Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

53914

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
were not already reissued. Under 13.230g, bond expenses may be deducted from the beneficiarys account so that the fiduciary does not have to pay for them out of pocket. Although this cuts into the amount of benefits the beneficiary ultimately receives, VA
noted that this provision is consistent with the protection of funds in guardianships under state and uniform laws. 79 FR 430, 442 Jan. 3, 2014.
While it seems redundant for VA to require a separate bond from a VAappointed fiduciary who also is serving as a court-appointed fiduciary, VA
instituted uniform surety bond requirements as an additional safeguard to protect the beneficiarys funds. 83
FR 32727. In theory, requiring that a VA-appointed fiduciary obtain a bond that is payable to the Secretary ensures that VA will be able to recoup any misused funds from the surety company rather than having to initiate a collections action against an individual fiduciary. Moreover, in instances where a court-appointed fiduciary already has a bond in place, the bond typically would be payable to the state where the court is located, so VA could not make a direct claim against that bond. If the state-court bond were enough to cover the misused VA benefits, the state would be able to make a claim against the bond to make the beneficiary whole.
Thus, at least in some cases, a statecourt bond would provide adequate protection for the beneficiary. We note, however, that, in the event that VA
reissues benefits and the beneficiary later receives funds recovered from the state-court bond, it is not apparent that VA would have any basis to recoup the excess funds paid to the beneficiary, even though it would amount to double recovery on the part of the beneficiary.
A potential problem with VAs practice of requiring multiple bonds is that if a surety company already paid out on a misused-benefits claim under a statecourt bond, another surety company would not pay out on the VA bond for the same misconduct. That would therefore defeat the purpose of requiring a second bond made payable to the Secretary. If the purpose of the second bond is to ensure that the beneficiary is made whole in the event of misuse, it does not make sense to burden the beneficiary with paying for a second bond where there already is adequate protection in place. As a result, VA
proposes to amend 13.230 of its part 13 regulations as described below.
13.230 Protection of Beneficiary Funds VA proposes to amend 38 CFR 13.230
to exempt a VA-appointed fiduciary
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Sep 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

who is also serving as a court-appointed fiduciary with a bond sufficient to protect both VA and non-VA funds from posting multiple bonds and to exempt a VA-appointed fiduciary that is also a State agency with existing, Statemandated liability insurance or a blanket bond from having to obtain an additional bond payable to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The proposed amendment is within VAs general rulemaking authority under 38 U.S.C.
501a and implements VAs authority under 38 U.S.C. 6107. The proposed amendment would eliminate duplicative fees from being charged against a VA beneficiarys funds for an additional, unnecessary bond.
Additionally, VA beneficiaries who are victims of misuse of their benefits by their VA fiduciaries would not experience undue delay in the reissuance of their misused benefits.
Further, the bond requirement in 38
U.S.C. 5507a3 gives VA discretion to determine whether to require a bond.
Under current rules, 38 CFR 13.230, does not include an exception to the bond requirement for court-appointed fiduciaries. Further, 13.230
specifically requires that any bond furnished by the fiduciary contain a statement that the bond is payable to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
VA proposes to amend 13.230 to add an exception for posting an additional bond for an individual serving as a court-appointed fiduciary, where a bond is in place under State law and court rules and is sufficient to protect both VA and non-VA funds and to add another exception for a VA-appointed fiduciary that is also a State agency with existing, State-mandated liability insurance or a blanket bond to not have to obtain an additional bond payable to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This amendment is authorized by VAs general rulemaking authority in 38
U.S.C. 501, and by the discretion conferred by 38 U.S.C. 5507a3.
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
PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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.
Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
at 44 U.S.C. 3507 requires that VA
consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C.
3507a, 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 OMB control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8b3vi.
The information collection requirement in 13.230 is currently approved by OMB and has been assigned OMB control number 2900
0804. The proposed rule includes provisions involving a revised collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 that will require approval by OMB. The proposed rule would not involve a substantive or material modification of the approved collection.
Title: Protection of beneficiary funds.
Type of Information Collection:
Modification of a currently approved information collection.
OMB Number: 29000804.
Summary of collection of information:
The amendment to the collection of information in proposed 13.230c1
would eliminate the requirement for a VA-appointed fiduciary who is also serving as a court-appointed fiduciary to post multiple bonds and would also eliminate the requirement for a VAappointed fiduciary that is also a State agency with existing, State-mandated liability insurance or a blanket bond to obtain an additional bond payable to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The proposed amendment to 13.230c1
would decrease the estimated annual number of respondents and consequently reduce the estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden.
The estimated annual burden for the revised collection of information would be determined as follows:
Description of need for information and proposed use of information: There would be no change in the need for information nor the proposed use of information collected for OMBapproved Control Number 29000804.
The information is needed to facilitate VAs oversight regarding the funds under management protection
E:FRFM29SEP1.SGM

29SEP1