Presumptive Service Connection for Disease Associated With Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents: AL Amyloidosis, 21258-21260 [E9-10627]
Download as PDF
21258
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 5), please refer to the Special
Analyses section in the preamble to the
cross-referenced notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Proposed
Rules section in this issue of the Federal
Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of
the Code, these regulations have been
submitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on their
impact on small business.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of these
regulations are Angella Warren, Office
of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income
Tax and Accounting), and Stephen
Coleman, Office of the Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and
Administration). However, other
personnel from the IRS and the Treasury
Department participated in their
development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
amended as follows:
■
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(2) Limitation. If a mortgage is
satisfied before the end of its stated
term, no deduction as qualified
residence interest shall be allowed for
any amount of the premium that is
allocable to periods after the mortgage is
satisfied.
(b) Scope. The allocation requirement
in paragraph (a) of this section applies
only to mortgage insurance provided by
the Federal Housing Administration or
private mortgage insurance (as defined
by section 2 of the Homeowners
Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901)
as in effect on December 20, 2006). It
does not apply to mortgage insurance
provided by the Department of Veterans
Affairs or the Rural Housing Service.
Paragraph (a) of this section applies
whether the qualified mortgage
insurance premiums are paid in cash or
are financed, without regard to source.
(c) Cross reference. For rules
concerning the information reporting of
premiums, including prepaid
premiums, for mortgage insurance, see
§ 1.6050H–3T.
(d) Effective/applicability date. This
section applies to prepaid qualified
mortgage insurance premiums described
in paragraph (a) of this section paid or
accrued on or after January 1, 2008, and
on or before December 31, 2010, for
mortgage insurance provided by the
Federal Housing Administration or
private mortgage insurers issued on or
after January 1, 2007.
(e) Expiration date. The applicability
of this section expires on May 7, 2012.
to the receipt of all payments of
mortgage insurance premiums, by cash
or financing, without regard to source.
(c) Aggregation. Whether a person
receives $600 or more of mortgage
insurance premiums is determined on a
mortgage-by-mortgage basis. A recipient
need not aggregate mortgage insurance
premiums received on all of the
mortgages of an individual to determine
whether the $600 threshold is met.
Therefore, a recipient need not report
mortgage insurance premiums of less
than $600 received on a mortgage, even
though it receives a total of $600 or
more of mortgage insurance premiums
on all of the mortgages for an individual
for a calendar year.
(d) Cross reference. For rules
concerning the allocation of certain
prepaid qualified mortgage insurance
premiums, see § 1.163–11T of this
chapter.
(e) Effective/applicability date. This
section applies to mortgage insurance
premiums received on or after January
1, 2008.
(f) Expiration date. The applicability
of this section expires on May 4, 2012.
Linda E. Stiff,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: April 23, 2009.
Bernard J. Knight, Jr,
Acting General Counsel of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. E9–10662 Filed 5–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
Par. 2. Section 1.163–11T is added to
read as follows:
■
Par. 3. Section 1.6050H–3T is added
to read as follows:
§ 1.163–11T Allocation of certain prepaid
qualified mortgage insurance premiums
(temporary).
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
§ 1.6050H–3T Information reporting of
mortgage insurance premiums (temporary).
38 CFR Part 3
(a) Allocation—(1) In general. As
provided in section 163(h)(3)(E),
premiums paid or accrued for qualified
mortgage insurance during the taxable
year in connection with acquisition
indebtedness with respect to a qualified
residence (as defined in section
163(h)(4)(A)) of the taxpayer shall be
treated as qualified residence interest
(as defined in section 163(h)(3)(A)). If an
individual taxpayer pays such a
premium that is properly allocable to a
mortgage the payment of which extends
to periods beyond the close of the
taxable year (prepaid premium), the
taxpayer must allocate the premium to
determine the amount treated as
qualified residence interest for each
taxable year. The premium must be
allocated ratably over the shorter of—
(i) The stated term of the mortgage; or
(ii) A period of 84 months, beginning
with the month in which the insurance
was obtained.
(a) Information reporting
requirements. Any person who, in the
course of a trade or business receives
premiums, including prepaid
premiums, for mortgage insurance (as
described in paragraph (b) of this
section) from any individual aggregating
$600 or more for any calendar year,
shall make an information return setting
forth the total amount received from
that individual during the calendar year
pursuant to the forms and instructions
prescribed by the Secretary.
(b) Scope. Paragraph (a) of this section
applies to mortgage insurance provided
by the Federal Housing Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, or the
Rural Housing Service (or their
successor organizations), or to private
mortgage insurance (as defined by
section 2 of the Homeowners Protection
Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901) as in effect
on December 20, 2006). The rule stated
in paragraph (a) of this section applies
RIN 2900–AN01
■
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:03 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Presumptive Service Connection for
Disease Associated With Exposure to
Certain Herbicide Agents: AL
Amyloidosis
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document amends the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
adjudication regulations concerning
presumptive service connection for a
certain disease based on the most recent
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Institute of Medicine committee report,
‘‘Veterans and Agent Orange: Update
2006’’ (Update 2006). This amendment
is necessary to implement a decision of
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that
there is a positive association between
exposure to herbicides used in the
Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam
era and the subsequent development of
E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM
07MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
AL amyloidosis. The intended effect of
this amendment is to establish
presumptive service connection for AL
amyloidosis based on herbicide
exposure.
DATES: Effective Date: This amendment
is effective May 7, 2009.
Applicability Date: The provisions of
this regulation amendment apply to all
applications for benefits pending before
VA on or received after May 7, 2009.
They also apply to review of certain
previously denied claims to the extent
provided in 38 CFR 3.816.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maya Ferrandino, Regulations Staff
(211D), Compensation and Pension
Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20420, (727) 319–5847.
(This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 3, 2008, VA published in the
Federal Register at 73 FR 65280 a
proposal to amend 38 CFR 3.309(e) to
add AL amyloidosis to the list of
diseases presumed service connected
based on exposure to herbicide agents.
Interested persons were invited to
submit written comments on or before
January 2, 2009. We received one
comment.
Comment
The commenter stated that the
proposed rule represents an ideological
shift in disease categorization. The
commenter stated that the proposed rule
does not reflect the current criteria for
causality contained in 38 U.S.C.
1116(b), which he stated requires direct
evidence between exposure to an
herbicide agent and the occurrence of a
disease in humans. The commenter
stated that the evidence that multiple
myeloma and other lymphomas were
connected to herbicide exposure was
used by the Secretary to connect AL
amyloidosis with herbicide exposure
and that this process by the Secretary
reflects a policy of providing service
connection for disease groups rather
than for separate diseases. He noted that
section 1116(b) allows for service
connection for a specific disease rather
than for a group of diseases. The
commenter stated that should the
proposed rule go forward, section
1116(b) and § 3.309(e) should be revised
to include service connection for
disease entities and that regulations that
refer to individual diseases should be
reviewed and revised. He stated that the
proposed rule could be revised to reflect
a presumption of service connection for
all diseases characterized by clonal
hyperproliferation of B-cell derived
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:03 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
plasma cells and production of
abnormal amounts of immunoglobulins.
The commenter stated that, in the
alternative, the proposed rule should be
withdrawn because there is no evidence
that this disease entity is associated
with exposure to herbicides.
Response
As stated in the proposed rule, the
Secretary’s determination regarding
establishing presumptive service
connection for AL amyloidosis is based
on NAS’ evaluation and its conclusion
that there is limited or suggestive
evidence of an association between
herbicide exposure and AL amyloidosis.
The Secretary did not make any
determination concerning any disease
other than AL amyloidosis. In this
regard, the Secretary has followed the
standards in section 1116(b) regarding
establishing presumptive service
connection for a disease associated with
herbicide exposure. The comment states
that this rule amends the ‘‘causality’’
criteria of section 1116(b). However, as
shown in Update 2006, after quoting the
criteria from section 1116(b), ‘‘[the NAS
committee’s] congressional mandate and
its statement of task are phrased in such
a way that the target of evaluation is
‘association,’ not ‘causality,’ between
exposure and health outcomes.’’ Update
2006, p. 2.
The commenter’s suggestion that this
rule is contrary to section 1116(b) rests
on the premise that the rule implicitly
establishes a presumption for a group of
related diseases, rather than for a
specific disease. We do not agree with
that premise. As noted above, the NAS
and VA each made a finding specific to
AL amyloidosis. As the commenter
noted, the NAS relied primarily upon
studies showing that AL amyloidosis is
pathophysiologically related to other
diseases that are currently presumed to
be associated with herbicide exposure.
That analysis, however, should not be
interpreted to mean that an association
between herbicide exposure and a
particular disease justifies a finding of
such an association for all similar or
related diseases. Rather, the NAS and
VA necessarily evaluate the body of
relevant evidence for each disease.
The NAS noted that, because AL
amyloidosis is a rare condition, ‘‘it is
not likely that population-based
epidemiology will ever provide
substantial direct evidence regarding its
causation.’’ Update 2006, p. 474. By
statute, the NAS is directed to assess not
only statistical associations based on
epidemiologic studies, but also other
factors such as ‘‘whether there exists a
plausible biological mechanism or other
evidence of a causal relationship
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21259
between herbicide exposure and the
disease.’’ Public Law 102–4, section
3(d)(1)(C). It appears that the NAS may
have placed significant weight on the
evidence of biologic plausibility in this
instance in part because it is unlikely
that other forms of relevant evidence for
or against an association will ever
become available. However, the
determinations by NAS and VA
concerning Al amyloidosis cannot
reasonably be construed to reflect a shift
in policy deviating from the
requirements of section 1116(b), or to
suggest that epidemiologic evidence is
irrelevant to determinations concerning
other diseases.
To the extent the commenter suggests
an amendment to section 1116(b), such
action would require legislation and is
beyond the scope of this rule. We
therefore make no change based on this
comment.
VA appreciates the comment
submitted in response to the proposed
rule. Based on the rationale set forth in
the proposed rule and the rationale
contained in this document, we are
adopting the provisions of the proposed
rule as a final rule without change.
Administrative Procedures Act
Substantive changes made by this
final rule are required to be effective the
date of issuance pursuant to 38 U.S.C.
1116(c)(2). Accordingly, we are
dispensing with the delayed effective
date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains no provisions
constituting a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501–3521).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities as they are
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This final rule
will not affect any small entities. Only
VA beneficiaries could be directly
affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b), this final rule is exempt from the
initial and final regulatory flexibility
analysis requirements of sections 603
and 604.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM
07MYR1
21260
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
distributive impacts; and equity). The
Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ requiring review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), as any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may: (1)
Have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this final rule have been
examined and it has been determined to
be a significant regulatory action under
the Executive Order because it is likely
to result in a rule that may raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
year. This final rule would have no such
effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Numbers and Titles
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance program numbers and titles
for this rule are 64.109, Veterans
Compensation for Service-Connected
Disability, and 64.110, Veterans
Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation for Service-Connected
Death.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Veterans, Vietnam.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:03 May 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
Approved: April 3, 2009.
John R. Gingrich,
Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is amended as
follows:
■
PART 3—ADJUDICATION
1. The authority citation for part 3,
subpart A, continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart A—Pension, Compensation,
and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation
§ 3.309
[Amended]
2. In § 3.309(e), the listing of diseases
is amended by adding ‘‘AL
amyloidosis’’ immediately preceding
‘‘Chloracne or other acneform disease
consistent with chloracne.’’
■
[FR Doc. E9–10627 Filed 5–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0514; FRL–8408–6]
Metconazole; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for the residues of
metconazole, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on corn, field,
forage; corn, field, grain; corn, field,
stover; corn, pop, grain; corn, pop,
stover; corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet,
kernel plus cob with husks removed;
corn, sweet, stover; cotton, undelinted
seed; and cotton, gin byproducts. BASF
Corporation requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation
also establishes tolerances for residues
of metconazole, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on
canola seed, and eggs. Valent U.S.A.
Corporation requested the tolerance for
canola seed under the FFDCA. EPA
required an additional tolerance for eggs
based on findings in the studies
submitted by the registrant.
In addition, this action establishes
time-limited tolerances for the residues
of metconazole, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on
sugarcane, cane at 1.6 ppm and
sugarcane, molasses at 3.2 ppm, in
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
response to the approval of crisis
exemptions declared by the states of
Florida and Louisiana under section 18
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
authorizing the quarantine use of the
fungicide on sugarcane to control the
fungal pathogen, Puccinia kuehnii. This
regulation establishes a maximum
permissible level of residues in this food
commodity. The time-limited tolerances
expire and are revoked on December 31,
2011.
DATES: This regulation is effective May
7, 2009. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
July 6, 2009, and must be filed in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for these actions under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–0514 (for BASF Corporation
requested tolerances) and EPA–HQ–
OPP–2008–0718 (for Valent U.S.A.
Corporation requested tolerances). All
documents in the docket are listed in
the docket index available at https://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in the electronic
docket at https://www.regulations.gov,
or, if only available in hard copy, at the
OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information regarding the
tolerances requested by BASF
Corporation or Valent U.S.A.
Corporation, please contact Tracy
Keigwin, Registration Division (7505P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–6605; e-mail address:
keigwin.tracy@epa.gov. For further
information regarding the time-limited
tolerance for the use of metconazole on
sugarcane, please contact Libby
Pemberton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM
07MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 87 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21258-21260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10627]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 3
RIN 2900-AN01
Presumptive Service Connection for Disease Associated With
Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents: AL Amyloidosis
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
adjudication regulations concerning presumptive service connection for
a certain disease based on the most recent National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) Institute of Medicine committee report, ``Veterans and Agent
Orange: Update 2006'' (Update 2006). This amendment is necessary to
implement a decision of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that there is
a positive association between exposure to herbicides used in the
Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era and the subsequent
development of
[[Page 21259]]
AL amyloidosis. The intended effect of this amendment is to establish
presumptive service connection for AL amyloidosis based on herbicide
exposure.
DATES: Effective Date: This amendment is effective May 7, 2009.
Applicability Date: The provisions of this regulation amendment
apply to all applications for benefits pending before VA on or received
after May 7, 2009. They also apply to review of certain previously
denied claims to the extent provided in 38 CFR 3.816.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maya Ferrandino, Regulations Staff
(211D), Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20420, (727) 319-5847. (This is not a toll-free
number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 3, 2008, VA published in the
Federal Register at 73 FR 65280 a proposal to amend 38 CFR 3.309(e) to
add AL amyloidosis to the list of diseases presumed service connected
based on exposure to herbicide agents. Interested persons were invited
to submit written comments on or before January 2, 2009. We received
one comment.
Comment
The commenter stated that the proposed rule represents an
ideological shift in disease categorization. The commenter stated that
the proposed rule does not reflect the current criteria for causality
contained in 38 U.S.C. 1116(b), which he stated requires direct
evidence between exposure to an herbicide agent and the occurrence of a
disease in humans. The commenter stated that the evidence that multiple
myeloma and other lymphomas were connected to herbicide exposure was
used by the Secretary to connect AL amyloidosis with herbicide exposure
and that this process by the Secretary reflects a policy of providing
service connection for disease groups rather than for separate
diseases. He noted that section 1116(b) allows for service connection
for a specific disease rather than for a group of diseases. The
commenter stated that should the proposed rule go forward, section
1116(b) and Sec. 3.309(e) should be revised to include service
connection for disease entities and that regulations that refer to
individual diseases should be reviewed and revised. He stated that the
proposed rule could be revised to reflect a presumption of service
connection for all diseases characterized by clonal hyperproliferation
of B-cell derived plasma cells and production of abnormal amounts of
immunoglobulins. The commenter stated that, in the alternative, the
proposed rule should be withdrawn because there is no evidence that
this disease entity is associated with exposure to herbicides.
Response
As stated in the proposed rule, the Secretary's determination
regarding establishing presumptive service connection for AL
amyloidosis is based on NAS' evaluation and its conclusion that there
is limited or suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide
exposure and AL amyloidosis. The Secretary did not make any
determination concerning any disease other than AL amyloidosis. In this
regard, the Secretary has followed the standards in section 1116(b)
regarding establishing presumptive service connection for a disease
associated with herbicide exposure. The comment states that this rule
amends the ``causality'' criteria of section 1116(b). However, as shown
in Update 2006, after quoting the criteria from section 1116(b), ``[the
NAS committee's] congressional mandate and its statement of task are
phrased in such a way that the target of evaluation is `association,'
not `causality,' between exposure and health outcomes.'' Update 2006,
p. 2.
The commenter's suggestion that this rule is contrary to section
1116(b) rests on the premise that the rule implicitly establishes a
presumption for a group of related diseases, rather than for a specific
disease. We do not agree with that premise. As noted above, the NAS and
VA each made a finding specific to AL amyloidosis. As the commenter
noted, the NAS relied primarily upon studies showing that AL
amyloidosis is pathophysiologically related to other diseases that are
currently presumed to be associated with herbicide exposure. That
analysis, however, should not be interpreted to mean that an
association between herbicide exposure and a particular disease
justifies a finding of such an association for all similar or related
diseases. Rather, the NAS and VA necessarily evaluate the body of
relevant evidence for each disease.
The NAS noted that, because AL amyloidosis is a rare condition,
``it is not likely that population-based epidemiology will ever provide
substantial direct evidence regarding its causation.'' Update 2006, p.
474. By statute, the NAS is directed to assess not only statistical
associations based on epidemiologic studies, but also other factors
such as ``whether there exists a plausible biological mechanism or
other evidence of a causal relationship between herbicide exposure and
the disease.'' Public Law 102-4, section 3(d)(1)(C). It appears that
the NAS may have placed significant weight on the evidence of biologic
plausibility in this instance in part because it is unlikely that other
forms of relevant evidence for or against an association will ever
become available. However, the determinations by NAS and VA concerning
Al amyloidosis cannot reasonably be construed to reflect a shift in
policy deviating from the requirements of section 1116(b), or to
suggest that epidemiologic evidence is irrelevant to determinations
concerning other diseases.
To the extent the commenter suggests an amendment to section
1116(b), such action would require legislation and is beyond the scope
of this rule. We therefore make no change based on this comment.
VA appreciates the comment submitted in response to the proposed
rule. Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and the
rationale contained in this document, we are adopting the provisions of
the proposed rule as a final rule without change.
Administrative Procedures Act
Substantive changes made by this final rule are required to be
effective the date of issuance pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1116(c)(2).
Accordingly, we are dispensing with the delayed effective date
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612. This final rule will not affect any small entities. Only VA
beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final
regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages;
[[Page 21260]]
distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a
``significant regulatory action,'' requiring review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), as any regulatory action that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy,
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been
determined to be a significant regulatory action under the Executive
Order because it is likely to result in a rule that may raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C.
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any year. This final rule would have no such effect on
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and
titles for this rule are 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-
Connected Disability, and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation for Service-Connected Death.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Veterans, Vietnam.
Approved: April 3, 2009.
John R. Gingrich,
Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is amended as
follows:
PART 3--ADJUDICATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation
Sec. 3.309 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 3.309(e), the listing of diseases is amended by adding ``AL
amyloidosis'' immediately preceding ``Chloracne or other acneform
disease consistent with chloracne.''
[FR Doc. E9-10627 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P