
1/1/85 - 6/30/85 |
12 1/8% |
|
ATTACHMENT TO FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-07 |
|
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-07
| Dates | Rates |
|---|---|
|
1/1/97 - 12/31/97 |
5% |
|
1/1/96 - 12/31/96 |
5% |
|
7/1/95 - 12/31/95 |
5% |
|
1/1/95 - 06/30/95 |
3% |
|
1/1/94 - 12/31/94 |
3% |
|
1/1/93 - 12/31/93 |
4% |
|
1/1/92 - 12/31/92 |
6% |
|
1/1/91 - 12/31/91 |
8% |
|
1/1/90 - 12/31/90 |
9% |
|
1/1/89 - 12/31/89 |
7% |
|
1/1/88 - 12/31/88 |
6% |
|
1/1/87 - 12/31/87 |
7% |
|
1/1/86 - 12/31/86 |
8% |
|
1/1/85 - 12/31/85 |
9% |
|
Prior to 1/1/84 |
not applicable |
|
ATTACHMENT TO FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-07 |
|
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-07
Attention: This circular has been superseded and is inactive.
|
FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-08 |
July 31, 1997 |
SUBJECT: Comp Pay--ACPS Reports
The National Office is currently preparing and releasing a series of change controls to permit printing of certain ACPS reports on 8 1/2" by 11" paper. These reports include the CP030, CP040, CP045, and CP285, but not the CP295 or BPS reports.
Effective August 18, all district offices will have the capacity to print these reports on letter-size paper, and should begin to do so. The reports will be produced on the laser printer. For easy identification, yellow paper may be used for printing (other colors are not to be used, however).
The Jacksonville District Office recently piloted this method of printing the reports and found that good-quality photocopies, faxes, and machine images resulted.
The reports should be filed with the left side on the spindle so that the total amount of the payment will not be obscured.
THOMAS M. MARKEY
Director for
Federal Employees' Compensation
Distribution: List No. 2--Folioviews Groups A, B, and D
(Claims Examiners, All Supervisors, District Medical Advisers, Fiscal Personnel, Systems Managers, Technical Assistants, Rehabilitation Specialists, and Staff Nurses)
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-08
Attention: This circular has been superseded and is inactive.
|
FECA CIRCULAR NO. 97-09 |
August 25, 1997 |
SUBJECT: Revised Forms OWCP-5a, OWCP-5b, OWCP-5c
Attached please find copies of the above referenced forms which were recently revised. Please use the revised forms for all future requests for work tolerance limitations.
Please discard all copies of the former versions of the forms. Their use is prohibited because they are not currently cleared by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Thank you for your assistance.
THOMAS M. MARKEY
Director for
Federal Employees' Compensation
Distribution: List No. 1, Folioviews Groups A and D
(Claims Examiners, All Supervisors, District Medical Advisers, Systems Managers, Technical Assistants, Rehabilitation Specialists, and Staff Nurses)
Back to Top of FECA Circular No. 97-09