Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Skin, 32592-32601 [2018-14957]
Download as PDF
32592
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the safety
zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A above, this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner
or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this rule. If the rule
would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
C. Collection of Information
This rule will not call for a new
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
Government and Indian tribes. If you
believe this rule has implications for
federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023–01 and Commandant
Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety
zone surrounding the vessels and
machinery being used by personnel to
repair the Wilsonville Wastewater
Treatment Plant outfall. It is
categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T13–0647 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T13–0647 Safety Zone; Willamette
River, Wilsonville, OR.
(a) Location. The following area is
designated safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Willamette River
surrounding the Wilsonville Wastewater
Treatment Plant outfall repair vessels
and machinery located in Wilsonville,
OR, encompassed by a line connecting
these points: 45°17′33.1764″ N,
122°46′17.3886″ W; 45°17′31.1958″ N,
122°46′18.1092″ W; 45°17′32.1504″ N,
122°46′8.9544″ W; and 45° 17′ 30.1956″
N, 122° 46′ 8.8746″ W.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with
the general regulations in part 165,
subpart C, of this chapter, no person
may enter or remain in the safety zone
created in this section or bring, cause to
be brought, or allow to remain in the
safety zone created in this section any
vehicle, vessel, or object unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or
his designated representative.
(c) Enforcement period. This safety
zone is in effect from July 9, 2018, until
August 31, 2018. It will be subject to
enforcement this entire period unless
the COTP, Columbia River determines it
is no longer needed. The Coast Guard
will inform mariners of any change to
this period of enforcement via Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
(d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
may enforce the rules in this section.
Dated: July 6, 2018.
D.F. Berliner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain
of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2018–14983 Filed 7–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 4
RIN 2900–AP27
Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Skin
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
On August 12, 2016, VA
published in the Federal Register the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
proposed rule for Schedule for Rating
Disabilities: Skin. VA received multiple
responses during the 60-day comment
period. This final rule implements the
Secretary’s proposed rule with limited
revisions.
This rule is effective on August
13, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary
Reynolds, M.D., Regulations Staff
(211C), Compensation Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–
9700. (This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Applicability
In reviewing the proposed rule to
prepare for publication of the final rule,
VA determined that the statements
regarding the applicability date in the
proposed rule should be revised in
order to avoid potential misapplication
of this final rule. In the proposed rule,
VA stated that the provisions of the new
regulations would apply to all
applications for benefits received by VA
or that are pending before the agency of
original jurisdiction on or after the
effective date of the final rule. VA has
indeed structured some regulations this
way in the past, due to the dynamics of
the regulation in question. See
‘‘Schedule for Rating Disabilities—
Mental Disorders and Definition of
Psychosis for Certain VA Purposes,’’ 80
FR 14308 (March 19, 2015). However,
for this final rule, VA’s intent is that the
claims pending prior to the effective
date will be considered under both old
and new rating criteria, and whatever
criteria is more favorable to the veteran
will be applied. For applications filed
on or after the effective date, only the
new criteria will be applied.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Comments Received
Ten different commenters (including
two Veterans Service Organizations)
submitted comments in response to the
proposed rule. VA will address their
comments within the topics below.
Comments Warranting Revisions to the
Proposed Rule
VA has made five changes to the
proposed rule based on comments
received. First, two commenters noted
that additional guidance regarding
coexistent skin conditions and
pyramiding might be helpful. VA agrees
and has added a clarifying note at the
start of § 4.118(b) which states: ‘‘Two or
more skin conditions may be combined
in accordance with § 4.25 only if
separate areas of skin are involved. If
two or more skin conditions involve the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
same area of skin, then only the highest
evaluation shall be used.’’
Second, two commenters felt that the
proposed language ‘‘per 12-month
period’’ in multiple diagnostic codes
(DCs) was unclear about which 12month period would be used for
evaluation purposes. VA concurs and
has revised the criteria to specify that
‘‘over the past 12-month period’’ is the
applicable time frame for these DCs.
Third, a commenter asserted that the
evaluation criteria for eczema (DC 7806)
should consider itching. Eczema (also
known as atopic dermatitis) is often
called ‘‘the itch that rashes.’’ The
intense itching (without lesions at first)
leads to the scratching, resulting in the
characteristic lesions. See
‘‘Dermatology’’ 210 (Jean Bolognia et al.
eds., 3d ed. 2012). Thus, itching is part
of the pathology in all eczema ratings,
even though only involved areas
(lesions, scars) are considered for
compensation purposes. Based on this
comment, VA has clarified that it is the
area of lesions, not the itching, that
forms the basis of a rating, by revising
in this final rule each criteria level in
the General Rating Formula for the Skin
to include the phrase ‘‘Characteristic
lesions involving. . . .’’
Fourth, a commenter expressed
concern that a long-lasting urticarial
attack with no breaks would qualify for
a 10% rating, rather than a 60% rating
under DC 7825 (Urticaria). VA
understands this concern and has
revised the criteria in this final rule to
be based on the condition’s response to
required treatment. First, VA has
retitled the diagnostic code, ‘‘Chronic
urticaria’’ and added a definition for
chronic urticaria, which is ‘‘continuous
urticaria at least twice per week, off
treatment, for a period of six weeks or
more.’’ A subset of patients has chronic
urticaria that is unresponsive to first
line treatment (antihistamines). If a
patient is also unresponsive to second
line treatment (e.g., epinephrine,
corticosteroids, aminosalicylates), it is
considered refractory chronic urticaria.
It was, and continues to be, VA’s intent
to have evaluation levels that clearly
and distinctly reflect increasing
disability. To that end, VA has revised
the evaluation criteria to more clearly
establish three distinct levels of
disability: (1) Chronic urticaria
requiring first line treatment for control,
(2) chronic urticaria requiring second
line treatment for control, and (3)
chronic urticaria which is refractory to
both first line and second line
treatment. A non-exhaustive list of
examples for first line, second line, and
third line treatment is given with each
evaluation level. This should ensure,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32593
commensurate with the commenter’s
concern, that more severe and less
controllable urticarial attacks receive
higher ratings.
Fifth, a commenter asked if active
psoriatic arthritis would be entitled to a
60% evaluation under DC 7816
(Psoriasis) and a 100% evaluation under
DC 5009 (Arthritis, other types),
allowing for special monthly
compensation at the ‘‘s’’ level, i.e.,
housebound. To clarify that separate
ratings are permissible, VA has added
the term ‘‘separately’’ to the note in DC
7816. Special monthly compensation
would be warranted under 38 CFR
3.350(i)(1), if the psoriasis and the
arthritis constitute ‘‘separate and
distinct’’ disabilities ‘‘involving
different anatomical segments or bodily
systems.’’
Beyond the changes made in response
to comments, this final rule contains
several technical and non-substantive
amendments to the proposed rule.
Comments Related to Systemic and
Topical Therapy and Johnson v.
McDonald
A total of six comments either
disagreed with or questioned VA’s
proposal for defining topical and
systemic therapy in light of the Johnson
v. McDonald decision of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC)
in 2016. That decision found that any
use of a topically-applied corticosteroid
constituted ‘‘systemic therapy’’
pursuant to diagnostic code 7806.
However, in July 2017, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal
Circuit) reversed the CAVC’s
interpretation. See Johnson v. Shulkin,
862 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The
Federal Circuit held that the CAVC was
incorrect to ‘‘read DC 7806 as
unambiguously elevating any form of
corticosteroid treatment, including any
degree of topical corticosteroid
treatment, to the level of ‘systemic
therapy.’’’ Id. at 1354.
Although VA’s proposal for systemic
and topical therapy was in part a
reaction to the CAVC’s now-reversed
Johnson decision, its aim was also to
provide clarity for raters adjudicating
these claims. VA proposed to clarify
that treatment administered through the
skin is ‘‘topical therapy,’’ while
treatment administered through any
route other than the skin (orally,
injection, suppository, intranasally) is
‘‘systemic therapy.’’ This final rule
adopts VA’s proposal. One theme of the
comments was that topically-applied
medications could be considered
systemic therapy or could have systemic
effects. In this regard, one commenter
questioned why VA does not provide
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
32594
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
more information as to the potential
systemic effects of topically-applied
corticosteroids, and another asserted
that topically-applied medications can
cause heightened effects in elderly
populations.
As noted in the supplementary
information to the proposed rule,
however, it creates a dramatic
disconnect to rate a medication applied
to the skin—affecting only the localized
area to which it is applied—as
‘‘systemic therapy’’ that affects the
entire body. Rather, the prevailing
medical understanding is that ‘‘topical’’
therapy ‘‘pertain[s] to a particular
surface area . . . and affect[s] only the
area to which it is applied,’’ while
‘‘systemic’’ therapy ‘‘pertain[s] to or
affect[s] the body as a whole.’’ Dorland’s
Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1865,
1940 (32d ed. 2012). VA’s proposal,
adopted as a final rule here, sets clear
guidelines in accordance with this
understanding: creams applied to the
skin are ‘‘topical therapy,’’ and
treatments applied in a way (orally,
intranasally, etc.) that the medication
circulates throughout the entire body
and suppresses the immune system as a
whole are ‘‘systemic therapy.’’
VA also acknowledged in the
supplementary information that some
medications applied to the skin, if
administered on a large enough scale,
could have a systemic effect; but in
those situations the veteran can obtain
a higher rating due to the percentage of
the body affected. For example, a
veteran who is required to apply a
cream on his entire body is not subject
to a noncompensable rating; even
though he is not taking systemic
therapy, he would obtain a compensable
rating under this final rule based on the
percentage of his body affected by the
condition.
Overall, the aim of this rule is to
clarify the terms used in the rating
schedule, in order to distinguish
between a condition that affects a large
portion of the body or requires therapy
affecting the entire body, and a
condition that is localized and involves
localized treatment. The former
generally impairs earning capacity more
than the latter. To the extent that
topically-applied medications might
affect different people (such as the
elderly) in different ways, the rating
schedule is based on the average
impairment in earning capacity. 38
U.S.C. 1155. If there is an exceptional or
unusual effect of applying corticosteroid
cream, a claimant can submit argument
for an extraschedular rating. 38 CFR
3.321(b)(1). VA can also raise the issue
of an extraschedular rating on its own
when the evidence of record suggests
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
such consideration is appropriate. This
is why VA cannot provide more specific
information on the potential systemic
effects of topically-applied
corticosteroids: the potency of the
medication, the amount of skin affected,
and the strength of the condition, will
vary from veteran to veteran.
One comment on this topic advocated
that VA should automatically assume
that topical corticosteroids have
systemic effects based on the benefit-ofthe-doubt standard. The benefit-of-thedoubt rule, however, applies to the
adjudication of claims, not formulation
of the rating schedule. 38 U.S.C.
5107(b). This commenter further stated
that certain skin conditions cannot be
cured, but only treated, and that the
burden of applying medication with
little effect is not taken into
consideration in the proposed rule. To
the contrary, frequency in application is
a factor in the schedule for rating
systemic therapy, but it remains VA’s
assessment that applying cream on the
skin of less than 5% of the body reflects
a condition that does not impair earning
capacity at a compensable level.
Two additional commenters viewed
the proposed rule as an attempt to
circumvent or undermine the CAVC’s
ruling. These comments are obviated by
the fact that the CAVC’s ruling has been
reversed. See Johnson v. Shulkin, supra.
But even if it had not been reversed, it
is well established that a judicial
interpretation of regulatory language
does not preclude an agency from
revising that language (for prospective
application) pursuant to its rulemaking
authority. See Nat’l Org. of Veterans
Advocates Inc., v. Sec’y of Veterans
Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (argument that CAVC holdings
prevent revision of regulations
‘‘seriously misunderstand[s] . . . the
nature of the judicial function.’’). VA
may clarify the rating schedule to
accord with its original intent in
promulgating these diagnostic codes.
One of these commenters added that
skin conditions can cause real pain and
embarrassment and should not be
devalued. We understand this concern,
but the objective criteria of (1)
percentage of body affected and (2)
mode and frequency of therapy are
better suited in determining average
impairment of earning capacity than an
individual’s level of embarrassment.
Another commenter questioned the
consistency of the proposed definition
for systemic therapy with DC 6602 and
the overall rating schedule. This rule is
consistent with DC 6602—which
defines ‘‘systemic’’ corticosteroids as
‘‘oral or parenteral,’’ i.e., the
corticosteroids that circulate throughout
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the body and affect the entire immune
system. We are unaware, and the
commenter does not provide further
information, as to how the rule is
inconsistent with other portions of the
rating schedule.
Finally, two commenters asserted that
VA is emphasizing topical treatment in
order to save money at the expense of
quality care. This rule, however, should
not affect how doctors treat conditions;
rather, its aim is to clarify terms for
raters adjudicating claims. We are not
aware of any VA instruction that its
doctors prescribe topical treatment to
save money when it is not best for the
patient.
Comments Recommending Revisions to
Evaluation Criteria
A number of comments recommended
revisions to criteria within the proposed
rule. VA received two comments
regarding DC 7806, Dermatitis or
eczema. One comment has been
addressed above and prompted a
revision to this final rule. The other
comment requested that VA include
biopsy results in the evaluation criteria,
because eczema can occur sporadically
over the year and a doctor might only
take account of what is observable
during the examination. VA declines to
make changes based upon this
comment. The General Rating Formula
for the Skin employs two routes to
compensation, based on either the
extent of skin involvement or the
intensity of treatment. If the condition
requires constant or near-constant
systemic therapy, then, regardless of the
extent of skin involvement at the time
of examination, the veteran would be
entitled to the highest evaluation. It is
unclear how criteria based on biopsy
results would be more favorable to
veterans than this scheme. Moreover,
obtaining a biopsy for every ratable skin
condition is not necessarily appropriate,
and a service-connected veteran is free
to request an additional examination if
a skin disorder becomes more extensive
than what was observed during a given
examination. VA received two
comments concerning DC 7817,
Erythroderma. One comment asked why
the ‘‘treatment failure’’ language was
incorporated into the proposed criteria
when the term ‘‘uncontrolled’’ in the
evaluation criteria for diabetes (DC
7913) ‘‘was found to be problematic.’’
VA incorporated language regarding
‘‘treatment failure’’ here because it is
easily measured and can be applied by
rating officials with consistent results.
Treatment failure is a common
occurrence with erythroderma, and we
see no connection to the term
‘‘uncontrolled’’ in a diagnostic code for
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
a different condition (diabetes) that was
revised over two decades ago. The
second comment asked whether VA
would use the new DC 7817 criteria for
pending appeals. As explained above,
VA will only apply the new criteria to
pending appeals if it is advantageous to
the appellant.
One comment addressed DC 7824,
Diseases of keratinization. The
commenter stated that we would be
underrating diseases of keratinization by
moving them to the General Rating
Formula for the Skin, where it would
not account for systemic manifestations.
While VA concurs that the term
‘‘systemic manifestations’’ is not
employed within the General Rating
Formula for the Skin, this change does
not adversely affect the veteran. Under
the version of DC 7824 that is being
revised by this final rule, a veteran
needs both ‘‘systemic manifestations’’
and ‘‘systemic medication’’ for a 30% or
60% rating if there is not generalized
cutaneous involvement. Now, under
this final rule, a veteran with a disease
of keratinization can receive such a
rating for taking ‘‘systemic therapy’’
even without any systemic
manifestations. This change simplifies
the evaluation for veterans with diseases
of keratinization.
Three comments requested changes to
DC 7825, Urticaria, and DC 7826,
Vasculitis, primary cutaneous. One
comment has been addressed above,
resulting in a revision to the final rule.
Another comment asserted that the term
‘‘documented’’ in DC 7826 should not
require evidence of a visit to a
physician, clinic, or hospital, because
those already on medication may not
seek medical attention if they are used
to managing their condition. That
commenter requested that VA clarify
that lay evidence fulfills the
‘‘documented’’ standard.
VA understands that lay evidence
must be considered when VA
adjudicators evaluate a claim, and
nothing in this final rule is meant to
undercut that principle. On the other
hand, virtually the entire VA ratings
schedule requires some kind of
documentation or objective testing in
order to gauge the severity of a
disability. In that vein, this final rule
requires that vasculitic episodes be
‘‘documented’’ for a higher rating.
Though the rule does not state that the
only acceptable documentation is a
doctor’s contemporaneous confirmation,
a veteran whose disease is not under
control and continues to prompt
episodes would most likely see a
provider multiple times within a 12month period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
The third commenter found it
problematic that the criteria would
allow mild, frequent attacks to be rated
higher than more severe and longer
attacks. This commenter also stated that
a reliance on treatment modality is
problematic, because biologics are
impossible for veterans with weakened
immune systems and others are
prescribed unevenly.
VA’s change to DC 7825 in this final
rule obviates this comment, as the
urticaria criteria are no longer reliant on
the number of attacks. VA also disagrees
that basing evaluation criteria on
treatment modality is problematic. Each
line of treatment for chronic urticaria
(first line, second line, or third line) has
more than one treatment option
available, so the fact that one particular
option is poorly tolerated does not
imply that veterans will be inaccurately
rated.
VA received three comments
involving areas of affected skin,
including requests to add forearms and
lower legs as exposed areas. One of the
commenters explained that, in summer
temperatures, veterans cannot be
expected to work with their forearms
and lower legs covered. A second stated
that there is no equitable definition of
exposed skin, and doctors are
commonly recommending more
sunlight for psoriasis. The third
suggested the work group identify
which technique for measuring the area
of involved skin would be best suited
for evaluation purposes.
VA will not make any revisions to the
final rule based on the above comments,
as VA is unaware of any occupations
that require exposed forearms or lower
legs, i.e., mandate such exposure as part
of the job. Furthermore, dermatologists
(who are the subject matter experts
when it comes to conditions affecting
the skin) have already decided how to
calculate involved skin area and what
constitutes a routinely exposed area;
and the established medical practice in
that field is to consider only the head,
neck, and hands consistently and truly
exposed, as long-sleeved shirts and fulllength pants have customarily been
considered part of the typical clothing
used in occupational settings. There is
no justification, medical or otherwise, to
change from established practice. Lastly,
a treatment recommendation to get more
sunlight for psoriatic skin neither
precludes nor interferes with
employment, and thus should have no
bearing on the rating criteria.
VA received two comments about
alopecia, specifically DC 7830, Scarring
alopecia, and DC 7831, Alopecia areata.
One comment asserted that DC 7831
should provide a compensable rating for
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32595
loss of scalp hair, since it is an exposed
area. The other comment recommended
a higher evaluation under DC 7830 for
women, because this condition is more
socially debilitating for women and, as
a result, women incur a higher financial
responsibility to deal with the
condition. VA is sympathetic to these
issues and understands the social
aspects of hair loss. Nevertheless, the
rating schedule is based on the loss of
wage-earning capacity and no reliable
evidence establishes significant
occupational impairment with loss of
body hair, or that occupational
impairment is greater in women than in
men with scarring alopecia. As such,
VA will not revise the final rule based
on these two comments.
As to the final comments, one
requested a note adding consideration of
the effect of disfigurement on the
veteran’s mental health. VA
acknowledges that secondary service
connection under 38 CFR 3.310 may be
possible for a mental health disability
that is found to be causally related to a
service-connected skin disability.
However, we believe this is clear from
38 CFR 3.310, such that a note is not
necessary here. The second questioned
why evaluation criteria do not comment
on conditions caused by the failure of
the immune system, such as
lymphedema, which affect the skin and
may require compression therapy.
Although lymphedema may be
evaluated under diagnostic codes
pertaining to the skin if it disfigures
and/or scars the skin, see 38 CFR 4.116,
DC 7627–7628 (evaluating lymphedema
‘‘under the appropriate diagnostic
code(s) within the appropriate body
system’’), it is ultimately a lymphatic
condition, not a skin condition, such
that its consideration would be outside
the scope of both the proposed and final
rules for the skin.
Comments Regarding Interplay of
Regulations
VA received a number of comments
seeking clarification or guidance on the
interplay between section 4.118 and
other regulations.
Three comments implicated the
relationship between part 3 regulations
and section 4.118. One comment
regarding multiple ratings for psoriatic
arthritis has been addressed above,
resulting in a revision in this final rule.
Another comment asked if VA would
service connect disabilities to other
body systems resulting from the
treatment of skin conditions. Generally,
yes, VA may grant secondary service
connection as long as the standards
found in 38 CFR 3.310 are met.
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
32596
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
A third comment questioned the
consistency between the definition of
chronic in 38 CFR 3.380 (diseases of
allergic etiology) and the definition in
DCs 7825 and 7826. No inconsistencies
exist, as 38 CFR 3.380 addresses service
connection, while DCs 7825 and 7826
address evaluation, and none of these
provisions address the term ‘‘chronic.’’
This commenter continued by stating:
‘‘Confusion regarding ‘service
connection’ and evaluation criteria
applies to the ‘continuous use’ and
‘disabling effects of medication’ to
suggest that VA will concede secondary
service connection [38 CFR 3.310] in
cases with facts similar to those
described (or are these functional
impairments simply acute and
transitory or will this be pyramiding?).’’
VA finds this portion of the comment
unclear and is unable to respond.
The remaining comments covered the
relationship between section 4.118 and
other part 4 regulations. One commenter
assumed that combined ratings would
result from DCs 7801 and 7802. To the
contrary, the General Rating Formula for
the Skin instructs the rater to use the
relevant criteria or rate under DCs 7800,
7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805. Hence, the
guidance precludes combining of
disability criteria in this regard. Another
comment asked about the difference
between the six zones of the body in 38
CFR 4.118 and the five anatomic zones
of 38 CFR 4.55(b). VA intends that the
six zones in this final rule are specific
for the skin and not intended to reflect
a global standard to be applied for all
body systems. Yet another comment
asked about the difference between
‘‘anogenital region’’ (noted in DC 7829)
and ‘‘pruritus ani’’ (DC 7337), and
whether these ratings may be combined.
‘‘Anogenital region’’ is an anatomic area
that may be affected by chloracne (DC
7829), whereas ‘‘pruritus ani’’ is an
itching near the rectum. VA may
separately evaluate these conditions and
combine them in accordance with 38
CFR 4.25.
Still another assertion involving DC
7829 and other part 4 regulations was
that ‘‘[i]ntertriginous areas and
limitation of function are problematic.
The axilla of the arm and the range of
motion of the shoulder are similar to the
facts in [Cullen v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App.
74 (2010)].’’ We discern no problem in
the language of DC 7829 or conflict with
Cullen. VA may separately evaluate
disability related to acne (skin) and a
disability affecting the shoulder
(musculoskeletal). One last question
presented by this commenter asked if
the reference to ‘‘skin folds of the
breasts’’ in DC 7829 could be used to
justify a 20 percent evaluation by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
analogy under DC 7628, benign
neoplasms. Because DC 7628 permits
rating benign neoplasms as a skin
condition, such a rating by analogy may
be possible.
Comments Recommending Additional
Diagnostic Codes
VA received four comments
recommending additional diagnostic
codes: One comment recommending
additional codes generally to reduce
analogous coding, and three other
comments recommending codes for
lymphedema (and/or skin conditions
caused by immune system failure),
pressure ulcers, actinic keratoses, and
rosacea. VA finds these additions
unnecessary. As noted above, VA may
evaluate lymphedema which disfigures
and/or scars the skin under DCs 7801,
7802, 7804, or 7805. Furthermore,
pressure ulcers normally are not
considered a skin condition warranting
compensation. Actinic keratoses and
rosacea are not occupationally
significant. VA is willing to consider
adding diagnostic codes for skin
conditions that are occupationally
significant.
Comment Outside the Scope of the
Proposed Rule
VA received a comment asking why
the Food and Drug Administration
could not find another manufacturer for
EpiPen®. The EpiPen question is well
outside the scope of this rule, so VA
will not respond to it.
Comment Regarding Public Access
The last issue raised by a commenter
dealt with public access to the materials
developed by the Skin Disorders Work
Group after a public forum in New York
City in January 2012 but before the
drafting of the proposed rule.
Specifically, the commenter requested
that the information developed and
shared by the work group should be
publicly available.
In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to
the proposed rule, VA included
information about the Skin Disorders
Work Group. See 81 FR 53353, 53353
(Aug. 12, 2016). As noted, the stated
goals of the work group included
improving and updating VA Schedule
for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) criteria,
and inviting public participation; this
process included presentations on areas
of expertise and interaction with the
public at a public forum in January
2012. (A transcript of this public forum
and all related materials are on file and
available for public inspection in the
Office of Regulation and Policy
Management. Contact information for
that office is noted in the ADDRESSES
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
section of the proposed rule. See 81 FR
at 53358.) The work group served as an
initial call to various subject matter
experts and Veterans Service
Organizations to provide a preliminary
review of the VASRD from both internal
and external stakeholders.
VA emphasizes that this review of the
VASRD was not an opportunity for work
group members to participate in the
deliberative rulemaking process; the
work group discussed the general topic
of the VASRD body system and
provided feedback on the areas that
were subject to advances since the last
major revision of the body system. To
this end, where changes to the scientific
and/or medical nature of a given
condition were made in the proposed
rule, VA cited the published, publiclyavailable source for these changes. Not
only did this provide the public with
access to the source for a given
proposed change, it also confirmed that
VA relied upon peer-reviewed scientific
and medical information to support a
given change. While similar information
may have been presented by a work
group member, VA relied upon the
published document(s) as the primary
source for a change and included such
sources in the administrative record for
this rulemaking. VA did not propose
scientific and/or medical changes to the
VASRD in the absence of publicly
available, peer-reviewed sources.
Accordingly, references in the
proposed rule to the work group serve
as an explanatory background and
introduction to the VASRD rewrite
project; the changes made by this
rulemaking are not a reflection of the
work group or any work group member.
All changes based on scientific and/or
medical information are a reflection of
cited, published materials which are
available to the public. VA has made
deliberative materials available (via
citation in the rulemaking) and is
providing access to materials from the
public forum available for public
inspection at the Office of Regulation
Policy and Management.
Effective Date of Final Rule
Veterans Benefits Administration
personnel utilize the Veterans Benefits
Management System for Rating (VBMS–
R) to process disability compensation
claims that involve disability
evaluations made under the VASRD. In
order to ensure that there is no delay in
processing veterans’ claims, VA must
coordinate the effective date of this final
rule with corresponding VBMS–R
system updates. As such, this final rule
will apply effective August 13, 2018, the
date VBMS–R system updates related to
this final rule will be complete.
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
32597
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ which requires
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 this Executive Order.’’
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this regulatory action
have been examined and it has been
determined not to be a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. VA’s impact analysis can be
found as a supporting document at
https://www.regulations.gov, usually
within 48 hours after the rulemaking
document is published. Additionally, a
copy of the rulemaking and its impact
analysis are available on VA’s website at
https://www.va.gov/orpm by following
the link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published
from FY 2004 through Fiscal Year to
Date.’’ This rule is not an Executive
Order 13771 regulatory action because
this rule is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
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 rule would
directly affect only individuals and
would not directly affect small entities.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
this rulemaking is exempt from the
initial and final regulatory flexibility
analysis requirements of sections 603
and 604.
to the Office of the Federal Register for
electronic publication as an official
document of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Acting
Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans
Affairs, approved this document on June
28, 2018, for publication.
Unfunded Mandates
Dated: June 28, 2018.
Jeffrey M. Martin,
Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy
& Management, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to submit it
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
one year. This final rule will have no
such effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
This final rule contains provisions
constituting a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521).
Specifically, this final rule is associated
with information collections related to
the application for disability benefits
(VA Form 21–526EZ), as well as
Disability Benefits Questionnaires
(DBQs), which enable a claimant to
gather the necessary information from
his or her treating physician as to the
current symptoms and severity of a
disability (VA Forms 21–0960F–1,
Scars/Disfigurement DBQ, and 21–
0960F–2, Skin Diseases DBQ). These
information collections are currently
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and have been
assigned OMB control numbers 2900–
0749 (for the application) and 2900–
0776 (for the DBQs). VA has reviewed
the impact of this final rule on these
information collections and determined
that the incremental information
collection burden for the first year of
this rule is $8,828.20.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance number and title for the
program affected by this document is
64.109, Veterans Compensation for
Service-Connected Disability.
Signing Authority
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Disability benefits, Pensions,
Veterans.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs amends 38 CFR part 4, subpart
B, as follows:
PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING
DISABILITIES
Subpart B—Disability Ratings
Paperwork Reduction Act
PO 00000
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4
1. The authority citation for part 4
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 4.118 as follows:
a. Remove the introductory text;
■ b. Add paragraphs (a) and (b) before
the table;
■ c. Revise the entries for diagnostic
codes 7801, 7802, and 7805;
■ d. Add an entry for ‘‘GENERAL
RATING FORMULA FOR THE SKIN
FOR DCs 7806, 7809, 7813–7816, 7820–
7822, AND 7824’’, to appear after the
entry for diagnostic code 7805; and
■ e. Revise the entries for diagnostic
codes 7806, 7809, 7813, 7815–7817,
7820–7822, and 7824–7829.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 4.118
Schedule of ratings–skin.
(a) For the purposes of this section,
systemic therapy is treatment that is
administered through any route (orally,
injection, suppository, intranasally)
other than the skin, and topical therapy
is treatment that is administered
through the skin.
(b) Two or more skin conditions may
be combined in accordance with § 4.25
only if separate areas of skin are
involved. If two or more skin conditions
involve the same area of skin, then only
the highest evaluation shall be used.
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
32598
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Rating
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7801 Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are associated with underlying soft tissue
damage:
Area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater .............................................................................................................
Area or areas of at least 72 square inches (465 sq. cm.) but less than 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) .......................................
Area or areas of at least 12 square inches (77 sq. cm.) but less than 72 square inches (465 sq. cm.) ...........................................
Area or areas of at least 6 square inches (39 sq. cm.) but less than 12 square inches (77 sq. cm.) ...............................................
Note (1): For the purposes of DCs 7801 and 7802, the six (6) zones of the body are defined as each extremity, anterior trunk,
and posterior trunk. The midaxillary line divides the anterior trunk from the posterior trunk.
Note (2): A separate evaluation may be assigned for each affected zone of the body under this diagnostic code if there are multiple scars, or a single scar, affecting multiple zones of the body. Combine the separate evaluations under § 4.25. Alternatively, if a higher evaluation would result from adding the areas affected from multiple zones of the body, a single evaluation may also be assigned under this diagnostic code.
7802 Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying soft tissue
damage:
Area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater .............................................................................................................
Note (1): For the purposes of DCs 7801 and 7802, the six (6) zones of the body are defined as each extremity, anterior trunk,
and posterior trunk. The midaxillary line divides the anterior trunk from the posterior trunk.
Note (2): A separate evaluation may be assigned for each affected zone of the body under this diagnostic code if there are multiple scars, or a single scar, affecting multiple zones of the body. Combine the separate evaluations under § 4.25. Alternatively, if a higher evaluation would result from adding the areas affected from multiple zones of the body, a single evaluation may also be assigned under this diagnostic code.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7805 Scars, other; and other effects of scars evaluated under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804:
Evaluate any disabling effect(s) not considered in a rating provided under diagnostic codes 7800–04 under an appropriate diagnostic code.
General Rating Formula For The Skin For DCs 7806, 7809, 7813–7816, 7820–7822, and 7824:
At least one of the following .................................................................................................................................................................
Characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or
Constant or near-constant systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics,
photochemotherapy, psoralen with long-wave ultraviolet-A light (PUVA), or other immunosuppressive drugs required over the
past 12-month period ........................................................................................................................................................................
At least one of the following .................................................................................................................................................................
Characteristic lesions involving more than 20 to 40 percent of the entire body or 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or
Systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or
other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but not constantly, over the past 12-month
period.
At least one of the following .................................................................................................................................................................
Characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or
At least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or
Intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy,
PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12-month period.
No more than topical therapy required over the past 12-month period and at least one of the following ..........................................
Characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of the entire body affected; or
Characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of exposed areas affected.
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805), depending upon the
predominant disability. This rating instruction does not apply to DC 7824.
7806 Dermatitis or eczema.
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
7809 Discoid lupus erythematosus.
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
Note: Do not combine with ratings under DC 6350.
*
*
*
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
10
60
60
30
10
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7813 Dermatophytosis (ringworm: Of body, tinea corporis; of head, tinea capitis; of feet, tinea pedis; of beard area, tinea barbae; of
nails, tinea unguium (onychomycosis); of inguinal area (jock itch), tinea cruris; tinea versicolor).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
7815 Bullous disorders (including pemphigus vulgaris, pemphigus foliaceous, bullous pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis,
epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, benign chronic familial pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey), and porphyria cutanea tarda).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
Note: Rate complications and residuals of mucosal involvement (ocular, oral, gastrointestinal, respiratory, or genitourinary) separately under the appropriate diagnostic code.
7816 Psoriasis.
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
Note: Rate complications such as psoriatic arthritis and other clinical manifestations (e.g., oral mucosa, nails) separately under
the appropriate diagnostic code.
7817 Erythroderma:
Generalized involvement of the skin with systemic manifestations (such as fever, weight loss, or hypoproteinemia) AND one of
the following ......................................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
40
30
20
10
100
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
32599
Rating
Constant or near-constant systemic therapy such as therapeutic doses of corticosteroids, other immunosuppressive drugs,
retinoids, PUVA (psoralen with long-wave ultraviolet-A light), UVB (ultraviolet-B light) treatments, biologics, or electron beam
therapy required over the past 12 month period; or
No current treatment due to a documented history of treatment failure with 2 or more treatment regimens .....................................
Generalized involvement of the skin without systemic manifestations and one of the following.
Constant or near-constant systemic therapy such as therapeutic doses of corticosteroids, other immunosuppressive drugs,
retinoids, PUVA, UVB treatments, biologics, or electron beam therapy required over the past 12-month period; or ....................
No current treatment due to a documented history of treatment failure with 1 treatment regimen ....................................................
Any extent of involvement of the skin, and any of the following therapies required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but
not constantly, over the past 12-month period: systemic therapy such as therapeutic doses of corticosteroids, other immunosuppressive drugs, retinoids, PUVA, UVB treatments, biologics, or electron beam therapy ..........................................................
Any extent of involvement of the skin, and any of the following therapies required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over
the past 12-month period: systemic therapy such as therapeutic doses of corticosteroids, other immunosuppressive drugs,
retinoids, PUVA, UVB treatments, biologics, or electron beam therapy ..........................................................................................
Any extent of involvement of the skin, and no more than topical therapy required over the past 12-month period ..........................
Note: Treatment failure is defined as either disease progression, or less than a 25 percent reduction in the extent and severity
of disease after four weeks of prescribed therapy, as documented by medical records.
100
60
30
10
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7820 Infections of the skin not listed elsewhere (including bacterial, fungal, viral, treponemal, and parasitic diseases).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
7821 Cutaneous manifestations of collagen-vascular diseases not listed elsewhere (including scleroderma, calcinosis cutis,
subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and dermatomyositis).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7822 Papulosquamous disorders not listed elsewhere (including lichen planus, large or small plaque parapsoriasis, pityriasis
lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), lymphomatoid papulosus, mycosis fungoides, and pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP)).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7824 Diseases of keratinization (including icthyoses, Darier’s disease, and palmoplantar keratoderma).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin.
7825 Chronic urticaria:
For the purposes of this diagnostic code, chronic urticaria is defined as continuous urticaria at least twice per week, off treatment, for a period of six weeks or more.
Chronic refractory urticaria that requires third line treatment for control (e.g., plasmapheresis, immunotherapy,
immunosuppressives) due to ineffectiveness with first and second line treatments .......................................................................
Chronic urticaria that requires second line treatment (e.g., corticosteroids, sympathomimetics, leukotriene inhibitors, neutrophil
inhibitors, thyroid hormone) for control .............................................................................................................................................
Chronic urticaria that requires first line treatment (antihistamines) for control ....................................................................................
7826 Vasculitis, primary cutaneous:
Persistent documented vasculitis episodes refractory to continuous immunosuppressive therapy ....................................................
All of the following ................................................................................................................................................................................
Recurrent documented vasculitic episodes occurring four or more times over the past 12-month period; and
Requiring intermittent systemic immunosuppressive therapy for control .............................................................................................
At least one of the following .................................................................................................................................................................
Recurrent documented vasculitic episodes occurring one to three times over the past 12-month period, and requiring intermittent
systemic immunosuppressive therapy for control; or
Without recurrent documented vasculitic episodes but requiring continuous systemic medication for control.
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805), depending upon the
predominant disability.
7827 Erythema multiforme; Toxic epidermal necrolysis:
Recurrent mucosal, palmar, or plantar involvement impairing mastication, use of hands, or ambulation occurring four or more
times over the past 12-month period despite ongoing immunosuppressive therapy .......................................................................
All of the following ................................................................................................................................................................................
Recurrent mucosal, palmar, or plantar involvement not impairing mastication, use of hands, or ambulation, occurring four or
more times over the past 12-month period; and requiring intermittent systemic therapy.
At least one of the following .................................................................................................................................................................
One to three episodes of mucosal, palmar, or plantar involvement not impairing mastication, use of hands, or ambulation, occurring over the past 12-month period AND requiring intermittent systemic therapy; or
Without recurrent episodes, but requiring continuous systemic medication for control.
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805), depending upon the
predominant disability.
Note: For the purposes of this DC only, systemic therapy may consist of one or more of the following treatment agents:
immunosuppressives, antihistamines, or sympathomimetics.
7828 Acne:
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) affecting 40 percent or more of the face and neck ...................................
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) affecting less than 40 percent of the face and neck, or deep acne other
than on the face and neck ................................................................................................................................................................
Superficial acne (comedones, papules, pustules) of any extent ................................................................................................................
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805), depending upon the
predominant disability.
7829 Chloracne:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
60
30
10
60
30
30
10
60
30
10
30
10
0
32600
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Rating
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) affecting 40 percent or more of the face and neck ...................................
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) affecting the intertriginous areas (the axilla of the arm, the anogenital
region, skin folds of the breasts, or between digits) ........................................................................................................................
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) affecting less than 40 percent of the face and neck; or deep acne affecting non-intertriginous areas of the body (other than the face and neck) ...................................................................................
Superficial acne (comedones, papules, pustules) of any extent .........................................................................................................
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805), depending upon the
predominant disability.
*
*
*
3. Amend appendix A to part 4 in the
table under Sec. 4.118 by revising the
entries for diagnostic codes 7801, 7802,
*
4.118 ........
*
*
7805, 7806, 7809, 7813, 7815 through
7817, and 7820–7833 to read as follows:
■
Section
*
*
30
20
10
0
*
Appendix A to Part 4—Table of
Amendments and Effective Dates Since
1946
Diagnostic
Code No.
7800
7801
7802
*
*
*
*
*
*
Evaluation August 30, 2002; criterion October 23, 2008.
Criterion July 6, 1950; criterion August 30, 2002; criterion October 23, 2008; title, note 1, note 2 August 13, 2018.
Criterion September 22, 1978; criterion August 30, 2002; criterion October 23, 2008; title, note 1, note 2 August
13, 2018.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Criterion October 23, 2008; title August 13, 2018.
General Rating Formula for DCs 7806, 7809, 7813–7816, 7820–7822, and 7824 added August 13, 2018.
7806 Criterion September 9, 1975; evaluation August 30, 2002; criterion August 13, 2018.
7805
*
*
*
*
Criterion August 30, 2002; title, criterion August 13, 2018.
*
*
*
7809
*
*
*
Criterion August 30, 2002; title, criterion August 13, 2018.
*
*
*
7813
*
*
*
*
Evaluation August 30, 2002; criterion, note August 13, 2018.
Evaluation August 30, 2002; criterion, note August 13, 2018.
Evaluation August 30, 2002; title, criterion, note August 13, 2018.
*
*
7815
7816
7817
*
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
Added
*
*
*
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
August
August
August
August
August
August
August
August
August
August
August
August
August
August
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
30,
*
*
criterion August 13, 2018.
title, criterion August 13, 2018.
title, criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
title, criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
criterion August 13, 2018.
*
4. Amend appendix B to part 4 under
the heading ‘‘THE SKIN’’ by revising the
■
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
*
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
2002;
*
entries for diagnostic codes 7801, 7802,
7805, 7809, 7813, 7817, 7821, 7822, and
7825 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 4—Numerical Index
of Disabilities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
32601
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Diagnostic
Code No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
THE SKIN
*
7801 .........
7802 .........
*
*
*
*
*
*
Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck that are associated with underlying soft tissue damage.
Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage.
*
7805 .........
*
*
*
*
*
Scars, other; and other effects of scars evaluated under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804.
*
*
7809 .........
*
Discoid lupus erythematosus.
*
*
*
*
*
*
7813 .........
*
Dermatophytosis.
*
*
*
*
*
*
7817 .........
*
*
*
*
*
*
Erythroderma.
*
7821 .........
7822 .........
*
*
*
*
Cutaneous manifestations of collagen-vascular diseases not listed elsewhere.
Papulosquamous disorders not listed elsewhere.
*
*
*
7825 .........
*
Chronic urticaria.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5. Amend appendix C to part 4 as
follows:
■ a. Revise the entry for ‘‘Cutaneous
manifestations of collagen-vascular
diseases’’ (diagnostic code 7821);
■
b. Add in alphabetical order an entry
for ‘‘Erythroderma’’;
■ c. Remove the entry for ‘‘Exfoliative
dermatitis’’;
■ d. Revise the entry for ‘‘Scars’’; and
■
e. Revise the entry for ‘‘Urticaria’’
(diagnostic code 7825).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
Appendix C to Part 4—Alphabetical
Index of Disabilities
Diagnostic
Code No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Erythroderma .......................................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Scars:
Burn scar(s) of the head, face, or neck; scar(s) of the head, face, or neck due to other causes; or other disfigurement of
the head, face, or neck .............................................................................................................................................................
Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck that are associated with underlying soft tissue
damage .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Retina ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
Scars, other; and other effects of scars evaluated under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804 ...................................
Unstable or painful .......................................................................................................................................................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
*
Cutaneous manifestations of collagen-vascular diseases not listed elsewhere .................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Urticaria, chronic. ..........................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–14957 Filed 7–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:02 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
7821
7817
7800
7801
7802
6011
7805
7804
7825
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32592-32601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14957]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 4
RIN 2900-AP27
Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Skin
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 12, 2016, VA published in the Federal Register the
[[Page 32593]]
proposed rule for Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Skin. VA received
multiple responses during the 60-day comment period. This final rule
implements the Secretary's proposed rule with limited revisions.
DATES: This rule is effective on August 13, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Reynolds, M.D., Regulations Staff
(211C), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicability
In reviewing the proposed rule to prepare for publication of the
final rule, VA determined that the statements regarding the
applicability date in the proposed rule should be revised in order to
avoid potential misapplication of this final rule. In the proposed
rule, VA stated that the provisions of the new regulations would apply
to all applications for benefits received by VA or that are pending
before the agency of original jurisdiction on or after the effective
date of the final rule. VA has indeed structured some regulations this
way in the past, due to the dynamics of the regulation in question. See
``Schedule for Rating Disabilities--Mental Disorders and Definition of
Psychosis for Certain VA Purposes,'' 80 FR 14308 (March 19, 2015).
However, for this final rule, VA's intent is that the claims pending
prior to the effective date will be considered under both old and new
rating criteria, and whatever criteria is more favorable to the veteran
will be applied. For applications filed on or after the effective date,
only the new criteria will be applied.
Comments Received
Ten different commenters (including two Veterans Service
Organizations) submitted comments in response to the proposed rule. VA
will address their comments within the topics below.
Comments Warranting Revisions to the Proposed Rule
VA has made five changes to the proposed rule based on comments
received. First, two commenters noted that additional guidance
regarding coexistent skin conditions and pyramiding might be helpful.
VA agrees and has added a clarifying note at the start of Sec.
4.118(b) which states: ``Two or more skin conditions may be combined in
accordance with Sec. 4.25 only if separate areas of skin are involved.
If two or more skin conditions involve the same area of skin, then only
the highest evaluation shall be used.''
Second, two commenters felt that the proposed language ``per 12-
month period'' in multiple diagnostic codes (DCs) was unclear about
which 12-month period would be used for evaluation purposes. VA concurs
and has revised the criteria to specify that ``over the past 12-month
period'' is the applicable time frame for these DCs.
Third, a commenter asserted that the evaluation criteria for eczema
(DC 7806) should consider itching. Eczema (also known as atopic
dermatitis) is often called ``the itch that rashes.'' The intense
itching (without lesions at first) leads to the scratching, resulting
in the characteristic lesions. See ``Dermatology'' 210 (Jean Bolognia
et al. eds., 3d ed. 2012). Thus, itching is part of the pathology in
all eczema ratings, even though only involved areas (lesions, scars)
are considered for compensation purposes. Based on this comment, VA has
clarified that it is the area of lesions, not the itching, that forms
the basis of a rating, by revising in this final rule each criteria
level in the General Rating Formula for the Skin to include the phrase
``Characteristic lesions involving. . . .''
Fourth, a commenter expressed concern that a long-lasting
urticarial attack with no breaks would qualify for a 10% rating, rather
than a 60% rating under DC 7825 (Urticaria). VA understands this
concern and has revised the criteria in this final rule to be based on
the condition's response to required treatment. First, VA has retitled
the diagnostic code, ``Chronic urticaria'' and added a definition for
chronic urticaria, which is ``continuous urticaria at least twice per
week, off treatment, for a period of six weeks or more.'' A subset of
patients has chronic urticaria that is unresponsive to first line
treatment (antihistamines). If a patient is also unresponsive to second
line treatment (e.g., epinephrine, corticosteroids, aminosalicylates),
it is considered refractory chronic urticaria. It was, and continues to
be, VA's intent to have evaluation levels that clearly and distinctly
reflect increasing disability. To that end, VA has revised the
evaluation criteria to more clearly establish three distinct levels of
disability: (1) Chronic urticaria requiring first line treatment for
control, (2) chronic urticaria requiring second line treatment for
control, and (3) chronic urticaria which is refractory to both first
line and second line treatment. A non-exhaustive list of examples for
first line, second line, and third line treatment is given with each
evaluation level. This should ensure, commensurate with the commenter's
concern, that more severe and less controllable urticarial attacks
receive higher ratings.
Fifth, a commenter asked if active psoriatic arthritis would be
entitled to a 60% evaluation under DC 7816 (Psoriasis) and a 100%
evaluation under DC 5009 (Arthritis, other types), allowing for special
monthly compensation at the ``s'' level, i.e., housebound. To clarify
that separate ratings are permissible, VA has added the term
``separately'' to the note in DC 7816. Special monthly compensation
would be warranted under 38 CFR 3.350(i)(1), if the psoriasis and the
arthritis constitute ``separate and distinct'' disabilities ``involving
different anatomical segments or bodily systems.''
Beyond the changes made in response to comments, this final rule
contains several technical and non-substantive amendments to the
proposed rule.
Comments Related to Systemic and Topical Therapy and Johnson v.
McDonald
A total of six comments either disagreed with or questioned VA's
proposal for defining topical and systemic therapy in light of the
Johnson v. McDonald decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (CAVC) in 2016. That decision found that any use of a topically-
applied corticosteroid constituted ``systemic therapy'' pursuant to
diagnostic code 7806. However, in July 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) reversed the CAVC's
interpretation. See Johnson v. Shulkin, 862 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The Federal Circuit held that the CAVC was incorrect to ``read DC 7806
as unambiguously elevating any form of corticosteroid treatment,
including any degree of topical corticosteroid treatment, to the level
of `systemic therapy.''' Id. at 1354.
Although VA's proposal for systemic and topical therapy was in part
a reaction to the CAVC's now-reversed Johnson decision, its aim was
also to provide clarity for raters adjudicating these claims. VA
proposed to clarify that treatment administered through the skin is
``topical therapy,'' while treatment administered through any route
other than the skin (orally, injection, suppository, intranasally) is
``systemic therapy.'' This final rule adopts VA's proposal. One theme
of the comments was that topically-applied medications could be
considered systemic therapy or could have systemic effects. In this
regard, one commenter questioned why VA does not provide
[[Page 32594]]
more information as to the potential systemic effects of topically-
applied corticosteroids, and another asserted that topically-applied
medications can cause heightened effects in elderly populations.
As noted in the supplementary information to the proposed rule,
however, it creates a dramatic disconnect to rate a medication applied
to the skin--affecting only the localized area to which it is applied--
as ``systemic therapy'' that affects the entire body. Rather, the
prevailing medical understanding is that ``topical'' therapy
``pertain[s] to a particular surface area . . . and affect[s] only the
area to which it is applied,'' while ``systemic'' therapy ``pertain[s]
to or affect[s] the body as a whole.'' Dorland's Illustrated Medical
Dictionary 1865, 1940 (32d ed. 2012). VA's proposal, adopted as a final
rule here, sets clear guidelines in accordance with this understanding:
creams applied to the skin are ``topical therapy,'' and treatments
applied in a way (orally, intranasally, etc.) that the medication
circulates throughout the entire body and suppresses the immune system
as a whole are ``systemic therapy.''
VA also acknowledged in the supplementary information that some
medications applied to the skin, if administered on a large enough
scale, could have a systemic effect; but in those situations the
veteran can obtain a higher rating due to the percentage of the body
affected. For example, a veteran who is required to apply a cream on
his entire body is not subject to a noncompensable rating; even though
he is not taking systemic therapy, he would obtain a compensable rating
under this final rule based on the percentage of his body affected by
the condition.
Overall, the aim of this rule is to clarify the terms used in the
rating schedule, in order to distinguish between a condition that
affects a large portion of the body or requires therapy affecting the
entire body, and a condition that is localized and involves localized
treatment. The former generally impairs earning capacity more than the
latter. To the extent that topically-applied medications might affect
different people (such as the elderly) in different ways, the rating
schedule is based on the average impairment in earning capacity. 38
U.S.C. 1155. If there is an exceptional or unusual effect of applying
corticosteroid cream, a claimant can submit argument for an
extraschedular rating. 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1). VA can also raise the issue
of an extraschedular rating on its own when the evidence of record
suggests such consideration is appropriate. This is why VA cannot
provide more specific information on the potential systemic effects of
topically-applied corticosteroids: the potency of the medication, the
amount of skin affected, and the strength of the condition, will vary
from veteran to veteran.
One comment on this topic advocated that VA should automatically
assume that topical corticosteroids have systemic effects based on the
benefit-of-the-doubt standard. The benefit-of-the-doubt rule, however,
applies to the adjudication of claims, not formulation of the rating
schedule. 38 U.S.C. 5107(b). This commenter further stated that certain
skin conditions cannot be cured, but only treated, and that the burden
of applying medication with little effect is not taken into
consideration in the proposed rule. To the contrary, frequency in
application is a factor in the schedule for rating systemic therapy,
but it remains VA's assessment that applying cream on the skin of less
than 5% of the body reflects a condition that does not impair earning
capacity at a compensable level.
Two additional commenters viewed the proposed rule as an attempt to
circumvent or undermine the CAVC's ruling. These comments are obviated
by the fact that the CAVC's ruling has been reversed. See Johnson v.
Shulkin, supra. But even if it had not been reversed, it is well
established that a judicial interpretation of regulatory language does
not preclude an agency from revising that language (for prospective
application) pursuant to its rulemaking authority. See Nat'l Org. of
Veterans Advocates Inc., v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (argument that CAVC holdings prevent revision of
regulations ``seriously misunderstand[s] . . . the nature of the
judicial function.''). VA may clarify the rating schedule to accord
with its original intent in promulgating these diagnostic codes. One of
these commenters added that skin conditions can cause real pain and
embarrassment and should not be devalued. We understand this concern,
but the objective criteria of (1) percentage of body affected and (2)
mode and frequency of therapy are better suited in determining average
impairment of earning capacity than an individual's level of
embarrassment.
Another commenter questioned the consistency of the proposed
definition for systemic therapy with DC 6602 and the overall rating
schedule. This rule is consistent with DC 6602--which defines
``systemic'' corticosteroids as ``oral or parenteral,'' i.e., the
corticosteroids that circulate throughout the body and affect the
entire immune system. We are unaware, and the commenter does not
provide further information, as to how the rule is inconsistent with
other portions of the rating schedule.
Finally, two commenters asserted that VA is emphasizing topical
treatment in order to save money at the expense of quality care. This
rule, however, should not affect how doctors treat conditions; rather,
its aim is to clarify terms for raters adjudicating claims. We are not
aware of any VA instruction that its doctors prescribe topical
treatment to save money when it is not best for the patient.
Comments Recommending Revisions to Evaluation Criteria
A number of comments recommended revisions to criteria within the
proposed rule. VA received two comments regarding DC 7806, Dermatitis
or eczema. One comment has been addressed above and prompted a revision
to this final rule. The other comment requested that VA include biopsy
results in the evaluation criteria, because eczema can occur
sporadically over the year and a doctor might only take account of what
is observable during the examination. VA declines to make changes based
upon this comment. The General Rating Formula for the Skin employs two
routes to compensation, based on either the extent of skin involvement
or the intensity of treatment. If the condition requires constant or
near-constant systemic therapy, then, regardless of the extent of skin
involvement at the time of examination, the veteran would be entitled
to the highest evaluation. It is unclear how criteria based on biopsy
results would be more favorable to veterans than this scheme. Moreover,
obtaining a biopsy for every ratable skin condition is not necessarily
appropriate, and a service-connected veteran is free to request an
additional examination if a skin disorder becomes more extensive than
what was observed during a given examination. VA received two comments
concerning DC 7817, Erythroderma. One comment asked why the ``treatment
failure'' language was incorporated into the proposed criteria when the
term ``uncontrolled'' in the evaluation criteria for diabetes (DC 7913)
``was found to be problematic.'' VA incorporated language regarding
``treatment failure'' here because it is easily measured and can be
applied by rating officials with consistent results. Treatment failure
is a common occurrence with erythroderma, and we see no connection to
the term ``uncontrolled'' in a diagnostic code for
[[Page 32595]]
a different condition (diabetes) that was revised over two decades ago.
The second comment asked whether VA would use the new DC 7817 criteria
for pending appeals. As explained above, VA will only apply the new
criteria to pending appeals if it is advantageous to the appellant.
One comment addressed DC 7824, Diseases of keratinization. The
commenter stated that we would be underrating diseases of
keratinization by moving them to the General Rating Formula for the
Skin, where it would not account for systemic manifestations. While VA
concurs that the term ``systemic manifestations'' is not employed
within the General Rating Formula for the Skin, this change does not
adversely affect the veteran. Under the version of DC 7824 that is
being revised by this final rule, a veteran needs both ``systemic
manifestations'' and ``systemic medication'' for a 30% or 60% rating if
there is not generalized cutaneous involvement. Now, under this final
rule, a veteran with a disease of keratinization can receive such a
rating for taking ``systemic therapy'' even without any systemic
manifestations. This change simplifies the evaluation for veterans with
diseases of keratinization.
Three comments requested changes to DC 7825, Urticaria, and DC
7826, Vasculitis, primary cutaneous. One comment has been addressed
above, resulting in a revision to the final rule. Another comment
asserted that the term ``documented'' in DC 7826 should not require
evidence of a visit to a physician, clinic, or hospital, because those
already on medication may not seek medical attention if they are used
to managing their condition. That commenter requested that VA clarify
that lay evidence fulfills the ``documented'' standard.
VA understands that lay evidence must be considered when VA
adjudicators evaluate a claim, and nothing in this final rule is meant
to undercut that principle. On the other hand, virtually the entire VA
ratings schedule requires some kind of documentation or objective
testing in order to gauge the severity of a disability. In that vein,
this final rule requires that vasculitic episodes be ``documented'' for
a higher rating. Though the rule does not state that the only
acceptable documentation is a doctor's contemporaneous confirmation, a
veteran whose disease is not under control and continues to prompt
episodes would most likely see a provider multiple times within a 12-
month period.
The third commenter found it problematic that the criteria would
allow mild, frequent attacks to be rated higher than more severe and
longer attacks. This commenter also stated that a reliance on treatment
modality is problematic, because biologics are impossible for veterans
with weakened immune systems and others are prescribed unevenly.
VA's change to DC 7825 in this final rule obviates this comment, as
the urticaria criteria are no longer reliant on the number of attacks.
VA also disagrees that basing evaluation criteria on treatment modality
is problematic. Each line of treatment for chronic urticaria (first
line, second line, or third line) has more than one treatment option
available, so the fact that one particular option is poorly tolerated
does not imply that veterans will be inaccurately rated.
VA received three comments involving areas of affected skin,
including requests to add forearms and lower legs as exposed areas. One
of the commenters explained that, in summer temperatures, veterans
cannot be expected to work with their forearms and lower legs covered.
A second stated that there is no equitable definition of exposed skin,
and doctors are commonly recommending more sunlight for psoriasis. The
third suggested the work group identify which technique for measuring
the area of involved skin would be best suited for evaluation purposes.
VA will not make any revisions to the final rule based on the above
comments, as VA is unaware of any occupations that require exposed
forearms or lower legs, i.e., mandate such exposure as part of the job.
Furthermore, dermatologists (who are the subject matter experts when it
comes to conditions affecting the skin) have already decided how to
calculate involved skin area and what constitutes a routinely exposed
area; and the established medical practice in that field is to consider
only the head, neck, and hands consistently and truly exposed, as long-
sleeved shirts and full-length pants have customarily been considered
part of the typical clothing used in occupational settings. There is no
justification, medical or otherwise, to change from established
practice. Lastly, a treatment recommendation to get more sunlight for
psoriatic skin neither precludes nor interferes with employment, and
thus should have no bearing on the rating criteria.
VA received two comments about alopecia, specifically DC 7830,
Scarring alopecia, and DC 7831, Alopecia areata. One comment asserted
that DC 7831 should provide a compensable rating for loss of scalp
hair, since it is an exposed area. The other comment recommended a
higher evaluation under DC 7830 for women, because this condition is
more socially debilitating for women and, as a result, women incur a
higher financial responsibility to deal with the condition. VA is
sympathetic to these issues and understands the social aspects of hair
loss. Nevertheless, the rating schedule is based on the loss of wage-
earning capacity and no reliable evidence establishes significant
occupational impairment with loss of body hair, or that occupational
impairment is greater in women than in men with scarring alopecia. As
such, VA will not revise the final rule based on these two comments.
As to the final comments, one requested a note adding consideration
of the effect of disfigurement on the veteran's mental health. VA
acknowledges that secondary service connection under 38 CFR 3.310 may
be possible for a mental health disability that is found to be causally
related to a service-connected skin disability. However, we believe
this is clear from 38 CFR 3.310, such that a note is not necessary
here. The second questioned why evaluation criteria do not comment on
conditions caused by the failure of the immune system, such as
lymphedema, which affect the skin and may require compression therapy.
Although lymphedema may be evaluated under diagnostic codes pertaining
to the skin if it disfigures and/or scars the skin, see 38 CFR 4.116,
DC 7627-7628 (evaluating lymphedema ``under the appropriate diagnostic
code(s) within the appropriate body system''), it is ultimately a
lymphatic condition, not a skin condition, such that its consideration
would be outside the scope of both the proposed and final rules for the
skin.
Comments Regarding Interplay of Regulations
VA received a number of comments seeking clarification or guidance
on the interplay between section 4.118 and other regulations.
Three comments implicated the relationship between part 3
regulations and section 4.118. One comment regarding multiple ratings
for psoriatic arthritis has been addressed above, resulting in a
revision in this final rule. Another comment asked if VA would service
connect disabilities to other body systems resulting from the treatment
of skin conditions. Generally, yes, VA may grant secondary service
connection as long as the standards found in 38 CFR 3.310 are met.
[[Page 32596]]
A third comment questioned the consistency between the definition
of chronic in 38 CFR 3.380 (diseases of allergic etiology) and the
definition in DCs 7825 and 7826. No inconsistencies exist, as 38 CFR
3.380 addresses service connection, while DCs 7825 and 7826 address
evaluation, and none of these provisions address the term ``chronic.''
This commenter continued by stating: ``Confusion regarding `service
connection' and evaluation criteria applies to the `continuous use' and
`disabling effects of medication' to suggest that VA will concede
secondary service connection [38 CFR 3.310] in cases with facts similar
to those described (or are these functional impairments simply acute
and transitory or will this be pyramiding?).'' VA finds this portion of
the comment unclear and is unable to respond.
The remaining comments covered the relationship between section
4.118 and other part 4 regulations. One commenter assumed that combined
ratings would result from DCs 7801 and 7802. To the contrary, the
General Rating Formula for the Skin instructs the rater to use the
relevant criteria or rate under DCs 7800, 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805.
Hence, the guidance precludes combining of disability criteria in this
regard. Another comment asked about the difference between the six
zones of the body in 38 CFR 4.118 and the five anatomic zones of 38 CFR
4.55(b). VA intends that the six zones in this final rule are specific
for the skin and not intended to reflect a global standard to be
applied for all body systems. Yet another comment asked about the
difference between ``anogenital region'' (noted in DC 7829) and
``pruritus ani'' (DC 7337), and whether these ratings may be combined.
``Anogenital region'' is an anatomic area that may be affected by
chloracne (DC 7829), whereas ``pruritus ani'' is an itching near the
rectum. VA may separately evaluate these conditions and combine them in
accordance with 38 CFR 4.25.
Still another assertion involving DC 7829 and other part 4
regulations was that ``[i]ntertriginous areas and limitation of
function are problematic. The axilla of the arm and the range of motion
of the shoulder are similar to the facts in [Cullen v. Shinseki, 24
Vet. App. 74 (2010)].'' We discern no problem in the language of DC
7829 or conflict with Cullen. VA may separately evaluate disability
related to acne (skin) and a disability affecting the shoulder
(musculoskeletal). One last question presented by this commenter asked
if the reference to ``skin folds of the breasts'' in DC 7829 could be
used to justify a 20 percent evaluation by analogy under DC 7628,
benign neoplasms. Because DC 7628 permits rating benign neoplasms as a
skin condition, such a rating by analogy may be possible.
Comments Recommending Additional Diagnostic Codes
VA received four comments recommending additional diagnostic codes:
One comment recommending additional codes generally to reduce analogous
coding, and three other comments recommending codes for lymphedema
(and/or skin conditions caused by immune system failure), pressure
ulcers, actinic keratoses, and rosacea. VA finds these additions
unnecessary. As noted above, VA may evaluate lymphedema which
disfigures and/or scars the skin under DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805.
Furthermore, pressure ulcers normally are not considered a skin
condition warranting compensation. Actinic keratoses and rosacea are
not occupationally significant. VA is willing to consider adding
diagnostic codes for skin conditions that are occupationally
significant.
Comment Outside the Scope of the Proposed Rule
VA received a comment asking why the Food and Drug Administration
could not find another manufacturer for EpiPen[supreg]. The EpiPen
question is well outside the scope of this rule, so VA will not respond
to it.
Comment Regarding Public Access
The last issue raised by a commenter dealt with public access to
the materials developed by the Skin Disorders Work Group after a public
forum in New York City in January 2012 but before the drafting of the
proposed rule. Specifically, the commenter requested that the
information developed and shared by the work group should be publicly
available.
In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to the proposed rule, VA included
information about the Skin Disorders Work Group. See 81 FR 53353, 53353
(Aug. 12, 2016). As noted, the stated goals of the work group included
improving and updating VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)
criteria, and inviting public participation; this process included
presentations on areas of expertise and interaction with the public at
a public forum in January 2012. (A transcript of this public forum and
all related materials are on file and available for public inspection
in the Office of Regulation and Policy Management. Contact information
for that office is noted in the ADDRESSES section of the proposed rule.
See 81 FR at 53358.) The work group served as an initial call to
various subject matter experts and Veterans Service Organizations to
provide a preliminary review of the VASRD from both internal and
external stakeholders.
VA emphasizes that this review of the VASRD was not an opportunity
for work group members to participate in the deliberative rulemaking
process; the work group discussed the general topic of the VASRD body
system and provided feedback on the areas that were subject to advances
since the last major revision of the body system. To this end, where
changes to the scientific and/or medical nature of a given condition
were made in the proposed rule, VA cited the published, publicly-
available source for these changes. Not only did this provide the
public with access to the source for a given proposed change, it also
confirmed that VA relied upon peer-reviewed scientific and medical
information to support a given change. While similar information may
have been presented by a work group member, VA relied upon the
published document(s) as the primary source for a change and included
such sources in the administrative record for this rulemaking. VA did
not propose scientific and/or medical changes to the VASRD in the
absence of publicly available, peer-reviewed sources.
Accordingly, references in the proposed rule to the work group
serve as an explanatory background and introduction to the VASRD
rewrite project; the changes made by this rulemaking are not a
reflection of the work group or any work group member. All changes
based on scientific and/or medical information are a reflection of
cited, published materials which are available to the public. VA has
made deliberative materials available (via citation in the rulemaking)
and is providing access to materials from the public forum available
for public inspection at the Office of Regulation Policy and
Management.
Effective Date of Final Rule
Veterans Benefits Administration personnel utilize the Veterans
Benefits Management System for Rating (VBMS-R) to process disability
compensation claims that involve disability evaluations made under the
VASRD. In order to ensure that there is no delay in processing
veterans' claims, VA must coordinate the effective date of this final
rule with corresponding VBMS-R system updates. As such, this final rule
will apply effective August 13, 2018, the date VBMS-R system updates
related to this final rule will be complete.
[[Page 32597]]
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a
``significant regulatory action,'' which requires 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
this Executive Order.''
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this regulatory action have been examined and it has
been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a
supporting document at https://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48
hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy
of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website
at https://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for ``VA Regulations
Published from FY 2004 through Fiscal Year to Date.'' This rule is not
an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not
significant under Executive Order 12866.
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 rule would directly affect only individuals and would not
directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory
flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
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 one year. This final rule will have no such effect on
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains provisions constituting a collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521). Specifically, this final rule is associated with information
collections related to the application for disability benefits (VA Form
21-526EZ), as well as Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs), which
enable a claimant to gather the necessary information from his or her
treating physician as to the current symptoms and severity of a
disability (VA Forms 21-0960F-1, Scars/Disfigurement DBQ, and 21-0960F-
2, Skin Diseases DBQ). These information collections are currently
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been
assigned OMB control numbers 2900-0749 (for the application) and 2900-
0776 (for the DBQs). VA has reviewed the impact of this final rule on
these information collections and determined that the incremental
information collection burden for the first year of this rule is
$8,828.20.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the
program affected by this document is 64.109, Veterans Compensation for
Service-Connected Disability.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to submit it to the Office of
the Federal Register for electronic publication as an official document
of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jacquelyn Hayes-Byrd, Acting
Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document
on June 28, 2018, for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4
Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.
Dated: June 28, 2018.
Jeffrey M. Martin,
Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans
Affairs amends 38 CFR part 4, subpart B, as follows:
PART 4--SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES
Subpart B--Disability Ratings
0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 4.118 as follows:
0
a. Remove the introductory text;
0
b. Add paragraphs (a) and (b) before the table;
0
c. Revise the entries for diagnostic codes 7801, 7802, and 7805;
0
d. Add an entry for ``GENERAL RATING FORMULA FOR THE SKIN FOR DCs 7806,
7809, 7813-7816, 7820-7822, AND 7824'', to appear after the entry for
diagnostic code 7805; and
0
e. Revise the entries for diagnostic codes 7806, 7809, 7813, 7815-7817,
7820-7822, and 7824-7829.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 4.118 Schedule of ratings-skin.
(a) For the purposes of this section, systemic therapy is treatment
that is administered through any route (orally, injection, suppository,
intranasally) other than the skin, and topical therapy is treatment
that is administered through the skin.
(b) Two or more skin conditions may be combined in accordance with
Sec. 4.25 only if separate areas of skin are involved. If two or more
skin conditions involve the same area of skin, then only the highest
evaluation shall be used.
[[Page 32598]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
7801 Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the
head, face, or neck, that are associated with underlying
soft tissue damage:
Area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or 40
greater.................................................
Area or areas of at least 72 square inches (465 sq. cm.) 30
but less than 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.)...........
Area or areas of at least 12 square inches (77 sq. cm.) 20
but less than 72 square inches (465 sq. cm.)............
Area or areas of at least 6 square inches (39 sq. cm.) 10
but less than 12 square inches (77 sq. cm.).............
Note (1): For the purposes of DCs 7801 and 7802, the six
(6) zones of the body are defined as each extremity,
anterior trunk, and posterior trunk. The midaxillary
line divides the anterior trunk from the posterior trunk
Note (2): A separate evaluation may be assigned for each
affected zone of the body under this diagnostic code if
there are multiple scars, or a single scar, affecting
multiple zones of the body. Combine the separate
evaluations under Sec. 4.25. Alternatively, if a
higher evaluation would result from adding the areas
affected from multiple zones of the body, a single
evaluation may also be assigned under this diagnostic
code....................................................
7802 Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the
head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying
soft tissue damage:
Area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or 10
greater.................................................
Note (1): For the purposes of DCs 7801 and 7802, the six
(6) zones of the body are defined as each extremity,
anterior trunk, and posterior trunk. The midaxillary
line divides the anterior trunk from the posterior trunk
Note (2): A separate evaluation may be assigned for each
affected zone of the body under this diagnostic code if
there are multiple scars, or a single scar, affecting
multiple zones of the body. Combine the separate
evaluations under Sec. 4.25. Alternatively, if a
higher evaluation would result from adding the areas
affected from multiple zones of the body, a single
evaluation may also be assigned under this diagnostic
code....................................................
* * * * * * *
7805 Scars, other; and other effects of scars evaluated under
diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804:
Evaluate any disabling effect(s) not considered in a
rating provided under diagnostic codes 7800-04 under an
appropriate diagnostic code.............................
General Rating Formula For The Skin For DCs 7806, 7809, 7813-
7816, 7820-7822, and 7824:
At least one of the following............................ 60
Characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of
the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas
affected; or
Constant or near-constant systemic therapy including, but 60
not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy,
retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, psoralen with
long-wave ultraviolet-A light (PUVA), or other
immunosuppressive drugs required over the past 12-month
period..................................................
At least one of the following............................ 30
Characteristic lesions involving more than 20 to 40
percent of the entire body or 20 to 40 percent of
exposed areas affected; or
Systemic therapy including, but not limited to,
corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics,
photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive
drugs required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more,
but not constantly, over the past 12-month period.......
At least one of the following............................ 10
Characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but
less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or
At least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed
areas affected; or
Intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited
to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics,
photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive
drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks
over the past 12-month period...........................
No more than topical therapy required over the past 12- 0
month period and at least one of the following..........
Characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of
the entire body affected; or
Characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of
exposed areas affected..................................
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC
7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805),
depending upon the predominant disability. This rating
instruction does not apply to DC 7824...................
7806 Dermatitis or eczema.
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
* * * * * * *
7809 Discoid lupus erythematosus.
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
Note: Do not combine with ratings under DC 6350..........
* * * * * * *
7813 Dermatophytosis (ringworm: Of body, tinea corporis; of
head, tinea capitis; of feet, tinea pedis; of beard area,
tinea barbae; of nails, tinea unguium (onychomycosis); of
inguinal area (jock itch), tinea cruris; tinea versicolor).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
7815 Bullous disorders (including pemphigus vulgaris,
pemphigus foliaceous, bullous pemphigoid, dermatitis
herpetiformis, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, benign
chronic familial pemphigus (Hailey-Hailey), and porphyria
cutanea tarda).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
Note: Rate complications and residuals of mucosal
involvement (ocular, oral, gastrointestinal,
respiratory, or genitourinary) separately under the
appropriate diagnostic code.............................
7816 Psoriasis.
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
Note: Rate complications such as psoriatic arthritis and
other clinical manifestations (e.g., oral mucosa, nails)
separately under the appropriate diagnostic code........
7817 Erythroderma:
Generalized involvement of the skin with systemic 100
manifestations (such as fever, weight loss, or
hypoproteinemia) AND one of the following...............
[[Page 32599]]
Constant or near-constant systemic therapy such as
therapeutic doses of corticosteroids, other
immunosuppressive drugs, retinoids, PUVA (psoralen with
long-wave ultraviolet-A light), UVB (ultraviolet-B
light) treatments, biologics, or electron beam therapy
required over the past 12 month period; or
No current treatment due to a documented history of 100
treatment failure with 2 or more treatment regimens.....
Generalized involvement of the skin without systemic
manifestations and one of the following.................
Constant or near-constant systemic therapy such as
therapeutic doses of corticosteroids, other
immunosuppressive drugs, retinoids, PUVA, UVB
treatments, biologics, or electron beam therapy required
over the past 12-month period; or.......................
No current treatment due to a documented history of 60
treatment failure with 1 treatment regimen..............
Any extent of involvement of the skin, and any of the 30
following therapies required for a total duration of 6
weeks or more, but not constantly, over the past 12-
month period: systemic therapy such as therapeutic doses
of corticosteroids, other immunosuppressive drugs,
retinoids, PUVA, UVB treatments, biologics, or electron
beam therapy............................................
Any extent of involvement of the skin, and any of the 10
following therapies required for a total duration of
less than 6 weeks over the past 12-month period:
systemic therapy such as therapeutic doses of
corticosteroids, other immunosuppressive drugs,
retinoids, PUVA, UVB treatments, biologics, or electron
beam therapy............................................
Any extent of involvement of the skin, and no more than 0
topical therapy required over the past 12-month period..
Note: Treatment failure is defined as either disease
progression, or less than a 25 percent reduction in the
extent and severity of disease after four weeks of
prescribed therapy, as documented by medical records....
* * * * * * *
7820 Infections of the skin not listed elsewhere (including
bacterial, fungal, viral, treponemal, and parasitic
diseases).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
7821 Cutaneous manifestations of collagen-vascular diseases
not listed elsewhere (including scleroderma, calcinosis
cutis, subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and
dermatomyositis).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
* * * * * * *
7822 Papulosquamous disorders not listed elsewhere (including
lichen planus, large or small plaque parapsoriasis,
pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA),
lymphomatoid papulosus, mycosis fungoides, and pityriasis
rubra pilaris (PRP)).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
* * * * * * *
7824 Diseases of keratinization (including icthyoses,
Darier's disease, and palmoplantar keratoderma).
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin...
7825 Chronic urticaria:
For the purposes of this diagnostic code, chronic
urticaria is defined as continuous urticaria at least
twice per week, off treatment, for a period of six weeks
or more.................................................
Chronic refractory urticaria that requires third line 60
treatment for control (e.g., plasmapheresis,
immunotherapy, immunosuppressives) due to
ineffectiveness with first and second line treatments...
Chronic urticaria that requires second line treatment 30
(e.g., corticosteroids, sympathomimetics, leukotriene
inhibitors, neutrophil inhibitors, thyroid hormone) for
control.................................................
Chronic urticaria that requires first line treatment 10
(antihistamines) for control............................
7826 Vasculitis, primary cutaneous:
Persistent documented vasculitis episodes refractory to 60
continuous immunosuppressive therapy....................
All of the following..................................... 30
Recurrent documented vasculitic episodes occurring four
or more times over the past 12-month period; and
Requiring intermittent systemic immunosuppressive therapy 30
for control.............................................
At least one of the following............................ 10
Recurrent documented vasculitic episodes occurring one to
three times over the past 12-month period, and requiring
intermittent systemic immunosuppressive therapy for
control; or
Without recurrent documented vasculitic episodes but
requiring continuous systemic medication for control....
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC
7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805),
depending upon the predominant disability...............
7827 Erythema multiforme; Toxic epidermal necrolysis:
Recurrent mucosal, palmar, or plantar involvement 60
impairing mastication, use of hands, or ambulation
occurring four or more times over the past 12-month
period despite ongoing immunosuppressive therapy........
All of the following..................................... 30
Recurrent mucosal, palmar, or plantar involvement not
impairing mastication, use of hands, or ambulation,
occurring four or more times over the past 12-month
period; and requiring intermittent systemic therapy.....
At least one of the following............................ 10
One to three episodes of mucosal, palmar, or plantar
involvement not impairing mastication, use of hands, or
ambulation, occurring over the past 12-month period AND
requiring intermittent systemic therapy; or
Without recurrent episodes, but requiring continuous
systemic medication for control.........................
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC
7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805),
depending upon the predominant disability...............
Note: For the purposes of this DC only, systemic therapy
may consist of one or more of the following treatment
agents: immunosuppressives, antihistamines, or
sympathomimetics........................................
7828 Acne:
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) 30
affecting 40 percent or more of the face and neck.......
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) 10
affecting less than 40 percent of the face and neck, or
deep acne other than on the face and neck...............
Superficial acne (comedones, papules, pustules) of any extent 0
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC
7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805),
depending upon the predominant disability...............
7829 Chloracne:
[[Page 32600]]
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) 30
affecting 40 percent or more of the face and neck.......
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) 20
affecting the intertriginous areas (the axilla of the
arm, the anogenital region, skin folds of the breasts,
or between digits)......................................
Deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) 10
affecting less than 40 percent of the face and neck; or
deep acne affecting non-intertriginous areas of the body
(other than the face and neck)..........................
Superficial acne (comedones, papules, pustules) of any 0
extent..................................................
Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC
7800) or scars (DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805),
depending upon the predominant disability...............
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend appendix A to part 4 in the table under Sec. 4.118 by
revising the entries for diagnostic codes 7801, 7802, 7805, 7806, 7809,
7813, 7815 through 7817, and 7820-7833 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 4--Table of Amendments and Effective Dates Since
1946
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostic
Section Code No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
4.118................... 7800 Evaluation August 30, 2002;
criterion October 23, 2008.
7801 Criterion July 6, 1950;
criterion August 30, 2002;
criterion October 23, 2008;
title, note 1, note 2 August
13, 2018.
7802 Criterion September 22, 1978;
criterion August 30, 2002;
criterion October 23, 2008;
title, note 1, note 2 August
13, 2018.
* * * * * * *
7805 Criterion October 23, 2008;
title August 13, 2018.
General Rating Formula for DCs
7806, 7809, 7813-7816, 7820-
7822, and 7824 added August
13, 2018.
7806 Criterion September 9, 1975;
evaluation August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
* * * * * * *
7809 Criterion August 30, 2002;
title, criterion August 13,
2018.
* * * * * * *
7813 Criterion August 30, 2002;
title, criterion August 13,
2018.
* * * * * * *
7815 Evaluation August 30, 2002;
criterion, note August 13,
2018.
7816 Evaluation August 30, 2002;
criterion, note August 13,
2018.
7817 Evaluation August 30, 2002;
title, criterion, note August
13, 2018.
* * * * * * *
7820 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7821 Added August 30, 2002; title,
criterion August 13, 2018.
7822 Added August 30, 2002; title,
criterion August 13, 2018.
7823 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7824 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7825 Added August 30, 2002; title,
criterion August 13, 2018.
7826 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7827 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7828 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7829 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7830 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7831 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7832 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
7833 Added August 30, 2002;
criterion August 13, 2018.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4. Amend appendix B to part 4 under the heading ``THE SKIN'' by
revising the entries for diagnostic codes 7801, 7802, 7805, 7809, 7813,
7817, 7821, 7822, and 7825 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 4--Numerical Index of Disabilities
[[Page 32601]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostic Code No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SKIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
7801.................. Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not
of the head, face, or neck that are associated
with underlying soft tissue damage.
7802.................. Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not
of the head, face, or neck that are not
associated with underlying soft tissue damage.
* * * * * * *
7805.................. Scars, other; and other effects of scars
evaluated under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801,
7802, or 7804.
* * * * * * *
7809.................. Discoid lupus erythematosus.
* * * * * * *
7813.................. Dermatophytosis.
* * * * * * *
7817.................. Erythroderma.
* * * * * * *
7821.................. Cutaneous manifestations of collagen-vascular
diseases not listed elsewhere.
7822.................. Papulosquamous disorders not listed elsewhere.
* * * * * * *
7825.................. Chronic urticaria.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. Amend appendix C to part 4 as follows:
0
a. Revise the entry for ``Cutaneous manifestations of collagen-vascular
diseases'' (diagnostic code 7821);
0
b. Add in alphabetical order an entry for ``Erythroderma'';
0
c. Remove the entry for ``Exfoliative dermatitis'';
0
d. Revise the entry for ``Scars''; and
0
e. Revise the entry for ``Urticaria'' (diagnostic code 7825).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 4--Alphabetical Index of Disabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostic
Code No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cutaneous manifestations of collagen-vascular diseases 7821
not listed elsewhere...................................
* * * * * * *
Erythroderma............................................ 7817
* * * * * * *
Scars:
Burn scar(s) of the head, face, or neck; scar(s) of 7800
the head, face, or neck due to other causes; or
other disfigurement of the head, face, or neck.....
Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of 7801
the head, face, or neck that are associated with
underlying soft tissue damage......................
Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of 7802
the head, face, or neck that are not associated
with underlying soft tissue damage.................
Retina.............................................. 6011
Scars, other; and other effects of scars evaluated 7805
under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804...
Unstable or painful................................. 7804
* * * * * * *
Urticaria, chronic.................................. 7825
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-14957 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P