Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance-Stillborn Child Coverage, 70374-70376 [2012-28611]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
70374
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges
announce a cost of living adjustment
(‘‘COLA’’) of 2.2% in the royalty rates
paid by satellite carriers under the
satellite carrier compulsory license of
the Copyright Act. The COLA is based
on the change in the Consumer Price
Index from October 2011 to October
2012.
SUMMARY:
Effective Date: January 1, 2013.
Applicability Dates: These rates are
applicable for the period January 1,
2013, through December 31, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist.
Telephone: (202) 707–7658. Email:
crb@loc.gov.
DATES:
The
satellite carrier compulsory license
establishes a statutory copyright
licensing scheme for the retransmission
of distant television programming by
satellite carriers. 17 U.S.C. 119.
Congress created the license in 1988 and
has reauthorized the license for
additional five-year periods, most
recently with the passage of the Satellite
Television Extension and Localism Act
of 2010, (‘‘STELA’’), Public Law 111–
175.
The Copyright Royalty Judges adopted
as final the rates for the section 119
compulsory license for the period 2010–
2014 after publication in the Federal
Register of the rates, as proposed by
Copyright Owners and Satellite
Carriers,1 yielded no objections. See 75
FR 53198 (August 31, 2010). Section
119(c)(2) requires the Judges annually to
adjust these rates ‘‘to reflect any changes
occurring in the cost of living
adjustment (for all consumers and for all
items) [‘‘CPI–U’’] published * * * at
least 25 days before January 1.’’ Id.
Today’s notice fulfills this obligation.
The change in the cost of living as
determined by the CPI–U during the
period from the most recent index
published before December 1, 2011, to
the most recent index published before
December 1, 2012, is 2.2%.2 Rounding
to the nearest cent, the royalty rates for
the secondary transmission of broadcast
stations by satellite carriers for private
home viewing and viewing in
commercial establishments are 27 cents
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Program Suppliers and Joint Sports Claimants
comprised the Copyright Owners, while DIRECTV,
Inc., DISH Network, LLC and National
Programming Service, LLC, comprised the Satellite
Carriers.
2 The most recent CPI–U figures are published in
November of each year and use the period 1982–
1984 to establish a reference base of 100. The index
for October 2011 was 226.421, while the figure for
October 2012 was 231.414.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
and 54 cents per subscriber per month,
respectively.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 386
Copyright, Satellite, Television.
Final Regulations
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, part 386 of title 37 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 386—ADJUSTMENT OF
ROYALTY FEES FOR SECONDARY
TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE
CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 386
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 119(c), 801(b)(1).
2. Section 386.2 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and
(b)(2)(iv) as follows:
■
§ 386.2 Royalty fee for secondary
transmission by satellite carriers.
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) * * *
(iv) 2013: 27 cents per subscriber per
month;
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(iv) 2013: 54 cents per subscriber per
month;
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: November 19, 2012.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2012–28507 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 9
RIN 2900–AO30
Servicemembers’ Group Life
Insurance—Stillborn Child Coverage
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This final rule amends the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) regulations in order to provide
that, if a stillborn child is otherwise
eligible to be insured by the SGLI
coverage of more than one
servicemember under SGLI dependent
child coverage, the child would be
insured by the coverage of the child’s
SGLI-insured biological mother. This
final rule will provide consistency in
payment determinations involving SGLI
stillborn child coverage.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Effective Date: This final rule is
effective December 26, 2012.
Applicability Date: This final rule will
apply to claims for SGLI proceeds filed
on or after December 26, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Monica Keitt, Attorney-Advisor,
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional
Office and Insurance Center (310/290B),
P.O. Box 8079, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19101, (215) 842–2000,
Ext. 2905. (This is not a toll free
number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 31, 2012, VA published in the
Federal Register (77 FR 4734) a
proposed rule to provide that, if a
stillborn child is insured by the SGLI
coverage of more than one
servicemember, the SGLI proceeds
would be paid to the child’s SGLIinsured mother. We provided a 60-day
public-comment period, which ended
on April 2, 2012, and received
comments from five individuals.
Section 1967(a)(4)(B) of title 38,
United States Code, prohibits an
insurable dependent who is a child from
being insured at any time under the
SGLI coverage of more than one
member, i.e., more than one SGLIinsured parent. If a child is otherwise
eligible to be insured by the coverage of
more than one member, under section
1967(a)(4)(B) the child is insured by the
coverage of the member whose
eligibility for SGLI occurred first,
‘‘except that if that member does not
have legal custody of the child, the
child shall be insured by the coverage
of the member who has legal custody of
the child.’’ Congress, however, did not
indicate whether this provision is
applicable to a stillborn child. VA
therefore proposed to fill the gap left by
Congress subjecting the coverage of a
stillborn child to the limitation that an
insurable dependent who is a child may
not be insured at any time by the
insurance coverage of more than one
member. We further proposed that a
stillborn child of two SGLI-covered
parents will always be insured under
the mother’s coverage because state laws
do not address legal custody of a
stillborn.
Two commenters wrote in support of
the proposed rule. Three of the
commenters raised issues regarding the
proposed rule.
One commenter stated that the rule
does not take into account a case in
which a stillborn child’s parents are the
same sex and urged flexibility in the
rule so as not to prejudice homosexual
couples. The premise of this comment,
that a stillborn child could have parents
of the same sex, is mistaken. VA has
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
defined the term ‘‘member’s stillborn
child’’ in 38 CFR 9.1(k)(1) to mean ‘‘a
member’s natural child’’ who meets
other criteria not relevant to this
discussion. The term ‘‘natural child’’
refers to a biological child. Black’s Law
Dictionary 272 (9th ed. 2009); see Luke
v. Bowen, 868 F.2d 974, 978 (8th Cir.
1989). As a result, this rule is applicable
only if both biological parents of the
stillborn child are SGLI-insured. There
can be only two biological parents of a
child: The mother who provided the
ovum that was fertilized and the father
who provided the semen that fertilized
the ovum. Black’s Law Dictionary 1222
(defining ‘‘biological parent’’ as woman
who provides egg or man who provides
sperm to form zygote that becomes
embryo). Thus, there cannot be two
biological parents of the same sex. We
make no change based on this comment.
Other commenters inquired about a
case in which a stillborn child is born
to a surrogate for a SGLI-insured. As
explained above, in accordance with 38
U.S.C. 1967, this rule is only applicable
if the stillborn’s biological parents are
both insured under SGLI. Generally,
there are two types of surrogacy: (1) A
surrogate is inseminated with sperm
which fertilizes her own ovum,
resulting in a child who is biologically
related to her; and (2) a surrogate is
impregnated with an embryo that is not
the product of her ovum, resulting in a
child who is not biologically related to
her. If a surrogate is the biological
mother of a stillborn and if both the
surrogate and the stillborn’s biological
father are SGLI-insureds, the SGLI
proceeds would be payable to the
surrogate under this rule. Again, this
outcome would be consistent with one
reason provided for the proposed rule,
i.e., the stillborn child was exclusively
in the surrogate’s physical custody. 77
FR 4734. If however a surrogate is not
the biological mother of the stillborn
and if both of the stillborn’s biological
parents are SGLI-insureds, the SGLI
proceeds would be payable to the
stillborn’s biological mother under this
rule. To ensure the clarity of the rule in
this regard, we are changing the
reference to ‘‘the child’s insured
mother’’ to read ‘‘the child’s insured
biological mother.’’
One commenter stated that, generally
with regard to life insurance, if an
insured mother dies prior to the
stillborn or seconds after giving birth to
a stillborn, the proceeds would become
part of the mother’s estate and that, if
she dies intestate, the proceeds would
pass in accordance with intestacy laws.
This situation is covered by 38 U.S.C.
1970(i), which directs that, if a member
dies before payment can be made on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
account of the member’s insurable
dependent’s death, the SGLI proceeds
payable on account of the insurable
dependent’s death are payable to the
person or persons entitled to the
proceeds payable on account of the
member’s death. Therefore, if an insured
mother gave birth to a stillborn and died
before payment on account of the
stillborn child could be made to her, the
SGLI proceeds payable on account of
the stillborn would be payable to the
person or persons entitled to the
proceeds payable on account of the
mother’s death. Only if the mother had
no designated beneficiary, surviving
spouse, child, or parent would the
proceeds be paid to the executor or
administrator of the insured mother’s
estate. 38 U.S.C. 1970(a).
One commenter also noted that the
rule might eliminate the opportunity for
notifying the stillborn child’s father
about the stillbirth in some
circumstances. This comment is beyond
the scope of the rulemaking, which is
intended to explain which member’s
SGLI would insure a stillborn who is
otherwise eligible to be insured by the
SGLI coverage of more than one
member.
This commenter also stated that the
rule would impose on the mother
additional burdens associated with
insurance coverage on the birth of a
stillborn child. The commenter
referenced paperwork to be filled out to
initiate a claim and other fees,
deductibles, or administrative
requirements, all of which would have
to be borne by the birth mother,
regardless of her preferences or the
family’s preferences regarding insurance
coverage. As explained in the preamble
to the proposed rule, 77 FR 4734, this
amendment will obviate the need to
establish paternity following the birth of
a stillborn child, which we believe
would impose far more onerous burdens
than completing a claim to recover the
SGLI proceeds. Further, there are no
fees, deductibles, or other
administrative requirements necessary
to file a claim for SGLI family coverage
that would impose a burden on the
mother of the stillborn child. We also
believe that this rule will have the
beneficial effect of providing clear,
definite guidance to members and their
families as to how SGLI family coverage
will be paid in the event of a stillbirth.
We therefore make no change based
upon this comment.
Another commenter stated that the
rule ignores the fact that the stillborn
child’s parents may choose that the
father of the child receive payment of
SGLI proceeds instead of the mother. In
such circumstances, the stillborn’s
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70375
mother can simply give the proceeds to
the stillborn’s father. We therefore do
not believe this rule needs to be
amended to address this situation.
A commenter disagreed with VA’s
assessment that the rule does not
require a cost-benefit analysis. The
commenter stated that, as required by
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563,
before promulgating the rule, VA should
complete a cost-benefit analysis of the
rule regarding its effect on same sex
couples who use a surrogate. The
commenter’s premise is mistaken. In the
notice of proposed rulemaking, VA did
not state that a cost-benefit analysis was
not required. In fact, VA’s analysis of
the proposed rule is publicly available
on the VA Web site at https://www.va.
gov/ORPM/VA_Regulations_Published_
From_Fiscal_Year_FY_2004.asp. Rather
VA stated that ‘‘VA has examined the
economic, interagency, legal, and policy
implications of this proposed rule and
has determined it not to be a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.’’ 77 FR 4735. We therefore make
no change based on this comment.
Based on the rationale set forth in the
proposed rule and upon consideration
of the public comments submitted, we
adopt the provisions of the proposed
rule as a final rule, with the changes
noted above.
We are also making one nonsubstantive change to the regulations
governing the birth of a stillborn child.
We are substituting the word
‘‘biological’’ for the word ‘‘natural’’ in
the definition of ‘‘member’s stillborn
child’’ in § 9.1(k)(1). We are not altering
the substantive content of the definition
by making this change but rather are
substituting a more current term for an
outdated one.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in an
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year. This rule would have no such
effect on State, local, and tribal
governments or on the private sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no provision
constituting a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
70376
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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
effects, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ which requires
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), 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 this Executive Order.’’
VA has examined the economic,
interagency, legal, and policy
implications of this final rule and has
determined that it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this final rule 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 et seq. This final rule
will directly affect only individuals and
will not directly affect small entities.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
this final rule 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 Program number and the title
for this regulation is 64.103, Life
Insurance for Veterans.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:35 Nov 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 November 20, 2012, for
publication.
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1965–1980A,
unless otherwise noted.
EPA is withdrawing its March
8, 2010 final action approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by California to provide for
attainment of the 1-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley
extreme ozone nonattainment area. In
addition, EPA is withdrawing its March
1, 2012 determination that the
California SIP satisfies the requirement
regarding offsetting emissions growth
caused by growth in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
Finally, EPA is finding that California
has failed to submit required SIP
revisions to provide for attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and to
address the VMT emissions offset
requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
Under the CAA, these findings of failure
to submit trigger the 18-month time
clock for mandatory imposition of
sanctions and the two-year time clock
for EPA to promulgate federal
implementation plans.
§ 9.1
DATES:
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 9
Life insurance, Military personnel,
Veterans.
Dated: November 20, 2012.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director of Regulation Policy and
Management, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs is amending 38 CFR part 9 as
follows:
PART 9—SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP
LIFE INSURANCE AND VETERANS’
GROUP LIFE INSURANCE
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
[Amended]
2. Amend § 9.1(k)(1) by removing
‘‘natural’’ and adding, in its place,
‘‘biological’’.
■ 3. Amend § 9.5 by adding paragraph
(f) and revising the authority citation at
the end of the section to read as follows:
■
SUMMARY:
The rule is effective November
26, 2012.
[FR Doc. 2012–28611 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]
EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0734 for
this action. The index to the docket is
available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material) and some
may not be publicly available at either
location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
§ 9.5
Payment of proceeds.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) If a stillborn child is otherwise
eligible to be insured by the
Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance
coverage of more than one member, the
child shall be insured by the coverage
of the child’s insured biological mother.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 1965(10),
1967(a)(4)(B))
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0734; FRL–9753–4]
Withdrawal of Approval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans and Findings of
Failure To Submit Required Plans;
California; San Joaquin Valley; 1-Hour
and 8-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan
Elements
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ADDRESSES:
Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), (415) 972–3957,
wicher.frances@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour Ozone
Plan
A. Withdrawal of EPA’s Approval of the
2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan
B. Finding of Failure To Submit a SIP To
Provide for Attainment of the 1-Hour
Ozone Standards in the SJV Extreme 1Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70374-70376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28611]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 9
RIN 2900-AO30
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance--Stillborn Child Coverage
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) regulations in order to
provide that, if a stillborn child is otherwise eligible to be insured
by the SGLI coverage of more than one servicemember under SGLI
dependent child coverage, the child would be insured by the coverage of
the child's SGLI-insured biological mother. This final rule will
provide consistency in payment determinations involving SGLI stillborn
child coverage.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective December 26, 2012.
Applicability Date: This final rule will apply to claims for SGLI
proceeds filed on or after December 26, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica Keitt, Attorney-Advisor,
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and Insurance Center
(310/290B), P.O. Box 8079, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, (215) 842-
2000, Ext. 2905. (This is not a toll free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 31, 2012, VA published in the
Federal Register (77 FR 4734) a proposed rule to provide that, if a
stillborn child is insured by the SGLI coverage of more than one
servicemember, the SGLI proceeds would be paid to the child's SGLI-
insured mother. We provided a 60-day public-comment period, which ended
on April 2, 2012, and received comments from five individuals.
Section 1967(a)(4)(B) of title 38, United States Code, prohibits an
insurable dependent who is a child from being insured at any time under
the SGLI coverage of more than one member, i.e., more than one SGLI-
insured parent. If a child is otherwise eligible to be insured by the
coverage of more than one member, under section 1967(a)(4)(B) the child
is insured by the coverage of the member whose eligibility for SGLI
occurred first, ``except that if that member does not have legal
custody of the child, the child shall be insured by the coverage of the
member who has legal custody of the child.'' Congress, however, did not
indicate whether this provision is applicable to a stillborn child. VA
therefore proposed to fill the gap left by Congress subjecting the
coverage of a stillborn child to the limitation that an insurable
dependent who is a child may not be insured at any time by the
insurance coverage of more than one member. We further proposed that a
stillborn child of two SGLI-covered parents will always be insured
under the mother's coverage because state laws do not address legal
custody of a stillborn.
Two commenters wrote in support of the proposed rule. Three of the
commenters raised issues regarding the proposed rule.
One commenter stated that the rule does not take into account a
case in which a stillborn child's parents are the same sex and urged
flexibility in the rule so as not to prejudice homosexual couples. The
premise of this comment, that a stillborn child could have parents of
the same sex, is mistaken. VA has
[[Page 70375]]
defined the term ``member's stillborn child'' in 38 CFR 9.1(k)(1) to
mean ``a member's natural child'' who meets other criteria not relevant
to this discussion. The term ``natural child'' refers to a biological
child. Black's Law Dictionary 272 (9th ed. 2009); see Luke v. Bowen,
868 F.2d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1989). As a result, this rule is applicable
only if both biological parents of the stillborn child are SGLI-
insured. There can be only two biological parents of a child: The
mother who provided the ovum that was fertilized and the father who
provided the semen that fertilized the ovum. Black's Law Dictionary
1222 (defining ``biological parent'' as woman who provides egg or man
who provides sperm to form zygote that becomes embryo). Thus, there
cannot be two biological parents of the same sex. We make no change
based on this comment.
Other commenters inquired about a case in which a stillborn child
is born to a surrogate for a SGLI-insured. As explained above, in
accordance with 38 U.S.C. 1967, this rule is only applicable if the
stillborn's biological parents are both insured under SGLI. Generally,
there are two types of surrogacy: (1) A surrogate is inseminated with
sperm which fertilizes her own ovum, resulting in a child who is
biologically related to her; and (2) a surrogate is impregnated with an
embryo that is not the product of her ovum, resulting in a child who is
not biologically related to her. If a surrogate is the biological
mother of a stillborn and if both the surrogate and the stillborn's
biological father are SGLI-insureds, the SGLI proceeds would be payable
to the surrogate under this rule. Again, this outcome would be
consistent with one reason provided for the proposed rule, i.e., the
stillborn child was exclusively in the surrogate's physical custody. 77
FR 4734. If however a surrogate is not the biological mother of the
stillborn and if both of the stillborn's biological parents are SGLI-
insureds, the SGLI proceeds would be payable to the stillborn's
biological mother under this rule. To ensure the clarity of the rule in
this regard, we are changing the reference to ``the child's insured
mother'' to read ``the child's insured biological mother.''
One commenter stated that, generally with regard to life insurance,
if an insured mother dies prior to the stillborn or seconds after
giving birth to a stillborn, the proceeds would become part of the
mother's estate and that, if she dies intestate, the proceeds would
pass in accordance with intestacy laws. This situation is covered by 38
U.S.C. 1970(i), which directs that, if a member dies before payment can
be made on account of the member's insurable dependent's death, the
SGLI proceeds payable on account of the insurable dependent's death are
payable to the person or persons entitled to the proceeds payable on
account of the member's death. Therefore, if an insured mother gave
birth to a stillborn and died before payment on account of the
stillborn child could be made to her, the SGLI proceeds payable on
account of the stillborn would be payable to the person or persons
entitled to the proceeds payable on account of the mother's death. Only
if the mother had no designated beneficiary, surviving spouse, child,
or parent would the proceeds be paid to the executor or administrator
of the insured mother's estate. 38 U.S.C. 1970(a).
One commenter also noted that the rule might eliminate the
opportunity for notifying the stillborn child's father about the
stillbirth in some circumstances. This comment is beyond the scope of
the rulemaking, which is intended to explain which member's SGLI would
insure a stillborn who is otherwise eligible to be insured by the SGLI
coverage of more than one member.
This commenter also stated that the rule would impose on the mother
additional burdens associated with insurance coverage on the birth of a
stillborn child. The commenter referenced paperwork to be filled out to
initiate a claim and other fees, deductibles, or administrative
requirements, all of which would have to be borne by the birth mother,
regardless of her preferences or the family's preferences regarding
insurance coverage. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule,
77 FR 4734, this amendment will obviate the need to establish paternity
following the birth of a stillborn child, which we believe would impose
far more onerous burdens than completing a claim to recover the SGLI
proceeds. Further, there are no fees, deductibles, or other
administrative requirements necessary to file a claim for SGLI family
coverage that would impose a burden on the mother of the stillborn
child. We also believe that this rule will have the beneficial effect
of providing clear, definite guidance to members and their families as
to how SGLI family coverage will be paid in the event of a stillbirth.
We therefore make no change based upon this comment.
Another commenter stated that the rule ignores the fact that the
stillborn child's parents may choose that the father of the child
receive payment of SGLI proceeds instead of the mother. In such
circumstances, the stillborn's mother can simply give the proceeds to
the stillborn's father. We therefore do not believe this rule needs to
be amended to address this situation.
A commenter disagreed with VA's assessment that the rule does not
require a cost-benefit analysis. The commenter stated that, as required
by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, before promulgating the rule, VA
should complete a cost-benefit analysis of the rule regarding its
effect on same sex couples who use a surrogate. The commenter's premise
is mistaken. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, VA did not state
that a cost-benefit analysis was not required. In fact, VA's analysis
of the proposed rule is publicly available on the VA Web site at https://www.va.gov/ORPM/VA_Regulations_Published_From_Fiscal_Year_FY_2004.asp. Rather VA stated that ``VA has examined the economic,
interagency, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule and
has determined it not to be a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.'' 77 FR 4735. We therefore make no change based
on this comment.
Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and upon
consideration of the public comments submitted, we adopt the provisions
of the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes noted above.
We are also making one non-substantive change to the regulations
governing the birth of a stillborn child. We are substituting the word
``biological'' for the word ``natural'' in the definition of ``member's
stillborn child'' in Sec. 9.1(k)(1). We are not altering the
substantive content of the definition by making this change but rather
are substituting a more current term for an outdated one.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C.
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year. This rule would have no such effect on
State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no provision constituting a collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and
[[Page 70376]]
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
effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive
Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a ``significant
regulatory action,'' which requires review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), 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
this Executive Order.''
VA has examined the economic, interagency, legal, and policy
implications of this final rule and has determined that it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule 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 et
seq. This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not
directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
this final rule 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 Program number and the
title for this regulation is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans.
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 November 20, 2012,
for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 9
Life insurance, Military personnel, Veterans.
Dated: November 20, 2012.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of the General
Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs is amending 38 CFR part 9 as follows:
PART 9--SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE AND VETERANS' GROUP
LIFE INSURANCE
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1965-1980A, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 9.1 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 9.1(k)(1) by removing ``natural'' and adding, in its
place, ``biological''.
0
3. Amend Sec. 9.5 by adding paragraph (f) and revising the authority
citation at the end of the section to read as follows:
Sec. 9.5 Payment of proceeds.
* * * * *
(f) If a stillborn child is otherwise eligible to be insured by the
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage of more than one member,
the child shall be insured by the coverage of the child's insured
biological mother.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 1965(10), 1967(a)(4)(B))
[FR Doc. 2012-28611 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
