30306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Sandra.s.elliott@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing material in the 

docket call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 13, 2009, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 

Regulations; Perquimans River, 

Hertford, NC’’ in the Federal Register (74 

FR 10850–10853). The rulemaking 

would have allowed the drawbridge to 

operate on an advance notice basis 

during specific times of the year. 

Officials from the Town of Hertford 

commented that not maintaining a 

tender during peak boating times would 

have an adverse impact on public safety. 

Withdrawal 

The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT), responsible 

for the operation of the US17 Bridge, 

had requested advance notification of 

vessel openings during specific times of 

the year due to the infrequency of 

requests for vessel openings of the 

drawbridge. 

The Coast Guard received several 

comments opposing changes to the 

proposed rulemaking. We conducted a 

lengthy and thorough investigation that 

included a site visit and a meeting with 

officials of the Town of Hertford. The 

Coast Guard met with the Mayor, Town 

Manager, Town Planner and a 

representative from NCDOT. We also 

met separately with a marina owner and 

the Chief of the Water Rescue team. 

Our investigation along with the 

majority of the comments revealed that 

the rulemaking could impose critical 

service delays to commercial and 

recreational boaters and impede the 

ability of rescue boats to arrive promptly 

on scene. The withdrawal is based on 

the reason that this change would not 

improve the schedule for roadway and 

waterway users. 

Authority 

This action is taken under the 

authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05– 

1; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

Wayne E. Justice, 

Real Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12980 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN45 

Responding To Disruptive Patients 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) regulation that authorizes 

appropriate action when a patient 

engages in disruptive behavior at a VA 

medical facility. VA needs to update its 

current regulation to reflect modern 

medical care and ethical practices. The 

proposed rule would authorize VA to 

modify the time, place, and/or manner 

in which VA provides treatment to a 

patient, in order to ensure the safety of 

others at VA medical facilities, and to 

prevent any interference with the 

provision of medical care. 

DATES: Comment Date: Comments on 

the proposed rule must be received by 

VA on or before August 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through http:// 

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to the Director, Regulations 

Management (02REG), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 

20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AN45—Responding To Disruptive 

Patients.’’ Copies of comments received 

will be available for public inspection in 

the Office of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Room 1063B, between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday (except holidays). Please 

call (202) 461–4902 for an appointment. 

This is not a toll free number. In 

addition, during the comment period, 

comments may be viewed online at 

http://www.Regulations.gov through the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roscoe Butler, Deputy Director, 

Business Policy, Chief Business Office 

(163), Veterans Health Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–1586. (This is not a 

toll free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 

U.S.C. chapters 17 and 18, VA has 

authority to provide medical care to 

certain veterans and nonveterans. VA is 

required, per 38 U.S.C. 1721, to 

prescribe rules and regulations to 

promote good conduct on the part of VA 

patients. VA has implemented this 

authority in 38 CFR part 17. 

Regarding the rights of patients 

receiving VA care, 38 CFR 17.33(a) 

prescribes, in part, that patients have ‘‘a 

right to be treated with dignity in a 

humane environment that affords them 

both reasonable protection from harm 

and appropriate privacy with regard to 

their personal needs.’’ Patients also have 

‘‘a right to receive, to the extent of 

eligibility therefor under the law, 

prompt and appropriate treatment for 

any physical or emotional disability.’’ 

Section 17.33(b) also prescribes rights 

with respect to visitations and 

communications, clothing, personal 

possessions, money, social interaction, 

exercise, and worship for VA residents 

and inpatients. These rights may be 

restricted by the appropriate health care 

professional in certain circumstances. 

See 38 CFR 17.33(c). The restrictions 

authorized by § 17.33(c), however, do 

not apply to outpatients and only cover 

restrictions on the listed rights. In 

certain cases, VA must restrict the 

provision of medical care to a patient in 

order to prevent harm to other patients 

and VA staff and disruptions in VA’s 

provision of medical care due to the 

patient’s behavior. 

VA regulations also prescribe rules of 

conduct for patients and other 

individuals who have access to VA 

facilities. See 38 CFR 1.218. In 

particular, § 1.218(a)(5) prohibits 

persons on VA property from causing a 

wide variety of disturbances, including 

creating ‘‘loud or unusual noise,’’ 

obstructing public areas, and impeding 

or disrupting ‘‘the performance of 

official duties by Government 

employees.’’ The sole enforcement 

mechanism provided by paragraph (a)(5) 

is ‘‘arrest and removal from the 

premises.’’ 38 CFR 1.218(a)(5). VA has 

determined that arrest is generally not 

an appropriate remedy in a situation 

where the Department must balance the 

rights and needs of a disruptive patient 

against the need to protect other 

patients, guests, and staff. Some patients 

establish a pattern of disruptive 

behavior when interacting with VA 

personnel or when they are on VA 

property, and we believe that by 

understanding these patterns of 

behavior, planning for such behavior in 

advance, and setting safe conditions for 

care delivery, we can intervene in ways 

that can prevent subsequent episodes 

requiring removal and arrest. 

In addition to §§ 1.218 and 17.33, the 

behavior of patients is specifically 

governed by current 38 CFR 17.106. It 

requires, in part, that VA maintain the 

good conduct of patients through 

‘‘corrective and disciplinary procedure.’’ 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30307 

However, current § 17.106, which VA 

promulgated in 1973 and last amended 

over 10 years ago, does not adequately 

reflect modern practice or VA’s policy 

regarding disruptive patients in the 

health care setting, which opposes the 

use of punishment in the management 

of disruptive patients. Instead, it reflects 

the view that patients exhibiting 

disruptive behavior must be punished. 

For example, current § 17.106 

emphasizes disciplining patients who 

do not engage in ‘‘good conduct,’’ and 

includes measures (such as withholding 

pass privileges) that do not differentiate 

between providing care and ensuring 

the safety of others. Moreover, the 

current rule could be viewed as 

interfering with VA’s legal obligation to 

provide medical care to certain veterans 

and nonveterans. Accordingly, VA has 

determined that amendments to current 

regulations are necessary to implement 

its policy regarding disruptive patients, 

which emphasizes continuation of 

treatment. 

We propose to amend § 17.106 to 

prescribe the remedial measures VA 

will take when a patient is disruptive 

and the procedures for implementing 

those measures. VA intends that the 

proposed rule would minimize the risk 

of a particular patient jeopardizing the 

health or safety of others, or disrupting 

the safe provision of medical care to 

another patient, in a VA medical 

facility. 

In proposed § 17.106(a), we would 

define ‘‘VA medical facility’’ to mean 

any VA medical center, outpatient 

clinic, or domiciliary. We would not 

include VA nursing homes (also referred 

to as community living centers) because 

the limitations on the time, place, and 

manner for delivering care are not 

applicable to patients in this residential 

setting. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would 

authorize VA to restrict the time, place, 

and/or manner of the provision of a 

patient’s medical care if the patient’s 

behavior at a VA medical facility has or 

could jeopardize the health or safety of 

other patients, VA staff, or guests at the 

facility, or otherwise interfere with the 

delivery of safe medical care to another 

patient at the facility. Decisions 

regarding these restrictions would be 

made by the VA medical facility Chief 

of Staff or his or her designee. An 

appropriate designee might include, for 

example, a Disruptive Behavior 

Committee (DBC). VA has mandated 

DBCs at all of the Department’s medical 

centers, and these committees regularly 

assess disruptive behavior. As such, 

they have developed expertise in this 

area. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would also set 

forth procedures for implementing these 

determinations. Thus, any order 

restricting a patient’s care would need 

to be in writing and signed by the Chief 

of Staff or designee with a copy entered 

into the patient’s VA medical record. 

The Chief of Staff or designee would 

provide the patient a copy of the order 

and an explanation of the procedure for 

an administrative review under 

paragraph (e) as soon as possible after 

issuance. Unless otherwise stated in the 

order, these restrictions would take 

effect upon the signature of the Chief of 

Staff or designee. We have determined 

that restrictions under this proposed 

rule would be necessary in situations 

where a patient’s behavior has or could 

harm another person or interfere with 

the delivery of medical care to another 

patient at the facility. Accordingly, in 

almost every case VA would need to 

implement the restrictions immediately 

to prevent the harm and meet its 

obligation to provide safe medical care. 

The proposed procedure would 

emphasize addressing the disruptive 

patient’s needs in order to advance VA’s 

focus on patient care. We propose to 

require that authorized officials making 

determinations under this section 

narrowly tailor restrictions to avoid 

interfering with the disruptive patient’s 

care. Ultimately, we expect that actions 

under this proposed rule would increase 

the likelihood that the disruptive 

patient will engage, or re-engage (if it 

has been necessary to terminate an 

episode of care), in health care in a safe 

and efficacious manner, without being 

disruptive. Indeed, through our DBCs 

and similar committees, we are already 

seeing anecdotal evidence of such 

results. 

The standard for making 

determinations under the proposed rule 

is in paragraph (b)(1). Under this 

standard, the Chief of Staff or designee 

would evaluate whether the patient’s 

behavior has or could jeopardize the 

health or safety of patients or other 

individuals who have access to VA 

medical facilities. The Chief of Staff or 

designee would also evaluate whether 

the patient’s behavior has or could 

interfere with the delivery of medical 

care to another patient at a VA medical 

facility. In making such determinations, 

the Chief of Staff or designee would 

consider, among other things, the 

patient’s individual fears; VA’s 

obligation to provide the patient with 

high-quality medical care; and all of the 

pertinent facts, such as any prior 

counseling of the patient regarding his 

or her inappropriate behavior. See 

proposed paragraph (c). 

Proposed paragraph (d) would also 

suggest a range of possible restrictions 

that could be imposed. We believe that 

these suggestions would assist Chiefs of 

Staff or their designees to narrowly 

tailor restrictions imposed under the 

proposed rule. We do not intend to limit 

the remedial options available to the 

officials making determinations under 

this section. Rather, proposed paragraph 

(d) would illustrate the types of 

restrictions that might be appropriate in 

a given situation and would authorize 

any other restriction that the Chief of 

Staff or designee deems appropriate 

short of arrest and removal. Restrictions 

could thus be tailored to consider the 

needs of a particular situation or 

patient. 

Proposed paragraph (e) would 

prescribe the procedures for obtaining 

an administrative review of restrictions 

imposed by order of the Chief of Staff 

or designee under the proposed rule. VA 

provides medical care through 21 

networks of medical facilities known as 

Veterans Integrated Service Networks. 

We propose to allow one appeal of an 

order restricting medical care under this 

section to the Network Director of 

jurisdiction. The patient would initiate 

the Network Director’s review by 

submitting a request to the Chief of Staff 

within 30 days of the effective date of 

the Chief of Staff’s or designee’s order. 

However, in light of VA’s obligation to 

provide safe medical care for all 

patients, the order would be enforced 

while under review by the Network 

Director. The Chief of Staff would 

provide the patient written notice of the 

Network Director’s final decision. 

At the end of the proposed rule, we 

would include a note stating as follows: 

‘‘Although VA may restrict the time, 

place, and/or manner of care under this 

section, VA will continue to offer the 

full range of needed medical care to 

which a patient is eligible under title 38 

of the United States Code or Code of 

Federal Regulations.’’ We do not intend 

to prevent patients from accessing nonemergent VA medical care and will 

work with veterans to try to find other 

VA medical facilities that can provide 

the care. However, we recognize that in 

a few instances VA restrictions on the 

time, place, or manner of care may make 

it very difficult for a veteran to access 

VA care if the veteran is unwilling to 

accept the restrictions placed upon his 

or her behavior by the local facility. We 

also note that it has been our experience 

that through creative case management 

on the part of VA staff and other 

involved parties, it is almost always 

possible to find transportation, even for 

veterans who must travel great distances 

for routine appointments. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30308 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

We do not consider patients 

disruptive if they merely do not comply 

with a doctor’s orders, decline 

recommended medical treatment, or 

leave a facility against medical advice. 

Such noncompliance can be, and is, 

addressed most effectively through 

clinical means. We propose to add a 

second sentence to the note explicitly 

stating that noncompliance with VA 

medical treatment recommendations is 

not disruptive under this section. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies 

prepare an assessment of anticipated 

costs and benefits before developing any 

rule that may result in the expenditure 

by State, local, or tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted annually 

for inflation) in any given year. This 

proposed rule will have no such effect 

on State, local, or tribal governments, or 

the private sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This document contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

OMB unless OMB waives such review, 

as any regulatory action that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this proposed rule have 

been examined and it has been 

determined to be a significant regulatory 

action under the Executive Order 

because it is likely to result in a rule that 

may raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this proposed rule would 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. This 

proposed rule would not cause a 

significant economic impact on health 

care providers, suppliers, or entities 

since only a small portion of the 

business of such entities concerns VA 

beneficiaries. Therefore, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed amendment 

is exempt from the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of sections 603 and 604. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 

64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 

64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 

64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 

64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, 

Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, 

Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, 

64.015, Sharing Specialized Medical 

Resources; 64.019, Veterans 

Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug 

Dependence; and 64.022, Veterans 

Home Based Primary Care. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, approved this 

document on March 22, 2010, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, 

Health care, Health facilities, Health 

professions, Health records, Homeless, 

Medical and dental schools, Medical 

devices, Medical research, Mental 

health programs, Nursing homes. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Office of the General Counsel. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 

17 as follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

1. The authority citation for part 17 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in 

specific sections. 

2. Section 17.106 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.106 VA response to disruptive 

behavior of patients. 

(a) Definition. For the purposes of this 

section: 

VA medical facility means VA 

medical centers, outpatient clinics, and 

domiciliaries. 

(b) Response to disruptive patients. 

The time, place, and/or manner of the 

provision of a patient’s medical care 

may be restricted by written order of the 

Chief of Staff of the VA Medical Center 

of jurisdiction or his or her designee if: 

(1) The Chief of Staff or designee 

determines pursuant to paragraph (c) of 

this section that the patient’s behavior at 

a VA medical facility has or could 

jeopardize the health or safety of other 

patients, VA staff, or guests at the 

facility, or otherwise interfere with the 

delivery of safe medical care to another 

patient at the facility; 

(2) The order is narrowly tailored to 

address the patient’s disruptive 

behavior and avoid undue interference 

with the patient’s care; 

(3) The order is signed by the Chief of 

Staff or designee, and a copy is entered 

into the patient’s permanent medical 

record; 

(4) The patient receives a copy of the 

order and written notice of the 

procedure for appealing the order to the 

network director of jurisdiction as soon 

as possible after issuance; and 

(5) The order contains an effective 

date and any appropriate limits on the 

duration of or conditions for continuing 

the restrictions. The Chief of Staff or 

designee may order restrictions for a 

definite period or until the conditions 

for removing conditions specified in the 

order are satisfied. Unless otherwise 

stated, the restrictions imposed by an 

order will take effect upon issuance by 

the Chief of Staff or designee. Any order 

issued by the Chief of Staff or designee 

shall include a summary of the 

pertinent facts and the bases for the 

Chief of Staff’s or designee’s 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30309 

determination regarding the need for 

restrictions. 

(c) Evaluation of disruptive behavior. 

In making determinations under 

paragraph (b) of this section, the Chief 

of Staff or designee must consider all 

pertinent facts, including any prior 

counseling of the patient regarding his 

or her disruptive behavior or any 

pattern of such behavior, and whether 

the disruptive behavior is a result of the 

patient’s individual fears, preferences, 

or perceived needs. A patient’s 

disruptive behavior must be assessed in 

connection with VA’s duty to provide 

good quality care, including care 

designed to reduce or otherwise 

clinically address the patient’s behavior. 

(d) Restrictions. The restrictions on 

care imposed under this section may 

include but are not limited to: 

(1) Specifying the hours in which 

nonemergent outpatient care will be 

provided; 

(2) Arranging for medical and any 

other services to be provided in a 

particular patient care area (e.g., private 

exam room near an exit); 

(3) Arranging for medical and any 

other services to be provided at a 

specific site of care; 

(4) Specifying the health care 

provider, and related personnel, who 

will be involved with the patient’s care; 

(5) Requiring police escort; or 

(6) Authorizing VA providers to 

terminate an encounter immediately if 

certain behaviors occur. 

(e) Review of restrictions. The patient 

may request the Network Director’s 

review of any order issued under this 

section within 30 days of the effective 

date of the order by submitting a written 

request to the Chief of Staff. The Chief 

of Staff shall forward the order and the 

patient’s request to the Network Director 

for a final decision. The Network 

Director shall issue a final decision on 

this matter within 30 days. VA will 

enforce the order while it is under 

review by the network director. The 

Chief of Staff will provide the patient 

who made the request written notice of 

the Network Director’s final decision. 

Note: Although VA may restrict the time, 

place, and/or manner of care under this 

section, VA will continue to offer the full 

range of needed medical care to which a 

patient is eligible under title 38 of the United 

States Code or Code of Federal Regulations. 

Patients have the right to accept or refuse 

treatments or procedures, and such refusal by 

a patient is not a basis for restricting the 

provision of care under this section. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 901, 1721) 

[FR Doc. 2010–13048 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 501 

Revisions to the Requirements for 

Authority To Manufacture and 

Distribute Postage Evidencing 

Systems 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this proposed rule, the 

Postal Service proposes to amend 

regulations on Authorization to 

Manufacture and Distribute Postage 

Evidencing Systems. This proposed 

revision clarifies the requirement for 

examination by an independent audit 

firm of a Postage Evidencing System 

Provider’s Computerized Meter 

Resetting System (CMRS) or PC 

Postage® system internal controls. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

July 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the Manager, Postage 

Technology Management, U.S. Postal 

Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 

4200 NB, Washington, DC 20260–4200. 

Copies of all written comments will be 

available for inspection and 

photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the 

Postage Technology Management office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlo Kay Ivey, Marketing Specialist, 

Postage Technology Management, U.S. 

Postal Service, at 202–268–7613. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postage 

Evidencing Systems are devices or 

systems of components that a customer 

uses to print evidence that the prepaid 

postage required for mailing has been 

paid. They include, but are not limited 

to, postage meters and PC Postage 

systems. The Postal Service regulates 

these systems and their use in order to 

protect postal revenue. Only Postal 

Service–authorized product service 

providers may design, produce, and 

distribute Postage Evidencing Systems. 

This proposed revision clarifies the 

internal controls required in 39 CFR 

501.15(i), Computerized Meter Resetting 

system, and 501.16(f), PC Postage 

Payment Methodology. This 

requirement was added as part of a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on November 9, 2006, at 71 FR 65732. 

Although exempt from the notice and 

comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act [39 U.S.C. 

410(a)], the Postal Service invites public 

comment on the following proposed 

revisions to the Code of Federal 

Regulations (see 39 CFR part 501). 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 501 

Postal Service. 

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 501 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 501—AUTHORIZATION TO 

MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTE 

POSTAGE EVIDENCING SYSTEMS 

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 501 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605, Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95– 

452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3. 

2. Section 501.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 501.15 Computerized Meter Resetting 

System. 

* * * * * 

(i) Security and Revenue Protection. 

To receive Postal Service approval to 

continue to operate systems in the 

CMRS environment, the RC must submit 

to a periodic examination of its CMRS 

system and any other applications and 

technology infrastructure that may have 

a material impact on Postal Service 

revenues, as determined by the Postal 

Service. The examination shall be 

performed by a qualified, independent 

audit firm and conducted in accordance 

with the Statement on Auditing 

Standards (SAS) No. 70, Service 

Organizations, developed by the 

American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants (AICPA), as amended or 

superseded. The examination shall 

include testing of the operating 

effectiveness of relevant RC internal 

controls (Type II SAS 70 Report). If the 

service organization uses another 

service organization (sub-service 

provider), Postal Service management 

should consider the nature and 

materiality of the transactions processed 

by the sub-service organization and the 

contribution of the sub-service 

organization’s processes and controls in 

the achievement of the Postal Service’s 

information processing objectives. The 

Postal Service should have access to the 

sub-service organization’s SAS 70 

report. The control objectives to be 

covered by the SAS 70 report are subject 

to Postal Service review and approval 

and are to be provided to the Postal 

Service 30 days prior to the initiation of 

each examination period. As a result of 

the examination, the auditor shall 

provide the RC and the Postal Service 

with an opinion on the design and 

operating effectiveness of the RC’s 

internal controls related to the CMRS 

system and any other applications and 

technology infrastructure considered 

material to the services provided to the 

Postal Service by the RC. Such 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1