10362 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. This rule fits the 

category selected from paragraph (34)(g), 

as it establishes a safety zone. A final 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

and a final ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 

Determination’’ will be available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

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: 

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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 

6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 

116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T01–012 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T01–012 Safety Zone; Gulf Oil 

Terminal Dredging Project, South Portland, 

ME. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of the Fore River 

and Casco Bay in a 100 yard radius 

around the M/V RELIANCE as it transits 

from the East End Beach or Bug Light 

Park to the Gulf Oil Terminal Facility 

and from the Gulf Oil Terminal Facility 

back to the East End Beach or Bug Light 

Park, while transporting explosives; 

and, all waters in a 100 yard radius 

around the perimeter of the berthing 

area of the Gulf Oil Terminal while 

blasting operations are being conducted. 

This area is defined as: All of the waters 

enclosed by a line starting from a point 

located at the western side of the Gulf 

Oil Terminal Dock at latitude 

43°39′12.537′′ N, longitude 

70°14′25.923′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′10.082′′ N, longitude 

70°14′26.287′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′10.209′′ N, longitude 

70°14′27.910′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′12.664′′ N, longitude 

70°14′27.546′′ W; thence to the point of 

beginning. (DATUM: NAD 83). All 

vessels are restricted from entering this 

area. 

(b) Effective Date. This section is 

effective from 7 a.m. EST on February 

20, 2007 until 4 p.m. EDT on March 31, 

2007. 

(c) Definitions. (1) Designated 

representative means a Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander, including a Coast 

Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other 

officer operating a Coast Guard vessel 

and a Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port (COTP). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(d) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general regulations in 165.23 of 

this part, entry into or movement within 

this zone by any person or vessel is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

COTP, Northern New England or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone may 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative at telephone 

number 207–767–0303 or on VHF 

Channel 13 (156.7 MHz) or VHF 

channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek 

permission to do so. If permission is 

granted, all persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

Dated: February 16, 2007. 

Stephen P. Garrity, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Northern New England. 

[FR Doc. E7–4115 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 9 

RIN 2900–AM36 

Traumatic Injury Protection Rider to 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document adopts with 

changes a Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) interim final rule that 

implemented section 1032 of Public 

Law 109–13, the ‘‘Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act for 

Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 

Tsunami Relief, 2005.’’ Section 1032 of 

Public Law 109–13 established an 

automatic traumatic injury protection 

rider to Servicemembers’ Group Life 

Insurance (SGLI) for any SGLI insured 

who sustains a serious traumatic injury 

that results in certain losses as 

prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs in collaboration with the 

Secretary of Defense. Section 1032(a) is 

codified at 38 U.S.C. 1980A. Section 

1032(c)(1) of Public Law 109–13 also 

authorized the payment of this 

traumatic injury benefit (TSGLI) to 

members of the uniformed services who 

incurred a qualifying loss between 

October 7, 2001, and the effective date 

of section 1032 of Public Law 109–13, 

i.e., December 1, 2005, provided the loss 

was a direct result of injuries incurred 

in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) 

or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This 

document modifies § 9.20 of the interim 

rule to provide that a service member 

must suffer a scheduled loss within 2 

years after a traumatic injury, rather 

than one year as provided in current 

§ 9.20(d)(4). This document also amends 

§ 9.20(d)(1) to clarify that a service 

member does not have to be insured 

under SGLI in order to be eligible for 

TSGLI based upon incurrence of a 

traumatic injury between October 7, 

2001, and December 1, 2005, if the 

member’s loss was a direct result of 

injuries incurred in OEF or OIF. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2007. 

Applicability Date: VA will apply the 

final rule to injuries incurred in 

Operation Enduring Freedom or 

Operation Iraqi Freedom on or after 

October 7, 2001, through and including 

November 30, 2005, and to all injuries 

incurred on or after December 1, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Hosmer, Senior Insurance 

Specialist/Attorney, Department of 

Veterans Affairs Regional Office and 

Insurance Center, P.O. Box 13399, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, (215) 

842–2000 ext. 4280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 22, 2005, VA published an 

interim final rule in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 75940) to implement 

section 1032 of Public Law 109–13. 

We provided a 30-day comment 

period on the interim final rule, which 

ended on January 23, 2006. We received 

comments from only one organization, 

the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP). 

WWP stated that it was pleased with the 

regulation as a whole and with the 

decision to implement it immediately as 

an interim final rule, but raised issues 

WWP believed should be addressed in 

future versions of the regulation. WWP 

expressed concern that the definition of 

‘‘incurred in Operation Enduring 

Freedom’’ in § 9.20(b)(2)(i) and 

‘‘incurred in Operation Iraqi Freedom’’

in § 9.20(b)(2)(ii) would allow TSGLI 

benefits for injuries incurred prior to 

December 1, 2005, only if the service 

member was deployed outside the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10363 

United States on orders in support of 

OEF or OIF. WWP states that TSGLI 

benefits should be paid to all members 

of the uniformed services who suffered 

a loss as a result of a traumatic injury 

prior to December 1, 2005, irrespective 

of the service member’s location or 

orders at the time of the injury. This 

suggested change to § 9.20 would 

require a statutory amendment. Section 

9.20(b)(2)(i) and (ii) implement section 

1032(c)(1) of Public Law 109–13, which 

limited TSGLI benefits for injuries 

incurred prior to December 1, 2005, to 

members injured in OEF and OIF. To 

the extent that this comment suggests 

that VA could define the terms 

‘‘Operation Enduring Freedom’’ and 

‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’’ to 

encompass service in any location 

occurring at the same time as OEF and 

OIF, such a definition would be 

inconsistent with the plain meaning of 

section 1032(c) of Public Law 109–13 

because it would deprive those statutory 

terms of any meaning or effect. 

WWP also commented that the 

interim final rule should be amended to 

increase the period after a traumatic 

injury within which a scheduled loss 

must occur, from the current 365 days 

to 2 years. We concur with WWP’s 

comment. In adopting the 365-day 

period in § 9.20(d)(4) of the interim rule, 

we acknowledged the Department of 

Defense’s (DoD) advice that physicians 

and service members go to great lengths 

to preserve a member’s injured limb and 

that amputation of a limb frequently 

occurs only after a significant period of 

time passes after a traumatic injury. 70 

FR 75942. WWP informed us in its 

comments that there are several cases in 

which severely injured service members 

are still attempting to save their injured 

limbs more than a year after the 

traumatic injury because of 

sophisticated medical treatment 

currently available. Based on the new 

information, we believe that it is 

entirely reasonable to amend 

§ 9.20(d)(4) to increase the period of 

time following a traumatic injury in 

which a scheduled loss must occur from 

365 days to 2 years for all scheduled 

losses. When we issued the interim final 

rule, section 1032(a)(2) of Public Law 

109–13, which this rule implements, 

specifically provided that a member 

must suffer a scheduled loss before the 

end of the period prescribed by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, ‘‘except, if 

the loss is quadriplegia, paraplegia, or 

hemiplegia, the member suffers the loss 

not later than 365 days after sustaining 

the traumatic injury.’’ However, on June 

16, 2006, Congress enacted the Veterans’

Housing Opportunity and Benefits 

Improvement Act of 2006, Public Law 

109–233, section 501(a)(3) of which 

eliminated the requirement that a 

scheduled loss due to quadriplegia, 

paraplegia, or hemiplegia occur within 

365 days after a traumatic injury. 

Accordingly, extending the time period 

to 2 years for all scheduled losses is 

consistent with current statutory 

requirements. 

Congress did not specify whether the 

change made by section 501(a)(3) would 

apply to claims filed or injuries suffered 

prior to the date of that change in law. 

Under established rules of statutory 

construction, a new statute is presumed 

not to operate retroactively unless its 

language requires that result. See 

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 

244 (1994). However, a statute does not 

operate retroactively merely because it 

is applied to a claim filed before the 

statute was enacted. Id. at 269. Rather, 

a statute would have a disfavored 

retroactive effect only if it impairs 

previously established rights, imposes 

new duties with respect to transactions 

already completed, or imposes some 

similar alteration with respect to past 

events. Id. at 280. Determining whether 

application of a new statute would have 

retroactive effect requires consideration 

of the nature and degree of the change 

in law, the degree of connection 

between the new law and a relevant past 

event, and notions of fair notice and 

reasonable reliance. Princess Cruises, 

Inc. v. United States, 397 F.3d 1358, 

1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under this 

analysis, we conclude that applying the 

change made by section 501(a)(3) of 

Public Law 107–103 to previously filed 

claims or previously incurred injuries 

would not have a disfavored retroactive 

effect. 

In establishing the TSGLI program, 

Congress made clear its intent to 

authorize payment for some injuries and 

losses incurred before that program took 

effect. The change made by section 

501(a)(3) would work a relatively minor 

change in the TSGLI eligibility criteria 

and applying that change to prior claims 

or injuries would appear to be 

consistent with the objectives of the 

TSGLI provisions authorizing payments 

based on injuries preceding the 

program’s creation. Further, because 

TSGLI is intended to provide a source 

of income for expenses during periods 

of disablement and convalescence 

following a loss due to traumatic injury, 

we believe the application of the new 

law is more directly connected to those 

persistent circumstances than to the 

past date on which an injury or loss was 

incurred or a claim was filed. We also 

note that the change in law would not 

have affected conduct prior to the date 

of its enactment, nor would it upset any 

settled expectations in any meaningful 

way. The service member’s traumatic 

injury, the scheduled loss due to the 

injury, and the resulting economic 

burdens on the service member were not 

within any party’s control and 

obviously actions were not taken in 

reliance on prior law. Although 

application of the new law would 

increase the government’s economic 

burden, we believe the additional 

burden is relatively small and is 

countered in this instance by the other 

considerations discussed above. 

Accordingly, we conclude that section 

501(a)(3) of Public Law 109–233 may be 

applied to claims that were filed before 

the date that statute was enacted and 

which remained pending on that date. 

Finally, WWP expressed concern that 

the DoD points of contact in each 

branch of service are unable to certify 

service member claims for retroactive 

payment in which the member’s 

scheduled loss is based upon the 

inability to perform activities of daily 

living (ADL) because the ‘‘service 

member medical records do not 

adequately reflect the amount of time 

the claimant was unable to perform the 

requisite ADL.’’ WWP urges DoD and 

VA to give the benefit of the doubt to 

members in this situation due to the 

difficulty in substantiating a scheduled 

loss when medical records do not 

contain the necessary ADL 

documentation. For purposes of 

deciding a case before the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, a statute provides that, 

when there is an ‘‘approximate balance 

of positive and negative evidence’’

concerning an issue, the Secretary must 

give the benefit of the doubt to the 

claimant (38 U.S.C. 5107(b)). If there is 

no evidence on a particular issue or if 

the evidence is not deemed to be in 

approximate balance, the benefit-of-thedoubt standard under the statute does 

not apply. See Ortiz v. Principi, 274 

F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Decisions about entitlement to TSGLI, 

unlike decisions regarding entitlement 

to VA compensation and pension, are 

made by each uniformed service. 38 

CFR 9.20(f). It would therefore be 

inappropriate for VA to promulgate a 

benefit-of-the-doubt rule in this 

rulemaking to be applied by DoD in 

making decisions about TSGLI 

entitlement. 

WWP also states that DoD should be 

more cognizant of the need to document 

a member’s inability to conduct ADL in 

future cases. We agree that verification 

of a service member’s inability to 

perform ADL has in some instances 

been difficult. We have taken steps to 

address the need for complete 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
10364 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

documentation in future cases. DoD 

service branch points of contacts, 

physicians, and other medical care 

providers have been given detailed, 

clarifying guidance on the definition of 

the term ‘‘inability to carry out activities 

of daily living’’ in § 9.1(k). They have 

also been instructed by the branches of 

military service on where and how to 

request supporting documentation 

regarding a member’s ability to perform 

ADL. We therefore do not believe that 

any amendment to § 9.1(k) is required at 

this time. 

The interim final rule stated, in 

§ 9.20(d)(1), that a servicemember must 

be insured under SGLI to be eligible for 

TSGLI. We neglected to explain that this 

requirement does not apply to payments 

of retroactive TSGLI based on traumatic 

injuries occurring on or after October 7, 

2001, though and including November 

30, 2005. Section 1032(c)(1) of Public 

Law 109–13 provided that ‘‘[a]ny 

member’’ who experienced a traumatic 

injury between October 7, 2001, and 

December 1, 2005, is eligible for TSGLI 

if the qualifying loss is a direct result of 

injuries incurred in Operation Enduring 

Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

The term ‘‘member’’ is defined in 38 

U.S.C. 1965(5), for purposes of 

subchapter III of chapter 19, title 38, 

United States Code, and whether a 

person is insured under SGLI is not one 

of the criteria of the definition. We are 

therefore amending § 9.20(d)(1) to 

clarify that, if a member had a traumatic 

injury on or after October 7, 2001, 

through and including November 30, 

2005, and if the qualifying loss is a 

direct result of injuries incurred in 

Operation Enduring Freedom or 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, the member is 

eligible for TSGLI even if he or she was 

not insured under SGLI. 

Also, former 38 U.S.C. 1980A(h) 

provided that ‘‘[c]overage for loss 

resulting from traumatic injury * * * 

shall cease at midnight on the date of 

the member’s separation from the 

uniformed service.’’ Section 501(a)(8) of 

Public Law 109–233 amended 38 U.S.C. 

1980A(h) to provide that TSGLI 

coverage terminates at midnight on the 

date of the ‘‘termination of the member’s 

duty status in the uniformed services 

that established eligibility for 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance,’’

notwithstanding the extension of SGLI 

coverage provided under 38 U.S.C. 

1968(a). This statutory amendment 

clarifies when TSGLI coverage 

terminates. We are amending the 

parenthetical at the end of § 9.20(d)(1) to 

conform to the clarifying change made 

by section 501(a)(8) of Public Law 109–

233. 

We have also revised § 9.20(f) to 

conform to section 501(a)(6) of Public 

Law 109–233, which amended 38 U.S.C. 

1980A(f) to explain in more detail the 

nature of the uniformed services’

certification. This amendment relates to 

non-substantive, procedural matters. 

Finally, we note that section 501(c)(2) 

of Public Law 109–233 repealed section 

1032(c) of Public Law 109–13 pertaining 

to TSGLI eligibility for service members 

who suffered scheduled losses as a 

result of injuries incurred in OEF or OIF 

between October 7, 2001, and December 

1, 2005, and instead provides TSGLI to 

service members who suffered 

scheduled losses as a direct result of a 

traumatic injury incurred in the theater 

of operations for OEF or OIF beginning 

on October 7, 2001, and ending at the 

close of November 30, 2005. That 

change may implicate matters beyond 

the scope of the interim final rule and 

the public comments received to date. 

Accordingly, we will publish a rule 

implementing section 501(c)(3) of 

Public Law 109–233 in the future. 

To the extent an intervening statutory 

change may apply to a particular claim, 

VA must follow statutory requirements 

even if it has not yet revised its 

regulations. We are therefore adding 

§ 9.20(j) to explain that the TSGLI 

program will be administered in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 9.20, except to the extent that any 

provision in the rule is inconsistent 

with subsequently enacted applicable 

law. 

For the reasons stated above and in 

the interim final rule notice, VA will 

adopt the interim final rule as final, 

with the changes to § 9.20(d)(1) and (4) 

and addition of § 9.20(j) discussed 

above. We are also adding information 

to the end of § 9.20 regarding the Office 

of Management and Budget information 

collection control number for this rule. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

In the December 22, 2005, Federal 

Register notice, we determined that 

there was a basis under the 

Administrative Procedure Act for 

issuing the interim final rule with 

immediate effect. We invited and 

received public comment on the final 

rule. This document affirms the interim 

final rule as a final rule with the 

changes to § 9.20(d)(1) and (4) and (f) 

and the addition of § 9.20(j). The 

amendment to § 9.20(d)(1) is 

interpretative and clarifies the eligibility 

criteria for TSGLI. The amendment to 

the parenthetical at the end of 

§ 9.20(d)(1) makes the regulation 

consistent with a clarifying amendment 

to 38 U.S.C. 1980A(h) made by section 

501(a)(8). The amendment to 

§ 9.20(d)(4) in this rule is liberalizing 

and will make more injured service 

members eligible for TSGLI. Section 

1032 of Public Law 109–13 went into 

effect on December 5, 2005, and the 

final rule is necessary to implement the 

TSGLI program. The purpose of TSGLI 

is to ensure that payment is made to 

severely injured service members as 

soon as possible following a traumatic 

injury in order to reduce the financial 

burden resulting from a severe loss. The 

amendment to § 9.20(f) relates to nonsubstantive, procedural matters and 

makes the regulation consistent with 38 

U.S.C. 1980A(f) as amended by section 

501(a)(6) of Public Law 109–233. The 

amendment to § 9.20(j) is interpretative 

and is intended only to explain that 

applicable law will be applied to decide 

TSGLI claims. Accordingly, we have 

concluded under 5 U.S.C. 553 that there 

is good cause for dispensing with prior 

notice and comment regarding the 

amendments to § 9.20(d), (f), and (j) 

because such a procedure is 

impracticable, unnecessary and contrary 

to the public interest. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies 

prepare an assessment of anticipated 

costs and benefits before developing any 

rule that may result in an 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 given year. 

This rule would have no effect on State, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Order classifies a rule as a significant 

regulatory action requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget if 

it meets any one of a number of 

specified conditions, including: having 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, creating a serious 

inconsistency or interfering with an 

action of another agency, materially 

altering the budgetary impact of 

entitlements or the rights of entitlement 

recipients, or raising novel legal or 

policy issues. VA examined the 

economic, legal, and policy implications 

of this final rule and stated in the 

December 22, 2005, Federal Register 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10365 

notice that it is a significant regulatory 

action because it exceeds the $100 

million threshold. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501–3521) referenced in this final rule 

has been approved under OMB control 

number 2900–0671. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

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). Only 

service members and their beneficiaries 

could be directly affected. Therefore, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is 

exempt from the final regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirements of 5 

U.S.C. 604. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program number for this 

regulation is 64.103, Life Insurance for 

Veterans. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 9 

Life insurance, Military personnel, 

Veterans. 

Approved: November 30, 2006. 

Gordon H. Mansfield, 

Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the interim final rule 

amending 38 CFR part 9, which was 

published at 70 FR 75940 on December 

22, 2005, is adopted as a final rule with 

the following changes: 

PART 9—SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP 

LIFE INSURANCE AND VETERANS’

GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1965–1980A. 

■ 2. Section 9.20 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d)(1). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (d)(4). 

■ c. Revising paragraph (f) 

■ d. Adding paragraph (j). 

■ e. Adding an information collection 

approval parenthetical number 

immediately following the authority 

citation. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 9.20 Traumatic injury protection. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) You must be a member of the 

uniformed services who is insured by 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

under section 1967(a)(1)(A)(i), (B) or 

(C)(i) of title 38, United States Code, on 

the date you sustained a traumatic 

injury, except if you are a member who 

experienced a traumatic injury on or 

after October 7, 2001, through and 

including December 1, 2005, and your 

scheduled loss was a direct result of 

injuries incurred in Operation Enduring 

Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

(For this purpose, you will be 

considered a member of the uniformed 

services until midnight on the date of 

termination of your duty status in the 

uniformed services that established your 

eligibility for Servicemembers’ Group 

Life Insurance, notwithstanding an 

extension of your Servicemembers’

Group Life Insurance coverage under 

section 1968(a) of title 38, United States 

Code.) 

* * * * * 

(4) You must suffer a scheduled loss 

under paragraph (e)(7) of this section 

within two years of the traumatic injury. 

* * * * * 

(f) Who will determine eligibility for 

traumatic injury protection benefits? 

Each uniformed service will certify its 

own members for traumatic injury 

protection benefits based upon section 

1032 of Public Law 109–13, section 501 

of Public Law 109–233, and this section. 

The uniformed service will certify 

whether you were at the time of the 

traumatic injury insured under 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

and whether you have sustained a 

qualifying loss. 

* * * * * 

(j) The Traumatic Servicemembers’

Group Life Insurance program will be 

administered in accordance with this 

rule, except to the extent that any 

regulatory provision is inconsistent with 

subsequently enacted applicable law. 

(The Office of Management and Budget 

has approved the information collection 

requirements in this section under 

control number 2900–0671.) 

[FR Doc. E7–4141 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AM21 

Medical: Informed Consent—Designate 

Health Care Professionals To Obtain 

Informed Consent 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

medical regulations on informed 

consent. The final rule authorizes VA to 

designate additional categories of health 

care professionals to obtain the 

informed consent of patients or their 

surrogates for clinical treatment and 

procedures and to sign the consent 

form. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Cecire, PhD, Policy Analyst, 

National Center for Ethics in Health 

Care (10E), Veterans Health 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20420; 202–501–2012 

(this is not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on February 1, 2006 (71 FR 

5204), VA proposed to amend 38 CFR 

17.32 to authorize the designation of 

additional categories of health care 

professionals to obtain the informed 

consent of patients or their surrogates 

and to sign the consent form. The 

comment period for this proposed rule 

ended April 3, 2006. We received one 

comment and now issue this final rule. 

This rule amends VA medical 

regulations on informed consent and 

brings VA practice in line with current 

professional standards of care. 

Specifically, it allows VA to designate 

appropriately trained health care 

professionals (e.g., advanced practice 

nurses and physician assistants), who 

have primary responsibility for the 

patient or who will perform a particular 

procedure or provide a treatment, to 

conduct the informed consent 

discussion and sign the consent form. 

These changes and the specific 

requirements that define ‘‘appropriately 

trained health care professionals’’ will 

be documented in a revision to VHA 

Handbook 1004.1, Informed Consent for 

Clinical Treatments and Procedures. 

The current definition of practitioner 

encompasses any health care 

professional who has been granted 

specific clinical privileges to perform 

the treatment or procedure. It also 

includes medical and dental residents 

who may not be clinically privileged but 

who, under the current regulation, may 

obtain the informed consent and sign 

the consent form. This rule extends the 

exception regarding clinical privileging 

to other appropriately trained health 

care professionals, which will be clearly 

defined in national VA policy. 

This change is required because 

clinical privileges are not granted to all 

health care professionals in VA who 

provide treatments and procedures. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES