[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46019-46026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16086]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 32

[Docket No.: OJP (BJA) 1716]
RIN 1121-AA85


Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to make the following changes to current 
regulations implementing the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) 
Act: Adopting the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program's List of 
WTC-Related Health Conditions (List), the WTC Health Program's 
standards for certifying that an injury is covered for treatment under 
the Program, and related regulatory provisions, establishing payment 
offset provisions between the PSOB Program and the September 11th 
Victim Compensation Fund, and revising the provisions that define when 
the statutory presumption of line-of-duty death resulting from certain 
heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures is rebutted. The proposed 
changes based on the WTC Health Program's List and related provisions 
would provide a means for claimants to establish that certain public 
safety officers with chronic, often latent, health conditions sustained 
a line-of-duty injury under the PSOB Act. The proposed payment offset 
provisions are intended to implement statutory amendments to the PSOB 
Act requiring such offset and to facilitate claims processing. 
Similarly, the proposed rule implementing the statutory presumption 
associated with certain heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures 
is intended to amend the current regulation to conform to recent 
amendments to the PSOB Act and to improve the processing of such 
claims.

DATES: Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must 
be submitted on or before September 13, 2016. Comments received by mail 
will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that 
date. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will 
accept comments until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.

ADDRESSES: Please address all comments regarding this rule by U.S. 
mail, to: Hope Janke, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice 
Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531; or by telefacsimile 
to (202) 354-4135. To ensure proper handling, please reference OJP 
Docket No. 1716 on your correspondence. Comments may also be sent 
electronically through http://regulations.gov using the electronic 
comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document 
is also available at the http://regulations.gov Web site. OJP will 
accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, 
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope Janke, BJA, OJP, at (202) 514-
6278, or toll-free at 1 (888) 744-6513.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received are considered part of the 
public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Information made available for public inspection 
includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, 
etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.
    The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) does not require commenters to 
submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, 
medical information, etc.) as part of your comment. However, if you 
wish to submit such information, but do not wish it to be posted 
online, you must include the phrase ``PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 
INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also 
locate all the personal identifying information that you do not want 
posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what 
information you want the agency to redact. Personal identifying 
information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in 
the agency's public docket file, but not posted online.
    If you wish to submit confidential business information as part of 
your comment but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include 
the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph 
of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential 
business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment 
has so much confidential business information that it cannot be 
effectively redacted, the agency may choose not to post that comment 
(or to only partially post that comment) on http://www.regulations.gov. 
Confidential business information identified and located as set forth 
above will not be placed in the public docket file, nor will it be 
posted online.
    If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by 
appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.

II. Background

A. General

    The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program, 42 U.S.C. 3796 
et seq. (established pursuant to the Public Safety Officers' Benefits 
Act of 1976), is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 
of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of Justice. 
Generally speaking, the PSOB Program provides a one-time financial 
payment to the statutorily-eligible survivors of public safety officers 
who die as the direct and proximate result of personal injuries 
sustained in the line of duty, as well as educational assistance for 
their spouses and eligible children.
    Alternatively, the PSOB Program also provides a one-time financial 
payment directly to public safety officers determined to be permanently 
and totally disabled as the direct and proximate result of personal 
injury sustained in the line of duty, as well as educational assistance 
for their spouses and eligible children.

B. Establishing a Line-of-Duty Injury Under the PSOB Act and 
Implementing Regulations

    42 U.S.C. 3796(a) authorizes the payment, to statutory survivors, 
of a benefit of $250,000, currently adjusted for inflation at $339,881, 
when the administering agency determines, under its regulations ``that 
a public safety officer has died as the direct and proximate result of 
a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.'' Similarly, 42 U.S.C. 
3796(b) authorizes the agency

[[Page 46020]]

to pay the same inflation-adjusted benefit, when it determines, under 
its regulations, that a public safety officer has ``become permanently 
and totally disabled as the direct and proximate result of a personal 
injury sustained in the line of duty.'' The agency has exercised its 
regulatory authority in regulations published in 28 CFR part 32 
defining, among other things, ``injury,'' ``line of duty injury,'' and 
``direct and proximate result of an injury.'' Those regulations specify 
the criteria that must be met in the ordinary course for a claimant to 
establish that a public safety officer sustained a line-of-duty injury 
and that the injury caused the officer's death or permanent and total 
disability.
    Under the definition of injury in 28 CFR 32.3, a claimant must 
establish that a public safety officer sustained a ``traumatic physical 
wound (or a traumatized physical condition of the body) directly and 
proximately caused by external force.'' Under definitions related to 
causation in 28 CFR 32.3 (defining direct and proximate result of an 
injury and substantial factor), a claimant must also establish that the 
injury was the ``substantial factor'' in the officer's death or 
disability. ``A factor substantially brings about a death, injury, [or] 
disability'' if it was sufficient in and of itself to cause the death, 
injury, or disability, or no other factor (or combination of factors) 
``contributed to the death, injury, [or] disability . . . to so great a 
degree as it did.'' 28 CFR 32.3 (defining substantial factor). Taken 
together, these regulations require that a claimant seeking benefits 
establish an injury, i.e., a traumatic physical wound or traumatized 
physical condition of the body directly and proximately caused by an 
external force or other agent, e.g., chemicals, as well as a death or 
disability, and a direct and proximate causal nexus between the injury 
and the death or disability.
    In PSOB claims involving acute injuries caused by readily 
identifiable external forces such as a gunshot, motor vehicle accident, 
or other trauma with death occurring simultaneously or closely 
following injury, a claimant's burden in establishing the injury and 
causal link between injury and death may be straightforward and readily 
demonstrated. In such cases, a death certificate or an autopsy is 
generally sufficient to establish a traumatic wound or traumatized 
condition, the external force that caused the wound or condition, the 
officer's death, and a direct and proximate causal link between the 
injury and death.
    In PSOB claims asserting injury or death resulting from exposure to 
unspecified toxins or hazards associated with line-of-duty activity, 
however, an autopsy may not sufficiently identify the mechanism of the 
injury, or adequately establish the direct and proximate causal link 
between the injury and the death (or permanent and total disability) 
necessary to support the approval of a claim under the PSOB Act. In 
such claims, more detailed medical evaluation may be required, and 
substantial medical evidence may need to be gathered and produced 
before PSOB determining officials may make the necessary findings to 
find the PSOB Act standards are met. For example, an autopsy usually is 
not sufficient evidence when the claims are based on the chronic, often 
latent, illnesses and conditions of 9/11 first responders; e.g., 
respiratory disorders and certain cancers. Similar burdens in 
gathering, producing, and evaluating medical evidence exist for 9/11 
first responders claiming to be permanently and totally disabled as a 
result of exposure to unidentified toxins or hazards encountered in 
responding to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

C. Establishing Injury Under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and 
Compensation Act of 2010

    Pursuant to the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 
2010 (Pub. L. 111-347), as amended, the World Trade Center (WTC) Health 
Program, which is administered by the Director of the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), within the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (a component of the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services), provides medical monitoring 
and treatment for WTC Health Program members with certain health 
conditions that are certified as related to the unique circumstances of 
the 9/11 explosions, ensuing conflagrations, and clean-up (9/11 
disaster).\1\ In so doing, the Administrator of the WTC Health Program 
has an advisory committee including medical and scientific experts 
appointed to review and consider the latest research on connections 
that may exist between various medical conditions and exposure to the 
9/11 disaster. The Administrator of the WTC Health Program may seek 
guidance and recommendations from these medical and scientific experts, 
in determining whether to propose adding conditions to the List of WTC-
Related Health Conditions through rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 
was amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 
114-113 (Dec. 18, 2015) (The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and 
Compensation Reauthorization Act) (available at gpo.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The List of WTC-Related Health Conditions is a list of illnesses or 
health conditions that, pursuant to an examination by a medical 
professional with expertise in treating or diagnosing the listed 
conditions, may be found to be related to a WTC Health Program member's 
exposure to airborne toxins, any other hazards, or any other adverse 
conditions resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 
That a WTC Health Program member has a health condition or illness on 
the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions does not, by itself, 
establish that such health condition or illness was related to the 9/11 
disaster and, therefore, is eligible for treatment in the WTC Health 
Program. Rather, the WTC Health Program also makes a specific decision 
as to whether a particular WTC Health Program member's exposure to the 
toxins, hazards, or other adverse conditions associated with the 9/11 
disaster was ``substantially likely to be a significant factor in 
aggravating, contributing to, or causing the illness or health 
condition.'' 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(a)(1)(A)(1). By law, such decision is 
based on an assessment of: (1) The individual's exposure to airborne 
toxins, any other hazard, or any other condition resulting from the 
terrorist attacks; and (2) the type of symptoms and temporal sequence 
of symptoms. 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(a)(2). Together, the List of WTC-
Related Health Conditions and individual assessment as to exposure and 
symptomatology comprise the general and specific findings that the WTC 
Health Program makes in establishing that a WTC Health Program member's 
particular illness or health condition is related to the 9/11 disaster.

D. Fatal Heart Attacks, Strokes, and Vascular Ruptures Under 42 U.S.C. 
3796(k)

    To establish eligibility for death benefits under the PSOB Act, 
claimants must establish that a public safety officer suffered a 
personal injury in the line of duty that directly and proximately 
caused the officer's death. This statutory requirement excluded from 
coverage those conditions caused by stress and strain and occupational 
disease, such as practically speaking, most heart attacks and strokes.
    The Hometown Heroes Survivors' Benefits Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-
182) (Hometown Heroes Act) amended the PSOB Act by creating a statutory 
presumption in 42 U.S.C. 3796(k) of death by a line-of-duty injury, 
which may be rebutted by ``competent medical evidence to the 
contrary,'' in cases

[[Page 46021]]

where a public safety officer dies of heart attack or stroke while 
engaging in, (or within 24 hours of engaging in) ``nonroutine stressful 
or strenuous physical [line-of-duty] activity.'' Implementation of the 
rebuttal language has proved challenging for OJP. In fact, the House 
Judiciary Committee in 2012 noted that ``[one] particular term 
introduced into the PSOBA in 2003, `competent medical evidence to the 
contrary,' has not proven workable as introduced.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ H.R. Rpt. 112-548 at 14 (June 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006 and 2008, OJP published final rules implementing the 
Hometown Heroes Act. The 2008 rule provided that the presumption 
attaches ``unless it . . . is overcome by competent medical evidence to 
the contrary, when evidence indicates to a degree of medical 
probability that extrinsic circumstances, considered in combination (as 
one circumstance) or alone, were a substantial factor in bringing the 
heart attack or stroke about.'' \3\ The rule defined extrinsic 
circumstances as ``[a]n event or events; or . . . [a]n intentional 
risky behavior or intentional risky behaviors.'' Thus, under 
regulations implementing the previous presumption, the presumption was 
rebutted when competent medical evidence of record established that an 
event(s) or intentional risky behavior(s) \4\ (as defined in the 
regulations) were the substantial factor in an officer's fatal heart 
attack or stroke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 28 CFR 32.13 (defining Competent medical evidence to the 
contrary).
    \4\ In general, ``risky behavior'' was defined as (1) an 
officer's failure to undertake treatment, without reasonable excuse, 
of any known commonly accepted cardiovascular disease risk factor 
exceeding minimum high-risk levels or of diseases associated with 
increased risk of cardiovascular disease, or where certain 
biological relatives had a history of cardiovascular disease, (2) 
consumption over certain levels of cigarettes or alcohol, and (3) 
use or abuse of certain controlled substances associated with 
increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OJP's experience is that consideration of cardiovascular disease 
risk factors and the concept of ``risky behavior'' have largely proven 
unworkable. In practice, medical examiners, even with a complete 
medical record, are rarely able to determine with medical precision 
whether an inadequately treated cardiovascular disease risk factor(s) 
was the substantial factor in the officer's fatal condition. As a 
result, the PSOB Program has expended significant time and resources on 
inconclusive results, i.e., claims in which a recognized cardiovascular 
disease risk factor is found to have somehow contributed to the 
officer's fatal condition but not to the degree that it rebutted the 
presumption. OJP's conclusion that the current interpretation is 
unworkable is further reflected in the low numbers of claims it has 
denied based on ``risky behaviors.'' Despite routinely seeking from 
claimants additional medical evidence and engaging in time-consuming 
independent medical review of such evidence, from Fiscal Year 2011 to 
date, BJA denied at the PSOB Office level less than 1% of all Hometown 
Heroes claims determined on the basis that an officer's ``risky 
behaviors'' were a substantial factor in bringing about the heart 
attack, stroke, or vascular rupture.
    In January 2013, the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits 
Improvement Act of 2012 (Section 1086 of Pub. L. 112-239) (Dale Long 
Act) amended the rebuttal language in section 3796(k). As amended, the 
presumption is rebutted when ``competent medical evidence establishes 
that the [public safety officer's] heart attack, stroke, or vascular 
rupture was unrelated to the [officer's] engagement or participation or 
was directly and proximately caused by something other than the mere 
presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors.'' As the amendment 
repealed the statutory language upon which OJP regulations implementing 
the presumption are based, e.g., Competent medical evidence to the 
contrary, such regulations are now obsolete.

III. Provisions of the Proposed Rule

A. Adoption of the WTC Health Program's List of WTC-Related Health 
Conditions and Standards

    Because of the medical and scientific evaluation that informs the 
List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List), BJA proposes to use the 
List as a means for streamlining its own claim-specific evaluation, 
where a claim for PSOB Program benefits is based on a medical condition 
(not otherwise excluded from coverage under the PSOB Program) included 
in the List. Similarly, BJA also proposes, consistent with the law, 
regulations, policies, and procedures governing the WTC Health 
Program's certification of an individual's injuries as covered for 
treatment under the Program, and in conjunction with the List, to 
assess the individual public safety officer's exposure to toxins, 
hazards, and other adverse conditions resulting from the terrorist 
attacks as well as the type of symptoms and temporal sequence of 
symptoms. Under the proposed rule, BJA will independently use the WTC 
Health Program's ``standards'' for certification, which includes the 
Program's regulations, policies, and procedures, to establish an injury 
under the PSOB Act.
    The proposed rule would establish a means by which claimants could 
establish that a public safety officer who suffered physical injury as 
a result of line-of-duty activity at a 9/11 crash site sustained an 
injury under the PSOB Act. More specifically, the rule would adopt the 
WTC Health Program standards for establishing injury or illness for 
public safety officers who responded to the 9/11 disaster based on the 
medical and scientific evidence underlying those standards and to 
promote consistency in the process for determining claims resulting 
from exposure to a 9/11 crash site. Under the proposed rule, evidence 
demonstrating that a public safety officer (1) performed line-of-duty 
activity at a 9/11 crash site, (2) was diagnosed with a physical 
illness or condition on the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions as 
defined in 42 CFR part 88, (3) whose physical injury was directly and 
proximately caused by an illness or condition on the List, and (4) 
whose exposure to the hazards, toxins, and adverse conditions of the 9/
11 disaster are found by the PSOB determining official to be 
substantially likely to have been a significant factor in aggravating, 
contributing to, or causing the responder's health condition, would 
establish an injury for purposes of the PSOB Act. Consistent with the 
VCF, which payments are treated by law as duplicative of PSOB Program 
payments and required to be offset, 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3), a claimant's 
injury would be limited to ``physical harm'' as defined 28 CFR 
104.2(c).
    BJA proposes to adopt the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions 
(other than mental health conditions) because these are illnesses or 
health conditions for which exposure to airborne toxins, any other 
hazard, or any other adverse condition resulting from the September 11, 
2001, terrorist attacks, have been found by another federal program to 
potentially be related to 9/11 exposures. Because the PSOB Program 
already excludes mental health conditions from its coverage, the 
proposed rule would not extend its application to any mental health 
conditions on the List.
    In addition, the adoption of the List and the WTC Health Program 
standards for assessing injury is warranted based on the unique 
circumstances associated with the response to the 9/11 disaster, the 
chronic, often latent, nature of health conditions linked to the 
response, and the rigorous evidentiary burden faced by PSOB claimants 
in establishing an injury under current regulations implementing the 
PSOB Act. PSOB claimants would still be required

[[Page 46022]]

to satisfy the statutory requirement that such injury have been the 
direct and proximate cause of the public safety officer's death or 
permanent and total disability.
    The proposed rule would cover those circumstances in which a 
claimant lacked a WTC Health Program certification or its equivalent, 
e.g., a determination by the Victim Compensation Fund that an 
individual's injury was eligible for compensation, that a public safety 
officer's 9/11 exposure is substantially likely to have been a 
significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing a 
particular health condition. The proposed rule would also codify OJP's 
interpretation that its current regulations providing that a PSOB 
determining official may consider the factual findings of a public 
agency, 28 CFR 32.5(b), enable the PSOB Program to accept as evidence 
of a line-of-duty injury a ``certification'' by the WTC Program 
Administrator, as defined in 42 CFR 88.1, or its equivalent, that a 
particular public safety officer's exposure to airborne toxins, any 
other hazards, or any other adverse conditions resulting from the 
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is substantially likely to be a 
significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the 
condition.
    This regulatory approach would promote the efficient resolution of 
issues related to injury (and in some cases, causation) without the 
need for the PSOB Program to conduct an individual review and 
investigation of the available medical literature in every claim 
associated with a 9/11 injury. It would promote consistency in federal 
decision making by allowing the complex medical decisions of another 
federal program (the WTC Health Program) to streamline the PSOB 
Program's own evaluation of the same medical issues. It also would 
lessen the burden on claimants who otherwise may face significant 
challenges in obtaining and producing significant medical documentation 
necessary to establish an injury.
    Under the proposed rule, the PSOB Program would rely upon and apply 
the List and WTC Health Program standards to its independent 
determination of injury only where the claimant otherwise has 
established all of the applicable elements normally required for a PSOB 
claim; e.g., proof of status as a public safety officer and line-of-
duty activity.
    To maintain consistency with the September 11th Victim Compensation 
Fund of 2001 (VCF), as amended,\5\ the proposed rule would incorporate 
certain relevant definitions found in the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and 
Compensation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-347, as amended, and 
definitions found in implementing regulations: ``Physical harm, and 
``WTC-related health condition.'' In particular, OJP proposes to adopt 
the physical harm provision, which requires that the physical condition 
upon which the claim of injury is based was treated by a medical 
professional and may be verified by medical records that were created 
by or at the direction of the medical care provider, for purposes of 
maintaining the integrity of the PSOB Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 was 
amended by the by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public 
L. 114-113 (Dec. 18, 2015) (The James Zadroga 9/11 Victim 
Compensation Fund Reauthorization Act) (available at gpo.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Prohibition Against Duplicate (Dual) Payments

    The 2013 amendment to the PSOB Act established, in the PSOB Act 
itself, a limitation on payments by declaring that benefit payments 
made under the PSOB Act are in addition generally to any other benefit 
except payments under the VCF. 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3). Therefore, OJP 
proposes to add a new provision in 28 CFR 32.6, describing how and when 
the PSOB Program would pay benefits under the PSOB Act to persons who 
have received payments from the VCF.
    Under the proposed rule, no death or disability benefits under the 
PSOB program would be payable when the VCF has made payments to or with 
respect to a public safety officer that are equal to or exceed the 
amount of such benefits payable under the PSOB Act. To account for 
circumstances when a PSOB claimant has a pending claim for VCF 
benefits, or the VCF has made payment to a PSOB claimant that is less 
than the amount payable under the PSOB Act, the proposed rule would 
clarify that nothing in the PSOB Act or the rule itself precludes 
payment of PSOB benefits before the VCF makes payment of compensation. 
In so doing, the PSOB Program could pay benefits to VCF claimants 
without waiting for the VCF to issue its payments. To prevent 
overpayments and ensure the offset is applied, before the PSOB Program 
pays any benefits based on injuries sustained in the 9/11 disaster, it 
would verify with the VCF the amount of any payments made or payable to 
a VCF claimant.
    The proposed rule would also clarify that the offset does not 
extend to educational assistance payable under the PSOB Act, 42 U.S.C. 
3796d--3796d-7. When viewed in the context of a statutory scheme 
providing for the payment of a particular one-time death or disability 
benefit, the agency believes that the ordinary meaning of ``the benefit 
payable under this subchapter'' suggests that the scope of the offset 
is limited to the death and disability benefit payable under 42 U.S.C. 
3796. However, under current regulations that were promulgated before 
the offset statute was enacted, educational assistance may, with one 
exception, be paid only when PSOB Program death or disability benefits 
have been paid. As OJP has determined the offset does not extend to 
educational assistance, the proposed rule would revise the definition 
of ``Eligible public safety officer'' in current Sec.  32.33 to 
authorize payment of educational assistance where death or disability 
benefits would have been paid but for the operation of the offset in 42 
U.S.C. 3796(f).

C. Fatal Heart Attacks, Strokes, and Vascular Ruptures Under 42 U.S.C. 
3796(k)

    As the Dale Long Act has amended 42 U.S.C. 3796(k), OJP proposes to 
amend its implementing regulations in 28 CFR 32.13 and 32.14 to reflect 
the revised statutory language. In implementing revised section 
3796(k), the proposed rule would define in proposed Sec.  32.13 the two 
circumstances when the presumption of death directly and proximately 
resulting from a line-of-duty injury associated with certain heart 
attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures as provided in section 3796(k) 
is rebutted--i.e., when ``competent medical evidence establishes that 
the [officer's] heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture [1] was 
unrelated to the [officer's] engagement or participation or [2] was 
directly and proximately caused by something other than the mere 
presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors.''
    Under the proposed rule, an officer's heart attack, stroke, or 
vascular rupture would be considered as ``unrelated to an [officer's] 
engagement or participation'' if competent medical evidence established 
that an independent event or occurrence significantly contributed in 
bringing about the officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture. 
OJP believes that defining this rebuttal factor in terms of ``an 
independent event or occurrence,'' that is, something that happens to 
an officer, appropriately ensures that an off-duty heart attack, 
stroke, or vascular rupture caused by a clearly unrelated event, such 
as an off-duty officer's accident, is not covered by the presumption.

[[Page 46023]]

    For example, a police officer's fatal heart attack due to 
electrocution suffered while performing home repair, established by 
competent medical evidence, would not be covered by the presumption 
despite occurring only 12 hours after the officer engaged in a 
situation involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law 
enforcement activity. The heart attack is not covered by the 
presumption because competent medical evidence establishes that an 
independent event or occurrence (electrocution sustained while 
repairing home wiring) separate and apart from the officer's qualifying 
activity, i.e., engagement in a situation involving nonroutine 
stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement activity, significantly 
contributed in bringing about the officer's fatal heart attack. At the 
same time, such a construction would ensure that an officer's ordinary 
and routine off-duty activities such as yard work or exercise, that 
take place following qualifying, on-duty engagement or participation, 
would not be evaluated for their contribution to the officer's fatal 
heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture.
    Turning to the other rebuttal factor in the proposed rule, an 
officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture would be considered 
to be caused by ``something other than the mere presence of 
cardiovascular-disease risk factors'' when competent medical evidence 
establishes that the officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular 
rupture was directly and proximately caused by the officer's ingestion 
of controlled substances on Schedule I of the drug control and 
enforcement laws or the officer's abuse of controlled substances on 
Schedules II-V of the drug control and enforcement laws. OJP believes 
that by defining this particular rebuttal factor in terms of 
intentional behaviors that are well established as adversely affecting 
cardiovascular health, that exceed the mere presence of cardiovascular 
disease risk factors, and that are readily attributable to an officer's 
actions, the proposed rule would appropriately rebut the presumption 
and preclude payment consistent with the language of the statute.
    In addition to implementing the amended statutory language of the 
presumption, the proposed changes to Sec.  32.13 would reduce the 
evidentiary burden on claimants seeking death benefits under section 
3796(k) and streamline the processing of such claims by reducing the 
circumstances under which the PSOB Program would seek expert medical 
review and additional medical evidence. Towards this end, the proposed 
rule would eliminate as a basis for rebutting the presumption certain 
actions of the officer previously defined in regulations as ``risky 
behaviors,'' e.g., an officer's failure to adequately treat known 
cardiovascular-disease risk factors. OJP believes that eliminating this 
basis for rebuttal is justified based on its experience implementing 
the previous regulation which revealed that medical examiners, even 
with a complete medical record, itself a rare occurrence, were rarely 
able to determine whether a public safety officer was sufficiently non-
compliant with treatment such that it could be said to be the direct 
and proximate cause of the officer's fatal heart attack, stroke, or 
vascular rupture. By omitting from the proposed rule those rebuttal 
factors which often required the collection and evaluation of extensive 
medical records as part of an independent medical examination and 
produced largely inconclusive results, the proposed rule would 
measurably reduce the burden on claimants and the agency.
    Consistent with the amendments to the statutory rebuttal provision, 
the proposed rule would also eliminate from Sec.  32.13 provisions 
defining ``Competent medical evidence to the contrary,'' ``Excessive 
consumption of alcohol,'' ``Extrinsic circumstances,'' ``Risky 
behavior,'' and ``Undertaking of treatment.'' In addition, the proposed 
rule would eliminate Sec.  32.14(c), requiring the PSOB Office to 
provide notice to claimants when it determines the existence of 
competent medical evidence to the contrary. As the statute no longer 
includes such language, the provision is unnecessary.

IV. Regulatory Requirements

Executive Order 12866 and 13563--Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' section 
1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' section 1(b), 
General Principles of Regulation. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select 
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive 
impacts, and equity). As explained below, OJP has assessed the costs 
and benefits of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 
and has determined that the benefits of the proposed rule justify the 
costs.

A. Adoption of the WTC Health Program's List and Standards

    OJP's experience is that PSOB claimants have been largely 
unsuccessful in establishing an ``injury'' for delayed-onset medical 
conditions or illnesses, particularly cancer. As the proposed rule 
establishes an evidentiary standard intended for the unique 
circumstances of public safety officers who sustained an injury related 
to the 9/11 disaster, OJP estimates that the proposed rule would likely 
affect all of the 29 claims based on 9/11 injury (27 death/2 
disability) currently pending in the PSOB Program without a WTC Health 
Program certification or its equivalent by enabling these claimants to 
establish an ``injury'' under the PSOB Act. Although there are 
currently 161 total PSOB death and disability claims pending with 
assertions of injuries based on 9/11 exposure, this estimate pertains 
only to the 29 claims not covered under OJP's current regulatory 
authority, as benefits paid through OJP's process of determining PSOB 
claims based on ``certifications'' issued by the WTC Health Program 
Administrator (or equivalent) under 28 CFR 32.5(b) would not be 
impacted as a result of this regulatory change.
    If all 29 such claims were paid, the total PSOB Program death and 
disability benefit cost would be $8,778,198.80. Based on amounts 
appropriated in FY2016 for PSOB Program death benefits (``such sums as 
necessary''--estimated at $71,323,000) and disability and education 
benefits ($16,300,000), OJP knows that it could pay the death claims 
from its current appropriations, and estimates that it could pay the 
disability claims from its current appropriations. OJP's estimate does 
not account for any offset to PSOB Program payments based on VCF 
payments, which would reduce the amount of PSOB Program payments made; 
however, OJP is unable to estimate how many of the 29 claims would be 
approved by VCF. Regardless of whether a PSOB payment were offset by a 
VCF payment, there is no additional benefit cost, as the amounts that 
would be required are covered by current appropriations (with respect 
to death claims) and appear to be covered by such appropriations with 
respect to disability claims, and, barring unforeseen circumstances, 
would not exceed such amounts. As PSOB claims based on 9/11 injury 
would be processed by existing staff, OJP would not incur additional 
administrative or

[[Page 46024]]

personnel costs in processing these claims.

B. Provisions Implementing the Offset at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3)

    The primary benefit of the proposed rule is that, pursuant to 
statute, it permits the PSOB Program to pay benefits to PSOB claimants 
who are awaiting a decision on eligibility for VCF benefits, pending 
receipt of VCF payments, or are in receipt of VCF payments less than 
the maximum PSOB Program death or disability payment. A secondary 
benefit is that it clarifies that claimants who would be eligible for 
payment of death or disability benefits under the PSOB Act but for the 
operation of the offset, would be eligible for educational assistance.
    Estimating annual costs for public safety officers' educational 
assistance is difficult because of the nature of the payment.\6\ If all 
of the 29 currently pending claims based on 9/11 injury and lacking a 
WTC Health Program certification, or its equivalent, were approved, 
thereby creating potential eligibility for educational assistance, OJP 
estimates that the impact could be to add approximately 49 educational 
assistance claimants for FY2016 and beyond. Using the current maximum 
monthly payment rate of $1,021/month, OJP estimates that annual benefit 
costs could increase by approximately $450,261, annually (based on 49 
claimants completing 9 months of educational assistance payable at the 
current maximum rate of $1,021/month).\7\ Based on the amount of funds 
appropriated for disability benefits and educational assistance in 
FY2016 ($16,300,000), OJP estimates that, barring unforeseen 
circumstances, it could pay these additional education claims from its 
current appropriation. As PSOB claims based on 9/11 injury would be 
processed by existing staff, OJP would not incur additional costs in 
processing these claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The educational assistance benefit is payable only as a 
reimbursement to spouses and children of eligible public safety 
officers for eligible educational expenses such as tuition and fees. 
Further complicating matters related to estimation, eligible 
children have until they are 27 to complete qualifying coursework 
and spouses of eligible public safety officers have no age cutoff 
for completing qualifying coursework. In addition, claimants may 
submit claims for educational assistance up to six months before 
attending qualifying coursework, or at any time after a course has 
been completed. On occasion, the PSOB Program receives a single 
claim for all 45 months of benefits; however, the majority of claims 
are submitted on an academic-term by academic-term basis.
    \7\ Payments for PSOB educational assistance are calculated on 
the basis prescribed in 38 U.S.C. 3532 and are subject to increase 
based on increases in certain consumer price indexes as provided in 
38 U.S.C. 3564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Fatal Heart Attacks, Strokes, and Vascular Ruptures Under 42 U.S.C. 
3796(k)

    The primary benefit of the proposed rule is the reduced burden on 
both claimants and the agency in determining claims under 42 U.S.C. 
3796(k). In defining the circumstances that warrant rebuttal in terms 
of readily ascertainable facts, OJP believes that the PSOB Program 
will, in most cases, be able to rely upon the evidence of injury and 
death ordinarily submitted with a claim, e.g., a death certificate or 
autopsy. Based on its experience, OJP estimates that, under the 
previous regulatory interpretation, it seeks additional evidence from 
claimants and independent medical review of medical evidence in 
approximately 50 percent of claims. Under the proposed rule, OJP 
estimates that the PSOB Program would need to seek additional evidence 
from claimants and independent medical review of medical evidence in 
less than 5 percent of claims. As the PSOB Program receives on average 
approximately 92 claims for benefits under 42 U.S.C. 3796(k) annually, 
OJP estimates that it would need to seek additional evidence and review 
in fewer than 1 in 20 such claims, which is significantly fewer than it 
seeks under the previous rule.
    This reduction in evidentiary development is also expected to 
result in cost savings for medical reviews as well as the costs 
associated with obtaining medical records for such reviews. For every 
claim that does not require independent medical review, OJP estimates a 
savings of $1,652, which represents the average cost to the program of 
obtaining certain medical opinions in claims for PSOB Program death 
benefits from 2009 through 2015. OJP also estimates a savings to the 
claimant of $603 for the cost of obtaining medical records (an average 
of 900 pages in the claims sampled). This estimate is based on the 
maximum fees permitted by law, which vary by state,\8\ and the number 
of pages of medical records in claims for PSOB Program death benefits 
as determined in a random sampling of claims involving medical issues 
that require a claimant to provide such records. In addition, OJP 
believes that the streamlined criteria would increase the rate at which 
such claims are processed, however, it is difficult to quantify any 
additional cost savings resulting from such efficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See e.g., Joy Pritts, et al., Privacy and Security Solutions 
for Interoperable Health Information Exchange: Report on State 
Medical Record Access Laws, https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/290-05-0015-state-law-access-report-1.pdf; Table A-5, Overview 
of State Law: Maximum Fees Doctors and Hospitals May Charge Patients 
for Copies of Medical Records https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/appa5-1.pdf. (accessed June 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of benefit costs, OJP estimates that there will not be a 
significant increase in claims approved as compared to the previous 
regulatory criteria. Accordingly, the proposed rule does not 
significantly increase benefit costs. And, as these claims would be 
processed by existing staff, OJP would not incur additional 
administrative or personnel costs in processing these claims.
    This proposed rule would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments, or on the private sector.
    Although not an economically significant rulemaking under Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, The Office of Justice Programs has determined 
that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of the Executive Order, and accordingly this rule has been 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the federal government and the 
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. The PSOB program statutes provide 
benefits to individuals and do not impose any special or unique 
requirements on States or localities. Therefore, in accordance with 
Executive Order No. 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in 
sections 3(a) & (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988. Pursuant to 
section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this proposed 
rule or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, 
ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to 
the Program that is the subject of this rule is intended to create any 
legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States, 
except as the same may be contained within part 32 of title 28 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.

[[Page 46025]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Office of Justice Programs hereby certifies that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities for the following reasons: This proposed rule 
addresses federal agency procedures; furthermore, this proposed rule 
would make amendments to clarify existing regulations and agency 
practice concerning public safety officers' death, disability, and 
education benefits and would do nothing to increase the financial 
burden on any small entities. Therefore, an analysis of the impact of 
this proposed rule on such entities is not required under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would impose reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.). The PRA requires certain actions before an agency can 
adopt or revise a collection of information, including publishing a 
summary of the collection of information and a brief description of the 
need for and proposed use of the information. 44 U.S.C. 3507.
    The proposed rule includes paperwork requirements in three 
collections of information previously approved by OMB for the PSOB 
Program. OJP published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2016, a 
60-day notice of ``Agency Information Collection Activities'' for each 
of the following forms: Claim for Death Benefits (OMB Number 1121-
0024), Report of Public Safety Officer's Death (OMB Number 1121-0025), 
and Public Safety Officers' Disability Benefits (OMB Number 1121-0166). 
In calculating the burden associated with these forms/collections, OJP 
reviewed its previous burden estimates and updated these to reflect the 
time required for claimants to gather the many different documents 
necessary to establish eligibility for these benefits, e.g., birth 
certificates, marriage certificates, divorce decrees (where 
applicable), public agency determinations as to death or disability 
benefits, medical records, etc. Information about the proposed 
collections is as follows:

Claim for Death Benefits--Overview of Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement with change of a 
previously approved collection.
    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Claim for Death Benefits.
    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of 
the Department sponsoring the collection: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 
Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract:Primary: Eligible survivors of fallen public 
safety officers.
    Abstract: BJA's Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Office will 
use the Claim Form information to confirm the eligibility of applicants 
to receive Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits. Eligibility is 
dependent on several factors, including public safety officer status, 
an injury sustained in the line of duty, and the claimant status in the 
beneficiary hierarchy according to the PSOB Act. In addition, 
information to help the PSOB Office identify an individual is 
collected, such as Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, and 
email addresses. Changes to the claim form have been made in an effort 
to streamline the application process and eliminate requests for 
information that are either irrelevant or already being collected by 
other means.
    OJP estimates that no more than 350 respondents will apply each 
year. Each application takes approximately 120 minutes to complete. OJP 
estimates that the total public burden (in hours) associated with the 
collection can be calculated as follows: Total Annual Reporting Burden: 
350 x 120 minutes per application = 42,000 minutes/by 60 minutes per 
hour = 700 hours.

Public Safety Officer's Death--Overview of Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement with change of a 
previously approved collection.
    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Report of Public Safety 
Offices Death.
    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of 
the Department sponsoring the collection: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 
Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Public safety agencies experiencing 
the death of a public safety officer according to the PSOB Act.
    Abstract: BJA's Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Office will 
use the Report of Public Safety Officer's Death Form information to 
confirm the eligibility of applicants to receive Public Safety 
Officers' Death Benefits. Eligibility is dependent on several factors, 
including public safety officer status, an injury sustained in the line 
of duty, and the claimant status in the beneficiary hierarchy according 
to the Act. In addition, information to help the PSOB Office identify 
an individual is collected, such as Social Security numbers, telephone 
numbers, and email addresses. Changes to the report form have been made 
in an effort to streamline the application process and eliminate 
requests for information that are either irrelevant or already being 
collected by other means.
    OJP estimates that no more than 350 respondents will apply each 
year. Each application takes approximately 240 minutes to complete. OJP 
estimates that the total public burden (in hours) associated with the 
collection can be calculated as follows: Total Annual Reporting Burden: 
350 x 240 minutes per application = 84,000 minutes/by 60 minutes per 
hour = 1400 hours.

Public Safety Officers' Disability Benefits--Overview of Information 
Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement with change of a 
previously approved collection.
    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Public Safety Officer's 
Disability Benefits.
    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of 
the Department sponsoring the collection: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 
Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Public safety officers who were 
permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty.
    Abstract: BJA's Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Office will 
use the PSOB Disability Application information to confirm the 
eligibility of applicants to receive Public Safety Officers' Disability 
Benefits. Eligibility is dependent on several factors, including public 
safety officer status, injury sustained in the line of duty, and the 
total and permanent nature of the line-of-duty injury. In addition, 
information to help the PSOB Office identify individuals is collected, 
such as Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, and email 
addresses. Changes to the application form have been made in an effort 
to streamline the application process and eliminate requests for 
information that are either irrelevant or already being collected by 
other means.
    OJP estimates that no more than 100 respondents will apply each 
year. Each application takes approximately 300 minutes to complete. OJP 
estimates that the total public burden (in hours) associated with the 
collection can be calculated as follows: Total Annual Reporting Burden: 
100 x 300 minutes

[[Page 46026]]

per application = 30,000 minutes/by 60 minutes per hour = 500 hours.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The PSOB program is 
a federal benefits program that provides benefits directly to 
qualifying individuals. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary 
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 32

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 
Education, Emergency medical services, Firefighters, Law enforcement 
officers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rescue squad.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 32 of 
chapter I of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to 
be amended as follows:

PART 32--PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH, DISABILITY, AND EDUCATIONAL 
ASSISTANCE BENEFITS CLAIMS

0
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 32 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. ch. 46, subch. XII; 42 U.S.C. 3782(a), 
3787, 3788, 3791(a), 3793(a)(4) & (b), 3795a, 3796c-1, 3796c-2; sec. 
1601, title XI, Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 239; secs. 4 through 6, 
Pub. L. 94-430, 90 Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 2, Pub. L. 107-37, 115 
Stat. 219.

0
2. Amend Sec.  32.3 as follows:
0
a. Amend the definition of Act by removing ``and Apr. 5, 2006 
(designated beneficiaries))'' and adding in its place ``Apr. 5, 2006 
(designated beneficiaries); and Jan. 2, 2013)''.
0
b. Add definitions of List of WTC-related health conditions and 
Physical harm in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  32.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    List of WTC-related health conditions means the list of health 
conditions (other than a mental-health condition) listed--
    (1) At 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(a)(3); or
    (2) On the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions in 42 CFR part 88.
* * * * *
    Physical harm means physical harm as defined at 28 CFR 104.2(c).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  32.5 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  32.5  Evidence.

* * * * *
    (j) Physical harm suffered by a public safety officer as a direct 
and proximate result of a condition on the List of WTC-Related Health 
Conditions shall be understood to be a line-of-duty injury if, as 
determined by the PSOB determining official, and pursuant to the 
standards governing the World Trade Center Health Program's 
certification of injuries as covered by the program, such officer's 
exposure to airborne toxins, any other hazards, and any other adverse 
conditions resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is 
substantially likely to have been a significant factor in aggravating, 
contributing to, or causing the illness or health condition.
0
4. Amend Sec.  32.6 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  32.6  Payment and repayment.

* * * * *
    (f)(1) If compensation under the September 11th Victim Compensation 
Fund of 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)) has been paid with respect to an 
injury, the total amount payable under subpart B or C of this part, 
with respect to the same injury, shall be reduced by the amount of such 
payment of compensation.
    (2) Nothing in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, or in the Act, at 
42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3), shall be understood to preclude payment under 
this part before the final payment of compensation under such Fund.
    (3) Nothing in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3), shall be 
understood to require reduction of any amount payable under subpart D 
of this part.
0
5. Amend Sec.  32.13 as follows:
0
a. Add definitions of Something other than the mere presence of 
cardiovascular disease risk factors and Unrelated in alphabetical 
order.
0
b. Remove the definitions of Competent medical evidence to the 
contrary, Excessive consumption of alcohol, Extrinsic circumstances, 
Risky behavior, and Undertaking of treatment.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  32.13  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular disease 
risk factors means--
    (1) Ingestion of controlled substances included on Schedule I of 
the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 812(a)); or
    (2) Abuse of controlled substances included on Schedule II, III, 
IV, or V of the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 
812(a)).
* * * * *
    Unrelated--A public safety officer's heart attack, stroke, or 
vascular rupture is unrelated to the officer's engagement in a 
situation or participation in a training exercise, as described in 42 
U.S.C. 3796(k)(1), when an independent event or occurrence 
significantly contributes in bringing about the officer's heart attack, 
stroke, or vascular rupture.


Sec.  32.14  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  32.14, remove paragraph (c).
0
7. In Sec.  32.33, the definition of Eligible public safety officer is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  32.33  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Eligible public safety officer means a public safety officer--
    (1) With respect to whose death, benefits under subpart B of this 
part properly--
    (i) Have been paid; or
    (ii) Would have been paid but for operation of the Act, at 42 
U.S.C. 3796(f); or
    (2) With respect to whose disability, benefits under subpart C of 
this part properly--
    (i) Have been paid; or
    (ii) Would have been paid, but for operation of--
    (A) Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  32.6; or
    (B) The Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f).
* * * * *

    Dated: June 30, 2016.
Karol V. Mason,
Assistant Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2016-16086 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P