Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19847

Dated: April 13, 1995.

William B. Schultz,

Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 95–9951 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

28 CFR Part 31

[OJP No. 1045]

RIN 1121–AA28

Formula Grants; Correction

Date: April 13, 1995.

AGENCY: Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

ACTION: Correction to final regulation.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the Final Regulation,

revising 28 CFR part 31, which was

published in the Federal Register on

Friday, March 10, 1995, (60 FR 13330).

The regulation revisions provided

clarification and guidance to States in

the formulation, submission and

implementation of the State Formula

Grants Program under Part B of Title II

of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Act of 1974, as amended by the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Amendments of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–586,

November 18, 1992).

The 1992 Amendments reauthorize

and modify the Federal assistance

program to State, local governments,

and private not-for-profit agencies for

the prevention and control of

delinquency and improvement of the

juvenile justice system. This final

revision to the existing regulation

provides clarification and guidance to

States in the formulation, submission,

and implementation of State Formula

Grants Program plans and

determinations of State compliance with

plan requirements. It provides

additional flexibility and guidance to

participating States while strengthening

several key provisions related to the

deinstitutionalization, separation, jail

and lockup removal, and

disproportionate minority confinement

plan requirements of the JJDP Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is

effective March 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roberta Dorn, Director, State Relations

and Assistance Division, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP), 633 Indiana Avenue

NW., Room 543, Washington, D.C.

20531; (202) 307–5924.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

corrections include the requirement that

collocated juvenile detention facilities

approved by the State and concurred

with by OJJDP on or before June 30,

1995, be reviewed against the regulatory

criteria and OJJDP policies in effect at

the time of the initial approval and

concurrence. Facilities approved after

the effective date of this regulation and

prior to July 1, 1995, will be reviewed

against the regulatory criteria in effect

on the day before the effective date of

this regulation. For those collocated

juvenile detention facilities considered

after June 30, 1995, OJJDP’s concurrence

is limited to one year and, thereafter,

will be reviewed on an annual basis.

The requirement that in order to receive

OJJDP’s initial and subsequent

concurrences, a collocated juvenile

detention facility must only provide

secure custody for juvenile criminaltype offenders, status offenders accused

of violating a valid court order, and

adjudicated delinquents and valid court

order violators who are awaiting

disposition hearings or transfer to a long

term juvenile correctional facility, has

been eliminated.

Need for Correction

As published in the Federal Register

on March 10, 1995, (60 FR 13330), the

Final Regulation was an earlier draft

version that is materially different from

the final draft that was intended to be

published. These errors are in need of

correction.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the Final Regulation, as

published in the Federal Register on

March 10, 1995, which was the subject

of FR Doc. 95–5919, is corrected as

follows:

§ 31.301 [Corrected]

Paragraph 1. On page 13334 in

amendatory instruction 6, paragraph (e)

of § 31.301 was revised. Paragraph (e) of

§ 31.301 in the second column, line 30,

the numerals ‘‘1994’’ are corrected to

read ‘‘1995’’.

§ 31.302 [Corrected]

Paragraph 2. On page 13334 in

amendatory instruction 7, paragraph

(b)(2) of § 31.302 was revised. Paragraph

(b)(2) of § 31.302 is corrected to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Should consider in meeting the

statutory membership requirements and

responsibilities of section 223(a)(3) (A)–

(E), appointing at least one member who

represents each of the following: A

locally elected official representing

general purpose local government; a law

enforcement officer; representatives of

juvenile justice agencies, including a

juvenile or family court judge, a

probation officer, a prosecutor, and a

person who routinely provides legal

representation to youth in juvenile

court; a public agency representative

concerned with delinquency prevention

and treatment; a representative from a

private, non-profit organization, such as

a parents group, concerned with teenage

drug and alcohol abuse; a high school

principal; a recreation director; a

volunteer who works with delinquent or

at risk youth; a person with a special

focus on the family; a youth worker

experienced with programs that offer

alternatives to incarceration; persons

with special competence in addressing

problems of school violence and

vandalism and alternatives to expulsion

and suspension; and persons with

knowledge concerning learning

disabilities, child abuse and neglect,

and youth violence.

* * * * *

§ 31.303 [Corrected]

Paragraph 3. On page 13335, in the

second column, in amendatory

instruction 11, paragraph (d)(l)(i) of

§ 31.303 was revised. Paragraph (d)(1)(i)

of § 31.303, line ten, the word ‘‘no’’ is

corrected to read ‘‘any’’.

Paragraph 4. On page 13335 in

amendatory instruction 13, paragraph

(e)(3) of § 31.303 was revised. Paragraph

(e)(3) of § 31.303 is corrected by

removing (e)(3)(v). As corrected,

§ 31.303(e)(3) reads as follows:

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) Collocated facilities. (i) Determine

whether or not a facility in which

juveniles are detained or confined is an

adult jail or lockup. The JJDP Act

prohibits the secure custody of juveniles

in adult jails and lockups, except as

otherwise provided under the Act and

implementing OJJDP regulations.

Juvenile facilities collocated with these

adult facilities are considered adult jails

or lockups unless the paragraph

(e)(3)(i)(D) (1)–(4) criteria established in

this section are complied with and the

determinations and concurrences set

forth in paragraph (e)(3) (ii), (iii), and

(iv) of this section have been made.

(A) A collocated facility is a juvenile

facility that is located in the same

building as an adult jail or lockup, or is

part of a related complex of buildings

located on the same grounds as an adult

jail or lockup. A complex of buildings
19848 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

is considered ‘‘related’’ when it shares

physical features such as walls and

fences services beyond mechanical

services (heating, air conditioning,

water and sewer), or the specialized

services that are allowable under

paragraph (e)(3)(i)(D)(3) of this section.

(B) The State, with OJJDP

concurrence, must determine whether a

collocated facility qualifies as a separate

juvenile detention facility under the

four criteria set forth in paragraph

(e)(3)(i)(D) (1)–(4) of this section for the

purpose of monitoring compliance with

section 223(a) (12)(A), (13), and (14) of

the JJDP Act.

(C) A needs based analysis must

precede a jurisdiction’s request for State

approval and be included with the

request for OJJDP concurrence that a

collocated facility qualifies as a juvenile

detention facility. The needs based

analysis should include, but is not

limited to, consideration of such factors

as excessive travel time to an existing

juvenile detention center, crowding in

an existing facility (despite the use of

objective detention criteria),

obsolescence of an existing facility, and,

in areas where there are no juvenile

detention facilities, a measurable

increase in the need for juvenile

detention beds. OJJDP’s technical

assistance provider to the States should

be involved in the needs based analysis

(without cost to the State or local

jurisdiction). The needs based analysis

must take into consideration and be

coordinated with the State’s plans and

programs designed to establish a

continuum of detention care and to

assist detention facilities to provide a

full range of services for juvenile

offenders.

(D) Each of the following four criteria

must be met in order to ensure the

requisite separateness of a juvenile

detention facility that is collocated with

an adult jail or lockup:

(1) Total separation between juvenile

and adult facility spatial areas such that

there could be no sight or sound contact

between juveniles and incarcerated

adults in the facility. Total separation of

spatial areas can be achieved

architecturally, and must provide for no

common use areas (time-phasing is not

permissible);

(2) Total separation in all juvenile and

adult program areas, including

recreation, education, counseling,

dining, sleeping, and general living

activities. There must be an

independent and comprehensive

operational plan for the juvenile

detention center which provides for a

full range of separate program services.

No program activities may be shared by

juveniles and incarcerated adults.

However, equipment and other

resources may be used by both

populations subject to security concerns

and the criterion in paragraph

(e)(3)(i)(D)(1) of this section;

(3) Separate staff for the juvenile and

adult populations, including

management, security, and direct care

staff. Staff providing specialized

services (food service, laundry,

maintenance and engineering, etc.), who

are not normally in contact with

detainees, or whose infrequent contacts

occur under conditions of separation of

juveniles and adults, can serve both

populations (subject to State standards

or licensing requirements). The day to

day management, security and direct

care functions of the juvenile detention

center must be vested in a totally

separate staff, dedicated solely to the

juvenile population within the

collocated facilities; and

(4) In States that have established

standards or licensing requirements for

juvenile detention facilities, the juvenile

facility must meet the standards (on the

same basis as a free-standing juvenile

detention center) and be licensed as

appropriate. If there are no State

standards or licensing requirements,

then the jurisdiction must cooperate in

a preapproval review of its physical

plant, staffing patterns, and programs by

an organization selected and

compensated by OJJDP. This review will

be based on prevailing national juvenile

detention standards, and will inform the

State’s approval process and

concurrence by OJJDP.

(ii) The State must initially determine

that the four criteria are fully met. Upon

such determination, the State must

submit to OJJDP a request for

concurrence with the State’s finding

that a separate juvenile detention

facility exists. To enable OJJDP to assess

the separateness of the two facilities,

sufficient documentation must

accompany the request to demonstrate

that each criterion has been met. It is

incumbent upon the State to make the

initial determination through an on-site

facility (or full construction and

operations plan) review and, through

the exercise of its oversight

responsibility, to ensure that the

separate character of the juvenile

detention facility is maintained by

continuing to fully meet the four criteria

set forth in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(D) (1)–(4)

of this section.

(iii) Collocated juvenile detention

facilities approved by the State and

concurred with by OJJDP on or before

June 30, 1995, are to be reviewed against

the regulatory criteria and OJJDP

policies in effect at the time of the

initial approval and concurrence, except

that facilities approved after the

effective date of this regulation, but

prior to July 1, 1995, shall be reviewed

against the regulatory criteria in effect

on the day before the effective date of

this regulation, and except that all

collocated facilities are subject to the

separate staff requirement established

by the 1992 Amendments to the JJDP

Act, as set forth in paragraph

(e)(3)(i)(D)(3) of this section. Unless

otherwise indicated, review of

previously approved collocated

facilities is expected to occur as part of

the State’s regularly scheduled

monitoring activities.

(iv) OJJDP’s concurrence for facilities

considered after June 30, 1995, is

limited to one year and thereafter, will

be reviewed on an annual basis. An

annual on-site review of the facility

must be conducted by the compliance

monitoring staff person(s) representing

or employed by the State agency

administering the JJDP Act Formula

Grants Program. OJJDP’s concurrence is

required annually, and may involve onsite review by OJJDP staff. The purpose

of the annual review is to determine if

compliance with the criteria set forth in

paragraph (e)(3)(i)(D) (1)–(4) of this

section is being maintained, and to

assess the continuing need for the

collocated facility and the jurisdiction’s

long term plan to move to a freestanding facility (single jurisdiction or

regional) or other detention alternative,

unless the juvenile detention center is

part of a justice center, in which case

the annual review will look solely at the

four regulatory criteria. An example of

a justice center is a building or a set of

buildings in which various agencies are

housed, such as law enforcement,

courts, State’s attorneys, public

defenders, and probation, in addition to

an adult jail or lockup and a juvenile

detention facility.

* * * * *

Paragraph 5. On page 13337 in

amendatory instruction 20, paragraph

(f)(5) of section 31.303 was revised.

Paragraph (f)(5) of § 31.303 is corrected

by removing (f)(5)(i)(D) and

redesignating paragraphs (f)(5)(i) (E), (F),

(G) and (H) as paragraphs (f)(5)(i) (D),

(E), (F) and (G), respectively. As

corrected, § 31.303(f)(5) reads as

follows:

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(5) Reporting requirement. The State

shall report annually to the

Administrator on the results of

monitoring for section 223(a) (12), (13),

and (14) of the JJDP Act. The reporting

period should provide 12 months of

data, but shall not be less than six
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19849

months. The report shall be submitted

to the Administrator by December 31 of

each year.

(i) To demonstrate the extent of

compliance with section 223(a)(12)(A)

of the JJDP Act, the report must include,

at a minimum, the following

information for the current reporting

period:

(A) Dates covered by the current

reporting period;

(B) Total number of public and

private secure detention and

correctional facilities, the total number

reporting, and the number inspected onsite;

(C) The total number of accused status

offenders and nonoffenders, including

out-of-State runaways and Federal

wards, held in any secure detention or

correctional facility for longer than 24

hours (not including weekends or

holidays), excluding those held

pursuant to the valid court order

provision as set forth in paragraph (f)(3)

of this section, or pursuant to section

922(x) of Title 18, United States Code,

or a similar State law;

(D) The total number of accused status

offenders (including valid court order

violators, out of state runaways and

Federal wards, but excluding Title 18

U.S.C. 922(x) violators) and

nonoffenders securely detained in any

adult jail, lockup, or nonapproved

collocated facility for any length of time;

(E) The total number of adjudicated

status offenders and nonoffenders,

including out-of-state runaways and

Federal wards, held for any length of

time in a secure detention or

correctional facility, excluding those

held pursuant to the valid court order

provision or pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C.

922(x);

(F) The total number of status

offenders held in any secure detention

or correctional facility pursuant to the

valid court order provision set forth in

paragraph (f)(3) of this section; and

(G) The total number of juvenile

offenders held pursuant to Title 18

U.S.C. 922(x).

(ii) To demonstrate the extent to

which the provisions of section

223(a)(12)(B) of the JJDP Act are being

met, the report must include the total

number of accused and adjudicated

status offenders and nonoffenders

placed in facilities that are:

(A) Not near their home community;

(B) Not the least restrictive

appropriate alternative; and

(C) Not community-based.

(iii) To demonstrate the extent of

compliance with section 223(a)(13) of

the JJDP Act, the report must include, at

a minimum, the following information

for the current reporting period:

(A) Dates covered by the current

reporting period;

(B) The total number of facilities used

to detain or confine both juvenile

offenders and adult criminal offenders

during the past 12 months and the

number inspected on-site;

(C) The total number of facilities used

for the secure detention and

confinement of both juvenile offenders

and adult criminal offenders which did

not provide sight and sound separation;

(D) The total number of juvenile

offenders and nonoffenders not

separated from adult criminal offenders

in facilities used for the secure

detention and confinement of both

juveniles and adults;

(E) The total number of juvenile

detention centers located within the

same building or on the same grounds

as an adult jail or lockup that have been

concurred with by OJJDP, including a

list of such facilities;

(F) The total number of juveniles

detained in collocated facilities

concurred with by OJJDP that were not

separated from the management,

security, or direct care staff of the adult

jail or lockup;

(G) The total number of juvenile

detention centers located within the

same building or on the same grounds

as an adult jail or lockup that have not

been concurred with by OJJDP,

including a list of such facilities; and

(H) The total number of juveniles

detained in collocated facilities not

approved by the State and concurred

with by OJJDP, that were not sight and

sound separated from adult criminal

offenders.

(iv) To demonstrate the extent of

compliance with section 223(a)(14) of

the JJDP Act, the report must include, at

a minimum, the following information

for the current reporting period:

(A) Dates covered by the current

reporting period;

(B) The total number of adult jails in

the State AND the number inspected onsite;

(C) The total number of adult lockups

in the State AND the number inspected

on-site;

(D) The total number of adult jails

holding juveniles during the past twelve

months;

(E) The total number of adult lockups

holding juveniles during the past twelve

months;

(F) The total number of accused

juvenile criminal-type offenders held

securely in adult jails, lockups, and

collocated facilities not concurred with

by OJJDP, in excess of six hours

(including those held pursuant to the

‘‘removal exception’’ as set forth in

paragraph (f)(4) of this section);

(G) The total number of accused

juvenile criminal-type offenders held

securely in adult jails, lockups and

collocated facilities not concurred with

by OJJDP for less than six hours for

purposes other than identification,

investigation, processing, release to

parent(s), transfer to court, or transfer to

a juvenile facility following initial

custody;

(H) The total number of adjudicated

juvenile criminal-type offenders held

securely in adult jails, lockups and

collocated facilities not concurred with

by OJJDP for any length of time;

(I) The total number of accused and

adjudicated status offenders (including

valid court order violators) and

nonoffenders held securely in adult

jails, lockups and collocated facilities

not concurred with by OJJDP for any

length of time;

(J) The total number of adult jails,

lockups, and collocated facilities not

concurred with by OJJDP, in areas

meeting the ‘‘removal exception’’ as

noted in paragraph (f)(4) of this section,

including a list of such facilities and the

county or jurisdiction in which each is

located;

(K) The total number of juveniles

accused of a criminal-type offense who

were held in excess of six hours but less

than 24 hours in adult jails, lockups and

collocated facilities not concurred with

by OJJDP pursuant to the ‘‘removal

exception’’ as set forth in paragraph

(f)(4) of this section;

(L) The total number of juveniles

accused of a criminal-type offense who

were held in excess of 24 hours but not

more than an additional 48 hours in

adult jails, lockups and collocated

facilities not concurred with by OJJDP

pursuant to the ‘‘removal exception’’ as

noted in paragraph (f)(4) of this section,

due to conditions of distance or lack of

ground transportation; and

(M) The total number of juveniles

accused of a criminal-type offense who

were held in excess of 24 hours, but not

more than an additional 24 hours after

the time such conditions as adverse

weather allow for reasonably safe travel,

in adult jails, lockups and collocated

facilities not concurred with by OJJDP,

in areas meeting the ‘‘removal

exception’’ as noted in paragraph (f)(4)

of this section.

* * * * *

Paragraph 6. On page 13338 in

amendatory instruction 23, paragraph

(f)(6)(iii)(A) in § 31.303 was removed

and paragraphs (f)(6)(iii) (B), (C), (D),

and (E) of § 31.303 were redesignated as

paragraphs (f)(6)(iii) (A), (B), (C), and (D)

of § 31.303, respectively. Redesignated
19850 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(B) of § 31.303 is

corrected to read as follows:

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(6) * * *

(iii) * * *

(B) Full compliance with de minimis

exceptions is achieved when a State

demonstrates that it has met the

standard set forth in either of

paragraphs (f)(6)(iii)(B) (1) or (2) of this

section:

(1) Substantive de minimis standard.

To comply with this standard the State

must demonstrate that each of the

following requirements have been met:

(i) State law, court rule, or other

statewide executive or judicial policy

clearly prohibits the detention or

confinement of all juveniles in

circumstances that would be in

violation of section 223(a)(14);

(ii) All instances of noncompliance

reported in the last submitted

monitoring report were in violation of or

departures from, the State law, rule, or

policy referred to in paragraph

(f)(6)(iii)(B)(1)(i) of this section;

(iii) The instances of noncompliance

do not indicate a pattern or practice but

rather constitute isolated instances;

(iv) Existing mechanisms for the

enforcement of the State law, rule, or

policy referred to in paragraph

(f)(6)(iii)(B)(1)(i) of this section are such

that the instances of noncompliance are

unlikely to recur in the future; and

(v) An acceptable plan has been

developed to eliminate the

noncompliant incidents and to monitor

the existing mechanism referred to in

paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(B)(1)(iv) of this

section.

(2) Numerical de minimis standard.

To comply with this standard the State

must demonstrate that each of the

following requirements under

paragraphs (f)(6)(iii)(B)(2) (i) and (ii) of

this section have been met:

(i) The incidents of noncompliance

reported in the State’s last submitted

monitoring report do not exceed an

annual rate of 9 per 100,000 juvenile

population of the State; and

(ii) An acceptable plan has been

developed to eliminate the

noncompliant incidents through the

enactment or enforcement of State law,

rule, or statewide executive or judicial

policy, education, the provision of

alternatives, or other effective means.

(iii) Exception. When the annual rate

for a State exceeds 9 incidents of

noncompliance per 100,000 juvenile

population, the State will be considered

ineligible for a finding of full

compliance with de minimis exceptions

under the numerical de minimis

standard unless the State has recently

enacted changes in State law which

have gone into effect and which the

State demonstrates can reasonably be

expected to have a substantial,

significant and positive impact on the

State’s achieving full (100%)

compliance or full compliance with de

minimis exceptions by the end of the

monitoring period immediately

following the monitoring period under

consideration.

(iv) Progress. Beginning with the

monitoring report due by December 31,

1990, any State whose prior full

compliance status is based on having

met the numerical de minimis standard

set forth in paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(B)(2)(i)

of this § 31.303, must annually

demonstrate, in its request for a finding

of full compliance with de minimis

exceptions, continued and meaningful

progress toward achieving full (100%)

compliance in order to maintain

eligibility for a continued finding of full

compliance with de minimis

exceptions.

(v) Request submission.

Determinations of full compliance and

full compliance with de minimis

exceptions are made annually by OJJDP

following submission of the monitoring

report due by December 31 of each

calendar year. Any State reporting less

than full (100%) compliance in any

annual monitoring report may request a

finding of full compliance with de

minimis exceptions under paragraph

(f)(6)(iii)(B) (1) or (2) of this section. The

request may be submitted in

conjunction with the monitoring report,

as soon thereafter as all information

required for a determination is

available, or be included in the annual

State plan and application for the State’s

Formula Grant Award.

* * * * *

Paragraph 7. On page 13338 in

amendatory instruction 23, paragraph

(f)(6)(iii)(D) of § 31.303 was redesignated

as paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(C) of § 31.303.

Redesignated paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(C) of

§ 31.303 is corrected to read as follows:

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(6) * * *

(iii) * * *

(C) Waiver. Failure to achieve full

compliance as defined in this section

shall terminate any State’s eligibility for

FY 1993 and prior year formula grants

funds unless the Administrator of OJJDP

waives termination of the State’s

eligibility. In order to be eligible for a

waiver of termination, a State must

request a waiver and demonstrate that it

meets the standards set forth in

paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(C) (1) through (7) of

this section:

(1) Agrees to expend all of its formula

grant award except planning and

administration, advisory group setaside, and Indian tribe pass-through

funds, to achieve compliance with

section 223(a)(14); and

(2) Removed all status and

nonoffender juveniles from adult jails

and lockups. Compliance with this

standard requires that the last submitted

monitoring report demonstrate that no

status offender (including those accused

of or adjudicated for violating a valid

court order) or nonoffender juveniles

were securely detained in adult jails or

lockups for any length of time; or that

all status offenders and nonoffenders

securely detained in adult jails and

lockups for any length of time were held

in violation of an enforceable State law

and did not constitute a pattern or

practice within the State; and

(3) Made meaningful progress in

removing juvenile criminal-type

offenders from adult jails and lockups.

Compliance with this standard requires

the State to document a significant

reduction in the number of jurisdictions

securely detaining juvenile criminaltype offenders in violation of section

223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act; or a

significant reduction in the number of

facilities securely detaining such

juveniles; or a significant reduction in

the average length of time each juvenile

criminal-type offender is securely

detained in an adult jail or lockup; or

State legislation has recently been

enacted and taken effect and which the

State demonstrates will significantly

impact the secure detention of juvenile

criminal-type offenders in adult jails

and lockups; and

(4) Diligently carried out the State’s

jail and lockup removal plan approved

by OJJDP. Compliance with this

standard requires that actions have been

undertaken to achieve the State’s jail

and lockup removal goals and objectives

within approved time lines, and that the

State Advisory Group, required by

section 223(a)(3) of the JJDP Act, has

maintained an appropriate involvement

in developing and/or implementing the

State’s plan; and

(5) Submitted an acceptable plan,

based on an assessment of current jail

and lockup removal barriers within the

State, to eliminate noncompliant

incidents; and

(6) Achieved compliance with section

223(a)(15) of the JJDP Act; and

(7) Demonstrates an unequivocal

commitment, through appropriate

executive or legislative action, to

achieving full compliance.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19851

Paragraph 8. On page 13338 in

amendatory instruction 23, paragraph

(f)(6)(iii)(E) of § 31.303 was redesignated

as paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(D) of § 31.303.

Redesignated paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(D) is

corrected to read as follows:

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(6) * * *

(iii) * * *

(D) Waiver maximum. A State may

receive a waiver of termination of

eligibility from the Administrator under

paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(C) of this section for

a combined maximum of four Formula

Grant Awards through Fiscal Year 1993.

No additional waivers will be granted.

* * * * *

John J. Wilson,

Deputy Administrator, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

[FR Doc. 95–9826 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

33 CFR Part 222

Periodic Inspection and Continuing

Evaluation of Completed Civil Works

Structures and Inspection and

Evaluation of Corps of Engineers

Bridges; Rescission

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DOD.

ACTION: Rescission of regulations.

SUMMARY: This final rule rescinds

regulations concerning periodic

inspection and continuing evaluation of

completed civil works structures and

inspection and evaluation of Corps of

Engineers bridges. Both regulations are

no longer required to be published in

the Code of Federal Regulations because

they are for ‘‘in-house’’ guidance only.

This rule renumbers the remaining

regulations in part 222.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Engineering Division,

Directorate of Civil Works, Washington,

DC 20314–1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul D. Barber or Yung Kuo, (202) 504–

4533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 222

Bridges, Dams, Reservoirs. Safety,

Water resources.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 33 CFR part 222 is amended

as follows:

PART 222—ENGINEERING AND

DESIGN

1. The authority citations for part 222

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 116(d); delegation in

49 CFR 1.45(b); 33 U.S.C. 467 et seq.; 33

U.S.C. 701, 701b, and 701c–1 and specific

legislative authorization Acts and Public

Laws listed in appendix E of § 222.7.

2. Sections 222.2 and 222.3 are

removed and §§ 222.4 through 222.8 are

redesignated as §§ 222.2 through 222.6.

Gregory D. Showalter,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–9654 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 4

RIN 2900–AE72

Schedule for Rating Disabilities;

Gynecological Conditions and

Disorders of the Breast

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final regulation.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

section of the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating

Disabilities on Gynecological

Conditions and Disorders of the Breast.

This amendment is based on a General

Accounting Office (GAO) study noting

that there has been no comprehensive

review of the rating schedule since

1945, and recommending that such a

review be conducted. The intended

effect of this action is to update the

gynecological and breast disorders

section of the rating schedule to ensure

that it uses current medical terminology,

unambiguous criteria, and that it reflects

medical advances which have occurred

since the last review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is

effective May 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caroll McBrine, M.D., Consultant,

Regulations Staff, Compensation and

Pension Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–7210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

December 1988, the General Accounting

Office (GAO) recommended that VA

prepare a plan for a comprehensive

review of the rating schedule and, based

on the results, revise the medical

criteria accordingly. As part of the

process to implement these

recommendations, VA published in the

Federal Register of March 26, 1992 (57

FR 10450–53) a proposal to amend 38

CFR 4.116 and 4.116a. Interested

persons were invited to submit written

comments, suggestions, or objections on

or before April 27, 1992. We received

comments from Disabled American

Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars,

Paralyzed Veterans of America, and

from several VA employees.

Two commenters suggested that we

revise the proposed criteria for rating

endometriosis under diagnostic code

(DC) 7629, placing the emphasis on pain

and abnormal bleeding rather than on

headaches.

Upon further review, VA concurs that

symptoms such as headaches and

muscle cramps are not the most

appropriate criteria for evaluating

endometriosis, and we have therefore

modified the proposed criteria. At the

50 percent level, the proposed criteria

specified endometriomas larger than

2×2 cm., ovary or tubes bound down or

obstructed by adhesions, or obliteration

of the cul-de-sac. These criteria have

been modified to call for lesions

involving the bladder or bowel

confirmed by laparoscopy, pelvic pain

or heavy or irregular bleeding not

controlled by treatment, and bowel or

bladder symptoms. The proposed 30

percent level called for several lesions

or minimal adhesions with side effects

such as headaches, muscle cramps, or

edema despite treatment; but the

schedule has been revised to require

pelvic pain or heavy or irregular

bleeding not controlled by treatment.

One commenter suggested that we

include 10 percent and 100 percent

levels for evaluation of endometriosis.

Upon further consideration we have

added a 10 percent level for those cases

in which pain or bleeding requires

continuous treatment. However,

endometriosis does not in our judgment

reach the level of total disability. Some

women have incapacitating symptoms,

but on a cyclic basis related to their

menstrual periods. Others have milder

symptoms on a constant basis.

Providing a 50 percent level recognizes

the substantial level of disability that

women may experience because of

endometriosis, but we believe that, in

general, the highest level of disability

assigned for a condition should not

exceed the evaluation for absence of the

organ involved. In this case, 50 percent

for removal of the uterus and both

ovaries is the highest post-surgical

evaluation.

One individual suggested that a

convalescent period of six months at

100 percent should be provided for

endometriosis following surgery or

other corrective procedure.