23166 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900–AK63

Disease Associated With Exposure to

Certain Herbicide Agents: Type 2

Diabetes

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) is amending its

adjudication regulations concerning

presumptive service connection for

certain diseases for which there is no

record during service. This amendment

is necessary to implement a decision of

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under

the authority granted by 38 U.S.C. 1116

that there is a positive association

between exposure to herbicides used in

the Republic of Vietnam during the

Vietnam era and the subsequent

development of Type 2 diabetes. The

intended effect of this amendment is to

establish presumptive service

connection for that condition based on

herbicide exposure.

DATES: Effective Date: July 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill

Russo, Regulations Staff, Compensation

and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202)

273–7211.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA

published a proposal to amend 38 CFR

3.309(e) to establish presumptive

service connection for Type 2 diabetes

based on exposure to herbicides in the

Federal Register of January 11, 2001 (66

FR 2376–80). Interested persons were

invited to submit written comments

concerning the proposal on or before

March 12, 2001. We received 14

comments: one from the New York State

Council of the Vietnam Veterans of

America, one from the Wisconsin State

Council of the Vietnam Veterans of

America, and 12 from concerned

individuals.

I. Comments on the Proposed Rule

Comments Supporting the Proposed

Regulation

Three commenters stated that they

supported the proposed regulation. One

e-mail comment signed by 86

individuals also stated that they

supported the proposed regulation. One

commenter stated that he supported the

proposed regulation and asked for swift

implementation of the regulation.

Minimum 10% Rating

One commenter urged that all

Vietnam veterans with Type 2 diabetes

be awarded a minimum 10% disability

rating.

This rule implements 38 U.S.C.

1116(c), which requires VA to establish

a presumption of service connection

when a positive association is found

between exposure to certain herbicide

agents and the subsequent development

of a disease. The statute does not require

VA to presume that such diseases result

in any particular degree of disability.

Further, under 38 CFR 3.307(a)(6)(ii),

any disease must be manifest to a degree

of disability of 10 percent or more

before it may be presumed service

connected based on herbicide exposure.

In establishing presumptions of service

connection for specific diseases based

on herbicide exposure or other

circumstances of service, Congress has

consistently required that the disease be

manifest to a degree of disability of 10

percent or more before the presumption

applies. (See 38 U.S.C. 1116(a)(2)). We

are aware of no justification for treating

type 2 diabetes differently than other

presumptive conditions in this regard.

We therefore make no change based on

this comment. We note that VA’s rating

schedule in 38 CFR 4.119, Diagnostic

Code 7913, provides that a 10-percent

rating will be assigned for diabetes

which is ‘‘[m]anageable by restricted

diet only.’’

Herbicide Exposure Outside Republic of

Vietnam

One commenter urged that VA amend

the proposed regulation to include

veterans who did not serve in the

Republic of Vietnam, but were exposed

to herbicides during their military

service.

Section 1116(a)(3) of title 38 of the

United States Code establishes a

presumption of exposure to certain

herbicides for any veteran who served

in the Republic of Vietnam between

January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975, and

has one of the diseases on the list of

diseases subject to presumptive service

connection. However, if a veteran who

did not serve in the Republic of

Vietnam, but was exposed to an

herbicide agent defined in 38 CFR

3.307(a)(6) during active military

service, has a disease on the list of

diseases subject to presumptive service

connection, VA will presume that the

disease is due to the exposure to

herbicides. (See 38 CFR 3.309(e)). We

therefore believe that there is no need to

revise the regulation based on this

comment.

Another commenter urged VA to use

this rulemaking to define service in the

Republic of Vietnam to include service

in Vietnam’s inland waterways or its

territorial waters. The commenter

asserted that U.S. military personnel

were exposed to herbicides while

serving in those locations.

Title 38 U.S.C. 1116 requires that a

veteran have served ‘‘in the Republic of

Vietnam’’ to be eligible for the

presumption of exposure to herbicides.

We believe that it is commonly

recognized that this term includes the

inland waterways.

With respect to offshore service, 38

CFR 3.307(a)(6)(iii) provides that

‘‘Service in the Republic of Vietnam ‘‘

includes service in offshore waters or

other locations only if the conditions of

service involved duty or visitation

within the Republic of Vietnam. In

interpreting similar language in 38

U.S.C. 101(29)(A), VA’s General Counsel

has concluded that service in a deepwater vessel in waters offshore the

Republic of Vietnam does not constitute

service ‘‘in the Republic of Vietnam.’’

(See VAOPGCPREC 27–97). VA’s

regulatory definition of ‘‘Service in the

Republic of Vietnam’’ predates the

enactment of section 1116(a)(3) (see

former 38 CFR 3.311a(a)(1) (1990)), and

we find no basis to conclude that

Congress intended to broaden that

definition. The commenter cited no

authority for concluding that

individuals who served in the waters

offshore of the Republic of Vietnam

were subject to the same risk of

herbicide exposure as those who served

within the geographic boundaries of the

Republic of Vietnam, or for concluding

that offshore service is within the

meaning of the statutory phrase

‘‘Service in the Republic of Vietnam.’’

We therefore make no change based on

this comment.

Type 1 Diabetes

We received two comments urging VA

to broaden the scope of this regulation

to include Type 1 diabetes (also known

as juvenile diabetes).

One commenter noted that VA’s

rating schedule (38 CFR 4.119, DC 7913)

refers only to ‘‘diabetes mellitus’’ and

does not distinguish between Type 1

and Type 2. He also noted that DC 7913

refers to ketoacidosis, and asserted that

this condition only occurs with Type 1

diabetes.

VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities

(38 CFR part 4) is used to assess the

level of disability caused by a disease or

injury. It is not used to determine

whether disabilities are service

connected, nor is it considered when

the Secretary determines whether there

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23167

is an association between herbicide

exposure and a specific disease. Under

38 U.S.C. 1116, that decision is based on

reports of the National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) and all other sound

medical and scientific information and

analyses available to the Secretary.

Another commenter, an

endocrinologist, stated that

environmental toxins are well known

triggers for the onset of Type 1 diabetes.

However, this commenter cited no

medical or scientific literature in

support of this statement, nor did the

commenter specify which

environmental toxins (e.g., herbicides)

are well known triggers for Type 1

diabetes.

The intent of the proposed regulation

was to add only Type 2 diabetes to the

list of diseases subject to presumptive

service connection based on herbicide

exposure in the Republic of Vietnam.

Type 1 diabetes is a clinically distinct

disease from Type 2 diabetes. As

discussed extensively in ‘‘Veterans and

Agent Orange: Herbicide/Dioxin

Exposure and Type 2 Diabetes’’ (VAO:

Diabetes), Appendix B, Type 1 is

generally considered to be disease of

insulin deficiency due to an immune

disorder, while Type 2 diabetes is

considered to be primarily a disease of

insulin resistance. In its report,

‘‘Veterans and Agent Orange: Update

1998’’ (Update 1998), NAS concluded

that there was ‘‘inadequate or

insufficient evidence’’ to determine

whether an association existed between

exposure to herbicides and immune

disorders. The Secretary determined

‘‘that the credible evidence against an

association between immune system

disorders and herbicide exposure

outweighs the credible evidence for

such an association, and [ ] determined

that a positive association does not

exist.’’ Diseases Not Associated With

Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents,

64 FR 59232, 59241 (November 2, 1999).

The conclusion reached by NAS in

VAO Diabetes was that ‘‘there is

limited/suggestive evidence of an

association between exposure to the

herbicides used in Vietnam or the

contaminant dioxin and Type 2

diabetes.’’ This conclusion was based on

NAS’ thorough review of the published

scientific literature on herbicide

exposure and diabetes. The Secretary

subsequently determined that there is a

positive association between exposure

to herbicides used in the Republic of

Vietnam during the Vietnam era and the

development of Type 2 diabetes.

Based on the reasons discussed above,

VA finds no basis on which to expand

the proposed regulation to include Type

1 diabetes, and we therefore make no

change based on these comments.

Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes

One commenter asserted that several

recent medical studies reported a

significant increase in the incidence of

diabetes, apparently resulting from an

increase in obesity in the general

population. The commenter stated that

assuming these studies are valid, it is

improper for VA to find a ‘‘statistically

significant relationship’’ between

diabetes and Agent Orange.

NAS was well aware that obesity is a

significant risk factor in causing Type 2

diabetes. (VAO: Diabetes at 3).

Nevertheless, after a thorough review of

the scientific literature available on the

subject, NAS concluded ‘‘there is

limited/suggestive evidence of an

association between exposure to the

herbicides used in Vietnam or the

contaminant dioxin and Type 2

diabetes.’’

The Secretary has not found a

‘‘statistically significant relationship’’

between herbicide exposure and

diabetes, but rather a ‘‘positive

association.’’ Title 38 U.S.C. 1116(b)(3)

provides that an association is

‘‘positive’’ if the credible evidence for

the association is equal to or outweighs

the credible evidence against the

association. Once he has determined

that a positive association exists

between herbicide exposure and a

particular disease, the Secretary must

publish regulations establishing

presumptive service connection for that

disease.

The same commenter suggested that

VA either reconsider whether to add

Type 2 diabetes to the list of diseases

subject to presumptive service

connection based on herbicide exposure

in the Republic of Vietnam or that it

wait to publish the final rule until it

reviewed these studies.

Title 38 U.S.C. 1116(c)(1) requires that

the Secretary, not later than 60 days

after the date on which he receives a

report from NAS, determine whether a

presumption of service connection is

warranted for each disease covered by

the report and, if the Secretary

determines that a presumption is

warranted, issue proposed regulations

within 60 days thereafter. 38 U.S.C.

1116(c)(2) requires the Secretary to issue

final regulations establishing

presumptive service connection for any

condition for which he determines there

is a positive association with exposure

of humans to an herbicide agent not

later than 90 days after he has issued

proposed regulations.

We believe that the NAS adequately

took into consideration the recognized

relationship between obesity and type 2

diabetes, and the existence of additional

studies concerning this risk factor does

not warrant ignoring the time

requirements of section 1116(c)(2). For

reasons more fully explained in the

proposal, the Secretary has concluded

that presumptive service connection is

warranted for Type 2 diabetes, and VA

is, therefore, proceeding with

publication of a final rule

notwithstanding these comments.

Effective Dates

One commenter urged that the

proposed rule be amended to state that

awards granted under the rule will be

retroactive to the date the claimant first

submitted evidence of a diagnosis of

Type 2 diabetes. Title 38 U.S.C.

1116(c)(2) clearly and unambiguously

requires that regulations promulgated as

a result of a decision of the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs that a positive

association exists between exposure to

herbicides and a specified condition or

disease ‘‘shall be effective on the date of

issuance.’’ The effective date established

by this rule is in accordance with 38

U.S.C. 1116(c)(2) and 5 U.S.C. 801 et.

seq. Under 38 U.S.C. 5110(g), when

benefits are awarded based on a new

regulation, the effective date of the

award may not be earlier than the

effective date of the regulation. In view

of 38 U.S.C. 1116(c)(2) and 5110(g), VA

does not have authority to provide in

this rule for assignment of effective

dates earlier than the date on which this

rule is issued.

Another commenter asked how the

court case Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans’

Admin., C.A. No. C–86–6160 (TEH)

(N.D. Cal.), will apply to Type 2

diabetes claims under the proposed

rule. The commenter asserted that it is

unfair for a Vietnam veteran to not be

compensated retroactively by VA.

Pursuant to a stipulation and order of

the Federal district court in Nehmer,

awards of disability compensation or

dependency and indemnity

compensation (DIC) made under VA’s

regulations issued pursuant to 38 U.S.C.

1116 may, in some circumstances, be

made effective retroactive to the date of

an earlier claim that was filed or denied

before such regulations were issued.

Thus, the Nehmer stipulation and order,

when it applies, permits awards of

retroactive benefits that would

otherwise be prohibited by 38 U.S.C.

1116(c)(2) and 5110(g). The scope and

application of the Nehmer stipulation

and order is the subject of pending

litigation and, until that litigation is

resolved, we cannot say how the

Nehmer stipulation and order will affect

claims under this rule.

23168 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Nothing in this rule is intended to

modify the Nehmer stipulation and

order or to detract from rights existing

under that document. The Nehmer

stipulation and order applies to a

specific class of claimants whose claims

were previously filed or denied during

a particular time period. This rule will

apply to a broader class of claimants,

including those whose claims were

denied during periods not covered by

the Nehmer stipulation and order, as

well as those who file claims in the

future. Individuals will continue to have

specific rights under the terms of the

Nehmer stipulation and order when it

applies.

The final rule does not incorporate

the effective-date provisions of the

Nehmer stipulation and order because

the scope and application of those

provisions is the subject of current

litigation and because VA lacks the

authority to issue regulatory provisions

that would be inconsistent with 38

U.S.C. 1116(c)(2) and 5110(g). (See 38

U.S.C. 501(a).)

VA appreciates the comments

submitted in response to the proposed

rule that is now adopted without

change.

II. Compliance With the Congressional

Review Act, the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, and Executive Order 12866

We estimate that the five-year cost of

this rule from appropriated funds would

be $3.3 billion in benefits costs and $62

million in government operating

expenses. Since it is likely that the

adoption of the proposed rule may have

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, the Office of

Management and Budget has designated

this rule as a major rule under the

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 802,

and a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review. The following

information is provided pursuant to

E.O. 12866.

This rule is necessary to comply with

38 U.S.C. 1116, which requires VA to

establish a presumption of service

connection if the Secretary finds that

there is a positive association between

exposure to herbicides used in the

Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam

era and the subsequent development of

any particular disease. As explained

above, the Secretary found that there is

such an association regarding Type 2

diabetes. There are no feasible

alternatives to this rule, since section

1116 requires the Secretary to

promulgate it once he finds the positive

association described above. This rule

would not interfere with state, local or

tribal governments in the exercise of

their governmental functions.

Benefits Costs

Historical statistics indicate that the

total number of veterans who served in

the Republic of Vietnam or its

surrounding waters was about 2.6

million. We estimate that about 2.3

million of these veterans are alive today.

Using information gained from VAO:

Diabetes and VA’s Office of Planning

and Analysis, VA applied a prevalence

rate of 9% to the current population to

determine the number of veterans who

might have Type 2 diabetes today. VA

assumes that over five years, about 90%

of these same veterans would file a

diabetes-related claim. We expect that 8

out of 10 claims will be made by first

time applicants (original) and that 2 out

of 10 will come from veterans already

service connected for some other issue

(reopened). The average monthly award

made on account of diabetes or its

ancillary conditions for original and

reopened claims is estimated to be $462

and $786, respectively. These figures are

based on average benefits to current

beneficiaries for all conditions and

include dependents’ benefits and

unemployability benefits where

applicable. A moderate number of DIC

and burial claims have also been

factored into this estimate.

VA estimates the cumulative totals of

benefits awards to claimants for years

2001–2005 as follows: 10,199, 80,526,

129,988, 159,198 and 178,356. Benefits

costs (in $ million) for years 2001–2005

are as follows: $16.6, $303, $720.1,

$1,010.7, and $1,205.3, for a total cost

of $3.3 billion over five years. This cost

estimate also provides for a nominal

number of DIC payments and burial

awards. Anticipated cost-of-living

allowances (COLA’s), per current

economic assumptions, were factored

into this estimate; however, no

retroactive payments were considered.

Administrative Costs

The administrative workload caused

by this proposed rule is expected to be

13,361 claims filed in 2001 and more

than 220,000 over five years. Full time

employee resources devoted to

processing claims in years one through

five would be 128, 378, 311, 185, and

123, respectively. Administrative

workloads assume that not all claims

would be granted; it is probable that

diabetes related claims will be received

from veterans who never served in the

Republic of Vietnam. GOE costs (in $

million) for years 2001–2005 are as

follows: $6.4, $18.6, $16.5, $11.9, and

$8.2, for a total GOE cost of $62 million

over five years.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

requires (in section 202) that agencies

prepare an assessment of anticipated

costs and benefits before developing any

rule that may result in an expenditure

by State, local, or tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100 million or more in any given year.

This rule would have no consequential

effect on State, local, or tribal

governments.

This document contains no provisions

constituting a collection of information

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

The Secretary hereby certifies that

this regulatory amendment will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities as

they are defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The

reason for this certification is that these

amendments would not directly affect

any small entities. Only VA

beneficiaries could be directly affected.

Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

these amendments are exempt from the

initial and final regulatory flexibility

analysis requirements of sections 603

and 604.

(The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

program numbers are 64.100, 64.101, 64.104,

64.105, 64.106, 64.109, and 64.110).

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,

Health care, Pensions, Veterans,

Vietnam.

Approved: April 19, 2001.

Anthony J. Principi,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is amended as

follows:

PART 3—ADJUDICATION

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation,

and Dependency and Indemnity

Compensation

1. The authority citation for part 3,

subpart A continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless

otherwise noted.

2. In § 3.309, paragraph (e), the listing

of diseases is amended by adding ‘‘Type

2 diabetes (also known as Type II

diabetes mellitus or adult-onset

diabetes)’’ between ‘‘Chloracne or other

acneform disease consistent with

chloracne’’ and ‘‘Hodgkin’s disease’’ to

read as follows:

§ 3.309 Diseases subject to presumptive

service connection.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23169

(e) * * *

Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type

II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset

diabetes)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–11569 Filed 5–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Parts 101–20, 101–21, and 102–

85

RIN 3090–AG33

Pricing Policy for Occupancy in GSA

Space

AGENCY: Office of Business Performance,

Public Buildings Service.

ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: The General Services

Administration (GSA) is revising the

Federal Property Management

Regulations (FPMR) by moving coverage

of GSA’s Rent program into the Federal

Management Regulation (FMR). A crossreference is added to the FPMR to direct

readers to the coverage in the FMR. The

FMR is written in plain language to

provide agencies with updated

regulatory material that is easy to read

and understand. This interim rule

establishes the pricing policy guidance

for Occupancy Agreements between

GSA and customer agencies. It also

governs intra-governmental pricing of

space and services.

DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2001.

Comment Date: Comments should be

submitted on or before July 9, 2001 to

be considered in the formulation of a

final rule.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to: Mr. Michael Hopkins,

Regulatory Secretariat (MVRS), Office of

Governmentwide Policy, General

Services Administration, 1800 F Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20405.

E-mail comments submitted over the

Internet should be addressed to

RIN.3090–AG33@gsa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ronald Kendall, Office of Portfolio

Management, General Services

Administration, at 202–501–0638, or

Internet e-mail at ron.kendall@gsa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

This interim rule changes the

methods by which GSA-controlled

space is identified and measured,

eliminates the specific physical

description of the components of

standard level alterations, and

substitutes budget guidance for

alterations, providing customer agencies

flexibility in designing space to meet

their mission needs.

The recommendations are being

implemented to improve GSA’s overall

management of real property assets and

the level of service and choices

provided to its customer agencies.

As a result of the principles outlined

in this rule:

(1) Federal agencies will have greater

choice in using GSA to meet space

needs;

(2) GSA will remain available to

provide the benefits of centralized

services desired by its customers; and

(3) GSA’s relationship with its

customers will more closely

approximate landlord/customer

relationships typical in the private

sector, providing incentives to

economize and speed program delivery.

The FMR, which replaces the FPMR,

contains a refined and streamlined set of

policies and regulatory requirements

related to managing property and

administrative services. Non-regulatory

materials, such as guidance, procedures,

and standards currently found in the

FPMR, and new non-regulatory

materials may become available in

separate documents, such as customer

guides.

B. Executive Order 12866

GSA has determined that this interim

rule is a significant regulatory action for

the purposes of Executive Order 12866

of September 30, 1993.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The interim rule is not expected to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because this interim rule does

not impose recordkeeping or

information collection requirements, or

the collection of information from

offerors, contractors, or members of the

public which require the approval of the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

E. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

This interim rule is also exempt from

congressional review prescribed under 5

U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to

agency management and personnel.

F. Administrative Procedures Act

GSA finds good cause to make this

rule effective upon publication of this

document in the Federal Register under

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

(5 U.S.C. 553(d). This interim final rule

does not impose any additional

responsibilities on entities in the private

sector. Instead, its purpose is to improve

asset management practices that affect

only Federal agencies that occupy real

property owned or controlled by GSA.

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Parts 101–20,

101–21, and 102–85

Federal buildings and facilities,

Government property and management.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 41 CFR parts 101–20, 101–21,

and 102–85 are amended to read as

follows:

CHAPTER 101—[AMENDED]

PART 101–20—MANAGEMENT OF

BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

1. The authority citation for part 101–

20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390; 40

U.S.C. 486(c).

§ 101–20.102 [Amended]

2. Amend § 101–20.102 by removing

and reserving paragraph (e).

3. Part 101–21 is revised to read as

follows:

PART 101–21—FEDERAL BUILDINGS

FUND

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 40 U.S.C.

490(j) (The Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949, as

amended, Sec. 205(c) and 210(j), 63 Stat. 390

and 86 Stat. 219; (40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 40

U.S.C. 490(j), respectively).

§ 101–21.000 Cross-reference to the

Federal Management Regulation (FMR) (41

CFR chapter 102, parts 102–1 through 102–

220.)

For information previously contained

in this part, see FMR part 85 (41 CFR

part 102–85).

CHAPTER 102—[AMENDED]

4. Part 102–85 is added to subchapter

C to read as follows:

PART 102–85—PRICING POLICY FOR

OCCUPANCY IN GSA SPACE

Subpart A—Pricing Policy—General

Sec.

102–85.5 By what authority is the pricing

policy in this part prescribed?

102–85.10 What is the scope of this part?

102–85.15 What are the basic policies for

charging Rent for space and services?

102–85.20 What does an Occupancy

Agreement (OA) do?

102–85.25 What is the basic principle

governing OAs?