Eligibility for Supplemental Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance, 18421-18422 [2018-08854]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/ fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. List of Subjects 34 CFR Part 77 Education, Grant programs— education, Incorporation by reference. Dated: April 24, 2018. Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 75 and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 75—DIRECT GRANT PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 75.210 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(2)(xiv) to read as follows: ■ General selection criteria. jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES * * * * * (h) * * * (2) * * * (xiv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes. * * * * * 13:07 Apr 26, 2018 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted. § 77.1 [Amended] 4. Section 77.1(c) is amended by removing the definition of ‘‘randomized controlled trial.’’ ■ [FR Doc. 2018–08965 Filed 4–26–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 8 RIN 2900–AQ03 Eligibility for Supplemental ServiceDisabled Veterans’ Insurance ACTION: Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs—education, Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Youth organizations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 3. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows: ■ Department of Veterans Affairs. Final rule. AGENCY: 34 CFR Part 75 § 75.210 PART 77—DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS Jkt 244001 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in this final rule, amends its regulations governing the ServiceDisabled Veterans’ Insurance (S–DVI) program in order to explain that a person who was granted S–DVI as of the date of death is not eligible for supplemental S–DVI because the insured’s total disability did not begin after the date of the insured’s application for insurance and while the insurance was in force under premiumpaying conditions. DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Weaver, Department of Veterans Affairs Insurance Center (310/290B), 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842–2000, ext. 4263 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 2017, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 39974). VA provided a 60-day comment period on the proposed rule, which ended on October 23, 2017. VA received comments from five individuals. The commenters stated that they believed the proposed rule would unnecessarily restrict eligibility for supplemental S– DVI; eliminate insurance coverage for veterans; and is contrary to the congressional intent of the supplemental S–DVI legislation. We address their contentions below. SUMMARY: A. Insurance Coverage One commenter stated that the rule would eliminate insurance coverage for PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18421 many veterans. The regulation does not eliminate insurance coverage for insured veterans or those eligible to be insured under supplemental S–DVI. Rather, the rule clarifies VA’s longstanding practice, which is dictated by 38 U.S.C. 1912(a) and 1922A(a), by explaining which veterans are ineligible for supplemental S–DVI consistent with the governing statutes. See Martin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 451 (2014). Therefore, VA will not make any changes based on this comment. B. Eligibility for Supplemental S–DVI Four commenters stated that the rule would restrict eligibility for supplemental S–DVI. Two of the commenters stated that the rule makes a blanket assessment that a mentally incompetent veteran is ineligible for supplemental S–DVI based on the assumption that the veteran would not have applied for the coverage. Another commenter stated that the rule discriminates against veterans who are incapable of applying for supplemental S–DVI prior to their date of death. The rule is not based upon any assumption nor does it discriminate against certain veterans. As VA explained in the proposed rule, under 38 U.S.C. 1922A(a), a S–DVI insured is not entitled to supplemental S–DVI unless the insured qualifies for waiver of premiums under 38 U.S.C. 1912(a), and a veteran granted insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922(b) cannot qualify for a waiver of premiums under § 1912(a) because the insured’s total disability does not begin after the date of the insured’s application for insurance and while the insurance is in force under premium-paying conditions. See 82 FR 39975. While section 1922(b) grants S– DVI posthumously, Congress did not include provisions in section 1922A to grant supplemental S–DVI to the survivors of veterans who were unable to apply for the insurance prior to death. See Martin, 26 Vet. App. at 458–59. VA will not make any changes based on these comments. Two commenters stated that VA should revise the rule to prevent abuses rather than to eliminate eligibility for Supplemental S–DVI for all veterans granted S–DVI under section 1922(b). Both commenters stated that the point of the Martin decision was to prevent abuse of the system. We see no reference in the court’s decision for prevention of abuse. Rather, the court’s holdings are based on the plain language of the statutes. See 26 Vet. App. 458–49. Any VA rule that is inconsistent with the statutes would be invalid. We therefore decline to make any changes to the rule on this basis. E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM 27APR1 18422 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations C. Congressional Intent One of the commenters suggested that the rule makes numerous veterans ineligible for supplemental S–DVI, which is inconsistent with the intent of Congress and VA. The Veterans Court found that the language of 38 U.S.C. 1912(a) and 1922A(a) is plain, 26 Vet. App. at 458, and therefore the literal language is the ‘‘sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent.’’ See Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 490 (1917). Sections 1912(a) and 1922A(a) unambiguously provide that supplemental S–DVI is only available to a person insured under S–DVI who qualifies for a waiver of premiums under section 1912, which requires that an insured’s total disability have begun after the date of the insured’s application for insurance and while the insurance is in force under premiumpaying conditions. The court did not disregard the limiting language of the statutes and neither may VA. Therefore, VA will not make any changes based on this comment. Based on the rationale set forth in the Federal Register, VA adopts the proposed rule, without change, as a final rule. jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 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 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:07 Apr 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 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.’’ The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final regulatory action have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA’s impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at https://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA’s website at https://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published.’’ This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because the rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this final 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 final rule would directly affect only individuals and would not directly affect any 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. 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 the 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 1 year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 8 Life insurance, Veterans. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 20, 2018, for publication. Dated: April 23, 2018. Jeffrey M. Martin, Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 8 as set forth below: PART 8—NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE 1. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 1901–1929, 1981, 1988, unless otherwise noted. ■ 2. Add § 8.34 to read as follows: § 8.34 Ineligibility for insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922A (supplemental ServiceDisabled Veterans’ Insurance) if person insured under 38 U.S.C. 1922(b). A person who is granted ServiceDisabled Veterans’ Insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922(b) is not eligible for supplemental Service-Disabled Veterans’ Insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922A. [FR Doc. 2018–08854 Filed 4–26–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320–01–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3020 [Docket Nos. MC2010–21 and CP2010–36] Update to Product List Postal Regulatory Commission. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: The Commission is updating the competitive product list. This action reflects a publication policy adopted by Commission order. The referenced policy assumes periodic updates. The updates are identified in the body of this document. The competitive product list, which is re-published in its entirety, includes these updates. DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2018. For applicability dates, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\27APR1.SGM 27APR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18421-18422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08854]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 8

RIN 2900-AQ03


Eligibility for Supplemental Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in this final rule, 
amends its regulations governing the Service-Disabled Veterans' 
Insurance (S-DVI) program in order to explain that a person who was 
granted S-DVI as of the date of death is not eligible for supplemental 
S-DVI because the insured's total disability did not begin after the 
date of the insured's application for insurance and while the insurance 
was in force under premium-paying conditions.

DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Weaver, Department of Veterans 
Affairs Insurance Center (310/290B), 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, 
Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842-2000, ext. 4263 (this is not a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 2017, VA published a proposed 
rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 39974). VA provided a 60-day 
comment period on the proposed rule, which ended on October 23, 2017. 
VA received comments from five individuals. The commenters stated that 
they believed the proposed rule would unnecessarily restrict 
eligibility for supplemental S-DVI; eliminate insurance coverage for 
veterans; and is contrary to the congressional intent of the 
supplemental S-DVI legislation. We address their contentions below.

A. Insurance Coverage

    One commenter stated that the rule would eliminate insurance 
coverage for many veterans. The regulation does not eliminate insurance 
coverage for insured veterans or those eligible to be insured under 
supplemental S-DVI. Rather, the rule clarifies VA's longstanding 
practice, which is dictated by 38 U.S.C. 1912(a) and 1922A(a), by 
explaining which veterans are ineligible for supplemental S-DVI 
consistent with the governing statutes. See Martin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. 
App. 451 (2014). Therefore, VA will not make any changes based on this 
comment.

B. Eligibility for Supplemental S-DVI

    Four commenters stated that the rule would restrict eligibility for 
supplemental S-DVI. Two of the commenters stated that the rule makes a 
blanket assessment that a mentally incompetent veteran is ineligible 
for supplemental S-DVI based on the assumption that the veteran would 
not have applied for the coverage. Another commenter stated that the 
rule discriminates against veterans who are incapable of applying for 
supplemental S-DVI prior to their date of death.
    The rule is not based upon any assumption nor does it discriminate 
against certain veterans. As VA explained in the proposed rule, under 
38 U.S.C. 1922A(a), a S-DVI insured is not entitled to supplemental S-
DVI unless the insured qualifies for waiver of premiums under 38 U.S.C. 
1912(a), and a veteran granted insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922(b) cannot 
qualify for a waiver of premiums under Sec.  1912(a) because the 
insured's total disability does not begin after the date of the 
insured's application for insurance and while the insurance is in force 
under premium-paying conditions. See 82 FR 39975. While section 1922(b) 
grants S-DVI posthumously, Congress did not include provisions in 
section 1922A to grant supplemental S-DVI to the survivors of veterans 
who were unable to apply for the insurance prior to death. See Martin, 
26 Vet. App. at 458-59. VA will not make any changes based on these 
comments.
    Two commenters stated that VA should revise the rule to prevent 
abuses rather than to eliminate eligibility for Supplemental S-DVI for 
all veterans granted S-DVI under section 1922(b). Both commenters 
stated that the point of the Martin decision was to prevent abuse of 
the system. We see no reference in the court's decision for prevention 
of abuse. Rather, the court's holdings are based on the plain language 
of the statutes. See 26 Vet. App. 458-49. Any VA rule that is 
inconsistent with the statutes would be invalid. We therefore decline 
to make any changes to the rule on this basis.

[[Page 18422]]

C. Congressional Intent

    One of the commenters suggested that the rule makes numerous 
veterans ineligible for supplemental S-DVI, which is inconsistent with 
the intent of Congress and VA. The Veterans Court found that the 
language of 38 U.S.C. 1912(a) and 1922A(a) is plain, 26 Vet. App. at 
458, and therefore the literal language is the ``sole evidence of the 
ultimate legislative intent.'' See Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 
470, 490 (1917). Sections 1912(a) and 1922A(a) unambiguously provide 
that supplemental S-DVI is only available to a person insured under S-
DVI who qualifies for a waiver of premiums under section 1912, which 
requires that an insured's total disability have begun after the date 
of the insured's application for insurance and while the insurance is 
in force under premium-paying conditions. The court did not disregard 
the limiting language of the statutes and neither may VA. Therefore, VA 
will not make any changes based on this comment.
    Based on the rationale set forth in the Federal Register, VA adopts 
the proposed rule, without change, as a final rule.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
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 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.''
    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy 
implications of this final regulatory action have been examined and it 
has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a 
supporting document at https://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 
hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy 
of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website 
at https://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for ``VA Regulations 
Published.'' This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action because the rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this final 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 final rule would directly affect only individuals 
and would not directly affect any 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.

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 the 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 1 year. This final rule would have no such effect on 
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the 
program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for 
Veterans.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 8

    Life insurance, 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. Jacquelyn 
Hayes-Byrd, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, 
approved this document on March 20, 2018, for publication.

    Dated: April 23, 2018.
Jeffrey M. Martin,
Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the 
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs amends 38 CFR part 8 as set forth below:

PART 8--NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  38 U.S.C. 501(a), 1901-1929, 1981, 1988, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Add Sec.  8.34 to read as follows:


Sec.  8.34  Ineligibility for insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922A 
(supplemental Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance) if person insured 
under 38 U.S.C. 1922(b).

    A person who is granted Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance under 
38 U.S.C. 1922(b) is not eligible for supplemental Service-Disabled 
Veterans' Insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922A.

[FR Doc. 2018-08854 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.