Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 57 / Thursday, March 26, 2009 / Notices 13197 

c. Recreational Fishing Data 

Collection Options 

d. Status of State of Hawaii Fishing 

Regulations Review 

e. Report on State of Hawaii Protected 

Species Activities 

f. Allowing Commercial Harvest of 

Invasive Sardines/Herrings 

g. Cooperative Research — Report on 

Bottomfish Tagging Project 

6. Upcoming 145th Council Meeting 

Actions 

a. Hawaii Offshore Handline Permits 

and Limited Entry 

b. Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish 

Stock Assessment Review 

c. Annual Catch Limits for NonPelagic Species 

d. Small-scale Traditional Fisheries 

7. Other Business 

8. Public Comment 

9. Discussion and Action 

Schedule and Agenda for the Hawaii 

Archipelagic Regional Ecosystem 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

9:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m. Friday, April 17, 

2009 

1. Welcome and Introduction of 

Members 

2. Approval of Draft Agenda 

3. Update on Federal Fisheries 

Management Actions 

a. Hawaii Offshore Handline Permits 

and Limited Entry 

b. FEP amendments on ACLs/ACTs/ 

AMs 

c. Defining Small-scale traditional 

fishing 

d. Discussion and Recommendation 

4. Community Marine Management 

Forum 

a. Hawaii’s Living Seascape: A 

Strategy For A Prosperous Future 

b. Report on Aha Kiole Final Report 

and Legislation 

c. Invasive Species 

i. Hawaii Invasive Species Council 

Strategy 2008–2013 

ii. Allowing Commercial Harvest of 

Invasive Sardines/Herrings 

d. Discussion and Recommendation 

5. Coastal Ecosystems 

a. Marine Education and Training 

Program Priorities 

b. Coastal America Program and 

Projects 

c. Report on the State’s Recreational 

Renaissance Plan 

d. Marine Recreational Information 

Program Initiatives 

e. Habitat Initiatives 

i. Habitat Assessment Improvement 

Plan 

ii. Refining Essential Fish Habitat 

Designations in Hawaii 

iii. Military Activities to Remove 

Mangroves 

6. Public Comments 

7. Discussion and Recommendations 

The order in which agenda items are 

addressed may change. Public comment 

periods will be provided throughout 

each agenda. The PT, AP and REAC will 

meet as late as necessary to complete 

scheduled business. 

Special Accomodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 

(808)522–8220 (voice) or (808)522–8226 

(fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting 

date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 23, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–6737 Filed 3–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

Defense Base Act Insurance 

Acquisition Strategy; Questions for 

Industry and Other Interested Parties 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Request for public input. 

SUMMARY: DoD is soliciting information 

and feedback from defense contractors, 

insurance industry representatives, and 

others, on DoD’s requirement to develop 

a comprehensive acquisition strategy for 

Defense Base Act insurance that will 

address provisions of Section 843 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009. Responses must be 

limited to no more than 20 pages. 

DATES: Submit written comments to the 

address shown below on or before April 

3, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

using any of the following methods. Email is the preferred method. 

Æ E-mail: Teresa.Lawson@osd.mil. 

Æ Fax: 703–602–7887. 

Æ Mail: Deputy Director, Defense 

Procurement and Acquisition Policy 

(Cost, Price, and Finance), ATTN: Ms. 

Teresa Lawson, 3062 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

Æ Hand Delivery/Courier: Deputy 

Director, Defense Procurement and 

Acquisition Policy (Cost, Price, and 

Finance), ATTN: Ms. Teresa Lawson, 

Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th 

Street, Arlington, VA 22202–3402. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Teresa A. Lawson, by telephone at 703– 

602–2402, or by e-mail at 

Teresa.Lawson@osd.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD is 

soliciting information and feedback 

from defense contractors, insurance 

industry representatives, and others, on 

DoD’s requirement to develop a 

comprehensive acquisition strategy for 

Defense Base Act insurance that will 

address the following provisions of 

Section 843 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Pub. L. 110–417): 

The Secretary of Defense shall adopt an 

acquisition strategy for insurance required by 

the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) 

which minimizes the cost of such insurance 

to the Department of Defense and to defense 

contractors subject to such Act * * * The 

Secretary shall ensure that the acquisition 

strategy adopted * * * addresses the 

following criteria: (1) Minimize overhead 

costs associated with obtaining such 

insurance, such as direct or indirect costs for 

contract management and contract 

administration. (2) Minimize costs for 

coverage of such insurance consistent with 

realistic assumptions regarding the 

likelihood of incurred claims by contractors 

of the Department. (3) Provide for a 

correlation of premiums paid in relation to 

claims incurred that is modeled on best 

practices in government and industry for 

similar kinds of insurance. (4) Provide for a 

low level of risk to the Department. (5) 

Provide for a competitive marketplace for 

insurance required by the Defense Base Act 

to the maximum extent practicable. * * * In 

adopting the acquisition strategy * * * the 

Secretary shall consider such options 

(including entering into a single Defense Base 

Act insurance contract) as the Secretary 

deems to best satisfy the (five 

aforementioned) criteria * * * 

1. Policy Options 

Under current law and DoD 

regulations, generally contractors 

performing work outside the United 

States are required to have Defense Base 

Act (DBA) insurance to provide 

workers’ compensation benefits for 

employees, unless the requirement has 

been waived by the Department of Labor 

(DoL). To meet the requirement of 

Section 843 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, 

DoD is considering all options for its 

acquisition strategy and welcomes 

comments highlighting the advantages 

and disadvantages of any of a nonexclusive set of options, which includes 

but is not limited to: (1) A single-source 

contract awarded on a competitive basis 

issued and administered by DoD; (2) a 

multiple-award contract awarded on a 

competitive basis issued and 

administered by DoD; (3) no change 

(i.e., contractors are required to obtain 

13198 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 57 / Thursday, March 26, 2009 / Notices 

appropriate DBA insurance on their 

own); (4) Government self-insuring for 

DBA losses while contracting to the 

private sector for program 

administrative and claims processing; 

(5) Government self-insuring with DoD 

and DoL employees performing all 

administrative and claims processing; 

(6) a GSA schedules-type set of 

maximum rates, which may include 

awards based on geographic location of 

the work to be performed and/or based 

on the nature of the work to be 

performed, with competition for each 

major contract (a vehicle structured 

similar to state-side workers 

compensation policies); (7) a prequalified list of DoD-approved DBA 

carriers and brokers/agents who meet a 

predetermined set of criteria/ 

qualifications to provide DBA insurance 

from which contractors would be 

required to obtain appropriate DBA 

coverage; (8) contractors self-insuring 

either on an individual basis or by 

pooling of contractors, including 

information on how a panel/pool 

participant would avoid adverse 

selection; or (9) other alternative 

recommendations not listed above. 

DoD would appreciate responses to 

the following questions pertinent to 

consideration of the various acquisition 

options: 

a. Cost Drivers. What are the main 

cost drivers of DoD’s DBA expense? 

How can those cost drivers be better 

controlled or mitigated? 

b. Main Stakeholders. Identify the 

main stakeholders in DBA. How should 

DoD (and DoL or others if applicable) 

orchestrate communications and 

involvement to ensure all stakeholder 

interests are represented? 

c. Claims Management. How critical 

are claims management practices to 

controlling ultimate DBA costs? 

Drawing on the best practices of claims 

management (whether currently applied 

to DBA claims or not), what should be 

required to address claims promptly, 

fairly, and efficiently to ensure good 

service and care and proper treatment 

for workers serving those who serve our 

country? 

d. Technical Exhibits. What claims 

history or other information should DoD 

include in its technical exhibits to any 

solicitation to enhance competition? 

2. Additional Questions Regarding 

Potential Policy Options 

DoD would appreciate additional 

specific responses to the following 

questions citing pros and cons of the 

various alternatives: 

a. Single Source DBA Contract. 

Regarding a potential single source 

contract (which would be awarded 

based on source selection procedures 

considering price, technical, 

management, and past performance 

criteria), would your insurance 

company be willing to bid on such a 

contract? Why or why not? For broker 

respondents, do you believe one or more 

insurance companies/brokers would be 

interested in bidding on a single source 

contract? Why or why not? Please 

provide insight into whether one 

provider could handle all claims 

associated with DoD’s DBA insurance 

requirements for contractor performance 

overseas for U.S. citizens, foreign 

nationals, and third country nationals. 

Finally, please provide insight into the 

market implications of having only one 

source for DBA insurance for all of DoD. 

b. Multiple-Award DBA Contract. 

Please provide your recommendations 

and rationale regarding the basis for 

dividing the multiple awards—by 

geographic location, by type of work 

performed (e.g., basic logistics support, 

technical services, security, 

construction), by military department or 

defense agency, by war zone versus nonwar-zone, by dollar value of payroll 

involved and/or dollar amount of 

contract, to ensure DoD meets the 

criteria outlined in the National Defense 

Authorization Act (minimizing direct 

and indirect overhead costs associated 

with administering the program, 

minimizing insurance costs, etc.). Please 

consider the implications of pooling of 

like risks (or unlike risks) to minimize 

insurance costs to DoD. 

c. Minimum Policy Amounts. Please 

provide your recommendations and 

rationale considering the options 

regarding minimum policy amounts of a 

single provider or a multiple award 

contract. If a multiple award contract 

were divided in part based on dollar 

value of payrolls/dollar value of 

contracts, what is the maximum 

threshold you would recommend be 

used as the basis for not having a 

minimum policy amount? Should DoD 

avoid dividing any multiple award 

contract based on dollar value to 

minimize the need for minimum policy 

amounts? Please keep in mind that DoD 

aims to not discourage small businesses 

from performing overseas work for DoD 

and any minimum policy amounts 

might inhibit that competition. 

d. No Change (Contractors procure 

their own DBA coverage). If the current 

approach is retained, how can it be 

modified to be responsive to the five 

criteria outlined in Section 843 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009? 

e. Self-Insurance. If DoD elected to 

directly self-insure contractor DBA 

losses, what would be the relative pros 

and cons of contracted administration 

vs. ‘‘in-house’’ Government 

administration? Please provide 

comments regarding the pros and cons 

of contractors self-insuring either on an 

individual basis or by pooling of 

contractors. Recognizing that there are 

many variations of self-insurance, 

which do you believe are relevant for 

DoD to consider and why? 

3. Specific Questions for Brokers/ 

Carriers 

In addition to the questions above 

soliciting information from all 

interested parties, DoD would 

appreciate additional responses from 

interested brokers and carriers to the 

following questions: 

a. Experience. What is your 

experience in handling DBA insurance? 

For example, how many clients, years, 

and geography of experience, payroll 

exposure, and premium volume 

managed? 

b. Competition. How do you suggest 

that Government ensure the broadest 

industry participation in establishing a 

DBA insurance acquisition strategy 

given a limited pool of qualified carriers 

and broker/agents? 

c. Broker/Agent Role. What is the role 

of the insurance broker/agent in the 

open-market DBA insurance 

procurement process? 

d. Rating Approach. What is your 

rating approach in light of the 

underwriting and service complications 

of insuring this long-tail catastrophic 

liability? In the absence of adequate loss 

history data to rate DBA coverage, what 

is the rationale/rating methodology you 

apply? How do you measure a 

contractor’s risk mitigation/loss 

reduction results to reward the best 

performing contractors and minimize 

costs to the Government? 

e. Data. Are you willing and able to 

provide aggregate loss and development 

information to include medical 

expenses, lost wages, reserves, adequate 

medical care/evacuation/infrastructure 

expenses, administrative costs, and 

other appropriate support services? Are 

you willing to provide the rate of return 

and amounts made on invested 

insurance premiums? 

f. Retrospective Plans. Regarding 

establishing a program with rates that 

change based on overall program loss 

experience, what is your experience in 

structuring loss-sensitive rated DBA 

programs? Please provide suggestions 

regarding the potential structures of 

such retrospective rating plans. 

g. Term Length. Regarding the length 

of any contract term for any of the 

policy options being considered, what 

term length of a contract would be 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 57 / Thursday, March 26, 2009 / Notices 13199 

reasonable (1, 3, or 5 years)? If more 

than a one-year term, could 

retrospective pricing be a reasonable 

approach based on the profit/loss ratio? 

h. Subcontractors. Do you recommend 

that subcontractors obtain their own 

individual policies, or do you 

recommend that the prime contractor 

purchase the insurance for all its 

subcontractors (at all tiers)? 

i. DBA Data. Please provide 

recommendations on how DoD can best 

collect, analyze, and act on relevant 

DBA data from various sources to 

optimize its understanding and tracking 

of DBA costs and trends and put DoD in 

the most favorable negotiating position. 

j. Medical Care. Please provide data 

and analysis on the costs of finding 

sources of adequate medical care for 

countries where the standard of care is 

insufficient. 

k. Contracting Entity. If DoD procures 

DBA coverage (vs. contractors 

procuring), should DoD be contracting 

with broker(s) or carrier(s) or some 

combination of the two? 

l. Discounts. By including DBA 

insurance with other insurance 

coverage, what type of discount is 

typically obtained on DBA insurance? 

m. Impact of Safety Record. How does 

a contractor’s safety record affect 

insurance rates—does it have a 

significant impact? How much of a 

discount is normally offered for a good 

safety record? 

n. Maximum Mandated DBA Rates. 

What is your position on DoD 

mandating maximum DBA rates based 

upon job description (classification), 

geography (e.g., Iraq vs. Germany) and 

loss experience? What would be your 

response to having to file your proposed 

rates with DoD for approval each year, 

based upon your own individual loss 

experience and trending? 

o. WHA Claims. Please provide the 

percent of DBA claims that are initially 

believed to be War Hazard Act (WHA) 

claims. Please provide the percent of 

initial WHA claims that are later 

determined by DoL not to be WHA 

claims. How long on average does it take 

DoL to settle and reimburse the 

insurance carrier for WHA claims? 

Typically, does DoL pay the entire WHA 

claim amount the carrier submits—if 

not, what is the average percent? 

4. Specific Questions for DoD 

Contractors 

In addition to the questions in 1 and 

2 above soliciting information from all 

interested parties, DoD would 

appreciate additional responses from 

DoD contractors to the following 

questions: 

a. Current Practice. How do you 

acquire your DBA coverage today? Do 

you purchase insurance or are you an 

approved self-insurer for this coverage? 

b. Purchased Insurance. If you 

purchase your DBA insurance, is it: (a) 

Acquired through a stand-alone 

insurance policy; (b) acquired through a 

multi-line insurance program with DBA 

coverage separately priced; or (c) 

acquired through a multi-line insurance 

program with DBA coverage not 

separately priced? 

c. Supplemental Coverage. Do you 

supplement the standard DBA coverage 

for employees with medical assistance 

or additional life or disability coverage? 

Do you do so: (a) For all DBA covered 

employees; or (b) only for specific 

categories of employees? Are the 

premiums for any such coverage: (a) 

Paid for in full by the company; (b) paid 

for in part by the company and in part 

by the employee; or (c) paid in full by 

the employee? 

d. Subcontractors. Do you recommend 

that subcontractors obtain their own 

individual policies, or do you 

recommend that the prime contractor 

purchase the insurance for all its 

subcontractors (at all tiers)? 

e. Discounts. By including DBA 

insurance with other insurance 

coverage, what type of discount is 

typically obtained on DBA insurance? 

f. Impact of Safety Record. How does 

a contractor’s safety record affect 

insurance rates—does it have a 

significant impact? How much of a 

discount is normally offered for a good 

safety record? 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

[FR Doc. E9–6808 Filed 3–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Information 

Collection Clearance Division, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, invites 

comments on the proposed information 

collection requests as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before May 26, 

2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Director, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, 

publishes that notice containing 

proposed information collection 

requests prior to submission of these 

requests to OMB. Each proposed 

information collection, grouped by 

office, contains the following: (1) Type 

of review requested, e.g., new, revision, 

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) 

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) 

Description of the need for, and 

proposed use of, the information; (5) 

Respondents and frequency of 

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or 

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites 

public comment. 

The Department of Education is 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 

this collection necessary to the proper 

functions of the Department; (2) will 

this information be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate 

of burden accurate; (4) how might the 

Department enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (5) how might the 

Department minimize the burden of this 

collection on the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. 

Dated: March 20, 2009. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

Director, Information Collections Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Type of Review: New. 

Title: IEPS Fulbright-Hays Group 

Projects Abroad Customer Surveys. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

household. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 1,629. 

Burden Hours: 723. 

Abstract: The purpose of this 

evaluation is to assess the impact of the 

Group Projects Abroad (GPA) program 

in enhancing the foreign language 

capacity of the United States. Three 

surveys will be conducted: A survey of 

the GPA Project Directors; a survey of