Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57067 

Comment: The same commenter 

raised a concern about whether there 

would be adequate funds available to 

grant awards to continuing AIVRS 

programs and other eligible tribal 

entities should RSA hold a section 121 

grant competition in FY 2014. 

Discussion: The AIVRS program is 

funded through a set-aside of the funds 

appropriated for the Vocational 

Rehabilitation (VR) State Grants 

program. Pending Congress’s approval 

of a new budget, the Department 

anticipates that sufficient funds should 

be available to hold a grant competition 

in FY 2014 that would fund a minimum 

of 48 grants with project periods that 

would begin in FY 2015. This is the 

same estimated total number of new 

grants the Department would have 

awarded if it had conducted separate 

competitions in FY 2012, 2013, and 

2014. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: The same commenter also 

expressed the need to provide technical 

assistance and training to existing 

AIVRS programs and interested eligible 

tribes in the development of AIVRS 

grant proposals and grant management. 

This commenter was particularly 

concerned, given the fact that RSA’s 

current capacity-building projects that 

provides technical assistance to AIVRS 

projects and applicants ends on 

September 30, 2013. 

Discussion: On November 8, 2012 (77 

FR 66959), RSA published a request for 

information related to its Rehabilitation 

Long-Term Training program, Technical 

Assistance and Continuing Education, 

the National Clearinghouse, and 

Capacity Building efforts. RSA is 

continuing to analyze the comments we 

received from that notice. Funding 

priorities to address the need for 

technical assistance, including the 

technical assistance needs of AIVRS 

projects, will be published at a later 

time. 

Changes: None. 

Waivers and Extensions 

The project periods for the current 32 

AIVRS grantees, selected through the 

grant competitions held in FY 2007 and 

2008 are scheduled to end September 

30, 2013. However, section 121(b)(3) of 

the Act provides that the Department 

has the authority to make an AIVRS 

grant effective for more than 60 months, 

pursuant to prescribed regulations. 

Therefore, for these 32 AIVRS grantees, 

the Secretary waives the requirements of 

34 CFR 75.250 and 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), 

which limit project periods to 60 

months and restrict project period 

extensions that involve the obligation of 

additional Federal funds. The Secretary 

also extends the current project period 

for the 32 AIVRS grantees funded in FY 

2007 and 2008 through September 30, 

2014. Finally, the Department will not 

announce a new AIVRS competition in 

FY 2013 or make new awards in FY 

2013. 

This action allows the 32 AIVRS 

grantees to request continuation funding 

in FY 2013. Decisions regarding annual 

continuation awards will be based on 

the program narratives, budgets, budget 

narratives, and program performance 

reports submitted by these 32 AIVRS 

grantees and on the requirements of 34 

CFR 75.253. Any activities to be carried 

out during the year of continuation 

awards must be consistent with, or be a 

logical extension of, the scope, goals, 

and objectives of each grantee’s 

application as approved following the 

FY 2007 and 2008 AIVRS competitions. 

The FY 2007 and 2008 AIVRS NIAs will 

continue to govern the grantees’ projects 

during the extension year. These current 

AIVRS grantees may request 

continuation awards in FY 2013 for 

project periods ending September 30, 

2014. 

Waiver of Delayed Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) requires that a substantive rule 

must be published at least 30 days 

before its effective date, except as 

otherwise provided for good cause (5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). The Secretary has 

determined that a delayed effective date 

is unnecessary and contrary to the 

public interest. It is unnecessary 

because we received only three public 

comments on this action, all of which 

supported our proposal and we have not 

made any substantive changes to the 

proposal. It is contrary to public interest 

because we would not be able to make 

timely continuation grants to the 32 

affected entities with the delay. 

Therefore, the Secretary waives the 

APA’s delayed effective date provision 

for good cause. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this final 

extension of the project period and 

waiver will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The only 

entities that will be affected are the 

current grantees and any other potential 

applicants. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The final waivers and extensions of 

project periods do not contain any 

information collection requirements. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order 12372 

and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available 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 Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the 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. 

Dated: September 12, 2013. 

Sue Swenson, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22626 Filed 9–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN92 

Vet Center Services 

AGENCY: Department of Defense and 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is establishing in regulation 

the readjustment counseling currently 

provided in VA’s Vet Centers to certain 

veterans of the Armed Forces and 

members of their families, and 

implementing provisions of the 

Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

57068 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Health Services Act of 2010 regarding 

readjustment counseling. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective October 17, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Harms, Readjustment 

Counseling Service (10P8), Veterans 

Health Administration, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– 

6525. (This is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule articulates in regulation our 

authority to establish Vet Centers to 

furnish counseling to certain veterans 

upon request, as set forth in 38 U.S.C. 

1712A. It also meets a rulemaking 

requirement prescribed by Congress in 

section 401 of the Caregivers and 

Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act 

of 2010, Public Law 111–163 (the 2010 

Act), and implements sections 304 and 

401 of the 2010 Act, by authorizing Vet 

Centers to provide readjustment 

counseling to certain veterans described 

in section 304, their families, and 

certain members of the Armed Forces 

set forth in section 401. Finally, this 

rulemaking implements section 402 of 

the 2010 Act by authorizing Vet Centers 

to provide certain referral services. 

Although VA has provided readjustment 

counseling under 38 U.S.C. 1712A 

without a regulation in the past, in the 

interests of clarity and completeness, 

this final rule covers the provision of 

benefits to veterans under section 

1712A as well as benefits provided 

under the 2010 Act. 

In a document published in the 

Federal Register on March 13, 2012 (77 

FR 14707), VA proposed to amend part 

17 of 38 CFR by adding a new § 17.2000, 

which would contain the provisions 

described above. We provided a 60-day 

comment period, which ended on May 

14, 2012. We received 15 comments 

from members of the general public. 

Several commenters agreed with all or 

part of the proposed rulemaking and 

expressed support for the regulation. We 

did not make any changes based on 

these comments. 

Another commenter supported the 

provision of readjustment counseling 

but was concerned because ‘‘it has been 

argued by many veterans that they were 

denied these services for many 

reasons.’’ We cannot respond to the 

commenter’s concerns about denials of 

treatment because the comment did not 

recommend any changes to the 

proposed rule, nor did it include any 

specific circumstances under which a 

veteran was denied readjustment 

counseling. Moreover, addressing any 

such circumstance is beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking. Also, we are not 

aware of an ongoing problem of Vet 

Centers denying readjustment 

counseling to eligible veterans. In the 

proposed rulemaking, we stated that VA 

has implemented the statutory authority 

under 38 U.S.C. 1712A to ‘‘establish Vet 

Centers that must furnish counseling to 

certain veterans upon request’’ without 

regulations. We would expect to 

eliminate or significantly reduce the 

problem described by the commenter, if 

any such problem exists, through this 

rulemaking. 

The commenter also stated that ‘‘the 

majority of the population does not 

know a lot about’’ the services provided 

at Vet Centers. VA is not aware of this 

problem, i.e., that a significant 

proportion of the eligible veteran 

population does not know about VA’s 

Vet Center program. We provide face-toface outreach, education, and referral to 

veterans and their families. However, if 

such a problem exists, this regulation 

will facilitate the implementation of the 

readjustment counseling program in the 

Vet Centers and clearly and publicly 

indicate the various services that are 

included in the definition of 

readjustment counseling. VA hopes that 

this rulemaking, in addition to other 

outreach programs, will alert veterans to 

the readjustment services provided in 

the Vet Centers. We did not make any 

changes based on this comment. 

A commenter stated that VA should 

require screening for problems related to 

readjustment issues to better assist those 

veterans who are in need of treatment 

but who may believe they will ‘‘not 

have trouble readjusting or are too 

stubborn to seek such counseling’’ or 

whose ‘‘problems manifest themselves 

when they are already thrown in the 

jungle of everyday life and their lives 

become too busy to seek such 

counseling.’’ The commenter also 

indicated support for the proposed rule 

because it provided readjustment 

counseling for the whole family, which 

assists the transition into the 

community. 

The commenter makes a valid point 

in that part of successful readjustment 

counseling is knowing when a veteran 

is in need of assistance. VA has 

addressed this issue by providing 

outreach programs that are available to 

veterans and servicemembers in Vet 

Centers and other VA facilities. Some of 

the outreach programs include the Vet 

Center Combat Call Center (877–WAR– 

VETS), which is an around-the-clock 

confidential call center where combat 

veterans and their families can call to 

talk about their military experience or 

any other issue they are facing in their 

readjustment to civilian life, as well as 

the Veterans Crisis Line, which 

connects veterans in crisis and their 

family and friends with 24-hour online 

chat or text messaging. There are mobile 

applications, such as the Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (PTSD) Coach, that 

assist veterans in managing their PTSD. 

Outreach is also part of the veteran’s 

primary VA care. But no matter how 

extensive our outreach and how 

convenient our services may be, VA 

cannot require a veteran to come to a 

Vet Center, nor can we intervene in the 

‘‘every day’’ lives of veterans who do 

not seek assistance. Therefore, although 

we agree with the commenter’s 

sentiments, we did not make any 

changes based on this comment. 

Another commenter indicated strong 

disagreement with the 2010 Act, stating 

that all veterans ‘‘deserve counseling 

when they return home.’’ The 

commenter further stated that if 

veterans are not able to ‘‘turn to the VA 

for counseling, then I believe they have 

no one to turn [to].’’ We assure this 

commenter that neither the 2010 Act 

nor this rulemaking restrict veteran 

eligibility for readjustment counseling. 

On the contrary, this rulemaking 

expands the services provided by Vet 

Centers and makes the services available 

to a broader pool of qualified 

individuals. VA may now provide 

readjustment counseling to 

servicemembers as well as veterans who 

served on active duty in Operation 

Enduring Freedom (OEF) or Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and to the families 

of these servicemembers and veterans. 

We can also provide certain referral 

services to those individuals who are 

not otherwise eligible for Vet Center 

services. By broadening the pool of 

qualified candidates who can receive 

readjustment counseling, VA is 

maintaining its commitment to improve 

the mental health of veterans and help 

these veterans, their families, and 

servicemembers to successfully 

integrate back to civilian life. We did 

not make any changes based on this 

comment. 

Commenters questioned the 3-year 

time limit set forth in section 304 of the 

2010 Act, and appeared to be confused 

as to whether VA would enforce that 

time limit. In the proposed rulemaking 

we stated that section 304 of the 2010 

Act authorizes readjustment counseling 

for the immediate family of Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom veterans for a period of 3 years 

after such veterans return from 

deployment. 77 FR 14709. However, we 

further explained that we have authority 

to provide readjustment counseling 

under 38 U.S.C. 1712A, 1782, and 1783, 

and that authority is actually broader 

because it does not have the 3-year 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57069 

limitation found in section 304 of the 

2010 Act and is not limited to OEF/OIF 

veterans. For this reason, we proposed 

in § 17.2000(a)(5) that VA would 

provide readjustment counseling to 

family members of the veteran or 

servicemember, without setting a time 

limit to the provision of such 

readjustment counseling. We hope that 

this explanation further clarifies this 

issue for the commenters, and we did 

not make any changes based on this 

comment. 

Some commenters asked for a clear 

definition of ‘‘immediate family 

member.’’ One commenter stated that 

this rulemaking would restrict ‘‘some 

family members from accessing 

appropriate counseling’’ because 

‘‘[t]here is no statutory or regulatory 

definition of ‘immediate family’ for 

purposes of readjustment counseling.’’ 

The commenter further stated that in 

most states ‘‘same-sex parents cannot 

both create legal relationships with their 

children.’’ According to the commenter, 

such lack of legal recognition would 

prevent same-sex couples and their 

families from obtaining readjustment 

counseling. The commenter suggested 

that VA define the term ‘‘immediate 

family’’ to include ‘‘all spouses, 

domestic partners, children (including 

those for whom the veteran stood in 

loco parentis), and parents (including 

those who stood in loco parentis to the 

veteran), regardless of their legally 

recognized relationship to the veteran.’’ 

The commenter added that this 

definition would apply for 

determinations of eligibility for all 

counseling services provided by Vet 

Centers, to include readjustment 

counseling and bereavement counseling 

under 38 U.S.C. 1782 and 1783. 

We are making several changes to the 

final rule based on this comment. First, 

the commenter correctly points out that 

there is a need to define ‘‘immediate 

family;’’ however, in so doing, the 

commenter underscores a weakness in 

the proposed rule. In the proposed 

rulemaking, we explained that our 

authority to provide Vet Center services 

to veterans’ family members originates 

in 38 U.S.C. 1712A, 1782, and 1783, not 

in section 304(a)(2) of the 2010 Act. 77 

FR 14709. Section 304 of the 2010 Act 

reaffirmed VA’s Vet Center practices in 

this regard, but it is not the legal 

foundation for them. 

Section 304 of the 2010 Act used the 

term ‘‘immediate family;’’ however, in 

light of our interpretation of sections 

1712A, 1782, and 1783 as providing the 

foundation for this rule, we now believe 

that the final rule should use the term 

‘‘family member’’ and not ‘‘immediate 

family member.’’ As raised by the 

commenter, the word ‘‘immediate’’ does 

not accurately describe the broad cohort 

of persons to whom Vet Centers extend 

readjustment counseling in order to 

support a veteran’s readjustment to 

civilian life and is not required based on 

the expansive authority for Vet Centers. 

First, 38 U.S.C. 1712A authorizes VA to 

provide counseling to assist veterans in 

adjusting to civilian life, which we 

interpreted broadly to include family 

and marriage counseling that would 

support the veteran during the 

adjustment period. 77 FR 14709. 

Second, 38 U.S.C. 1782 specifically 

authorizes VA to provide counseling, 

training, and mental health services for 

members of a veteran’s ‘‘immediate 

family,’’ but also to the legal guardian of 

a veteran, a family caregiver, and the 

individual in whose household the 

veteran intends to live. Third, 38 U.S.C. 

1783 authorizes VA to provide 

bereavement counseling to a broad 

cohort including individuals who were 

treated under 38 U.S.C. 1782, immediate 

family members, and the veteran’s 

parents. Moreover, Congress has not 

established clear limitations on the 

authority for VA to provide Vet Center 

services to family members in any of 

these authorities. It is not clear why 

Congress used the phrase ‘‘immediate 

family member’’ in section 304(a)(2); 

however, section 304 is also somewhat 

internally inconsistent as it also requires 

VA to provide assistance in ‘‘the 

readjustment of the family’’ in 

subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(2). In 

order to assist in the readjustment of 

‘‘the family,’’ Vet Center services must 

in some situations be provided to 

individuals who might not be in the 

veteran’s ‘‘immediate’’ family if we were 

to interpret that term narrowly. 

Striking the word ‘‘immediate’’ from 

proposed § 17.2000(a)(5) does not 

resolve all of the commenters’ concerns. 

There is still a need to define which 

members of a veteran’s family can be 

serviced by Vet Centers, and whether 

such members may include same-sex 

partners and/or members of a same-sex 

couple’s family. There is little statutory 

guidance on this matter. First, we turn 

to the 2010 Act itself, which, in title I 

(which established VA’s Program of 

Comprehensive Assistance for Family 

Caregivers (Caregivers Program)), 

broadly defined a veteran’s family to 

include a parent, spouse, child, stepfamily member, extended family 

member, and anyone who lives with the 

veteran. The purposes of these programs 

are also similar. The purpose of the 

Caregivers Program is to assist certain 

disabled active duty servicemembers 

and veterans by supporting family 

members who help these disabled 

individuals live in the community, 

including during the time that such 

individuals are transitioning to civilian 

life. The purpose of Vet Centers 

includes assisting veterans by helping 

their families with readjustment issues 

common among veterans. 

Moreover, section 103 of the 2010 Act 

specifically amended 38 U.S.C. 1782, 

one of the foundational authorities for 

Vet Centers, to require VA to provide 

section 1782 counseling to family 

caregivers. Therefore, at least to the 

extent that Vet Center services are 

authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1782, we must 

provide them to the same family 

members of the veteran who are 

included as family members under the 

Caregivers Program. 

Based on the connections between the 

Caregivers Program and the services 

provided in Vet Centers, as well as the 

various authorities described above that 

authorize Vet Centers to provide service 

to family members, we believe that it is 

appropriate to use a definition of 

‘‘family member’’ for purposes of the 

Vet Center program that is similar to the 

definition set forth in the statute and 

regulations relating to the Caregivers 

Program. As noted above, a ‘‘family 

member’’ is defined by 38 U.S.C. 

1720G(d)(3) as a member of the family 

of the veteran, including the veteran’s 

parent, spouse, child, step-family 

member, and extended family member, 

or someone who lives with the veteran 

but is not a member of the family of the 

veteran. Under 38 CFR 71.25(b), we 

similarly established in regulation that 

these are the family members who may 

participate as Primary or Secondary 

Family Caregivers. Therefore, we 

include these same individuals as 

family members for purposes of Vet 

Center benefits in paragraph (a)(5) of 

§ 17.2000. 

Adopting this definition will resolve 

the commenters’ concerns. Although we 

do not adopt the commenters’ specific 

wording, our definition would 

encompass domestic partners, spouses, 

children, and parents. It would also 

include individuals whose relationship 

to the veteran is ‘‘in loco parentis,’’ 

which the commenter defines as 

persons who have day-to-day care 

duties over the veteran or over whom 

the veteran has day-to-day care duties, 

so long as these individuals live with 

the veteran. It would also include 

transgendered individuals, again, so 

long as they meet one of the criteria of 

the regulation, which includes 

individuals who live with the veteran. 

It is important to remember that, as 

discussed extensively in the proposed 

rule, the purpose of Vet Center 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

57070 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

counseling is to assist the veteran or 

servicemember in readjusting to civilian 

life. The broad definition suggested by 

the commenter and adopted in this final 

rule serves that broad purpose. 

The above analysis and justification 

for the use of the Caregivers Program’s 

definition of family member clearly 

applies to those whose eligibility is 

predicated on a veteran’s (or veteran’s 

family member’s) eligibility for services 

under 38 U.S.C. 1712A, 1782, and 1783. 

However, these authorities do not 

authorize VA to provide readjustment 

counseling to servicemembers. Our 

authority to provide readjustment 

counseling to servicemembers comes 

from section 401 of the 2010 Act. 

Nevertheless, in the proposed rule, we 

stated that we did not believe Congress 

intended to authorize Vet Centers to 

provide lesser readjustment counseling 

services to servicemembers than those 

that we provide to veterans. Moreover, 

section 401 specifically authorizes the 

provision of services under 38 U.S.C. 

1712A, which, again, we believe 

authorizes the provision of readjustment 

counseling to family members when to 

do so would benefit the veteran. 

Therefore, we believe that the same 

definition of family members should 

apply whether we are providing 

readjustment services to veterans or 

servicemembers. 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

rule did not include veterans who had 

non-combat injuries or illnesses. The 

commenter stated that non-combat 

veterans should ‘‘qualify because an 

injury or illness that is serviceconnected, regardless if it occurred in a 

combat or non-combat situation, will 

still have a devastating impact to the 

service member and veteran along with 

their family members.’’ The commenter 

recommended that eligibility for 

readjustment counseling should be 

linked to the veteran’s serviceconnected condition, regardless of 

whether such condition was incurred in 

combat. 

Under 38 U.S.C. 1712A(a)(1)(B) 

readjustment counseling may be 

provided by VA to servicemembers or 

veterans who served on active duty in 

a theater of combat operations during a 

period of war or to servicemembers or 

veterans who served on active duty in 

an area where hostilities occurred or in 

combat against a hostile force during a 

period of hostilities. Although VA is 

able to provide mental health care to 

non-combat servicemembers and 

veterans as part of the medical benefits 

package, section 1712A does not 

support providing readjustment 

counseling to non-combat 

servicemembers or veterans. VA cannot 

amend this statutory authority through 

regulation. We did not make any 

changes based on this comment. 

The commenter was also concerned 

that the term ‘‘Armed Forces’’ does not 

include the Commissioned Corps of the 

Public Health Service (PHS) or the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). The 

commenter recommended the use of the 

term ‘‘Uniformed Services’’ instead of 

‘‘Armed Forces.’’ Section 17.2000(a)(4) 

states that VA will provide readjustment 

counseling to any member of the Armed 

Forces, including a member of the 

National Guard or reserve, who served 

on active duty in the Armed Forces in 

Operation Enduring Freedom or 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Although the 

term ‘‘Armed Forces’’ is not defined in 

the regulation, under 38 U.S.C. 101(10), 

the term ‘‘Armed Forces’’ means ‘‘the 

United States Army, Navy, Marine 

Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, 

including the reserve components 

thereof.’’ In establishing our authority to 

provide Vet Center services to active 

duty servicemembers, we believe that 

Congress clearly meant that we limit 

eligibility to members of the Armed 

Forces who served on active duty. 

Members of the Armed Forces do not 

include individuals in PHS or NOAA, 

even if those individuals served on 

active duty. Our interpretation is 

supported by the fact that Congress 

specifically included members of the 

National Guard under section 401(a) of 

the 2010 Act but did not extend 

eligibility to PHS or NOAA. We note 

that we are constrained from making a 

broader interpretation in this case 

because, unlike the definition of ‘‘family 

member’’ discussed above, the 

eligibility for active duty 

servicemembers is clearly established by 

section 401 of the 2010 Act and is not 

part of the foundational authority for 

Vet Centers set forth in 38 U.S.C. 1712A, 

1782, and 1783. We believe that 

extending our authority in such a 

manner would contravene the statute 

and, therefore, we did not make the 

change requested by the commenter. 

The commenter further indicated that 

the rulemaking should define the types 

of readjustment counseling services that 

the family members of the 

servicemember and veteran are eligible 

to receive. The commenter questioned 

whether the family members qualify for 

the readjustment counseling benefits as 

defined in proposed paragraph (d) or if 

the family members are only eligible to 

receive certain benefits. 

The commenter presents a valid 

point. Readjustment counseling services 

provided to servicemembers and 

veterans are not the same as the 

readjustment counseling services 

provided to the family members of 

servicemembers and veterans. Under 38 

U.S.C. 1712A, we provide Vet Center 

services only if to do so would assist the 

veteran in adjusting to civilian life. 

Under 38 U.S.C. 1782, we are 

authorized to provide certain 

consultations, marriage, and family 

counseling to family members of 

veterans ‘‘as necessary in connection 

with’’ VA’s treatment of the veteran, and 

some of these types of counseling are 

provided through our Vet Centers. 

Under section 304 of the 2010 Act, we 

are authorized to provide education, 

support, counseling, and mental health 

services to family members of 

servicemembers and veterans of 

Operation Enduring Freedom and 

Operation Iraqi Freedom to assist in the 

readjustment of the servicemember or 

veteran, the recovery of the individual 

from an injury or illness, or the 

readjustment of the family following the 

return of the individual to family life. In 

short, all services provided through Vet 

Centers to family members are premised 

on whether the provision of the services 

will aid in the readjustment of the 

servicemember or veteran. In response 

to the comment, we have clarified 

§ 17.2000(d) to specify this limitation. 

We do not believe that it is necessary 

to further specify when the services 

included in the definition of 

readjustment counseling can be 

provided to family members because 

any of the listed services could be 

provided under appropriate 

circumstances. For example, it might be 

necessary to involve family members 

when providing individual counseling, 

group counseling, and marital and 

family counseling for military-related 

readjustment issues. An assessment of 

whether the family member needs 

substance abuse treatment might be 

appropriate as well, particularly for 

those veterans who themselves need to 

live in a ‘‘drug free’’ environment. When 

employment issues present a challenge 

to the veteran’s readjustment, a familybased approach might be necessary. 

Readjustment of a veteran who 

experienced military sexual trauma 

may, in some cases, involve support or 

counseling for a family member. Even a 

psychosocial assessment is defined as a 

‘‘holistic’’ assessment under 

§ 17.2000(d) and therefore, in some 

cases, might involve a family member. 

We note that Vet Center services are 

provided by mental health professionals 

(e.g., social workers, counselors, 

psychologists) and are not provided by 

a medical professional. Therefore, to the 

extent that family members require 

medical intervention, it would not be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57071 

provided at a Vet Center—just as 

medical intervention would not be 

provided for a veteran at a Vet Center. 

For the scope of medical benefits 

provided to family members under 38 

U.S.C. 1782, please see 38 CFR 71.50. 

The commenter also stated that the 

rule does not specify the circumstances 

under which a family member would 

qualify for individual counseling. The 

commenter queried whether the 

eligibility was tied to the veteran’s 

health or if the family member was 

‘‘eligible for individual counseling as 

long as the veteran/service member 

meets one of the four eligibility 

criteria.’’ The commenter recommended 

that VA clearly define eligibility for 

individual counseling by family 

members, and how such family 

members can request readjustment 

counseling. 

If the veteran or servicemember meets 

one of the criteria listed in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (a)(4) of § 17.2000, the 

family member qualifies for 

readjustment counseling. This is stated 

in paragraph (a)(5). The introductory 

sentence to paragraph (a) states that VA 

will provide readjustment counseling 

‘‘upon request’’ of any of the individuals 

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5). 

Therefore, a family member of the 

servicemember or veteran may request 

readjustment counseling simply by 

calling the Vet Center and requesting an 

appointment. A formal application is 

not needed. We do not believe that 

further clarification is needed and did 

not make any changes based on this 

comment. 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

rule intended to include Operation New 

Dawn (OND), however, OND was not 

listed under the section governing 

eligibility for readjustment counseling. 

In the Supplementary Information 

section of the proposed rulemaking we 

stated that ‘‘after consultation with the 

Department of Defense, VA considers 

Operation New Dawn to be part of the 

same contingency operation that was 

formerly called Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. Therefore, VA will consider 

participants in Operation New Dawn to 

be eligible for benefits under the legal 

authorities pertaining to Operation Iraqi 

Freedom.’’ As noted by the commenter, 

we did not list Operation New Dawn in 

proposed § 17.2000(a)(4). To avoid any 

confusion that may arise in the future, 

we have added Operation New Dawn to 

paragraph (a)(4) as a qualifying theatre 

of combat operations for 

servicemembers and veterans to be 

eligible to receive readjustment 

counseling. 

We received six comments expressing 

concern that the Vet Centers would no 

longer offer bereavement counseling to 

the veteran’s families because the 

definition of readjustment counseling in 

proposed § 17.2000(d) had not 

referenced bereavement counseling. We 

agree with these six commenters 

regarding the value of bereavement 

counseling and wish to clarify that 

bereavement counseling continues to be 

one of the services provided by the Vet 

Centers. We note that the 

Supplementary Information section of 

the proposed rule discussed the 

availability of bereavement counseling 

and cited the authority for it (38 U.S.C. 

1783), but we inadvertently failed to list 

it as part of the readjustment counseling 

services provided under the rule. We 

have amended paragraph (d) 

accordingly, and have amended the 

listed statutory authority to also include 

section 1783. Also, in keeping with the 

discussions above, we have added 38 

U.S.C. 1782 to the statutory authority, as 

well as sections 304 and 402 of the 2010 

Act. 

A commenter requested that VA 

expedite the implementation of sections 

401 and 402 of the 2010 Act because it 

has been two years since the authorizing 

statute was passed. VA’s section 402 

authority to provide referrals is 

established in statute and is already 

being implemented by our Vet Centers. 

However, our authority to provide 

readjustment counseling to members of 

the Armed Forces is predicated 

explicitly on the promulgation of 

regulations under subsection (c) of 

section 401 of the 2010 Act. VA may not 

implement this final rulemaking until 

after it is published in the Federal 

Register. This rulemaking will be 

effective 30 days after its publication. 

We did not make any changes based on 

this comment. 

This commenter also requested that 

VA provide a strong outreach effort to 

servicemembers and veterans in order to 

make them aware of the benefits of 

readjustment counseling. The 

commenter urged that outreach efforts 

to servicemembers should emphasize 

that treatment in the Vet Centers is 

‘‘confidential and un-reportable to their 

military line commanders or armories, 

or even to VA medical and mental 

health authorities (unless severe 

psychiatric emergencies were apparent 

to Vet Center personnel, in which case 

they should be referred for immediate 

medical and psychiatric assistance, 

either within [Department of Defense 

(D[o]D)] or VA facilities).’’ 

A commenter was concerned with the 

confidentiality of Vet Center records. 

Specifically, proposed paragraph (b)(4) 

had permitted VA to independently 

coordinate with DoD in order to verify 

a servicemember’s or veteran’s service 

in a theatre of combat operations or in 

an area during a period of hostilities in 

that area. The commenter stated that ‘‘if 

VA were to attempt to verify that 

individual through D[o]D systems, a line 

commander and/or D[o]D medical 

authorities could obtain that 

individualized information related to 

the query. Given the well-recognized 

mental health stigma associated with 

the military, we believe this planned 

approach by VA would be unwise and 

might well serve as a dampener on these 

individuals’ interest in participating in 

readjustment counseling through VA.’’ 

The commenter did not believe it was 

Congress’ intent that DoD officials learn 

the identity of individuals who may 

seek readjustment counseling. 

We agree with the commenter, which 

is why in paragraph (e), we state that 

records of the benefits furnished by the 

Vet Centers will be maintained with 

confidentiality and independent of 

other VA or DoD medical records. VA 

will not disclose the readjustment 

counseling records without the 

servicemember’s or veteran’s voluntary 

signed authorization. However, the 

commenter was correct in that we did 

not recognize the potential inadvertent 

disclosure of a veteran or 

servicemember’s identity through the 

independent verification authorized by 

proposed paragraph (b)(4). Therefore, 

we have removed that paragraph from 

the final rule. 

In the Supplementary Information 

section of the proposed rulemaking we 

explained that proposed paragraph 

(b)(4) was intended to authorize VA to 

support a veteran in obtaining the proof 

required to establish eligibility. Rather 

than do so through explicit independent 

coordination with DoD, we amended 

paragraph (b) to include a provision that 

would allow for VA assistance in 

obtaining proof of eligibility at the 

individual’s request. This will allow 

persons who believe that their 

anonymity may be jeopardized by 

involving VA in obtaining a copy of 

their Report of Separation or DD Form 

214 to attempt to establish their 

eligibility through other means. 

A commenter urged VA to maintain 

adequate staffing in the Vet Centers and 

that Congress approve funding for the 

Vet Centers through appropriations. The 

commenter also urged VA to negotiate 

with DoD ‘‘a cost-sharing agreement, as 

envisioned in Public Law 97–174, to 

cover the VA’s costs of service members’ 

care based on date verifying the number 

of service members who access such 

counseling under this new authority, or 

that Congress authorize VA additional 

appropriations specifically for this care 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

57072 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

of the active force, as well as the cost 

of the additional staff needed to provide 

the new services.’’ 

VA agrees with the commenter in that 

we anticipate an increase in the number 

of servicemembers, veterans, and family 

members requesting readjustment 

counseling. To accommodate this 

increase, VA anticipates hiring 62 new 

full time equivalent employees over the 

next 3 years. VA has allotted this 

increase in expenditure in the Vet 

Center’s budget. Although this 

rulemaking is in conjunction with DoD, 

the allocation of funds does not fall 

within DoD’s budget, as recommended 

by the commenter. VA has the sole 

responsibility for the funding of the Vet 

Centers. None of these matters relate to 

the text of the regulation, and we did 

not make any changes based on this 

comment. 

In the proposed rule, under paragraph 

(b)(1), we had stated that the title of DD 

Form 214 was Certificate of Release or 

Discharge from Active Service. We are 

amending paragraph (b)(1) to correct the 

title of DD Form 214 to Certificate of 

Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 

Although not directly related to any of 

the commenter’s concerns, we are 

clarifying the language of proposed 

paragraph (c). The intent of proposed 

paragraph (c) was to provide referral 

services to individuals who were on 

active duty in theaters of combat, in 

areas of hostilities, or as otherwise 

stated in proposed paragraph (a), but 

whose discharge from service was under 

dishonorable conditions, and to their 

family members. Such referral services 

include obtaining mental health care 

and services outside of VA. We believe 

that the intent of this paragraph was not 

clearly stated as proposed and we have 

revised the introductory paragraph to 

now state: ‘‘Upon request, VA will 

provide an individual who does not 

meet the eligibility requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section, solely 

because the individual was discharged 

under dishonorable conditions from 

active military, naval, or air service, the 

following.’’ We have also revised the 

wording of proposed paragraph (c)(2) for 

clarity. 

Based on the rationale set forth in the 

Supplementary Information to the 

proposed rule and in this final rule, VA 

is adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule with the changes mentioned above. 

Effect of Rulemaking 

Title 38 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as revised by this final 

rulemaking, represents VA’s 

implementation of its legal authority on 

this subject. Other than future 

amendments to this regulation or 

governing statutes, no contrary guidance 

or procedures are authorized. All 

existing or subsequent VA guidance 

must be read to conform with this 

rulemaking if possible or, if not 

possible, such guidance is superseded 

by this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that VA 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. Under 5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

This final rule will impose the 

following new information collection 

requirements. Section 17.2000(b) allows 

a veteran to submit a copy of a DD Form 

214 or other appropriate documentation 

as evidence that the veteran served in a 

theater of combat operations or in an 

area during a period of hostilities in that 

area that would serve as the basis for 

establishing his or her eligibility to 

receive readjustment counseling. For 

example, receipt of one of the listed 

medals will be accepted as evidence to 

establish eligibility for readjustment 

counseling. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, VA 

submitted the information collection 

requirement to OMB for its review. 

OMB approved this new information 

collection requirement associated with 

the final rule and assigned OMB control 

number 2900–0787. 

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. 601–612. 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 rulemaking is exempt from the 

initial and final regulatory flexibility 

analysis requirements of sections 603 

and 604. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

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 OMB unless OMB waives 

such review, as ‘‘any regulatory action 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in this Executive Order.’’ 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this regulatory action 

has been examined, and it has been 

determined to be a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 

because it may raise novel legal or 

policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in Executive 

Order 12866. 

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 

given year. This final rule will have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program numbers and titles 

for this final rule are as follows: 64.005, 

Grants to States for Construction of State 

Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind 

Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans 

Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans 

Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans 

Nursing Home Care; 64.014, Veterans 

State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57073 

State Nursing Home Care; 64.018, 

Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 

64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol 

and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans 

Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, 

VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per 

Diem Program. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—health, 

Government programs—veterans, Health 

care, Health facilities, Health 

professions, Health records, Homeless, 

Medical and dental schools, Medical 

devices, Medical research, Mental 

health programs, Nursing homes, 

Veterans. 

Approved: January 8, 2013. 

John R. Gingrich, 

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Approved: June 5, 2013. 

Jessica L. Wright, 

Acting Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel & Readiness, Department of 

Defense. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as 

follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

specific sections. 

■ 2. Add an undesignated center 

heading and § 17.2000 to read as 

follows: 

Vet Centers 

§ 17.2000 Vet Center services. 

(a) Eligibility for readjustment 

counseling. Upon request, VA will 

provide readjustment counseling to the 

following individuals: 

(1) A veteran who served on active 

duty in a theater of combat operations 

during a period of war. 

(2) A veteran who served on active 

duty in an area in which hostilities 

occurred, or in combat against a hostile 

force during a period of hostilities. 

(3) A veteran who served on active 

duty during the Vietnam era who sought 

or was provided counseling under 38 

U.S.C. 1712A before January 1, 2004. 

(4) Any member of the Armed Forces, 

including a member of the National 

Guard or reserve, who served on active 

duty in the Armed Forces in Operation 

Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi 

Freedom or Operation New Dawn. 

(5) A family member of a veteran or 

servicemember who is eligible for 

readjustment counseling under 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this 

section. For purposes of this section, 

family member includes, but is not 

limited to, the spouse, parent, child, 

step-family member, extended family 

member, and any individual who lives 

with the veteran or servicemember but 

is not a member of the family of the 

veteran or servicemember. 

(b) Proof of eligibility. With the 

veteran’s or servicemember’s consent, 

VA will assist in obtaining proof of 

eligibility. For the purposes of this 

section, proof of service in a theater of 

combat operations or in an area during 

a period of hostilities in that area will 

be established by: 

(1) A DD Form 214 (Certificate of 

Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 

containing notations of service in a 

designated theater of combat operations; 

or 

(2) Receipt of one of the following 

medals: The Armed Forces 

Expeditionary Medal, Service Specific 

Expeditionary Medal (e.g., Navy 

Expeditionary Medal), Combat Era 

Specific Expeditionary Medal (e.g., the 

Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary 

Medal), Campaign Specific Medal (e.g., 

Vietnam Service Medal or Iraq 

Campaign Medal), or other combat 

theater awards established by public 

law or executive order; or 

(3) Proof of receipt of Hostile Fire or 

Imminent Danger Pay (commonly 

referred to as ‘‘combat pay’’) or combat 

tax exemption after November 11, 1998. 

(c) Referral and advice. Upon request, 

VA will provide an individual who does 

not meet the eligibility requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section, solely 

because the individual was discharged 

under dishonorable conditions from 

active military, naval, or air service, the 

following: 

(1) Referral services to assist such 

individual, to the maximum extent 

practicable, in obtaining mental health 

care and services from sources outside 

VA; and 

(2) If pertinent, advice to such 

individual concerning such individual’s 

rights to apply to: 

(i) The appropriate military, naval or 

air service for review of such 

individual’s discharge or release from 

such service; and 

(ii) VA for a VA benefits eligibility 

determination under 38 CFR 3.12. 

(d) Readjustment counseling defined. 

For the purposes of this section, 

readjustment counseling includes, but is 

not limited to: psychosocial assessment, 

individual counseling, group 

counseling, marital and family 

counseling for military-related 

readjustment issues, substance abuse 

assessments, medical referrals, referral 

for additional VA benefits, employment 

assessment and referral, military sexual 

trauma counseling and referral, 

bereavement counseling, and outreach. 

A ‘‘psychosocial assessment’’ under this 

paragraph means the holistic assessing 

of an individual’s psychological, social, 

and functional capacities as it relates to 

their readjustment from combat theaters. 

Readjustment counseling is provided to 

individuals listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(4) of this section, and to 

family members under paragraph (a)(5) 

of this section, when it would aid in the 

readjustment of a veteran or 

servicemember. 

(e) Confidentiality. Benefits under this 

section are furnished solely by VA Vet 

Centers, which maintain confidential 

records independent from any other VA 

or Department of Defense medical 

records and which will not disclose 

such records without either the veteran 

or servicemember’s voluntary, signed 

authorization, or a specific exception 

permitting their release. For more 

information, see 5 U.S.C. 552a, 38 

U.S.C. 5701 and 7332, 45 CFR parts 160 

and 164, and VA’s System of Records 

64VA15, ‘‘Readjustment Counseling 

Service Vet Center Program.’’ 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1712A, 1782, and 

1783; Pub. L. 111–163, sec. 304, 401, and 

402) 

(The Office of Management and Budget has 

approved the information collection 

requirement in this section under control 

number 2900–0787.) 

[FR Doc. 2013–22607 Filed 9–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0174: FRL–9900–03- 

Region10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

Regulatory Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action 

to approve revisions to Washington’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Washington State 

Department of Ecology on February 4, 

2005 and August 2, 2006. The 

submissions contain revisions to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES