Determinations Concerning Illnesses Discussed in National Academy of Sciences Report on Gulf War and Health, 48734-48741 [E7-16733]
Download as PDF
48734
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 164 / Friday, August 24, 2007 / Notices
intent to participate in the telephone
conference call meeting must be made
with Inez E. De Jesus. Ms. De Jesus can
be reached at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–
423–7977, or post comments to the Web
site: https://www.improveirs.org. If you
would like to have the TAP consider a
written statement, please call 1–888–
912–1227 or 954–423–7977, or write to
Inez E. De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 South
Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation,
FL 33324
The agenda will include the
following: Various IRS issues.
Dated: August 20, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E7–16721 Filed 8–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
U.S.—CHINA ECONOMIC AND
SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION
Notice of Open Public Hearing
U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission.
ACTION: Notice of open public hearing—
September 6–7, 2007, University of
North Carolina—Chapel Hill, NC.
AGENCY:
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
following hearing of the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review
Commission.
Name: Carolyn Bartholomew,
Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission.
The Commission is mandated by
Congress to investigate, assess, evaluate,
and report to Congress annually on ‘‘the
national security implications and
impact of the bilateral trade and
economic relationship between the
United States and the People’s Republic
of China.’’ Pursuant to this mandate, the
Commission will hold a public hearing
in Chapel Hill, NC, at the University of
North Carolina on September 6–7, 2007
on ‘‘North Carolina: China’s Impact on
the North Carolina Economy: Winners
and Losers.’’
Background
This event is the seventh in a series
of public hearings the Commission will
hold during its 2007 report cycle to
collect input from leading experts in
academia, business, industry,
government and from the public on the
impact of the economic and national
security implications of the U.S.
bilateral trade and economic
relationship with China. The September
6–7 hearing is being conducted to
examine the impacts of Chinese exports
on North Carolina’s traditional clothing,
textile, and furniture industries; the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Aug 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
effectiveness of North Carolina’s
proactive measures to mitigate and
adapt to Chinese competition; and to
consider feedback and opinions from
the people of North Carolina.
The hearing, entitled ‘‘North Carolina:
China’s Impact on the North Carolina
Economy: Winners and Losers,’’ will be
co-chaired by Commissioners Jeffrey
Fiedler and Dennis Shea.
Open Microphone Session for Public
Comment: The hearing on Friday,
September 7, 2007, will conclude with
a discussion on the community impact
of economic dislocations with an
‘‘open’’ microphone session for
interested members of the public to
voice their views. Registration for the
open microphone session begins at 8
a.m. on Friday, September 7th with sign
up available in the hearing room.
Comments will be limited to 5 minutes
for each participant.
Information on this hearing, including
a detailed hearing agenda and
information about panelists, will be
made available on the Commission’s
Web site prior to the hearing date.
Detailed information about the
Commission, the texts of its annual
reports and hearing records, and the
products of research it has
commissioned can be found on the
Commission’s Web site at
www.uscc.gov.
Any interested party may file a
written statement by September 6, 2007,
by mailing to the contact below.
Date and Time: Thursday, September
6, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Friday,
September 7, 2007, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. A
detailed agenda for the hearing will be
posted to the Commission’s Web site at
www.uscc.gov in the near future.
ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held in
The Kenan Conference Center, Room
204 at the University of North
Carolina—Chapel Hill campus on
Skipper Bowles Road, Chapel Hill, NC
27599–1550. Public seating is limited to
approximately 150 people on a first
come, first served basis. Advance
reservations are not required.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Michels, Associate Director for
the U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission, 444 North Capitol
Street, NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC
20001; phone: 202–624–1409, or via email at kmichels@uscc.gov.
Authority: Congress created the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission
in 2000 in the National Defense
Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106–398), as
amended by Division P of the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L.
108–7), as amended by Public Law 109–108
(November 22, 2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: August 20, 2007.
Kathleen J. Michels,
Associate Director, U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission.
[FR Doc. 07–4139 Filed 8–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1137–00–M
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Determinations Concerning Illnesses
Discussed in National Academy of
Sciences Report on Gulf War and
Health
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: As required by law, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
hereby gives notice that the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, under the authority
granted by the Persian Gulf War
Veterans Act of 1998, Public Law 105–
277, title XVI, 112 Stat. 2681–742
through 2681–749 (codified at 38 U.S.C.
1118), has determined not to establish a
presumption of service connection at
this time, based on exposure to
insecticides or solvents during service
in the Persian Gulf during the Persian
Gulf War, for any of the diseases,
illnesses, or health effects discussed in
the February 18, 2003, report of the
National Academy of Sciences, titled
‘‘Gulf War and Health, Volume 2.
Insecticides and Solvents.’’ This
determination does not in any way
preclude VA from granting service
connection for any disease, including
those specifically discussed in this
notice, nor does it change any existing
rights or procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Barrans, Attorney, Office of the
General Counsel, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20420, telephone
(202) 273–6332.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Requirements
The Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of
1998, Public Law 105–277, title XVI,
112 Stat. 2681–742 through 2681–749
(codified at 38 U.S.C. 1118), and the
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of
1998, Public Law 105–368, 112 Stat.
3315, directed the Secretary to seek to
enter into an agreement with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
review and evaluate the available
scientific evidence regarding
associations between illnesses and
exposure to toxic agents, environmental
or wartime hazards, or preventive
medicines or vaccines to which service
members may have been exposed during
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 164 / Friday, August 24, 2007 / Notices
service in the Persian Gulf during the
Gulf War. Congress prescribed the
inquiry it expected NAS to carry out in
the event such an agreement was
reached. Congress directed NAS to
identify agents, hazards, medicines, and
vaccines to which service members may
have been exposed during service in the
Persian Gulf during the Gulf War, but
also directed NAS to consider a number
of specific substances, including
solvents and several insecticides used
during the Gulf War. Congress
mandated that NAS determine, to the
extent possible: (1) Whether there is a
statistical association between exposure
to the agent, hazard, medicine, or
vaccine and the illness, taking into
account the strength of the scientific
evidence and the appropriateness of the
scientific methodology used to detect
the association; (2) the increased risk of
illness among individuals exposed to
the agent, hazard, medicine, or vaccine;
and (3) whether a plausible biological
mechanism or other evidence of a causal
relationship exists between exposure to
the agent, hazard, medicine, or vaccine
and the illness. These laws also require
that NAS submit reports on its activities
to the Veterans Affairs Committees of
the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives and to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs every 2 years (as
measured from the date of the first
report) for a 10-year period.
Section 1602 of Public Law 105–277
provides that whenever the Secretary
receives a report from NAS, the
Secretary must determine whether a
presumption of service connection is
warranted for any illness covered by
that report. The statute provides that a
presumption will be warranted when
the Secretary determines that there is a
positive association (i.e., the credible
evidence for an association is equal to
or outweighs the credible evidence
against an association) between
exposure of humans or animals to a
biological, chemical, or other toxic
agent, environmental or wartime hazard,
or preventive medicine or vaccine
known or presumed to be associated
with service in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations during the Persian
Gulf War and the occurrence of a
diagnosed or undiagnosed illness in
humans or animals. If the Secretary
determines that a presumption of
service connection is not warranted, he
is to publish a notice of that
determination, including an explanation
of the scientific basis for that
determination.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Aug 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
II. The National Academy of Sciences
Report
NAS issued its initial report, titled
‘‘Gulf War and Health, Volume 1.
Depleted Uranium, Sarin,
Pyridostigmine Bromide, Vaccines,’’ on
September 7, 2000. In that report, NAS
limited its analysis to the health effects
of depleted uranium, the chemical
warfare agent sarin, vaccinations against
botulism toxin and anthrax, and
pyridostigmine bromide, which was
used in the Gulf War as a pretreatment
for possible exposure to nerve agents.
On July 6, 2001, VA published a notice
in the Federal Register announcing the
Secretary’s determination that the
available evidence did not warrant a
presumption of service connection for
any disease discussed in that report. 66
FR 35702 (2001).
NAS issued its second report, titled
‘‘Gulf War and Health, Volume 2.
Insecticides and Solvents,’’ on February
18, 2003. In that report, NAS focused on
the health effects of insecticides and
solvents that were shipped to the
Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf
War. The pesticides considered by the
NAS were organophosphorous
compounds (malathion, diazinon,
chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos, and
azamethiphos), carbamates (carbaryl,
propoxur, and methomyl), pyrethrins
and pyrethyroids (permethrin and dphenothrin), lindane, and N,N-diethyl3-methylbenzamide (DEET). NAS
considered 53 solvents in 8 groups:
aromatic hydrocarbons (including
benzene), halogenated hydrocarbons
(including tetrachloroethylene and drycleaning solvents), alcohols, glycols,
glycol esters, esters, ketones, and
petroleum distillates.
In its report, NAS organized its
conclusions into five categories,
representing different degrees of
association between illness and
exposure to insecticides or solvents. The
categories NAS used are ‘‘Sufficient
Evidence of a Causal Relationship,’’
‘‘Sufficient Evidence of an Association,’’
‘‘Limited/Suggestive Evidence of an
Association,’’ ‘‘Inadequate/Insufficient
Evidence to Determine Whether an
Association Exists,’’ and ‘‘Limited/
Suggestive Evidence of No Association.’’
NAS found ‘‘Sufficient Evidence of a
Causal Association’’ between chronic
exposure to the solvent benzene and
two diseases, acute leukemia and
aplastic anemia. NAS found the criteria
for its next-highest category, ‘‘Sufficient
Evidence of an Association’’ satisfied for
three associations: (1) Chronic exposure
to benzene and adult leukemia; (2)
chronic exposure to solvents and acute
leukemia; and (3) exposure to the
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48735
solvent propylene glycol and allergic
contact dermatitis resulting from
sensitization to the compound and
subsequent reexposure. NAS listed 16
findings in the category ‘‘Limited/
Suggestive Evidence of an Association’’:
(1) Chronic exposure to
tetrachloroethylene and dry-cleaning
solvents and bladder cancer; (2) chronic
exposure to solvents and bladder
cancer; (3) chronic exposure to
tetrachloroethylene and dry-cleaning
solvents and kidney cancer; (4) chronic
exposure to organophosphorous
insecticides and non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma; (5) chronic exposure to
carbamates and non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma; (6) chronic exposure to
benzene and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma;
(7) chronic exposure to solvents and
multiple myeloma; (8) chronic exposure
to organophosphorous insecticides and
adult leukemia; (9) chronic exposure to
solvents and adult leukemia; (10)
chronic exposure to solvents and
myelodyplastic syndromes; (11)
exposure to organophosphorous
insecticides at doses sufficient to cause
poisoning and long-term
neurobehavioral effects (i.e., abnormal
results on neurobehavioral test batteries
and symptom findings); (12) chronic
exposure to solvents and
neurobehavioral effects (i.e., abnormal
results on neurobehavioral test batteries
and symptom findings); (13) high-level
exposure to solvents and reactive
airways dysfunction syndrome that
would be evident with exposure and
could persist for months or years; (14)
chronic exposure to solvents and
hepatic steatosis; (15) chronic exposure
to solvents and chronic
glomerulonephritis; and (16) exposure
to insecticides and allergic contact
dermatitis that results from sensitization
to the compounds and subsequent
reexposure.
NAS stated 48 findings in the category
‘‘Inadequate/Insufficient Evidence to
Determine Whether an Association
Exists,’’ and stated no findings in the
category ‘‘Limited/Suggestive Evidence
of No Association.’’ Additionally, NAS
stated that it was unable to reach a
consensus view with respect to nine
exposure and disease, illness, or health
effect associations it considered and
therefore did not place them in any of
the five categories.
Seventeen of the 21 associations in
the highest three categories are limited
to cases involving ‘‘chronic’’ exposure
to the insecticides or solvents involved.
Although its report does not define the
term ‘‘chronic,’’ NAS stated that the
studies it reviewed were primarily
occupational studies, meaning studies
of workers who were exposed to the
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
48736
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 164 / Friday, August 24, 2007 / Notices
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
substances in question in the course of
their employment, such as in a chemical
plant or in a position requiring routine
use of solvents or insecticides. Of the
four remaining associations in those
categories, one was limited to cases
involving exposure to
organophosphorous insecticides at
doses sufficient to cause poisoning at
the time of exposure and another
involved an association between highlevel exposure to organic solvents and
reactive airways dysfunction syndrome
which would be evident with exposure
or shortly thereafter. The other two
involve allergic contact dermatitis that
would be present with exposure and
may resolve with cessation of exposure.
III. VA’s Actions in Response to the
Second NAS Report
After receiving and reviewing the
second NAS report, VA determined that
the report presented uniquely difficult
issues as compared to the first NAS
report and similar NAS reports provided
to VA under the Agent Orange Act of
1991, Public Law 102–4. The second
NAS report was unique in that the
substances considered in that report
were not substances used exclusively or
predominantly in combat deployments
or operations, but were substances
commonly present in military and
civilian life. It was also unique in that
most of the associations NAS identified
were limited to circumstances involving
chronic occupational exposure to the
insecticides and solvents in question, as
distinguished from acute or subchronic
exposures. Although the NAS report did
not define the term ‘‘chronic,’’ that term
commonly means ‘‘marked by long
duration’’ (Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 402 (1976)) or
‘‘persisting over a long period of time’’
(Dorland’s Illustrated Medical
Dictionary 328 (38th ed 1994)). Further,
virtually all of the health effects
identified by NAS were previously well
known.
VA determined that these
circumstances raised questions
concerning, among other things,
whether exposure to these common
substances during the Persian Gulf War
differed significantly from exposures
experienced by other military and
civilian populations, and whether
military personnel could be expected to
have experienced ‘‘chronic’’ exposure to
such substances during service in the
Persian Gulf War. For that reason, and
also because VA’s determinations
regarding the health effects of relatively
common exposures might be viewed as
having broader implications for public
health policy, VA determined that it
was necessary to seek additional
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Aug 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
information before making its
determinations under Public Law 105–
277.
VA met with representatives of NAS
and requested that NAS conduct an
additional review to address issues
pertaining to the correlation between
exposures of different types and
durations and the increased risk of
health effects. Although NAS gave
serious consideration to VA’s request, it
ultimately declined to provide any
further information requested by VA.
IV. VA’s Determination
This notice conveys the Secretary’s
determination that a presumption of
service connection is not warranted at
the present time for any disease, illness,
or health effect discussed in the NAS
report, based on association with any
substance known or suspected to be
associated with service in the Gulf War.
The Secretary has determined that there
is not sufficient evidence available to
support a conclusion that the
insecticides and solvents covered in the
NAS report are, in isolation, agents
‘‘known or presumed to be associated
with service in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations during the Persian
Gulf War,’’ for purposes of section 1602
of Public Law 105–277 (codified in
pertinent part at 38 U.S.C. 1118(a)(2)(A)
and (b)(1)(B)).
As an initial matter, we want to make
clear that VA’s determination does not
in any way preclude VA from granting
service connection for any disease,
including those specifically discussed
in this notice, nor does it change any
existing rights or procedures. VA
generally may grant service connection
either on a ‘‘direct’’ basis or, in some
circumstances, on a ‘‘presumptive’’
basis. ‘‘Direct’’ service connection
means simply that the evidence in
relation to a claim makes it as likely as
not that a disease or injury was incurred
or aggravated in service. ‘‘Presumptive’’
service connection means that a statute
or regulation creates a special rule
allowing VA to presume that a
particular disease was incurred or
aggravated in service even if the
evidence does not directly establish that
fact. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1110, VA
may grant direct service connection for
any disease that was incurred or
aggravated in service. Accordingly, if
the evidence in connection with any
benefit claim makes it as likely as not
that a disease was caused or aggravated
by exposure to insecticides or solvents
in service, VA may grant service
connection. As required by law, VA will
assist claimants in obtaining evidence
necessary to substantiate their claims.
The recent NAS report does not limit
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this authority in any way. In fact, the
report itself may assist claimants
seeking to establish service connection,
by providing evidence linking certain
diseases with exposure to certain
insecticides and solvents. This notice is
intended only to explain that VA will
not, at this time, establish a new
presumption of service connection for
any disease.
Section 1602 of Public Law 105–277
requires presumptions of service
connection for illnesses that have a
‘‘positive association with exposure to a
biological, chemical or other toxic agent,
environmental or wartime hazard, or
preventive medicine or vaccine known
or presumed to be associated with
service in the Armed Forces in the
Southwest Asia theater of operations
during the Persian Gulf War.’’ This
standard refers to two distinct types of
association necessary to a presumption.
First, it must be determined that the
agent, hazard, medicine, or vaccine is
known or presumed to be associated
with service in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations during the Persian
Gulf War. Second, it must be
determined that an illness is associated
with exposure to such agent, hazard,
medicine, or vaccine. With respect to
the first NAS report on Gulf War and
Health, it was clear that the substances
NAS considered (depleted uranium,
sarin, vaccinations against botulism
toxin and anthrax, and pyridostigmine
bromide) were associated with service
in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War
because the presence and use of those
substances during such service was
documented and resulted in exposures
unique to veterans of such service.
Accordingly, the notice of VA’s
determinations concerning that NAS
report focused exclusively on the
second element of association—i.e., the
association between illnesses and
exposure to the substances in question.
With respect to the second NAS report,
however, we believe it is necessary to
address the threshold matter of whether
the insecticides and solvents considered
by NAS properly may be considered
substances associated with service in
the Southwest Asia theater of operations
during the Persian Gulf War within the
meaning of Public Law 105–277. In
section 1603 of Public Law 105–277,
Congress directed NAS to consider the
health effects of solvents and several
specific pesticides, although Congress
did not provide an indication as to
whether or how those substances were
used in the Gulf War. NAS focused its
review on solvents and pesticides that
the Department of Defense shipped to
the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 164 / Friday, August 24, 2007 / Notices
War. As discussed below, however,
there is insufficient information
concerning the use of such solvents and
pesticides during service in the Persian
Gulf War upon which to conclude that
veterans of such service may have
encountered exposures unique to such
service.
In contrast to the substances
addressed in the first NAS report
(depleted uranium, sarin, vaccinations
against botulism toxin and anthrax, and
pyridostigmine bromide), the
insecticides and solvents that Congress
identified in Public Law 105–277 and
NAS discussed in the second report, are
not unique to service in the Gulf War or
to any particular period or location of
service. Rather, those insecticides and
solvents are prevalent in military and
civilian life outside the Gulf War theater
of operations. For example, the solvent
benzene, which is included either by
name or by general reference to
‘‘solvents’’ in 13 of the 21 findings in
the 3 highest NAS categories of
association, is 1 of the 20 most
commonly produced chemicals in the
United States and is present in many
consumer solvents and paint products,
gasoline, automobile exhaust, and
tobacco smoke. Most Americans are
exposed to small amounts of benzene on
a daily basis through breathing air
containing gasoline fumes, automobile
exhaust, tobacco smoke, and industrial
emissions. (Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), Public Health Statement for
Benzene CAS#71–43–2 (U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, ATSDR, Sept. 1997)).
Dry-cleaning solvents are included in 12
of the 21 findings in the top 3
categories, either specifically or as a
component of the general class of
solvents. Military and civilian personnel
who use dry cleaning services or reside
near dry cleaning businesses are
exposed to those substances. The
solvent propylene glycol, which fits into
10 of the 21 findings in the top 3
categories, is present commercially in
cosmetics and food and is used as a
vehicle for drug delivery. Other solvents
considered by NAS are commonly used
in the United States as fumigants for
food products, as flavoring agents, as
components of antifreeze, brake fluids,
deicing fluids, paints, typewriter
correction fluid, cosmetics, lacquers,
and adhesives, or as solvents available
for household use in degreasing and
cleaning. The NAS report notes that
little information is available to
characterize the use of solvents in the
Gulf War. Military uses of solvents
include vehicle maintenance, cleaning
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Aug 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
and degreasing, and NAS noted that
wartime use of solvents in these
capacities probably paralleled stateside
military or civilian uses, although
operating conditions (such as
ventilation and the use of masks) may
have varied widely from stateside
working conditions.
All insecticides shipped to the Gulf
War had been approved by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration for
general use in the United States at that
time, although EPA has since placed
restrictions on some of the insecticides
used during the Gulf War. Most of those
insecticides are available in consumer
pest-control products sold for home use.
The two insecticides distributed to
service members during the Gulf War
for individual use—DEET and
permethrin—are common components
of consumer insect repellents, and were
not linked to any diseases in the top
three NAS categories other than allergic
contact dermatitis.
Of the 21 health effects NAS
identified in its 3 highest categories, 17
are generally well known health risks of
chronic occupational exposure to the
insecticides and solvents in question.
(The other four health effects are also
generally well known, but are associated
with certain non-chronic exposures.)
For example, the fact that chronic
occupational exposure to benzene is
associated with an increased risk of
aplastic anemia and acute leukemia is
widely recognized. See 29 CFR
1910.1028 appendix A (summarizing
known health effects of chronic benzene
exposure). As NAS’ findings indicate,
an increased risk of disease may occur
with chronic or sufficient exposure to
the insecticides and solvents in
question. Those conclusions are based
on scientific studies of persons exposed
to the insecticides and solvents in
occupational settings involving the
production or use of those substances,
with frequent exposures for periods of
years in most cases. Neither the NAS
report, nor the scientific studies that
NAS reviewed identify an increased risk
of disease based on temporary or
episodic exposure to the insecticides or
solvents in question, except in
particular circumstances of
organophosphorous insecticide
poisoning associated with long-term
neurobehavioral effects, high-level
solvent exposure associated with
reactive airways dysfunction syndrome,
and allergic dermatological reactions
coincident with exposure to propylene
glycol or insecticides. In briefing VA on
its findings in February 2003, NAS
indicated that it did not limit its inquiry
to health effects of only chronic
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48737
exposure, but sought all available
information on the health effects of
exposure to the insecticides and
solvents in question. Insofar as the NAS
report states no conclusions as to
whether many of the diseases discussed
in the report are associated with lessthan-chronic exposure to insecticides or
solvents, we believe the absence of such
findings most likely reflects the absence
of study data sufficient to make any
determination.
As indicated above, the insecticides
and solvents considered by NAS were in
common use in stateside military and
civilian populations at the time of the
Gulf War, not only with respect to
workers occupationally exposed to
those substances, but also with respect
to the broader spectrum of persons
exposed through use of consumer
products, inhalation of polluted air, or
other means. Sufficient data do not exist
to show that exposure to those
insecticides and solvents alone at levels
below chronic occupational exposure or
below levels sufficient to constitute
poisoning is associated with the
occurrence of disease, other than
allergic contact dermatitis. Further, as
explained below, VA believes that there
is currently insufficient information
available to indicate that the uses of
insecticides and solvents during the
Gulf War, or the risks associated with
such exposure to such substances,
differed in any substantial degree from
the use of those substances in stateside
military and civilian populations or the
risk experienced by such stateside
populations.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has
indicated that the insecticides and
solvents considered by NAS were
shipped to the Persian Gulf during the
Gulf War, but that relatively little
information is currently available
concerning the extent to which those
substances were used. DoD has
indicated that insecticides were used in
the Gulf War for their ordinary
purposes, including personal
application by individual service
members to their bodies and clothing, as
well as area spraying by pesticide
applicators. (OSAGWI (Office of the
Special Assistant for Gulf War
Illnesses), Environmental Exposure
Report—Pesticides. Final Report (U.S.
Department of Defense, OSAGWI, April
2003)). DoD concluded that most
soldiers were likely exposed to some
amount of insecticides and that military
personnel whose occupational specialty
involved pesticide spraying likely
incurred greater amounts of exposures.
DoD has indicated that the most
thoroughly documented exposure to
solvents occurred during the Gulf War
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
48738
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 164 / Friday, August 24, 2007 / Notices
among service members assigned to
apply chemical-agent-resistant coating
(CARC) to military vehicles, as well as
in the process of cleaning painting
equipment and tools with solvents.
(OSAGWI, Environmental Exposure
Report: Chemical Agent Resistant
Coating. Final Report (U.S. Department
of Defense, OSAGWI, July 2000). DoD
also indicated that not all personnel
were trained in these processes and
some may not have had all the
necessary personal protective
equipment (OSAGWI, 2000). NAS
indicated that the wartime use of
solvents, such as in vehicle
maintenance and repair, cleaning, and
degreasing, probably paralleled stateside
military and civilian use of solvents, but
acknowledged the possibility of wide
variations in operating conditions.
DoD’s Directorate for Deployment
Health Support has prepared an
‘‘exposure assessment’’ designed to
estimate the possible levels of
insecticide exposures during the Gulf
War. (OSAGWI 2003 at 42, 110). That
assessment was based on information
gathered from interviews with Gulf War
veterans and exposure-scenario models
based on methodologies used by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Id. at
110–112. Among other things, DoD
concluded that ‘‘[m]ost pesticide
product exposures during the Gulf War
were acute/subacute and subchronic;
however, there were probably a small
number of chronic exposures as well.’’
Id. at 151. For purposes of that analysis,
DoD defined chronic exposure as
exposure lasting more than 180 days.
DoD also stated that, ‘‘[i]n many cases,
pesticide formulation exposures during
deployment would have been very
similar to exposures normally occurring
in the U.S. at the time. On the other
hand, there were certainly conditions
existing some of the time that would
have contributed to higher-than-normal,
or otherwise unusual exposures for
some servicemembers.’’ Id. at 143. For
instance, DoD indicated that higher
exposures may have occurred in areas of
extreme pest infestation or in the
delousing of prisoners of war conducted
by approximately 200 service members.
DoD also concluded that ‘‘It is likely
that at least 41,000 service members
overall may have had some
overexposure to pesticides.’’ Id. at 57.
That conclusion was based in part on
the results of a survey asking veterans
to recollect their pesticide experiences 7
to 9 years after the fact. Id. at 111. DoD
stated that its analysis involved
significant levels of uncertainty, due to
the lack of direct exposure data, and
that it relied on assumptions that tended
to overestimate exposures. Id. at 57, 111.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Aug 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
Further, DoD’s conclusions regarding
potential overexposures do not, in our
view, clearly indicate that pesticide
exposures in the Persian Gulf War
differed significantly from other civilian
and military populations. The largest
group of potential overexposures
identified by DoD consisted of
approximately 30,500 veterans who
‘‘may have been at elevated risk for
short-term health effects because of
exposure to pest strips’’ containing the
pesticide dichlorvos. Id. at 57. In the
survey of Gulf War veterans,
approximately 7% of veterans
interviewed reported using or observing
use of pest strips, and approximately
5% to 8% of those who had used pest
strips reported using them in a manner
exceeding the manufacturer’s
recommendation of one strip per 1000
cubic feet of space. (Fricker, RD et al.,
Pesticide Use During the Gulf War: A
Survey of Gulf War Veterans (Rand
2000)). DoD concluded that ‘‘[e]ven
when dichlorvos-containing pest strips
are used according to current label
directions and military guidance, many
personnel may be exposed to
unhealthful levels’’ of dichlorvos.
(OSAGWI 2003 at 65). DoD noted that
its conclusion was similar to a finding
by the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs,
which found that all residential use of
pest strips was of concern. Id. at 65. Pest
strips have long been available for
residential use in the United States, and
DoD’s finding does not suggest that Gulf
War exposures to pest strips differed
significantly from stateside exposures.
The conclusion that use of pest strips in
accordance with the label directions
may cause overexposure would appear
to be equally applicable to stateside use.
DoD also noted that approximately
3,500 to 4,500 pesticide applicators
probably made up one of the more
highly exposed groups, and that as
many as 7,000 service members may
have been overexposed to pesticides as
the result of spraying operations. Id. at
57. However, DoD also noted that
‘‘[m]ost pesticide product exposures
during the Gulf War were acute/
subacute and subchronic’’ rather than
chronic in nature, and that ‘‘veteran
interviews suggest that fewer than 10
veterans sought treatment for pesticide
exposure.’’ Id. at 56, 151. For these
reasons, the DoD report’s findings
regarding possible overexposures during
the Gulf War do not, in our view,
establish that potential exposures to
pesticides during the Gulf War differed
significantly from exposures in other
civilian and military populations. With
respect to service members who were
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exposed to pesticides due to their
military occupation as pesticide
applicators, we note that the potentially
chronic nature of such occupational
exposures, coupled with the findings in
the NAS report and other medical
literature documenting potential health
effects of chronic exposure, as well as
the effects of organophosphorous
insecticide poisoning (acute cholinergic
syndrome), may provide a sufficient
basis for awarding direct service
connection for such health effects under
existing law.
Although there is little direct data on
pesticide use in the Gulf War, we note
that DoD had issued comprehensive
directives and policies governing
pesticide use. In a 1996 report, the
Presidential Advisory Committee on
Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses (PAC)
noted that DoD policies and directives
on pesticide use at the time of the Gulf
War closely paralleled or exceeded
those established by regulations of the
Environmental Protection Agency and
the Food and Drug Administration for
domestic pesticide use.
(Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf
War Veterans’ Illnesses: Final Report
(Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing
Office, December 1996)
The PAC reported that, according to
DoD policy, the majority of U.S. service
members had access to two pesticides:
Permethrin in a spray can (for treating
uniforms) and DEET liquid or stick for
use as a personal mosquito and fly
repellant. By DoD policy, all other
pesticides shipped to the Gulf region
were to be used only by specifically
trained pesticide applicators or for
special applications. For example,
lindane was apparently used by security
personnel almost exclusively on Iraqi
prisoners of war as a delousing agent. In
contrast, no similar restrictions applied
to home use of those pesticides within
the United States. There is little
information concerning the extent to
which there may have been departures
from DoD policy in particular instances
during the Persian Gulf War.
The PAC also noted that only limited
data exists on the exposure of Gulf War
veterans to solvents, including benzene.
The PAC described one study by the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention that involved chemical
analysis of biological samples collected
from troops or other personnel residing
in Kuwait about two months after the
cease-fire while the oil well fires were
burning. (Etzel, RA and Ashley, DL,
Volatile Organic Compounds in the
Blood of Persons in Kuwait During the
Oil Fires, International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 164 / Friday, August 24, 2007 / Notices
Health, 66:125–29, 1994). The study
focused on possible exposure of U.S.
military employees to the oil-well fire
smoke, which is known to contain
benzene. They reported that although
blood levels of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene
were higher in firefighters than in a
reference population of U.S. civilians,
DoD employees in nearby Kuwait City
had VOC levels about the same or lower
than the reference population. Benzene
levels in the DoD employees in Kuwait
City were about half those of the U.S.
civilian reference population. This data
is limited by small sample size, the
short half-life of VOCs in service
members’ blood and the focus
specifically on potential exposure from
oil-well fires rather than overall
environmental exposure. Nevertheless,
the report stated that ‘‘VOC’s are also
widespread in the modern environment.
Americans are exposed to numerous
volatile organic compounds in the home
and at work environment, but exposure
to some of them was not prevalent in
post-war Kuwait City, where many
American personnel were temporarily
housed in local hotel rooms.’’
The PAC report described a second
relevant study conducted by DoD during
the Gulf War, which among other things
measured VOCs including benzene in
blood samples collected from a group of
U.S. service members before, during,
and after their 1991 deployment to
Kuwait. (U.S. Army Hygeine Agency,
Final Report: Kuwait Oil Fire Health
Risk Assessment, 5 May—3 December
1991, Report No. 39–26–L192–91,
February 1994). The population studied
in this report consisted of as many as
4,700 soldiers who were deployed from
Germany to the Kuwait theater on or
around September 20, 1991. Blood
samples from a small subset of this
group were taken before and after
deployment, and during deployment in
August 1991, and were analyzed for
VOCs including benzene. Benzene
levels were found to be slightly lower
during deployment as compared to pre
and post-deployment levels. Other
solvents, including ethylbenzene,
chlorobenzene, and styrene, were
substantially elevated in predeployment
blood samples when compared to
reference levels in the United States.
Some solvents, including ethylbenzene,
xylene isomers, styrene, and toluene,
were lower in the blood samples taken
during deployment. Tetrachloroethylene
levels were significantly higher in the
blood samples taken during
deployment. However, the mean level of
the solvent in the blood was ‘‘orders of
magnitude below those levels noted in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Aug 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
the literature as causing health effects
with short term exposure.’’ The report
concluded that ‘‘the levels of VOCs
measured in blood specimens of
soldiers while in Kuwait are denotative
of miniscule exposures’’ and that ‘‘[t]he
exposure to most compounds that can
be inferred from these measurements is,
in fact, very similar to accepted U.S.
normal background levels.’’
The limited data available do not
provide a basis for concluding at this
time that potential exposures to
insecticides and solvents during the
Gulf War differed significantly from
potential exposures in other military
and civilian populations at that time.
We recognize the possibility that
conditions of use may have varied in
some circumstances, but we have
insufficient evidence to infer that
variations, such as those resulting from
failure to use prescribed protective
equipment, were common or resulted in
exposures significantly different from
those in other military and civilian
populations. Although DoD noted that
one pesticide (lindane) was used for the
unique purpose of delousing enemy
prisoners of war, it also noted that only
about 200 service members engaged in
that duty. Additionally, we do not
believe that insecticide or solvent
exposure during the Gulf War can be
equated as a general matter with the
type of chronic occupational exposure
involved in most of the associations
found by NAS. With respect to
insecticides, as noted above, DoD has
indicated that most exposures in the
Gulf War were non-chronic. As in
civilian populations, service members
whose military occupation involved
consistent exposure to insecticides or
solvents may have incurred aboveaverage exposures. The likelihood of
such occupational exposures, however,
is not unique to service in the
Southwest theater of operations during
the Persian Gulf War. As discussed
below, any veteran who had chronic or
sufficient exposure to insecticides or
solvents during service may be eligible
for direct service connection for the
known health effects of such exposure,
whether or not such service was in the
Persian Gulf during the Gulf War.
Public Law 105–277 requires the
Secretary to determine whether a
presumption of service connection is
warranted by reason of a disease having
a positive association with exposure to
a biological, chemical, or other toxic
agent, environmental or wartime hazard,
or preventive medicine or vaccine
‘‘known or presumed to be associated
with service in the Armed Forces in the
Southwest Asia theater of operations
during the Persian Gulf War.’’ Public
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48739
Law 105–277 1602 (codified in
pertinent part at 38 U.S.C. 1118(a)(2)(A)
and (b)(1)(B)). The statute does not
explain the meaning of the phrase
‘‘known or presumed to be associated
with service in the Armed Forces in the
Southwest Asia theater of operations
during the Persian Gulf War,’’ and there
is no legislative history explaining the
meaning of that phrase.
We conclude that the statutory phrase
‘‘associated with service in the Armed
Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War’’
is most reasonably construed to refer to
a relationship between the substance or
hazard and the specific circumstance of
service in the Southwest Asia theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War,
as distinguished from features of
military or civilian life in general that
are not unique to service in the Gulf
War. The phrase ‘‘associated with’’
clearly connotes a direct relationship,
and the requirement that the substance
or hazard be associated with service at
a particular time and place indicates an
intent to distinguish between substances
and hazards associated with general
military or civilian life and those unique
to service at the specified time and
place. If civilian and military
populations are commonly exposed to a
substance, we believe it would be
unreasonable to conclude that the
substance is ‘‘associated with’’ service
in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War
merely because it was present and used
for its ordinary purpose, and exposures
occurred in an ordinary way, during
such service. We do not believe that
Congress intended VA to establish
presumptions for the known health
effects of all substances common to
military or civilian life. Rather, the
requirement that the substance be
‘‘associated with’’ Gulf War service
makes clear that VA’s task is to focus on
the unique exposure environment in the
Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf
War.
This reading of the statutory language
comports with the clear purpose of both
Public Law 105–277 and Public Law
105–368. Both statutes reflect the
Government’s commitment to
addressing the unique health issues
presented by Gulf War veterans, by
establishing a process for identifying
diseases and illnesses that may be
associated with Gulf War Service. It is
by now well known that many Gulf War
veterans have reported a variety of
similar symptoms that cannot presently
be identified with a known diagnosis or
cause and that were not considered
‘‘diseases’’ for the purposes of the
statutes generally authorizing VA to pay
compensation for service-connected
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
48740
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 164 / Friday, August 24, 2007 / Notices
disability or death due to disease or
injury. Congress responded initially to
that situation by authorizing VA to pay
compensation for ‘‘undiagnosed illness’’
in such veterans. The process
established by Public Law 105–277 and
Public Law 105–368 reflects a further
effort to bridge the existing gaps in
medical and scientific knowledge and to
ensure that Gulf War veterans may
obtain compensation for diagnosed or
undiagnosed illnesses that may have
been caused by the unique exposures or
hazards of service during the Gulf War.
Establishing presumptions of service
connection for illnesses associated with
exposures or hazards specifically related
to Gulf War service obviously would
further that objective. In contrast,
establishing presumptions of service
connection for the exclusive benefit of
Gulf War veterans based solely on the
well-known health effects of exposures
shared in common with the general
veteran population would not
significantly further the purposes of
those statutes. Moreover, establishing
such presumptions would create
significant inequities in the veterans’
benefits system that Congress could not
have intended.
Public Law 105–277 requires VA to
establish presumptions of service
connection, when the statutory
requirements are met, exclusively for
veterans who served in the Southwest
Asia theater of operations during the
Persian Gulf War. If the statute were
construed to require presumptions
based on exposure in the Persian Gulf
War to substances to which other
veterans serving at other times and
places are commonly exposed at similar
levels, it would raise significant
concerns of fairness and reasonableness.
For example, veterans exposed or
presumably exposed to insecticides
during the Gulf War might be entitled to
presumptive service connection for
certain diseases associated with
insecticide exposure, while veterans
who served stateside and had equal or
greater insecticide exposure—including
veterans who served as pesticide
applicators—would not be entitled to
presumptive service connection for
those diseases. Similarly, veterans
exposed or presumably exposed to
benzene during Gulf War service might
be entitled to presumptive service
connection for acute leukemia or other
disease by virtue of such exposure,
while veterans exposed to benzene
during service at other times or places
would not be entitled to presumptive
service connection for the same
diseases, even though they may have
had significantly greater potential for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Aug 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
benzene exposure due to their military
occupation (e.g., as a mechanic). The
fact that most service members, and
most civilians, routinely incur some
degree of background exposure to
benzene and certain other substances
NAS considered in accordance with
Public Law 105–277 further underscores
the arbitrariness that would attach to
establishing presumptions for a limited
class of veterans based on such common
exposures.
Apart from the fact—discussed in
greater detail below—that it is generally
unnecessary to establish presumptions
of service connection for health effects
that are well documented in the medical
literature, establishing presumptions
applicable only to a small percentage of
the veteran population potentially
exposed to the relevant substances
would have significant adverse effects
on the veterans benefits system.
Providing by statute and regulation for
the disparate treatment of similarly
situated veterans would substantially
undermine confidence in the objectivity
and fairness of the veterans benefits
system. Additionally, establishing
different adjudicative rules for the
claims of similarly situated veterans
without any reasoned basis for the
distinction would undoubtedly cause
confusion to the VA personnel
responsible for deciding claims, as well
as to veterans and their representatives
in presenting and supporting their
claims.
We do not believe that Congress
intended VA to establish presumptions
unique to Gulf War veterans based on
the well-known health effects of
exposures common to military and
civilian life outside the Gulf War theater
of operations. As explained above, the
language and purpose of Public Law
105–277 and Public Law 105–368
indicate that Congress did not intend
such a result, and we believe it is
reasonable to presume that Congress did
not intend arbitrary or unfair
distinctions. We note that statutes
generally must be construed to avoid
serious constitutional concerns. See
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida
Gulf Coast Building & Construction
Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575
(1988). We cannot say it is beyond
Congress’ power to establish
presumptions exclusively for Gulf War
veterans based on exposures not known
to differ significantly from service
outside the Gulf War. However, the
apparent unfairness, in our view, of that
result supports the conclusion that
Congress did not intend such a result.
We recognize that even common
substances might be used in certain
circumstances, such as in combat
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
situations, in an uncommon manner
that may create a unique risk. As
explained above, however, there is
presently insufficient evidence to
indicate that the solvents or insecticides
considered by NAS were used in the
Gulf War in a manner that differed
significantly from their usage in other
military and civilian populations. Of
course, if evidence is found indicating
that insecticide or solvent use during
the Gulf War differed significantly in
kind or degree from use elsewhere in
military service or civilian life, such
information could provide a basis for
concluding that such insecticides or
solvents are substances associated with
service in the Persian Gulf during the
Gulf War.
We also recognize that Public Law
105–277 and Public Law 105–368 both
required NAS to consider the health
effects of exposure to insecticides and
solvents as part of its investigations of
illnesses potentially associated with
Gulf War service. However, the
direction to consider those substances
does not compel the conclusion that
those substances, considered in
isolation, are themselves agents ‘‘known
or presumed to be associated with
service in the Southwest Asia theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War’’
for purposes of VA’s duty to establish
presumptions of service connection.
Section 1603 of Public Law 105–277
describes the scope of NAS’ inquiry.
Section 1603(c)(1) directs NAS to
‘‘identify the biological, chemical, or
other toxic agents, environmental or
wartime hazards, or preventive
medicines or vaccines to which
members of the Armed Forces who
served in the Southwest Asia Theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War
may have been exposed by reason of
such service.’’ Section 1603(d) of that
statute provides that, in identifying
substances to which Gulf War veterans
‘‘may have been exposed,’’ NAS will
consider, among other things, solvents
and several specifically enumerated
pesticides. In contrast, section 1602 of
Public Law 105–277 does not direct the
Secretary to establish presumptions of
service connection for the health effects
of every substance to which Gulf War
veterans ‘‘may have been exposed,’’ but
requires presumptions only for the
health effects of exposure to substances
known or presumed to be ‘‘associated
with’’ service in the Gulf War. Congress
used different language in section 1602
and 1603 of Public Law 105–277, and
we must conclude that the different
language was intended to have different
meanings. See Bank of America
National Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 164 / Friday, August 24, 2007 / Notices
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
N. LaSalle St. Partnership, 526 U.S. 434,
450 (1999); Russello v. United States,
464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). Congress
reasonably defined the scope of NAS’
inquiry broadly, to include
consideration of all substances to which
veterans may have been exposed during
the Gulf War, irrespective of whether
the exposures were unique to Gulf War
service or common to all service. In
defining VA’s regulation-writing
obligations, however, Congress
reasonably required VA to establish
presumptions of service connection
only for the health effects of substances
that are ‘‘associated with’’ Gulf War
service. As noted above, that limitation
furthers Congress’ purpose of
establishing presumptions for the
unique health concerns of Gulf War
veterans and also avoids the inequity of
establishing presumptions exclusively
for Gulf War veterans based on
exposures that are common to most
veterans.
Although the Secretary has
determined that presumptions of service
connection cannot be made at this time
for the health effects of exposure to
insecticides and solvents discussed in
the NAS report, we want to make clear
that this determination will not
preclude the granting of service
connection for those health effects. The
health effects which NAS found to be
supported by sufficient or limited/
suggestive evidence are generally wellknown health effects of exposure to the
insecticides and solvents in question
and were documented in the medical
literature prior to the NAS’ review,
which essentially summarizes and
synthesizes the existing literature. The
established associations between
insecticide or solvent exposure and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Aug 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
certain diseases provide a sufficient
basis for examining physicians and VA
adjudicators to determine whether a
veteran’s disease is associated with
exposure to insecticides or solvents in
service. As noted, the insecticides and
solvents discussed in the report
generally are not associated with
diseases unless the exposure was
chronic in nature or due to
organophosphorous insecticide
poisoning. If any veteran had chronic or
sufficient exposure to the insecticides or
solvents in question, as may occur
where the veteran worked as a mechanic
or pesticide applicator in service, and
developed a disease associated with
such exposure, the veteran could pursue
a claim for direct service connection
regardless of the existence of a
presumption. Additionally, insofar as
certain NAS findings relate to
conditions that would be present
concurrent with exposure, as in the case
of allergic contact dermatitis, acute
pesticide poisoning, and reactive
airways dysfunction syndromes, the fact
that such conditions are observable at
the time of exposure in service would
ordinarily be sufficient to establish
service connection, irrespective of any
presumption.
We note further that our conclusion
that the solvents and insecticides in
question, in isolation, cannot at this
time be determined to be ‘‘associated
with’’ Gulf War service is not intended
to suggest that they are irrelevant to
further investigations of Gulf War
veterans’ health or that they may not in
any circumstance form the basis for
presumptions of service connection
under Public Law 105–277. Several
authorities, including NAS, have noted
the possibility that the synergistic
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48741
effects of exposure to multiple
substances could lead to risks that
would not be associated with exposure
to the substances individually. NAS
noted the existence of two studies
suggesting that combined exposure to
pyridostigmine bromide and certain
pesticides may produce greater
neurotoxicity than exposure to
comparable doses of those substances
individually. A 1996 report of the
Presidential Advisory Committee on
Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses and a 2003
Report from DoD’s Office of the Special
Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses
suggested the need for further research
on the possible effects of such multiple
exposures. (OSAGWI 2003);
(Presidential Advisory Committee on
Gulf War Veterans’ Ilnnesses 1996). In
the event future evidence links any
illnesses to a combination of exposures
associated with Gulf War service,
whether or not including exposure to
insecticides or solvents, VA may
establish presumptions of service
connections for such illnesses pursuant
to Public Law 105–277.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the
Secretary has determined that a
presumption of service connection is
not warranted at this time for any of the
diseases, illnesses, or health effects
discussed in the NAS report issued on
February 18, 2003, titled ‘‘Gulf War and
Health, Volume 2. Insecticides and
Solvents.’’
Approved: August 17, 2007.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7–16733 Filed 8–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 164 (Friday, August 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48734-48741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16733]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Determinations Concerning Illnesses Discussed in National Academy
of Sciences Report on Gulf War and Health
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As required by law, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
hereby gives notice that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, under the
authority granted by the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998, Public
Law 105-277, title XVI, 112 Stat. 2681-742 through 2681-749 (codified
at 38 U.S.C. 1118), has determined not to establish a presumption of
service connection at this time, based on exposure to insecticides or
solvents during service in the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf
War, for any of the diseases, illnesses, or health effects discussed in
the February 18, 2003, report of the National Academy of Sciences,
titled ``Gulf War and Health, Volume 2. Insecticides and Solvents.''
This determination does not in any way preclude VA from granting
service connection for any disease, including those specifically
discussed in this notice, nor does it change any existing rights or
procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Barrans, Attorney, Office of the
General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 273-6332.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Requirements
The Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998, Public Law 105-277,
title XVI, 112 Stat. 2681-742 through 2681-749 (codified at 38 U.S.C.
1118), and the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998, Public Law
105-368, 112 Stat. 3315, directed the Secretary to seek to enter into
an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review and
evaluate the available scientific evidence regarding associations
between illnesses and exposure to toxic agents, environmental or
wartime hazards, or preventive medicines or vaccines to which service
members may have been exposed during
[[Page 48735]]
service in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War. Congress prescribed
the inquiry it expected NAS to carry out in the event such an agreement
was reached. Congress directed NAS to identify agents, hazards,
medicines, and vaccines to which service members may have been exposed
during service in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War, but also
directed NAS to consider a number of specific substances, including
solvents and several insecticides used during the Gulf War. Congress
mandated that NAS determine, to the extent possible: (1) Whether there
is a statistical association between exposure to the agent, hazard,
medicine, or vaccine and the illness, taking into account the strength
of the scientific evidence and the appropriateness of the scientific
methodology used to detect the association; (2) the increased risk of
illness among individuals exposed to the agent, hazard, medicine, or
vaccine; and (3) whether a plausible biological mechanism or other
evidence of a causal relationship exists between exposure to the agent,
hazard, medicine, or vaccine and the illness. These laws also require
that NAS submit reports on its activities to the Veterans Affairs
Committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and to the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs every 2 years (as measured from the date
of the first report) for a 10-year period.
Section 1602 of Public Law 105-277 provides that whenever the
Secretary receives a report from NAS, the Secretary must determine
whether a presumption of service connection is warranted for any
illness covered by that report. The statute provides that a presumption
will be warranted when the Secretary determines that there is a
positive association (i.e., the credible evidence for an association is
equal to or outweighs the credible evidence against an association)
between exposure of humans or animals to a biological, chemical, or
other toxic agent, environmental or wartime hazard, or preventive
medicine or vaccine known or presumed to be associated with service in
the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War
and the occurrence of a diagnosed or undiagnosed illness in humans or
animals. If the Secretary determines that a presumption of service
connection is not warranted, he is to publish a notice of that
determination, including an explanation of the scientific basis for
that determination.
II. The National Academy of Sciences Report
NAS issued its initial report, titled ``Gulf War and Health, Volume
1. Depleted Uranium, Sarin, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Vaccines,'' on
September 7, 2000. In that report, NAS limited its analysis to the
health effects of depleted uranium, the chemical warfare agent sarin,
vaccinations against botulism toxin and anthrax, and pyridostigmine
bromide, which was used in the Gulf War as a pretreatment for possible
exposure to nerve agents. On July 6, 2001, VA published a notice in the
Federal Register announcing the Secretary's determination that the
available evidence did not warrant a presumption of service connection
for any disease discussed in that report. 66 FR 35702 (2001).
NAS issued its second report, titled ``Gulf War and Health, Volume
2. Insecticides and Solvents,'' on February 18, 2003. In that report,
NAS focused on the health effects of insecticides and solvents that
were shipped to the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf War. The
pesticides considered by the NAS were organophosphorous compounds
(malathion, diazinon, chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos, and azamethiphos),
carbamates (carbaryl, propoxur, and methomyl), pyrethrins and
pyrethyroids (permethrin and d-phenothrin), lindane, and N,N-diethyl-3-
methylbenzamide (DEET). NAS considered 53 solvents in 8 groups:
aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzene), halogenated hydrocarbons
(including tetrachloroethylene and dry-cleaning solvents), alcohols,
glycols, glycol esters, esters, ketones, and petroleum distillates.
In its report, NAS organized its conclusions into five categories,
representing different degrees of association between illness and
exposure to insecticides or solvents. The categories NAS used are
``Sufficient Evidence of a Causal Relationship,'' ``Sufficient Evidence
of an Association,'' ``Limited/Suggestive Evidence of an Association,''
``Inadequate/Insufficient Evidence to Determine Whether an Association
Exists,'' and ``Limited/Suggestive Evidence of No Association.''
NAS found ``Sufficient Evidence of a Causal Association'' between
chronic exposure to the solvent benzene and two diseases, acute
leukemia and aplastic anemia. NAS found the criteria for its next-
highest category, ``Sufficient Evidence of an Association'' satisfied
for three associations: (1) Chronic exposure to benzene and adult
leukemia; (2) chronic exposure to solvents and acute leukemia; and (3)
exposure to the solvent propylene glycol and allergic contact
dermatitis resulting from sensitization to the compound and subsequent
reexposure. NAS listed 16 findings in the category ``Limited/Suggestive
Evidence of an Association'': (1) Chronic exposure to
tetrachloroethylene and dry-cleaning solvents and bladder cancer; (2)
chronic exposure to solvents and bladder cancer; (3) chronic exposure
to tetrachloroethylene and dry-cleaning solvents and kidney cancer; (4)
chronic exposure to organophosphorous insecticides and non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma; (5) chronic exposure to carbamates and non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma; (6) chronic exposure to benzene and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma;
(7) chronic exposure to solvents and multiple myeloma; (8) chronic
exposure to organophosphorous insecticides and adult leukemia; (9)
chronic exposure to solvents and adult leukemia; (10) chronic exposure
to solvents and myelodyplastic syndromes; (11) exposure to
organophosphorous insecticides at doses sufficient to cause poisoning
and long-term neurobehavioral effects (i.e., abnormal results on
neurobehavioral test batteries and symptom findings); (12) chronic
exposure to solvents and neurobehavioral effects (i.e., abnormal
results on neurobehavioral test batteries and symptom findings); (13)
high-level exposure to solvents and reactive airways dysfunction
syndrome that would be evident with exposure and could persist for
months or years; (14) chronic exposure to solvents and hepatic
steatosis; (15) chronic exposure to solvents and chronic
glomerulonephritis; and (16) exposure to insecticides and allergic
contact dermatitis that results from sensitization to the compounds and
subsequent reexposure.
NAS stated 48 findings in the category ``Inadequate/Insufficient
Evidence to Determine Whether an Association Exists,'' and stated no
findings in the category ``Limited/Suggestive Evidence of No
Association.'' Additionally, NAS stated that it was unable to reach a
consensus view with respect to nine exposure and disease, illness, or
health effect associations it considered and therefore did not place
them in any of the five categories.
Seventeen of the 21 associations in the highest three categories
are limited to cases involving ``chronic'' exposure to the insecticides
or solvents involved. Although its report does not define the term
``chronic,'' NAS stated that the studies it reviewed were primarily
occupational studies, meaning studies of workers who were exposed to
the
[[Page 48736]]
substances in question in the course of their employment, such as in a
chemical plant or in a position requiring routine use of solvents or
insecticides. Of the four remaining associations in those categories,
one was limited to cases involving exposure to organophosphorous
insecticides at doses sufficient to cause poisoning at the time of
exposure and another involved an association between high-level
exposure to organic solvents and reactive airways dysfunction syndrome
which would be evident with exposure or shortly thereafter. The other
two involve allergic contact dermatitis that would be present with
exposure and may resolve with cessation of exposure.
III. VA's Actions in Response to the Second NAS Report
After receiving and reviewing the second NAS report, VA determined
that the report presented uniquely difficult issues as compared to the
first NAS report and similar NAS reports provided to VA under the Agent
Orange Act of 1991, Public Law 102-4. The second NAS report was unique
in that the substances considered in that report were not substances
used exclusively or predominantly in combat deployments or operations,
but were substances commonly present in military and civilian life. It
was also unique in that most of the associations NAS identified were
limited to circumstances involving chronic occupational exposure to the
insecticides and solvents in question, as distinguished from acute or
subchronic exposures. Although the NAS report did not define the term
``chronic,'' that term commonly means ``marked by long duration''
(Webster's Third New International Dictionary 402 (1976)) or
``persisting over a long period of time'' (Dorland's Illustrated
Medical Dictionary 328 (38th ed 1994)). Further, virtually all of the
health effects identified by NAS were previously well known.
VA determined that these circumstances raised questions concerning,
among other things, whether exposure to these common substances during
the Persian Gulf War differed significantly from exposures experienced
by other military and civilian populations, and whether military
personnel could be expected to have experienced ``chronic'' exposure to
such substances during service in the Persian Gulf War. For that
reason, and also because VA's determinations regarding the health
effects of relatively common exposures might be viewed as having
broader implications for public health policy, VA determined that it
was necessary to seek additional information before making its
determinations under Public Law 105-277.
VA met with representatives of NAS and requested that NAS conduct
an additional review to address issues pertaining to the correlation
between exposures of different types and durations and the increased
risk of health effects. Although NAS gave serious consideration to VA's
request, it ultimately declined to provide any further information
requested by VA.
IV. VA's Determination
This notice conveys the Secretary's determination that a
presumption of service connection is not warranted at the present time
for any disease, illness, or health effect discussed in the NAS report,
based on association with any substance known or suspected to be
associated with service in the Gulf War. The Secretary has determined
that there is not sufficient evidence available to support a conclusion
that the insecticides and solvents covered in the NAS report are, in
isolation, agents ``known or presumed to be associated with service in
the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War,''
for purposes of section 1602 of Public Law 105-277 (codified in
pertinent part at 38 U.S.C. 1118(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(B)).
As an initial matter, we want to make clear that VA's determination
does not in any way preclude VA from granting service connection for
any disease, including those specifically discussed in this notice, nor
does it change any existing rights or procedures. VA generally may
grant service connection either on a ``direct'' basis or, in some
circumstances, on a ``presumptive'' basis. ``Direct'' service
connection means simply that the evidence in relation to a claim makes
it as likely as not that a disease or injury was incurred or aggravated
in service. ``Presumptive'' service connection means that a statute or
regulation creates a special rule allowing VA to presume that a
particular disease was incurred or aggravated in service even if the
evidence does not directly establish that fact. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C.
1110, VA may grant direct service connection for any disease that was
incurred or aggravated in service. Accordingly, if the evidence in
connection with any benefit claim makes it as likely as not that a
disease was caused or aggravated by exposure to insecticides or
solvents in service, VA may grant service connection. As required by
law, VA will assist claimants in obtaining evidence necessary to
substantiate their claims. The recent NAS report does not limit this
authority in any way. In fact, the report itself may assist claimants
seeking to establish service connection, by providing evidence linking
certain diseases with exposure to certain insecticides and solvents.
This notice is intended only to explain that VA will not, at this time,
establish a new presumption of service connection for any disease.
Section 1602 of Public Law 105-277 requires presumptions of service
connection for illnesses that have a ``positive association with
exposure to a biological, chemical or other toxic agent, environmental
or wartime hazard, or preventive medicine or vaccine known or presumed
to be associated with service in the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War.'' This standard
refers to two distinct types of association necessary to a presumption.
First, it must be determined that the agent, hazard, medicine, or
vaccine is known or presumed to be associated with service in the
Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War.
Second, it must be determined that an illness is associated with
exposure to such agent, hazard, medicine, or vaccine. With respect to
the first NAS report on Gulf War and Health, it was clear that the
substances NAS considered (depleted uranium, sarin, vaccinations
against botulism toxin and anthrax, and pyridostigmine bromide) were
associated with service in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War because
the presence and use of those substances during such service was
documented and resulted in exposures unique to veterans of such
service. Accordingly, the notice of VA's determinations concerning that
NAS report focused exclusively on the second element of association--
i.e., the association between illnesses and exposure to the substances
in question. With respect to the second NAS report, however, we believe
it is necessary to address the threshold matter of whether the
insecticides and solvents considered by NAS properly may be considered
substances associated with service in the Southwest Asia theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War within the meaning of Public Law
105-277. In section 1603 of Public Law 105-277, Congress directed NAS
to consider the health effects of solvents and several specific
pesticides, although Congress did not provide an indication as to
whether or how those substances were used in the Gulf War. NAS focused
its review on solvents and pesticides that the Department of Defense
shipped to the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf
[[Page 48737]]
War. As discussed below, however, there is insufficient information
concerning the use of such solvents and pesticides during service in
the Persian Gulf War upon which to conclude that veterans of such
service may have encountered exposures unique to such service.
In contrast to the substances addressed in the first NAS report
(depleted uranium, sarin, vaccinations against botulism toxin and
anthrax, and pyridostigmine bromide), the insecticides and solvents
that Congress identified in Public Law 105-277 and NAS discussed in the
second report, are not unique to service in the Gulf War or to any
particular period or location of service. Rather, those insecticides
and solvents are prevalent in military and civilian life outside the
Gulf War theater of operations. For example, the solvent benzene, which
is included either by name or by general reference to ``solvents'' in
13 of the 21 findings in the 3 highest NAS categories of association,
is 1 of the 20 most commonly produced chemicals in the United States
and is present in many consumer solvents and paint products, gasoline,
automobile exhaust, and tobacco smoke. Most Americans are exposed to
small amounts of benzene on a daily basis through breathing air
containing gasoline fumes, automobile exhaust, tobacco smoke, and
industrial emissions. (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), Public Health Statement for Benzene CAS71-43-2 (U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, Sept.
1997)). Dry-cleaning solvents are included in 12 of the 21 findings in
the top 3 categories, either specifically or as a component of the
general class of solvents. Military and civilian personnel who use dry
cleaning services or reside near dry cleaning businesses are exposed to
those substances. The solvent propylene glycol, which fits into 10 of
the 21 findings in the top 3 categories, is present commercially in
cosmetics and food and is used as a vehicle for drug delivery. Other
solvents considered by NAS are commonly used in the United States as
fumigants for food products, as flavoring agents, as components of
antifreeze, brake fluids, deicing fluids, paints, typewriter correction
fluid, cosmetics, lacquers, and adhesives, or as solvents available for
household use in degreasing and cleaning. The NAS report notes that
little information is available to characterize the use of solvents in
the Gulf War. Military uses of solvents include vehicle maintenance,
cleaning and degreasing, and NAS noted that wartime use of solvents in
these capacities probably paralleled stateside military or civilian
uses, although operating conditions (such as ventilation and the use of
masks) may have varied widely from stateside working conditions.
All insecticides shipped to the Gulf War had been approved by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for general use in the United States at that time,
although EPA has since placed restrictions on some of the insecticides
used during the Gulf War. Most of those insecticides are available in
consumer pest-control products sold for home use. The two insecticides
distributed to service members during the Gulf War for individual use--
DEET and permethrin--are common components of consumer insect
repellents, and were not linked to any diseases in the top three NAS
categories other than allergic contact dermatitis.
Of the 21 health effects NAS identified in its 3 highest
categories, 17 are generally well known health risks of chronic
occupational exposure to the insecticides and solvents in question.
(The other four health effects are also generally well known, but are
associated with certain non-chronic exposures.) For example, the fact
that chronic occupational exposure to benzene is associated with an
increased risk of aplastic anemia and acute leukemia is widely
recognized. See 29 CFR 1910.1028 appendix A (summarizing known health
effects of chronic benzene exposure). As NAS' findings indicate, an
increased risk of disease may occur with chronic or sufficient exposure
to the insecticides and solvents in question. Those conclusions are
based on scientific studies of persons exposed to the insecticides and
solvents in occupational settings involving the production or use of
those substances, with frequent exposures for periods of years in most
cases. Neither the NAS report, nor the scientific studies that NAS
reviewed identify an increased risk of disease based on temporary or
episodic exposure to the insecticides or solvents in question, except
in particular circumstances of organophosphorous insecticide poisoning
associated with long-term neurobehavioral effects, high-level solvent
exposure associated with reactive airways dysfunction syndrome, and
allergic dermatological reactions coincident with exposure to propylene
glycol or insecticides. In briefing VA on its findings in February
2003, NAS indicated that it did not limit its inquiry to health effects
of only chronic exposure, but sought all available information on the
health effects of exposure to the insecticides and solvents in
question. Insofar as the NAS report states no conclusions as to whether
many of the diseases discussed in the report are associated with less-
than-chronic exposure to insecticides or solvents, we believe the
absence of such findings most likely reflects the absence of study data
sufficient to make any determination.
As indicated above, the insecticides and solvents considered by NAS
were in common use in stateside military and civilian populations at
the time of the Gulf War, not only with respect to workers
occupationally exposed to those substances, but also with respect to
the broader spectrum of persons exposed through use of consumer
products, inhalation of polluted air, or other means. Sufficient data
do not exist to show that exposure to those insecticides and solvents
alone at levels below chronic occupational exposure or below levels
sufficient to constitute poisoning is associated with the occurrence of
disease, other than allergic contact dermatitis. Further, as explained
below, VA believes that there is currently insufficient information
available to indicate that the uses of insecticides and solvents during
the Gulf War, or the risks associated with such exposure to such
substances, differed in any substantial degree from the use of those
substances in stateside military and civilian populations or the risk
experienced by such stateside populations.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has indicated that the insecticides
and solvents considered by NAS were shipped to the Persian Gulf during
the Gulf War, but that relatively little information is currently
available concerning the extent to which those substances were used.
DoD has indicated that insecticides were used in the Gulf War for their
ordinary purposes, including personal application by individual service
members to their bodies and clothing, as well as area spraying by
pesticide applicators. (OSAGWI (Office of the Special Assistant for
Gulf War Illnesses), Environmental Exposure Report--Pesticides. Final
Report (U.S. Department of Defense, OSAGWI, April 2003)). DoD concluded
that most soldiers were likely exposed to some amount of insecticides
and that military personnel whose occupational specialty involved
pesticide spraying likely incurred greater amounts of exposures. DoD
has indicated that the most thoroughly documented exposure to solvents
occurred during the Gulf War
[[Page 48738]]
among service members assigned to apply chemical-agent-resistant
coating (CARC) to military vehicles, as well as in the process of
cleaning painting equipment and tools with solvents. (OSAGWI,
Environmental Exposure Report: Chemical Agent Resistant Coating. Final
Report (U.S. Department of Defense, OSAGWI, July 2000). DoD also
indicated that not all personnel were trained in these processes and
some may not have had all the necessary personal protective equipment
(OSAGWI, 2000). NAS indicated that the wartime use of solvents, such as
in vehicle maintenance and repair, cleaning, and degreasing, probably
paralleled stateside military and civilian use of solvents, but
acknowledged the possibility of wide variations in operating
conditions.
DoD's Directorate for Deployment Health Support has prepared an
``exposure assessment'' designed to estimate the possible levels of
insecticide exposures during the Gulf War. (OSAGWI 2003 at 42, 110).
That assessment was based on information gathered from interviews with
Gulf War veterans and exposure-scenario models based on methodologies
used by the Environmental Protection Agency. Id. at 110-112. Among
other things, DoD concluded that ``[m]ost pesticide product exposures
during the Gulf War were acute/subacute and subchronic; however, there
were probably a small number of chronic exposures as well.'' Id. at
151. For purposes of that analysis, DoD defined chronic exposure as
exposure lasting more than 180 days. DoD also stated that, ``[i]n many
cases, pesticide formulation exposures during deployment would have
been very similar to exposures normally occurring in the U.S. at the
time. On the other hand, there were certainly conditions existing some
of the time that would have contributed to higher-than-normal, or
otherwise unusual exposures for some servicemembers.'' Id. at 143. For
instance, DoD indicated that higher exposures may have occurred in
areas of extreme pest infestation or in the delousing of prisoners of
war conducted by approximately 200 service members.
DoD also concluded that ``It is likely that at least 41,000 service
members overall may have had some overexposure to pesticides.'' Id. at
57. That conclusion was based in part on the results of a survey asking
veterans to recollect their pesticide experiences 7 to 9 years after
the fact. Id. at 111. DoD stated that its analysis involved significant
levels of uncertainty, due to the lack of direct exposure data, and
that it relied on assumptions that tended to overestimate exposures.
Id. at 57, 111. Further, DoD's conclusions regarding potential
overexposures do not, in our view, clearly indicate that pesticide
exposures in the Persian Gulf War differed significantly from other
civilian and military populations. The largest group of potential
overexposures identified by DoD consisted of approximately 30,500
veterans who ``may have been at elevated risk for short-term health
effects because of exposure to pest strips'' containing the pesticide
dichlorvos. Id. at 57. In the survey of Gulf War veterans,
approximately 7% of veterans interviewed reported using or observing
use of pest strips, and approximately 5% to 8% of those who had used
pest strips reported using them in a manner exceeding the
manufacturer's recommendation of one strip per 1000 cubic feet of
space. (Fricker, RD et al., Pesticide Use During the Gulf War: A Survey
of Gulf War Veterans (Rand 2000)). DoD concluded that ``[e]ven when
dichlorvos-containing pest strips are used according to current label
directions and military guidance, many personnel may be exposed to
unhealthful levels'' of dichlorvos. (OSAGWI 2003 at 65). DoD noted that
its conclusion was similar to a finding by the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs, which found that all residential
use of pest strips was of concern. Id. at 65. Pest strips have long
been available for residential use in the United States, and DoD's
finding does not suggest that Gulf War exposures to pest strips
differed significantly from stateside exposures. The conclusion that
use of pest strips in accordance with the label directions may cause
overexposure would appear to be equally applicable to stateside use.
DoD also noted that approximately 3,500 to 4,500 pesticide applicators
probably made up one of the more highly exposed groups, and that as
many as 7,000 service members may have been overexposed to pesticides
as the result of spraying operations. Id. at 57. However, DoD also
noted that ``[m]ost pesticide product exposures during the Gulf War
were acute/subacute and subchronic'' rather than chronic in nature, and
that ``veteran interviews suggest that fewer than 10 veterans sought
treatment for pesticide exposure.'' Id. at 56, 151. For these reasons,
the DoD report's findings regarding possible overexposures during the
Gulf War do not, in our view, establish that potential exposures to
pesticides during the Gulf War differed significantly from exposures in
other civilian and military populations. With respect to service
members who were exposed to pesticides due to their military occupation
as pesticide applicators, we note that the potentially chronic nature
of such occupational exposures, coupled with the findings in the NAS
report and other medical literature documenting potential health
effects of chronic exposure, as well as the effects of
organophosphorous insecticide poisoning (acute cholinergic syndrome),
may provide a sufficient basis for awarding direct service connection
for such health effects under existing law.
Although there is little direct data on pesticide use in the Gulf
War, we note that DoD had issued comprehensive directives and policies
governing pesticide use. In a 1996 report, the Presidential Advisory
Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses (PAC) noted that DoD policies
and directives on pesticide use at the time of the Gulf War closely
paralleled or exceeded those established by regulations of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration
for domestic pesticide use.
(Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses:
Final Report (Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office,
December 1996).
The PAC reported that, according to DoD policy, the majority of U.S.
service members had access to two pesticides: Permethrin in a spray can
(for treating uniforms) and DEET liquid or stick for use as a personal
mosquito and fly repellant. By DoD policy, all other pesticides shipped
to the Gulf region were to be used only by specifically trained
pesticide applicators or for special applications. For example, lindane
was apparently used by security personnel almost exclusively on Iraqi
prisoners of war as a delousing agent. In contrast, no similar
restrictions applied to home use of those pesticides within the United
States. There is little information concerning the extent to which
there may have been departures from DoD policy in particular instances
during the Persian Gulf War.
The PAC also noted that only limited data exists on the exposure of
Gulf War veterans to solvents, including benzene. The PAC described one
study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that involved
chemical analysis of biological samples collected from troops or other
personnel residing in Kuwait about two months after the cease-fire
while the oil well fires were burning. (Etzel, RA and Ashley, DL,
Volatile Organic Compounds in the Blood of Persons in Kuwait During the
Oil Fires, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
[[Page 48739]]
Health, 66:125-29, 1994). The study focused on possible exposure of
U.S. military employees to the oil-well fire smoke, which is known to
contain benzene. They reported that although blood levels of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene were higher in firefighters
than in a reference population of U.S. civilians, DoD employees in
nearby Kuwait City had VOC levels about the same or lower than the
reference population. Benzene levels in the DoD employees in Kuwait
City were about half those of the U.S. civilian reference population.
This data is limited by small sample size, the short half-life of VOCs
in service members' blood and the focus specifically on potential
exposure from oil-well fires rather than overall environmental
exposure. Nevertheless, the report stated that ``VOC's are also
widespread in the modern environment. Americans are exposed to numerous
volatile organic compounds in the home and at work environment, but
exposure to some of them was not prevalent in post-war Kuwait City,
where many American personnel were temporarily housed in local hotel
rooms.''
The PAC report described a second relevant study conducted by DoD
during the Gulf War, which among other things measured VOCs including
benzene in blood samples collected from a group of U.S. service members
before, during, and after their 1991 deployment to Kuwait. (U.S. Army
Hygeine Agency, Final Report: Kuwait Oil Fire Health Risk Assessment, 5
May--3 December 1991, Report No. 39-26-L192-91, February 1994). The
population studied in this report consisted of as many as 4,700
soldiers who were deployed from Germany to the Kuwait theater on or
around September 20, 1991. Blood samples from a small subset of this
group were taken before and after deployment, and during deployment in
August 1991, and were analyzed for VOCs including benzene. Benzene
levels were found to be slightly lower during deployment as compared to
pre and post-deployment levels. Other solvents, including ethylbenzene,
chlorobenzene, and styrene, were substantially elevated in
predeployment blood samples when compared to reference levels in the
United States. Some solvents, including ethylbenzene, xylene isomers,
styrene, and toluene, were lower in the blood samples taken during
deployment. Tetrachloroethylene levels were significantly higher in the
blood samples taken during deployment. However, the mean level of the
solvent in the blood was ``orders of magnitude below those levels noted
in the literature as causing health effects with short term exposure.''
The report concluded that ``the levels of VOCs measured in blood
specimens of soldiers while in Kuwait are denotative of miniscule
exposures'' and that ``[t]he exposure to most compounds that can be
inferred from these measurements is, in fact, very similar to accepted
U.S. normal background levels.''
The limited data available do not provide a basis for concluding at
this time that potential exposures to insecticides and solvents during
the Gulf War differed significantly from potential exposures in other
military and civilian populations at that time. We recognize the
possibility that conditions of use may have varied in some
circumstances, but we have insufficient evidence to infer that
variations, such as those resulting from failure to use prescribed
protective equipment, were common or resulted in exposures
significantly different from those in other military and civilian
populations. Although DoD noted that one pesticide (lindane) was used
for the unique purpose of delousing enemy prisoners of war, it also
noted that only about 200 service members engaged in that duty.
Additionally, we do not believe that insecticide or solvent exposure
during the Gulf War can be equated as a general matter with the type of
chronic occupational exposure involved in most of the associations
found by NAS. With respect to insecticides, as noted above, DoD has
indicated that most exposures in the Gulf War were non-chronic. As in
civilian populations, service members whose military occupation
involved consistent exposure to insecticides or solvents may have
incurred above-average exposures. The likelihood of such occupational
exposures, however, is not unique to service in the Southwest theater
of operations during the Persian Gulf War. As discussed below, any
veteran who had chronic or sufficient exposure to insecticides or
solvents during service may be eligible for direct service connection
for the known health effects of such exposure, whether or not such
service was in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War.
Public Law 105-277 requires the Secretary to determine whether a
presumption of service connection is warranted by reason of a disease
having a positive association with exposure to a biological, chemical,
or other toxic agent, environmental or wartime hazard, or preventive
medicine or vaccine ``known or presumed to be associated with service
in the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during
the Persian Gulf War.'' Public Law 105-277 1602 (codified in pertinent
part at 38 U.S.C. 1118(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1)(B)). The statute does not
explain the meaning of the phrase ``known or presumed to be associated
with service in the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War,'' and there is no legislative
history explaining the meaning of that phrase.
We conclude that the statutory phrase ``associated with service in
the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the
Persian Gulf War'' is most reasonably construed to refer to a
relationship between the substance or hazard and the specific
circumstance of service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations
during the Persian Gulf War, as distinguished from features of military
or civilian life in general that are not unique to service in the Gulf
War. The phrase ``associated with'' clearly connotes a direct
relationship, and the requirement that the substance or hazard be
associated with service at a particular time and place indicates an
intent to distinguish between substances and hazards associated with
general military or civilian life and those unique to service at the
specified time and place. If civilian and military populations are
commonly exposed to a substance, we believe it would be unreasonable to
conclude that the substance is ``associated with'' service in the
Persian Gulf during the Gulf War merely because it was present and used
for its ordinary purpose, and exposures occurred in an ordinary way,
during such service. We do not believe that Congress intended VA to
establish presumptions for the known health effects of all substances
common to military or civilian life. Rather, the requirement that the
substance be ``associated with'' Gulf War service makes clear that VA's
task is to focus on the unique exposure environment in the Persian Gulf
during the Persian Gulf War.
This reading of the statutory language comports with the clear
purpose of both Public Law 105-277 and Public Law 105-368. Both
statutes reflect the Government's commitment to addressing the unique
health issues presented by Gulf War veterans, by establishing a process
for identifying diseases and illnesses that may be associated with Gulf
War Service. It is by now well known that many Gulf War veterans have
reported a variety of similar symptoms that cannot presently be
identified with a known diagnosis or cause and that were not considered
``diseases'' for the purposes of the statutes generally authorizing VA
to pay compensation for service-connected
[[Page 48740]]
disability or death due to disease or injury. Congress responded
initially to that situation by authorizing VA to pay compensation for
``undiagnosed illness'' in such veterans. The process established by
Public Law 105-277 and Public Law 105-368 reflects a further effort to
bridge the existing gaps in medical and scientific knowledge and to
ensure that Gulf War veterans may obtain compensation for diagnosed or
undiagnosed illnesses that may have been caused by the unique exposures
or hazards of service during the Gulf War. Establishing presumptions of
service connection for illnesses associated with exposures or hazards
specifically related to Gulf War service obviously would further that
objective. In contrast, establishing presumptions of service connection
for the exclusive benefit of Gulf War veterans based solely on the
well-known health effects of exposures shared in common with the
general veteran population would not significantly further the purposes
of those statutes. Moreover, establishing such presumptions would
create significant inequities in the veterans' benefits system that
Congress could not have intended.
Public Law 105-277 requires VA to establish presumptions of service
connection, when the statutory requirements are met, exclusively for
veterans who served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during
the Persian Gulf War. If the statute were construed to require
presumptions based on exposure in the Persian Gulf War to substances to
which other veterans serving at other times and places are commonly
exposed at similar levels, it would raise significant concerns of
fairness and reasonableness. For example, veterans exposed or
presumably exposed to insecticides during the Gulf War might be
entitled to presumptive service connection for certain diseases
associated with insecticide exposure, while veterans who served
stateside and had equal or greater insecticide exposure--including
veterans who served as pesticide applicators--would not be entitled to
presumptive service connection for those diseases. Similarly, veterans
exposed or presumably exposed to benzene during Gulf War service might
be entitled to presumptive service connection for acute leukemia or
other disease by virtue of such exposure, while veterans exposed to
benzene during service at other times or places would not be entitled
to presumptive service connection for the same diseases, even though
they may have had significantly greater potential for benzene exposure
due to their military occupation (e.g., as a mechanic). The fact that
most service members, and most civilians, routinely incur some degree
of background exposure to benzene and certain other substances NAS
considered in accordance with Public Law 105-277 further underscores
the arbitrariness that would attach to establishing presumptions for a
limited class of veterans based on such common exposures.
Apart from the fact--discussed in greater detail below--that it is
generally unnecessary to establish presumptions of service connection
for health effects that are well documented in the medical literature,
establishing presumptions applicable only to a small percentage of the
veteran population potentially exposed to the relevant substances would
have significant adverse effects on the veterans benefits system.
Providing by statute and regulation for the disparate treatment of
similarly situated veterans would substantially undermine confidence in
the objectivity and fairness of the veterans benefits system.
Additionally, establishing different adjudicative rules for the claims
of similarly situated veterans without any reasoned basis for the
distinction would undoubtedly cause confusion to the VA personnel
responsible for deciding claims, as well as to veterans and their
representatives in presenting and supporting their claims.
We do not believe that Congress intended VA to establish
presumptions unique to Gulf War veterans based on the well-known health
effects of exposures common to military and civilian life outside the
Gulf War theater of operations. As explained above, the language and
purpose of Public Law 105-277 and Public Law 105-368 indicate that
Congress did not intend such a result, and we believe it is reasonable
to presume that Congress did not intend arbitrary or unfair
distinctions. We note that statutes generally must be construed to
avoid serious constitutional concerns. See Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v.
Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U.S.
568, 575 (1988). We cannot say it is beyond Congress' power to
establish presumptions exclusively for Gulf War veterans based on
exposures not known to differ significantly from service outside the
Gulf War. However, the apparent unfairness, in our view, of that result
supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend such a result.
We recognize that even common substances might be used in certain
circumstances, such as in combat situations, in an uncommon manner that
may create a unique risk. As explained above, however, there is
presently insufficient evidence to indicate that the solvents or
insecticides considered by NAS were used in the Gulf War in a manner
that differed significantly from their usage in other military and
civilian populations. Of course, if evidence is found indicating that
insecticide or solvent use during the Gulf War differed significantly
in kind or degree from use elsewhere in military service or civilian
life, such information could provide a basis for concluding that such
insecticides or solvents are substances associated with service in the
Persian Gulf during the Gulf War.
We also recognize that Public Law 105-277 and Public Law 105-368
both required NAS to consider the health effects of exposure to
insecticides and solvents as part of its investigations of illnesses
potentially associated with Gulf War service. However, the direction to
consider those substances does not compel the conclusion that those
substances, considered in isolation, are themselves agents ``known or
presumed to be associated with service in the Southwest Asia theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War'' for purposes of VA's duty to
establish presumptions of service connection. Section 1603 of Public
Law 105-277 describes the scope of NAS' inquiry. Section 1603(c)(1)
directs NAS to ``identify the biological, chemical, or other toxic
agents, environmental or wartime hazards, or preventive medicines or
vaccines to which members of the Armed Forces who served in the
Southwest Asia Theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War may
have been exposed by reason of such service.'' Section 1603(d) of that
statute provides that, in identifying substances to which Gulf War
veterans ``may have been exposed,'' NAS will consider, among other
things, solvents and several specifically enumerated pesticides. In
contrast, section 1602 of Public Law 105-277 does not direct the
Secretary to establish presumptions of service connection for the
health effects of every substance to which Gulf War veterans ``may have
been exposed,'' but requires presumptions only for the health effects
of exposure to substances known or presumed to be ``associated with''
service in the Gulf War. Congress used different language in section
1602 and 1603 of Public Law 105-277, and we must conclude that the
different language was intended to have different meanings. See Bank of
America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. 203
[[Page 48741]]
N. LaSalle St. Partnership, 526 U.S. 434, 450 (1999); Russello v.
United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). Congress reasonably defined the
scope of NAS' inquiry broadly, to include consideration of all
substances to which veterans may have been exposed during the Gulf War,
irrespective of whether the exposures were unique to Gulf War service
or common to all service. In defining VA's regulation-writing
obligations, however, Congress reasonably required VA to establish
presumptions of service connection only for the health effects of
substances that are ``associated with'' Gulf War service. As noted
above, that limitation furthers Congress' purpose of establishing
presumptions for the unique health concerns of Gulf War veterans and
also avoids the inequity of establishing presumptions exclusively for
Gulf War veterans based on exposures that are common to most veterans.
Although the Secretary has determined that presumptions of service
connection cannot be made at this time for the health effects of
exposure to insecticides and solvents discussed in the NAS report, we
want to make clear that this determination will not preclude the
granting of service connection for those health effects. The health
effects which NAS found to be supported by sufficient or limited/
suggestive evidence are generally well-known health effects of exposure
to the insecticides and solvents in question and were documented in the
medical literature prior to the NAS' review, which essentially
summarizes and synthesizes the existing literature. The established
associations between insecticide or solvent exposure and certain
diseases provide a sufficient basis for examining physicians and VA
adjudicators to determine whether a veteran's disease is associated
with exposure to insecticides or solvents in service. As noted, the
insecticides and solvents discussed in the report generally are not
associated with diseases unless the exposure was chronic in nature or
due to organophosphorous insecticide poisoning. If any veteran had
chronic or sufficient exposure to the insecticides or solvents in
question, as may occur where the veteran worked as a mechanic or
pesticide applicator in service, and developed a disease associated
with such exposure, the veteran could pursue a claim for direct service
connection regardless of the existence of a presumption. Additionally,
insofar as certain NAS findings relate to conditions that would be
present concurrent with exposure, as in the case of allergic contact
dermatitis, acute pesticide poisoning, and reactive airways dysfunction
syndromes, the fact that such conditions are observable at the time of
exposure in service would ordinarily be sufficient to establish service
connection, irrespective of any presumption.
We note further that our conclusion that the solvents and
insecticides in question, in isolation, cannot at this time be
determined to be ``associated with'' Gulf War service is not intended
to suggest that they are irrelevant to further investigations of Gulf
War veterans' health or that they may not in any circumstance form the
basis for presumptions of service connection under Public Law 105-277.
Several authorities, including NAS, have noted the possibility that the
synergistic effects of exposure to multiple substances could lead to
risks that would not be associated with exposure to the substances
individually. NAS noted the existence of two studies suggesting that
combined exposure to pyridostigmine bromide and certain pesticides may
produce greater neurotoxicity than exposure to comparable doses of
those substances individually. A 1996 report of the Presidential
Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses and a 2003 Report
from DoD's Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses
suggested the need for further research on the possible effects of such
multiple exposures. (OSAGWI 2003); (Presidential Advisory Committee on
Gulf War Veterans' Ilnnesses 1996). In the event future evidence links
any illnesses to a combination of exposures associated with Gulf War
service, whether or not including exposure to insecticides or solvents,
VA may establish presumptions of service connections for such illnesses
pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Secretary has determined that a
presumption of service connection is not warranted at this time for any
of the diseases, illnesses, or health effects discussed in the NAS
report issued on February 18, 2003, titled ``Gulf War and Health,
Volume 2. Insecticides and Solvents.''
Approved: August 17, 2007.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-16733 Filed 8-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P