51074 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

pursuant to the criteria of Executive

Order 12866, since the 0.4 kg iodine

threshold does not affect small

businesses and since there is not a large

industry for hydrogen chloride gas.

Therefore, this proposed rule has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria in Executive Order 12612, and it

has been determined that the proposed

rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1310

Drug traffic control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

For reasons set out above, 21 CFR part

1310 is proposed to be amended as

follows:

PART 1310—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 1310

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 802, 830, 871(b).

2. Section 1310.02 is proposed to be

amended by revising paragraph (b)(8)

and adding paragraph (b)(11) to read as

follows:

§ 1310.02 Substances covered.

* * * * *

(b) List II chemicals:

* * * * *

(8) Hydrochloric acid (Including

Hydrogen chloride gas)

* * * * *

(11) Iodine

* * * * *

3. Section 1310.04 is proposed to be

amended by adding new paragraphs

(f)(2)(ii) (H) and (I), and revising

(f)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

§ 1310.04 Maintenance of records.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) * * *

(ii) Domestic Sales

Chemical Threshold by

volume

Threshold by

weight

* * * * *

(H) Iodine .. N/A .............. 0.4 kilograms.

(I) Hydrogen chloride gas.N/A .............. 0.0 kilograms.

(iii) * * *

(iv) Exports, Transshipments and

International Transactions to Designated

Countries As Set Forth in § 1310.08(b).

Chemical Threshold by

volume

Threshold by

weight

(A) Hydrochloric

acid.

50 gallons ... N/A.

(1) Hydrogen chloride gas.N/A .............. 27 kilograms.

(B) Sulfuric

acid.

50 gallons ... N/A.

* * * * *

4. Section 1310.08 is proposed to be

amended by adding new paragraphs (f)

and (g) to read as follows:

§ 1310.08 Excluded transactions

* * * * *

(f) Import and export transactions of

iodine.

(g) Import transactions of hydrogen

chloride gas.

Dated: July 21, 1997.

John H. King,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control.

[FR Doc. 97–25362 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

45 CFR Part 1643

Restriction on Assisted Suicide,

Euthanasia, and Mercy Killing

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule is intended to

implement a new statutory restriction

that amends the Legal Services

Corporation Act (‘‘LSC’’ or

‘‘Corporation’’) and is applicable to

recipients of grants from the Legal

Services Corporation. The restriction

prohibits the use of LSC funds by

recipients for legal or other assistance

that would cause, assist in, advocate for,

or fund assisted suicide, euthanasia, or

mercy killing.

DATES: Comments should be received on

or before October 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to the Office of the General

Counsel, Legal Services Corporation,

750 First St. NE., 11th Floor,

Washington, DC 20002–4250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of the General Counsel, (202)

336–8817.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction

Act of 1997 (‘‘Assisted Suicide Act’’ or

‘‘Act’’), Pub. L. 105–12, was enacted and

became effective on April 30, 1997.

Several provisions of the Assisted

Suicide Act expressly apply to the Legal

Services Corporation, one of which

amends Section 1007(b) of the LSC Act,

42 U.S.C. 2996f(b)(11). This rule is

intended to implement this legislation

as it applies to the Corporation and its

recipients.

Background and Summary of Law

The stated purpose of the Assisted

Suicide Act is to maintain current

Federal policy that Federal funds not be

used to support, assist in, or advocate

for assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy

killing. H. Rep. No. 46, 105th Cong., 1st

Sess. at 3 (April 8, 1997). Although

assisted suicide, euthanasia and mercy

killing are illegal in almost all states,

Congress was concerned that pending

litigation might change the status quo

and wanted to make it clear by

legislation that, regardless of a change in

State law, Federal policy would remain

the same. H. Rep. at 3–4. Subsequent to

the passage of the Act, the Supreme

Court upheld as constitutional laws in

the States of New York and Washington

which prohibit assisted suicide and

euthanasia. See Vacco v. Quill, 117 S.

Ct. 2293 (1997); Washington v.

Glucksberg, 117 S. Ct. 2302 (1997). The

State of Oregon, on the other hand,

adopted an initiative in 1996 that

legalized physician-assisted suicide for

competent, terminally ill adults. H. Rep.

at 4. Court challenges have kept the law

from going into effect and a new

initiative to repeal the law will be on

the ballot this November. See

Associated Press, September 15, 1997

(1997 WL 2549490); Lee v. Oregon, 107

F.3d 1382 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 1997);

Petition for Certiorari Filed, 65 USLW

3783 (May 16, 1997) (No. 96–1824).

The Assisted Suicide Act applies to

numerous Federally funded health care

programs and facilities, such as

Medicare, Medicaid, CHAMPUS and the

veterans’ and military health care

systems. It also applies to certain legal

aid and advocacy programs, including

the Legal Services Corporation.

Section 9 of the Assisted Suicide Act

amends Section 1007(b) of the LSC Act

to provide that ‘‘ No funds made

available by the Corporation under this

title, either by grant or contract, may be

used * * * to provide legal assistance

in a manner inconsistent with the

Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction

Act of 1997.’’ Section 5 of the Assisted

Suicide Act sets out the restrictions as

they apply to LSC funds by generally

prohibiting the use of appropriated

funds for legal or other assistance for the

purpose of (1) securing or funding any
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 51075

1The terms are found in statutes from 45 States

and the District of Columbia, which disapprove of

euthanasia, mercy killing, suicide, or assisted

suicide in their natural death/living will statutes, or

in their durable power of attorney for health care

acts. For citations to these statutes, see Relief or

Reproach?: Euthanasia Rights in the Wake of

Measure 16, 74 Oregon Law Review, 449, 462 notes

44 and 45 (Summer 1995).

activity or service that would assist in

or cause the suicide, euthanasia, or

mercy killing of an individual; (2)

compelling any person or entity to

provide funding or service for such

purposes; or (3) asserting or advocating

a legal right to assisted suicide,

euthanasia or mercy killing. Finally,

Section 3(b) clarifies what activities are

not included within the restrictions.

This proposed rule implements those

sections of the Act that apply to the

Corporation. A section-by-section

analysis of this proposed rule is set out

below.

Section 1643.1 Purpose

The purpose of this proposed rule is

to ensure that LSC recipients do not use

any LSC funds to engage in legal

assistance activities inconsistent with

the Assisted Suicide Act.

Section 1643.2 Definitions

The definitions in this section are all

based primarily on the House Report for

the Assisted Suicide Act and the

common dictionary definitions of the

terms. H. Rep. at 12; Random House

Webster’s College Dictionary (1997)

(‘‘Webster’s’’). Assisted suicide is

defined as providing any means to

another person to enable or assist that

person to commit suicide. See Webster’s

at 80 (suicide aided by a person, esp. a

physician, who organizes the logistics of

the suicide). For example, if a doctor

provided a person with a lethal drug

overdose so that the person could

commit suicide by ingesting the lethal

overdose, the action of providing the

drug overdose would constitute assisted

suicide.

Euthanasia and mercy killing have the

same meaning. The consistent use of

both terms throughout the Act might

suggest that they are two different

activities. However, both the House

Report and Webster’s Dictionary give

them the same meaning. Apparently,

State laws commonly use the terms

together or use one term or the other to

mean the same activity.1 Euthanasia and

mercy killing are defined as the active

means by one person to cause the death

of another person for reasons assumed

to be merciful, regardless of whether the

person who is killed consents to be

killed. According to the House Report,

such a death is often considered

merciful because the person is deemed

to be dying or suffering or the person is

considered to be a burden on family,

community or society. H. Rep. at 12.

Suicide is defined as the taking of

one’s own life voluntarily and

intentionally and is included in this

rule to clarify its meaning within the

term assisted suicide.

Section 1643.3 Prohibition

This section prohibits the use of LSC

funds by recipients for legal or other

assistance for those activities delineated

therein. Paragraph (a) prohibits a

recipient from using LSC funds for any

action that would cause or assist in

causing the suicide, euthanasia or mercy

killing of an individual. This would

include, for example, providing a client

with assistance to obtain the means of

death or providing a client the financial

means for death by suicide or

euthanasia.

Paragraph (b) prohibits the use of LSC

funds for compelling any person or

private or governmental entity to engage

in the activities prohibited in paragraph

(a). For example, a recipient could not

provide legal assistance to a client for

the purpose of suing a public or private

hospital to permit the individual to

receive assistance in committing suicide

in its facilities.

Paragraph (c) implements Section

5(a)(3) of the Assisted Suicide Act and

prohibits asserting or advocating a legal

right to cause or assist in causing the

suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of

an individual. This means, for example,

that legal assistance could not be

provided to assert that a law or

regulation prohibiting or regulating

assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy

killing is unconstitutional or otherwise

in violation of the law. It would also

prohibit any lobbying efforts to promote

or advocate for passage of legislation

that would legalize assisted suicide,

euthanasia, or mercy killing.

Section 1643.4 Applicability

Paragraph (a) of this section is based

on Section 3 (b) of the Assisted Suicide

Act, which clarifies that the Act’s

restrictions do not apply to or affect any

limitation relating to certain activities.

Subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3)

clarify that the restrictions are intended

to include the use of active means of

causing death, such as by lethal

injection or the provision of a lethal oral

drug overdose, but do not apply to or

affect any limitation relating to

decisions to withhold or withdraw

medical care, medical treatment,

nutrition, or hydration. Nor do the

restrictions apply to or affect limitations

relating to abortion activities. This

means that the Corporation’s current

restrictions on abortion activities are

unaffected by this rule and are still in

full force and effect in their current

status, see 45 CFR § 1610.2 (a)(7) and

(b)(10).

LSC recipients traditionally do not

become involved in legal assistance in

the area of assisted suicide or

euthanasia, but they do provide legal

assistance to clients in preparing

advance directives, such as living wills

and powers of attorney. The preparation

of such documents will generally be

unaffected by this rule, because the

rule’s restriction only applies to active

means of causing death. Advance

directives normally apply to passive

actions, such as withholding or

withdrawing nutrition or medical care.

Only if an advance directive includes a

directive to secure death by active

means, that is, by assisted suicide,

euthanasia or mercy killing, would it be

restricted by this rule. This is unlikely

since such actions are illegal in most

States.

Subparagraph (a)(4) clarifies that the

restriction does not include treatment

aimed solely at alleviating suffering,

even if the treatment has the unintended

consequence of risking or shortening

life. Thus, the restriction would not

include the administration of morphine

for the purpose of alleviating pain, even

if its use might risk causing death or risk

shortening life because it might also

have the side effect of suppressing

respiratory functions. The restriction,

however, would include treatment that

has a two-fold purpose of alleviating

pain or discomfort and causing death.

Paragraph (b) clarifies that the

prohibition on LSC funds does not

apply to a recipient’s non-LSC funds.

Section 5 of the Assisted Suicide Act

expressly applies the restriction only to

‘‘funds appropriated by Congress.’’ This

is also reflected in the House Report,

which provides:

Section 5 is not intended to have the

effect of de-funding an entire program,

such as a Legal Services program or

other legal or advocacy program, simply

because some State or privately funded

portion of that program may advocate

for or file suit to compel funding or

services for assisted suicide. This

section is intended only to restrict

Federal funds from being used for such

activities.

House Report at 19–20. Recipients may

have other Federal grants restricted by

various provisions of the Assisted

Suicide Act. This paragraph does not

affect the recipient’s obligation to

comply with all the terms of such a

grant. Although this rule restricts only

the use of LSC grant funds, a recipient’s

other funds are still subject to any
51076 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

restrictions that are included in other

grant agreements.

Section 1643.5 Recipient Policies,

Procedures and Recordkeeping

This section requires the recipient to

establish written policies and

procedures to guide the recipient’s staff

to ensure compliance with this rule.

Recipients are also required to maintain

sufficient documentation to demonstrate

compliance with this part. The type of

recordkeeping necessary to demonstrate

compliance with this rule would be

documentation that only non-LSC funds

were used for any activities prohibited

by this rule.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1643

Grants, Health Care, Legal Services,

Lobbying.

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

LSC proposes to amend Chapter XVI of

Title 45 by adding part 1643 as follows:

PART 1643—RESTRICTION ON

ASSISTED SUICIDE, EUTHANASIA,

AND MERCY KILLING

Sec.

1643.1 Purpose.

1643.2 Definitions.

1643.3 Prohibition.

1643.4 Applicability.

1643.5 Recipient policies, procedures and

recordkeeping.

Authority: Pub. L. 105–12; 42 U.S.C. 2996f

(b)(11).

§ 1643.1 Purpose.

This part is intended to ensure that

recipients do not use any LSC funds for

any assisted suicide, euthanasia or

mercy killing activities prohibited by

this part.

§ 1643.2 Definitions.

(a) Assisted suicide means the

provision of any means to another

person with the intent of enabling or

assisting that person to commit suicide. (b) Euthanasia (or mercy killing) is the

active means by one person to cause the

death of another person for reasons

assumed to be merciful, regardless of

whether the person killed consents to be

killed.

(c) Suicide means the act or instance

of taking one’s own life voluntarily and

intentionally.

§ 1643.3 Prohibition.

No recipient may use LSC funds to

assist in, support, or fund any activity

or service which has a purpose of

assisting in, or to bring suit or provide

any other form of legal assistance for the

purpose of: (a) Securing or funding any item,

benefit, program, or service furnished

for the purpose of causing, or the

purpose of assisting in causing, the

suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of

any individual;

(b) Compelling any person,

institution, or governmental entity to

provide or fund any item, benefit,

program, or service for such purpose; or

(c) Asserting or advocating a legal

right to cause, or to assist in causing, the

suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of

any individual.

§ 1643.4 Applicability.

(a) The restriction in § 1643.3 shall

not apply to or affect any limitation

relating to:

(1) The withholding or withdrawing

of medical treatment or medical care;

(2) The withholding or withdrawing

of nutrition or hydration;

(3) Abortion; or

(4) The use of items, goods, benefits,

or services furnished for purposes

relating to the alleviation of pain or

discomfort even if they may increase the

risk of death, unless they are furnished

for the purpose of causing or assisting

in causing death.

(b) This part does not apply to

activities funded with a recipient’s nonLSC funds.

§ 1643.5 Recipient policies, procedures

and recordkeeping.

The recipient shall adopt written

policies and procedures to guide its staff

in complying with this part and shall

maintain records sufficient to document

the recipient’s compliance with this

part.

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Suzanne B. Glasow,

Senior Assistant General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–25913 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Parts 653 and 654

[Docket No. FTA–97–2925]

RIN 2132–AA56

Prevention of Prohibited Drug Use in

Transit Operations; Prevention of

Alcohol Misuse in Transit Operations

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

a transit agency, the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) proposes to allow

employers to use the results of postaccident drug and alcohol tests

administered by State or local law

enforcement personnel when the State

and local law enforcement officials have

independent authority for the tests and

the employer obtains the results in

conformance with State and local law.

In short, in a very limited number of

cases, the employer would be relieved

of administering post-accident drug and

alcohol tests. If this amendment is

adopted, it could ease the burden of

employers in testing ‘‘safety-sensitive’’

employees after an accident has

occurred; it may also relieve some

‘‘safety-sensitive’’ employees from

taking duplicative post-accident drug

and alcohol tests.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be submitted by December 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must

refer to the docket number that appears

above and be submitted to the United

States Department of Transportation,

Central Dockets Office, PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

20590. All comments received will be

available for inspection at the above

address from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Those desiring the agency to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

should include a self-addressed

stamped postcard with their comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

program issues: Judy Meade, Director of

the Office of Safety and Security (202)

366–2896 (telephone) or (202) 366–7951

(fax). For legal issues: Nancy Zaczek,

Office of the Chief Counsel (202) 366–

4011 (telephone) or (202) 366–3809

(fax). Electronic access to this and other

rules may be obtained through FTA’s

Transit Safety and Security Bulletin

Board at 1–800–231–2061 or through

the FTA World Wide Web home page at

http://www.fta.bts.gov; both services are

available seven days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 14, 1994, FTA issued 49

CFR parts 653 and 654, which require

recipients of certain categories of FTA

funding to test safety-sensitive

employees for the use of five prohibited

drugs and the misuse of alcohol. In

addition to five other types of testing,

not relevant to this discussion, the rules

require employers to conduct postaccident testing of certain safetysensitive employees within eight hours

of the accident for the misuse of alcohol

and within 32 hours for the use of

prohibited drugs. (The standards for

determining which ‘‘safety-sensitive’’

employees must be tested are set out in

the rule and are not relevant to this

discussion.) If an employer cannot test