ACSM Government Relations Update

 

July/August 2002

 

 

FEMA Flood Map Modernization Project Update

Laurence Socci met with other members of the Flood Map Modernization Coalition to discuss what to do next regarding our efforts to support FEMA's plan to modernize flood maps. It was decided that we, as a coalition, will meet with key VA-HUD appropriations members in the House and Senate. The message that we need to get to Members of Congress is that there is a $300 million budget proposal from President Bush for Flood Map Modernization, we want the full amount and we want support to get it through Congress.

 

FEMA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are discussing a plan to combine the Pre-disaster impact program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) post disaster funding program into one pre-disaster impact program, post disaster funding would cease.  Currently, states must have a plan in place to get HMGP grants, but HMGP may get eliminated. Any future funding would go right to pre-disaster funding.

 

Rumors have been confirmed that FEMA will go into the Homeland Security Department, once it is established. It is not known yet what FEMA's role will be in the new Department, but speculation is that it will be close to its role now.

 

TRAC  Kennedy TRAC-like amendment

ACSM worked with other organizations to defeat a TRAC-like amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, S. 2514 by Senator Edward Kennedy. The amendment would have required the Defense Department to go through several costly and burdensome cost comparisons of government employee performance and contractor performance before the Defense Department could contract out with the private sector. The amendment would have required these cost comparisons on any new activities that the government needs and would have required the Defense Department to conduct comparisons on activities currently performed by contractors. Theoretically, certain contracts --- including those for surveying and mapping could have been taken away from the private sector and given to government employees. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 50-49. All Republicans and two Democrats (Senator Baucus (D-MT) and Senator Breaux (D-LA) voted to defeat the amendment, Senator Helms did not vote. Senators Thomas (WY), Thompson (TN), Allen (VA), Warner (VA), Bond (MO) and Brownback (KS) all took a lead in working to get the amendment defeated.

 

There will be considerably more TRAC-like amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill (S.2514) before it is finally passed. We will continue to monitor this legislation and work with other organizations, like COFPAES to make sure that no extreme amendments, like the Kennedy amendment, are added to the bill.

 

Procurement News

Vendors and key lawmakers are calling upon the White House budget office to reverse its proposal to narrow the scope of commercial services that agencies can purchase from the federal supply schedule contracts. Critics say the proposal would make it more difficult for government purchasers to buy services from the General Services Administration's schedules program and could chase vendors from the federal marketplace.

 

Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget is proposing a procurement rule that would force DoD procurement officers to use the federal supply schedule contracts only to purchase services from vendors offering fixed prices. The rule also would require Defense procurement officers to receive at least three bids from vendors before they can purchase a service from the federal supply schedules.

 

The rule implements Section 803 of the FY 2002 Defense Authorization Act, which was intended to stimulate more competition when services procurements are made by the Defense Department. The Department buys more that $53 billion in services each year.

 

 

Ultra Wideband Technology

We have been following the ultra-wideband technology issue closely to see how, or to what degree it affects our members --- and if it affects our members, what can we do about it. As a bit of background, the recent FCC First Report and Order on UWB (announced February 14, 2002), stated that UWB Ground Penetrating Radars (GPRs) are required to operate below 1 GHz; to be licensed; and under Part 90 rules. Also, they are required to meet the out of band emission (OOBE) limits in the GPS frequency bands which are currently restricted for safety-of-life (no unlicensed unintentional emitters).

 

Expanding UWB GPR operations above 1 GHz improves resolution, but loses penetration --- unless higher power is used. Test data to date shows that UWB devices are intentional emitters, and at Part 15 limits for unlicensed devices, cause interference to GPS.

 

There are some small companies, mostly working on government, university and commercial projects that operate GPRs using UWB technology to detect objects below the ground surface. In comments filed with the FCC, the companies claim that no interference to GPS has been reported. However, the UWB GPR companies have not filed for experimental licenses, nor waivers, nor operating licenses.

 

The UWB GPR companies filed a Motion for Stay of Enforcement with the FCC requesting: (1) to operate above 1 GHz, including in bands restricted for safety-of-life, such as GPS; (2) to operate intentional UWB GPR emitters in these bands at current Part 15 general emission limits, which test data shows causes interference; (3) to operate on an unlicensed basis (claiming that UWB GPR companies are small businesses whose employees are in the field, and the burden of paperwork is excessive).

 

As noted above, this is an issue we are watching closely. There are concerns that because UWB GPR companies use UWB technology to locate underground pipes and other structures, they may be, in effect conducting surveys. If they continue to operate with no licenses or waivers, they are not subject to the same legislative rules as ACSM members are. Also, because the pulsed nature of UWB interference is very difficult to detect, locate and identify, other professional surveyors, who may be conducting a survey in the same area may experience unexplained interference. We will continue to update you on our progress with this issue.

 

Homeland Security Department

At the request of President Bush, Congress is beginning the development of a new, cabinet level Department of Homeland Security. The President's plan calls for the moving of 22 federal agencies, bureaus and offices into the single department.

 

Under Section 732 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, subsection (b) authorizes the department of Homeland Security to contract for private sector services, including consultants and experts, using a form of contracting that allows for the creation of employer-employee relationship. Normally, agencies are required to obtain these services by direct hire under competitive appointment or other procedures under civil service laws. While contracts that create employer-employee relationships are generally prohibited, the nature of the Department's may necessitate this additional flexibility in securing services.

 

More important to our members, however, is the way that the surveying and mapping profession will fit into the new Homeland Security Department. Laurence Socci will monitor the development of the new department and meet with legislators, including those on the House Homeland Security Committee, to discuss with them how we can play a role in the new department.

 

 

Capitol Hill Happenings

 

Meeting with Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT)

Laurence Socci and Curt Sumner recently attended a fundraiser for Representative Chris Shays. They met personally with the Congressman and spoke with him about issues concerning ACSM members. They also met Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO), who sponsored the fundraiser. While at the fundraiser, they also spoke with Betsy Hawkings, Chief of Staff for Congressman Shays. Ms. Hawkings was interested in having ACSM work with the Congressman on a mapping database security issue in Greenwich, CT. We will meet with Congressman Shays' office after labor day regarding this issue. In other news, on September 18, Laurence Socci and John Matonich will attend a fundraiser for Representative Tom Delay (R-TX).

 

Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002 (HR 4883)

 A bill to amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 recently passed the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives. The bill, called the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, would direct the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to design, install, maintain and operate real-time hyodrographic monitoring systems to enhance navigation safety and efficiency. It would also require the Administrator, subject to availability of appropriations, to develop and implement a quality assurance program under which hydrographic products may be certified. It would require that the Administrator shall attempt to assure that international organizations and agreements to which the United States is a party that affect hydrographic products and nautical charts accept or recognize hydrographic products certified by the Administrator. Additionally, it would require the Administrator to establish a Hydrographic Services Review Panel and to submit to Congress a plan for increasing contracting with the private sector for various geospatial reference services related to hydrographic data acquisition or hydrographic services activities performed by the National Ocean Service. The bill still needs approval from the full House of Representatives, the Senate Committee and full Senate, and the President before it becomes law.

 

FEDERAL AGENCIES

 

FEMA

Wendy Lathrop has advised us that FEMA has developed a new MT-EZ form for removing single lots or structures from the Special Flood Hazard Area. The new form differs from the prior versions in that it is ONLY for Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill must be accompanied by the MT-1 form instead of the MT-EZ. FEMA has posted a new tutorial for applying for Letters of Map Amendment on its website to help with the transition.

The August 1, 2002 issue of the Federal Register reports the new fee schedule for processing map change requests, research of backup data from Flood Insurance Studies, and purchase of various products from the Map Service Center. Due to the very recent change (May 2002) in the MT-EZ form so that it is no longer applicable for single lot Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill, those intending on filing such an application should be aware that this formerly no-cost application now is subject to a fee of $425 and requires the use of the MT-1 form.

 

OTHER NEWS

 

Grassroots Action

We are trying to build our grassroots coalition on a national basis. We need your help to bring this about. We would like to find members who know, and have a good relationship with Members of Congress. This is important because as we work to build our Washington presence, we will be meeting with Members of Congress and their staff on a regular basis. We would like to bring with us to these meetings, any of our members who are constituents of the Congressman and who can speak on the issue. Additionally, we want to work to have as many of our members as we can, get involved in the government affairs process. This can be anything from attending fundraisers with Laurence Socci, to meeting with Members of Congress in their own District, to participating in other lobbying activities.

 

 

FYI

 

A new website has been created with information about one of the group insurance programs available to ACSM members. The site, offered by the provider Seabury & Smith, can be accessed at http://www.insurancetrustsite.com/home.asp?assoc=acsm

 

USGS has announced that effective September 1, 2002 the price of its primary series topographic quadrangle maps will increase from $4 to $6. The $5 handling charge per order will remain the same. For further information visit the website: http://mapping.usgs.gov/esic/newpricesfaqs.html Questions can be directed to Jim Brokaw at: jbrokaw@usgs.gov

 

BLM has issued a summary of the Planning Outreach Meetings that were held in Washington, DC and Denver during March 2002. The summary has been distributed to all BLM field offices. Individuals are encouraged to discuss the topics in the summary with personnel in the field offices. Although not stated as such with the paper copy of the summary received by ACSM, it is likely that it can be accessed on the BLM website: www.blm.gov  Comments regarding future outreach meeting topics can be directed to either Mike Mottice, 202-452-0362 or Eli Ilano, 202-452-0364.

 

The fate of the Bachelors Degree for surveying at the University of Maine, Orono is still being discussed. A plan revealed this summer had scheduled the program to expire with the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. Subsequent correspondence with university representatives has led to further discussion of the plan. Although the final decision is apparently not assured, the likelihood that the program will continue unchanged is very low. The ACSM- New England Section and the surveying societies from the New England states have been very active in trying to rescue the program.

 

The committee work to develop more details regarding the "New ACSM" plan that was unveiled during the ACSM annual meeting last April is almost complete. The concepts presented by the committees will soon be posted on the ACSM website: http://www.acsm.net/newacsm.html for review and comment. After the comment period, the ACSM Member Organization Boards will be asked to endorse the concepts, and a ballot initiative will be created and sent to the ACSM membership for a ratification vote. Optimism is still high that the ballot (to be separate from the elections ballot) can be mailed late this year.

 

NCEES, during its annual meeting in early August, passed the report by its internal task force for the Model Law for Surveying. Passage by the Council means that the Model Law language will be reviewed during the next year by the appropriate NCEES committee to assure it legality, etc. Final adoption of the Model Law should occur during the 2003 NCEES annual meeting next summer.

According to a press release from NCEES, other actions taken during the annual meeting include the following:

1) A Professional Activities and Knowledge Study (PAKS) survey will be sent to land   surveyors in 2003 related to the PLS and FLS examinations.

2) NCEES supports the adoption of straightforward uniform standards for authorization to practice engineering and surveying through firms. NCEES believes the uniforms should address, but not be limited to, the following: NCEES opposes any requirement that a firm must have a physical office in each jurisdiction of practice; NCEES supports the requirement that a firm must have appropriately licensed professionals in responsible charge of services being offered; NCEES opposes any requirement that officers, owners, or their equivalent must be licensed in the jurisdiction in order for the firm to practice or offer to practice provided that appropriately licensed professionals are in responsible charge of services being offered.

3) NCEES voted to increase the fees for scoring Principles of Practice exams for engineering and surveying to $125, effective October 2004. Individual licensing boards still determine the examination fee charged to candidates.

4) NCEES modified its policy for suspending examinations. If in two consecutive administrations fewer than 50 total first-time examinees have taken a specific PE, PLS, or Fundamentals of Land Surveying (FLS) exam or exam module, or if in a two-year period fewer than 1,000 first-time examinees have taken a specific FE discipline module, NCEES will review the desirability of continuing the exam or module. Requests for examinations and depth modules must be made by no fewer than 10 NCEES licensing boards that can demonstrate a need in their jurisdiction for a new examination or depth module.

5) In the future, all item banks will be housed at NCEES headquarters, and technical societies that sponsor Group II examinations will sign an agreement with NCEES delineating the responsibilities of both parties in developing the examinations. There will be no post-administration access to or review of exam questions, except in those jurisdictions where required by law. Such a review will be conducted in accordance with established NCEES procedures and an administrative fee will be assessed.