Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Updating Presumptive Radiation Locations Based on the PACT Act rule (2023)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Updating Presumptive Radiation Locations Based on the PACT Act rule is a significant rule issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) effective March 13, 2023, that chronicled sections of the 2022 PACT Act that ease the burden of proof on veterans who file for VA benefits regarding radiation exposure.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Updating Presumptive Radiation Locations Based on the PACT Act
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Other significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    • March 13, 2023: VA issued the final rule and it took effect.[1]
    • August 10, 2022: Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (the PACT Act) took effect.[1]

    Background

    President Joe Biden signed the PACT Act into law in August 2022 that expanded VA benefit eligibility for veterans who were exposed to certain toxins in specific locations. This rule codified sections 401 and 402 into the VA adjudication regulations. The rule is not subject to a notice and comment period, according to the rule, because it is codifying law in accordance with the PACT Act of 2022.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is issuing this final rule to amend its adjudication regulations to add more presumptive exposure locations for radiation, as legislated in the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (the PACT Act). The PACT Act expands and extends eligibility for VA benefits for Veterans with toxic exposures, and Sections 401 and 402 specifically ease the evidentiary burden for Veterans who file claims with VA based on radiation exposure in certain locations. This final rule chronicles those sections of the PACT Act in VA regulations.[1][2] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “

    Changes Based on Section 401

    Section 401 of the PACT Act amends 38 U.S.C. 1112(c)(3)(B) by adding a new clause (v), which adds the cleanup of Enewetak Atoll during the period beginning on January 1,1977, and ending on December 31,1980, as a radiation-risk activity. To that effect, VA will add 38 CFR 3.309(d)(3)(ii)(F) to cover the Veterans who participated in cleanup of Enewetak Atoll during this period as radiation exposed Veterans for purposes of presumptions of service connection of certain disabilities by VA. This addition makes VA regulation consistent with 38 U.S.C. 1112(c)(3)(B)(v).

    Changes Based on Section 402

    Section 402 of the PACT Act amends 38 U.S.C. 1112(c)(3)(B) by adding a new clause (vi), which adds participation in nuclear response efforts in the vicinity of Palomares, Spain, during the period beginning January 17,1966, and ending March 31,1967, as a radiation-risk activity. To that effect, VA will add 38 CFR 3.309(d)(3)(ii)(G) to cover Veterans who participated in this nuclear response near Palomares, Spain, during this period as radiation exposed Veterans for purposes of presumptions of service connection of certain disabilities by VA. This addition makes VA regulation consistent with 38 U.S.C. 1112(c)(3)(B)(vi).

    Additionally, Section 402 of the PACT Act adds a new clause (vii) to 38 U.S.C. 1112(c)(3)(B), which adds participation in nuclear response efforts in the vicinity of Thule Air Force Base, Greenland, during the period beginning January 21, 1968, and ending September 25, 1968, as a radiation-risk activity. To that effect, VA will add 38 CFR 3.309(d)(3)(ii)(H) to cover Veterans who participated in this nuclear response near Thule Air Force Base, Greenland, during this period as radiation exposed Veterans for purposes of presumptions of service connection of certain disabilities by VA. This addition makes VA regulation consistent with 38 U.S.C. 1112(c)(3)(B)(vii).[2]

    		”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of the Updating Presumptive Radiation Locations Based on the PACT Act rule states that OMB deemed this rule significant, but not economically significant:

    “ The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.[2] ”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Federal Register, "Updating Presumptive Radiation Locations Based on the PACT Act," December 12, 2023.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Updating_Presumptive_Radiation_Locations_Based_on_the_PACT_Act_rule_(2023)&oldid=10692022"