Summary from Working Group on SEC Petitions that Did Not Qualif

NIOSH (Taft Labs), Cincinnati, Ohio

November 9, 2006 

y

Attendance: James Lockey (Chair), Brad Clawson, Genevieve Roessler, Wanda Munn, 

James Melius, Larry Elliott, Lewis Wade, LaVon Rutherford, and Emily Howell

General Conclusions: 

The working group (WG) reviewed approximately 2/3 of the 29 SEC petitions that were 

not qualified. Full documentation was provided within the working notebooks as to the 

process followed by NIOSH and the rationale for petition disqualification. The final rule 

as reflected in the legislation was followed. The WG thought that the work by NIOSH on 

these petitions was claimant friendly.

Specific Recommendations:

 Final rule states that the appeal process should be completed in 30 days through a 

review of a three person panel. Final decision is then at the discretion of the 

NIOSH director. The WG urges that this appeal process be completed as 

stipulated in the final rule within a 30-day period of time. 

 NIOSH should consider surveying the audience they are serving in regard to 

recognition of the availability of the SEC petition process and knowledge of the 

audience in regard to accessing the SEC petition process. 

 It was suggested that within the initial letter from NIOSH acknowledging that a 

petition has been received, mention should be made that a second phone 

consultation with the petitioner will be made to evaluate progress made on any 

potential deficiencies in the initial application and the availability of a 30 day 

extension if in fact progress appears to be being made. 

 Within the letter sent out by NIOSH indicating deficiencies in the petitioner filed 

SEC petition it is stated additional information has to be provided within 30 days. 

It is suggested that this letter state that a second phone consultation will be held 

within approximately 10 days of the expiration of this 30 day period of time at 

which point a NIOSH representative will determine the progress made by the 

petitioner in addressing listed deficiencies. At this second phone consultation and 

at the discretion of the NIOSH representative a 30 day extension may be granted. 
The purpose of this is to inform the petitioner that a phone consultation will be 

held regarding the petitioner’s progress in retrieving additional information. The 

second purpose is to gather information from the petitioner to allow a more 

objective decision as to whether a 30 day extension is appropriate. 

 It should be made clear in the “final” letter that disqualifies a SEC petition that 

the petition can be re-opened at any time by the petitioner if new information is 

provided. 

 The various letters from NIOSH should be reviewed and made more audience 

friendly taking into consideration the legal concern as to the language within the 

final rule. 

 Within the internal procedures for the evaluation of the special exposure cohort 

petitions, guidance should be provided in regard to the terms “adequacy” and 

“credibility”. 

 Phone consultation by NIOSH personnel were comprehensive, informative and 

well-documented and petitioner friendly. 

Summary from Working Group on SEC Petitions that Did Not Qualify

Cincinnati Airport Marriott

March 28, 2007

Attendance: James Lockey (Chair) Brad Clawson, Genevieve Roessler, Wanda Munn, 

Larry Elliott, Lewis Wade, LaVon Rutherford, and Emily Howell, and via telephone: 

Laurie Breyer, Denise Brock

Unable to Attend: James Melius

 Within the “final” letter that disqualifies a SEC petition, there should be a clear 

explanation as to why the SEC petition did not qualify. This explanation should 

be provided in an audience friendly manner taking into consideration the legal 

concerns as to the language in the final rule.

 The support documentation outlining why specific SEC petitions do not qualify 

should be made part of the permanent NIOSH files of those SEC petitions. 
 Close-out communication via phone by NIOSH personnel should be attempted 

with the petitioner in those cases where the SEC petition was not qualified. This 

will provide an opportunity for NIOSH personnel to answer questions by the 

petitioner regarding the content and language of the “final” letter. 

 The Work Group commends the hiring of SEC petition counselors as petitioner 

advocates (Laurie Breyer and Denise Brock). This will be a great benefit in the 

pre-petition, petition and post petition process. 

 Dr. Howard’s administrative review panel reviewed and provided support 

documentation regarding their opinion on those SC petitions that were initially 

not felt to be qualified.