Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35419 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify the costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected the approach 

that maximizes net benefits. Based on 

the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with these Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Summary of potential costs and 

benefits: The Department believes that 

the costs associated with the final 

priority will be minimal, while the 

potential benefits are significant. The 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action does not impose significant costs 

on eligible entities. Participation in this 

program is voluntary, and the costs 

imposed on applicants by this 

regulatory action will be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application. The benefits of 

implementing the program will 

outweigh the costs incurred by 

applicants, and the costs of carrying out 

activities associated with the 

application will be paid for with 

program funds. For these reasons, we 

have determined that the costs of 

implementation will not be burdensome 

for eligible applicants, including small 

entities. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department believes that the 

priority is needed to administer the 

program effectively. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The final priority contains 

information collection requirements that 

are approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1820–0028; the final 

priority does not affect the currently 

approved data collection. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this final regulatory action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

Size Standards define ‘‘small entities’’ 

as for-profit or nonprofit institutions 

with total annual revenue below 

$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions 

controlled by small governmental 

jurisdictions (that are comprised of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts), with a population of less than 

50,000. 

Participation in the SPDG program is 

voluntary. In addition, the only eligible 

entities for this program are SEAs, 

which do not meet the definition of a 

small entity. For these reasons, the final 

priority will not impose any additional 

burden on small entities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

individuals with disabilities can obtain 

this document in an accessible format. 

The Department will provide the 

requestor with an accessible format that 

may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or 

text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 

file, braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc, or other accessible format. 

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 at 

www.govinfo.gov. 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 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. 

Katherine Neas, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary. Delegated the 

authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12712 Filed 6–8–22; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 8 

RIN 2900–AR29 

National Service Life Insurance 

Premium Payment and Loan 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is amending its National 

Service Life Insurance (NSLI) 

regulations to offer Service-Disabled 

Veterans’ Insurance (S–DVI) 

policyholders the option of remitting 

premiums for government life insurance 

coverage only on a monthly or annual 

basis. VA is also increasing the amount 

that Veteran policyholders are eligible 

to borrow against the value of their life 

insurance policies and to adjust the 

interest rates charged for fixed-rate 

loans in certain circumstances. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 11, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Weaver, Insurance Specialist, 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Insurance Service (310/290B), 5000 

Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 

19144, (215) 842–2000, ext. 4263. (This 

is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 13, 2021, VA published in the 

Federal Register (86 FR 56846) a 

proposed rule to amend its regulations 

governing the NSLI programs. Interested 

persons were invited to submit written 

comments on or before December 13, 

2021. VA received two comments 

concerning the proposed changes to the 

modes of payment for NSLI premiums. 

The first commenter stated that VA 

makes the ‘‘confusing argument that 

allowing veterans to pay their life 

insurance bills quarterly or semiannually adds administrative 

complexity and program costs,’’ and 

that the commenter cannot understand 

how providing additional payment 

options ‘‘should add any administrative 

complexity.’’ A second commenter 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35420 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

stated that calculating quarterly and 

semi-annual premiums ‘‘should not 

have a higher program cost than 

calculating the annual premiums.’’ 

We explained in our proposed 

rulemaking that very few Veteran 

policyholders choose to pay premiums 

on a semi-annual or quarterly basis. As 

part of recent VA efforts to modernize 

the information technology systems of 

its life insurance programs, VA 

purchased commercial-off-the-shelf 

(COTS) policy maintenance software 

used by other private insurance 

companies. This purchase enabled VA 

to minimize information technology 

transformation costs to policyholders 

compared to a custom-designed system 

built from the ground-up for VA use. 

This COTS system does not offer 

quarterly and semi-annual premium 

modes, and VA would have to incur 

additional costs to have the contracted 

vendor add these modes for VA use. 

VA’s analysis indicated that the costs 

for this customization were 

disproportionate to the value of the 

associated benefit, given the relatively 

few policyholders who choose these 

payment modes. If VA were to continue 

these payment options, it would add 

administrative complexity and program 

costs because VA would either have to 

purchase a customized enhancement for 

these modes or develop a manual 

solution to override the functionality of 

the COTS system when policyholders 

choose to pay premiums on a semiannual or quarterly basis. We note that, 

while the COTS system will be used for 

current and new policies, current 

policies will retain the options they 

have by hardcoding the prior option 

into the new system at conversion. A 

policyholder who elects a monthly or 

annual payment mode after conversion 

will not have the option to return to a 

quarterly or semi-annual payment. 

Again, to allow the quarterly and semiannual payment options for new 

policies under the COTS system would 

require a more costly customized 

enhancement. Further, VA is required to 

manage its life insurance programs in a 

cost-effective and actuarially sound 

manner (see, e.g., 38 U.S.C. 1920(b); 

1925(d)(2)), and continuing to offer 

premium modes that would increase 

costs for all policyholders while 

benefitting a relative few, while also 

potentially increasing lapse rates for 

vulnerable disabled veterans, is not 

actuarially sound because it is not costeffective. 

The first commenter also stated that 

an article that we cited to in our 

proposed rulemaking concerning lapse 

rates (Cathy Ho & Nancy Muise, U.S. 

Individual Life Persistency: Guaranteed 

& Simplified Issue—A Joint Study 

Sponsored by Soc’y of Actuaries & 

LIMRA 16 (2013), https://www.soa.org/ 

globalassets/assets/Files/Research/ExpStudy/research-2013-gisi-study.pdf (last 

visited Jan. 13, 2022)) ‘‘is not 

compelling’’ and that there must be 

’’better ways for the VA to allocate its 

resources than reducing the number of 

payment options available to veterans.’’ 

The second commenter suggested that, 

because the data in the article is ‘‘two 

decades old,’’ VA should use a more 

recent study. 

In the proposed rule we stated that 

‘‘research shows that lapse rates tend to 

increase with the number of premium 

payments made each year, with the 

notable exception of monthly payment 

modes.’’ Id. We cited to this research 

because the results of the study support 

our effort to minimize lapsed life 

insurance coverage by offering fewer, 

simpler payment options. We also cited 

to this research because some of the 

commercial insurers that we reviewed 

relied upon this research as well as a 

prior 2005 study when limiting 

premium payment options to reduce 

costs and minimize lapse of coverage for 

their policyholders. See Marianne 

Purushotham, U.S. Individual Life 

Persistency Update—A Joint Study 

Sponsored by LIMRA International and 

the Society of Actuaries, https://

www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/Files/ 

Research/Exp-Study/US-Indiv-LifePersistency-Report-Final.pdf (2005) (last 

visited Jan. 13, 2022). Because the 2013 

study is consistent with the 2005 study 

that was conducted by the same 

insurance trade group, we have no 

reason to believe this pattern would 

change with more recent data. Also, VA 

has historically observed more 

inconsistent premiums from veterans 

paying under semi-annual and quarterly 

payment modes. For the reasons stated 

above, VA will adopt the proposed rule 

as final, without change. 

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. The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this rule is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory 

Impact Analysis associated with this 

rulemaking can be found as a 

supporting document at 

www.regulations.gov. 

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 any small 

entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), the initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirements of 5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply. 

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 

one year. This final rule will have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

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). 

Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated this rule as not a major rule, 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Assistance Listing 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.030, Life Insurance for Veterans— 

Face Amount of New Life Insurance 

Policies Issued, and 64.031, Life 

Insurance for Veterans—Direct 

Payments for Insurance. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 8 

Disability benefits, Life insurance, 

Loan programs—veterans, Military 

personnel, Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

Denis McDonough, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on June 6, 2022, and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35421 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Luvenia Potts, 

Regulations Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of General Counsel, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, VA 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, 1901–1929, 

1981–1988, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 8.2 by revising paragraph 

(c)(2) and adding paragraph (c)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 8.2 Payment of premiums. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Policyholders may pay premiums 

in advance on an annual basis. 

(3) Policyholders insured as of July 

11, 2022 may pay premiums in advance 

on an annual, semi-annual, or quarterly 

basis. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 8.13: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), by removing 

‘‘which will not exceed 94 percent’’ and 

adding ‘‘policy’’ before ‘‘reserve’’ in the 

first sentence. 

■ b. By revising paragraph (d). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 8.13 Policy loans. 

* * * * * 

(d) Notwithstanding any other 

provisions of this section, the variable 

loan rate shall not exceed 12 percent or 

be lower than 5 percent per annum. For 

policyholders with an existing fixed-rate 

loan who subsequently apply for an 

additional loan on the same policy, the 

existing fixed-rate loan shall be 

refinanced into the new variable-rate 

loan at the prevailing variable rate at the 

time of the new loan application. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–12561 Filed 6–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0662; FRL–9465–02– 

R3] 

Air Plan Approval; Maryland; 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

Requirements for 2015 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Maryland. The 

revision certifies that Maryland’s 

existing nonattainment new source 

review (NNSR) program, covering the 

Baltimore nonattainment area, the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

nonattainment area, and the 

Washington, DC nonattainment area for 

the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS), is at 

least as stringent as applicable Federal 

requirements. EPA is approving these 

revisions to the Maryland SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

11, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2021–0662. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yongtian He, Permits Branch (3AD10), 

Air & Radiation Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The 

telephone number is (215) 814–2339. 

Mr. He can also be reached via 

electronic mail at He.Yongtian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 7, 2022 (87 FR 12631), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of 

Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed 

approval of Maryland’s SIP revision 

addressing the NNSR requirements for 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

Baltimore, MD, PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE, and Washington, DC-MD-VA 

nonattainment areas. The formal SIP 

revision (#20–05) was submitted by 

Maryland on June 3, 2020. 

In the SIP revision, MDE is certifying 

that its existing NNSR program, 

covering the Baltimore nonattainment 

area (which includes Anne Arundel, 

Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard 

Counties and the city of Baltimore), the 

Maryland portion of PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City 

nonattainment area (which includes 

Cecil County in Maryland), and the 

Maryland portion of the Washington, 

DC nonattainment area (which includes 

Calvert, Charles, Frederick, 

Montgomery, and Prince Georges 

Counties in Maryland) for the 2015 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, is at least as 

stringent as the requirements at 40 CFR 

51.165 for ozone and its precursors. 

On October 1, 2015 (effective 

December 28, 2015), EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.070 

parts per million (ppm). See 80 FR 

65292 (October 26, 2015). Upon 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to 

designate as nonattainment any area 

that is violating the NAAQS based on 

the three most recent years of ambient 

air quality data at the conclusion of the 

designation process. The Baltimore 

nonattainment area, the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City 

nonattainment area, and the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA area were 

classified as marginal nonattainment for 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on June 

4, 2018 (effective August 3, 2018) using 

2014–2016 ambient air quality data. See 

83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). 

On December 6, 2018, EPA issued the 

final SIP Requirements Rule, which 

establishes the requirements that state, 

tribal, and local air quality management 

agencies must meet as they develop 

implementation plans for areas where 

air quality exceeds the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Areas that were 

designated as marginal ozone 

nonattainment areas are required to 

attain the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS no 

later than August 3, 2021. See 83 FR 

10376 (March 9, 2018) and 83 FR 62998 

(December 6, 2018). On April 13, 2022, 

EPA proposed to determine that the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1