[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 218 (Monday, November 10, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66543-66554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26304]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 4

RIN 2900-AH43


Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Eye

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) by updating the 
portion of the schedule that addresses disabilities of the eye. These 
amendments ensure that the schedule uses current medical terminology, 
provides unambiguous criteria for evaluating disabilities, and

[[Page 66544]]

incorporates pertinent medical advances.

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment is effective December 10, 2008.
    Applicability Date: These amendments shall apply to all 
applications for benefits received by VA on or after December 10, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maya Ferrandino, Consultant, Policy 
and Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation and Pension Service, 
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20420, (727) 319-5847. (This is not 
a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of its review of the Schedule for 
Rating Disabilities (38 CFR part 4), VA published a proposal to amend 
the portion of the schedule pertaining to the eye in the Federal 
Register of May 11, 1999 (64 FR 25246-25258). Interested persons were 
invited to submit written comments on or before July 12, 1999. We 
received comments from the Disabled American Veterans, the Blinded 
Veterans Association, and one other interested party.

Section 4.75 General Considerations for Evaluating Visual Impairment

    We proposed to add paragraph (c) to Sec.  4.75 to codify the 
longstanding VA practice that when visual impairment of only one eye is 
service-connected, either directly or by aggravation, the visual acuity 
of the nonservice-connected eye must be considered to be 20/40, subject 
to the provisions of 38 CFR 3.383(a). Section 3.383(a) directs that 
when there is blindness in one eye as a result of service-connected 
disability and blindness in the other eye as a result of nonservice-
connected disability, VA will pay compensation as if both were service-
connected.
    We also proposed to remove current Sec.  4.78, which provides a 
method of determining the level of disability when the visual 
impairment is aggravated during military service. As stated in the 
proposed rule, Sec.  4.78 is not consistent with VA's method of 
evaluating visual impairment incurred in service in one eye only, nor 
is it consistent with VA's statutory scheme governing VA benefits. Its 
application may, in some cases, result in a higher evaluation for a 
condition that is aggravated by service than for an identical condition 
incurred in service, which is not equitable. Section 4.78 is also 
inconsistent with the method of evaluating other paired organs, such as 
the hands, where only the service-connected hand is evaluated, 
regardless of the status of the nonservice-connected hand, subject to 
the provisions of Sec.  3.383(a).
    One commenter challenges the rule proposed in Sec.  4.75(c) as 
contrary to legal authority and long-standing VA practice. According to 
the commenter, the proper rating of visual disability always considers: 
(1) The vision of each eye, regardless of whether the origin of the 
service-connected disability is one or both eyes and (2) the entire 
disability, regardless of whether service connection is based on 
incurrence or aggravation. The commenter stated that ``service 
connection is always bilateral in the legal sense.'' The commenter 
stated that VA used the term ``service connected'' in current Sec.  
4.78 in its literal sense and that the nonservice-connected visual 
impairment to which Sec.  4.78 refers ``denotes the origin of the 
disability, not its legal status.'' The commenter further asserted that 
``service connection attaches to the impairment of function or 
disability and not to the organ or body part per se'' and that 
``service connection is accordingly established for visual impairment 
that is incurred in or aggravated by service and is not limited to the 
eye with the service-related disability.'' The commenter cited VA's 
Office of the General Counsel opinion VAOPGC 25-60 (9-13-60) and 38 
U.S.C. 1160 in support of these assertions.
    To an extent, the commenter is correct that the proper rating of 
visual disability always considers the vision of each eye, regardless 
of whether the origin of the service-connected disability is one or 
both eyes. However, if visual impairment of only one eye is service-
connected, the vision in the other eye is considered to be normal, 
i.e., 20/40. To do otherwise would violate 38 CFR 4.14, which provides 
that ``the use of manifestations not resulting from service-connected 
disease or injury in establishing the service-connected evaluation * * 
* [is] to be avoided.'' Proposed Sec.  4.75(c) merely states long-
standing VA practice in this regard.
    The commenter is mistaken about the entire disability being 
considered, regardless of whether service connection is based on 
incurrence or aggravation. As 38 CFR 4.22 plainly states: ``In cases 
involving aggravation by active service, the rating will reflect only 
the degree of disability over and above the degree existing at the time 
of entrance into the active service * * *. It is necessary therefore, 
in all cases of this character[,] to deduct from the present degree of 
disability the degree, if ascertainable, of the disability existing at 
the time of entrance into active service. * * *''
    Although there are certain specified exceptions (such as 38 U.S.C. 
1151 and 1160), generally the statutes governing VA benefits authorize 
compensation for service-connected disability only. 38 U.S.C. 101(13), 
1110, 1131. Only disabilities that result from injury or disease 
incurred or aggravated in service may be service connected. 38 U.S.C. 
1110, 1131; 38 CFR 3.310(a). VAOPGC 25-60 addressed whether VA had 
authority to award a 100-percent disability rating for visual 
impairment where there is service-connected loss or loss of use of one 
eye and nonservice-connected loss or loss of use of the other eye 
arising after service. The opinion held that VA did not have statutory 
authority to compensate veterans for nonservice-connected visual 
disability arising after service. However, Congress later provided an 
exception in 38 U.S.C. 1160. If a veteran has visual impairment in one 
eye as a result of service-connected disability and visual impairment 
in the other eye as a result of nonservice-connected disability not the 
result of the veteran's own willful misconduct and either (1) the 
impairment of visual acuity in each eye is rated at a visual acuity of 
20/200 or less or (2) the peripheral field of vision for each eye is 20 
degrees or less, VA must pay compensation to the veteran as if the 
combination of both disabilities were the result of service-connected 
disability. 38 U.S.C. 1160(a). Thus, VA's authority to consider 
nonservice-connected visual disability for compensation purposes is 
limited to the circumstances described in section 1160(a). Absent the 
degree of visual impairment in both eyes prescribed in section 1160(a), 
nonservice-connected visual disability is not compensable and therefore 
not to be considered when rating service-connected disability. Where a 
claimant has a service-connected disability of only one eye and a 
nonservice-connected visual impairment but not of the degree prescribed 
by section 1160(a) in the other eye, deeming the nonservice-connected 
eye as having a visual acuity of 20/40 results in accurate evaluations 
that are based solely upon service-connected visual impairment. Our 
proposal to deem the nonservice-connected eye as having a visual acuity 
of 20/40 is consistent with current law. We make no change based upon 
this comment.
    This commenter also asserted that VA should consider hearing loss 
less than total deafness and visual impairment less than blindness when 
evaluating impairment of the nonservice-connected ear and eye, 
respectively. The

[[Page 66545]]

commenter disagreed with VA's Office of the General Counsel opinion 
VAOPGCPREC 32-97, which interpreted the statutes governing compensation 
for service-connected disabilities and concluded that where a claimant 
has service-connected hearing loss in one ear and nonservice-connected 
hearing loss in the other ear, for purposes of evaluating the service-
connected disability, the hearing in the ear with nonservice-connected 
hearing loss should be considered normal, unless the claimant is 
totally deaf in both ears. The issue raised by the commenter was mooted 
by the Veterans Benefits Act of 2002, Public Law 107-330, which 
authorized VA, when a veteran has compensable service-connected hearing 
loss in one ear and nonservice-connected deafness in the other ear, to 
assign an evaluation and pay compensation as though both ears were 
service-connected, and the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 
2007, Public Law 110-157, which authorized VA, when a veteran has 
service-connected visual impairment in one eye and nonservice-connected 
visual impairment in the other eye of the degree described above, to 
assign an evaluation and pay compensation as though both eye 
disabilities were service connected. See 38 U.S.C. 1160(a)(1) and (3).
    Further, while Sec.  4.78 addressed aggravation, it is unnecessary 
to include this in this regulation as it is covered in 38 CFR 4.22. 
Section 4.78's discussion of aggravation was duplicative of Sec.  4.22.
    Proposed Sec.  4.75(d) stated that the evaluation for visual 
impairment of one eye may be combined with evaluations for other 
disabilities that are not based on visual impairment and included 
disfigurement as an example. One commenter suggested that we evaluate 
phthisis bulbi (shrunken eyeball) or other serious cosmetic defect of 
the eyeball at 40 percent instead of referring the rater to diagnostic 
code 7800 (``Scars, disfiguring, head, face, or neck'') under the skin 
portion of the Rating Schedule. The commenter felt this would provide a 
standard evaluation for this problem.
    The portion of the Rating Schedule that addresses the skin has been 
revised (67 FR 49590, July 31, 2002) since the comment was written. 
Diagnostic code 7800 is no longer limited to evaluation of scarring of 
the skin. The revised evaluation criteria include a 30-percent 
evaluation for gross distortion or asymmetry of a paired set of 
features with visible or palpable tissue loss. Since by definition, 
phthisis bulbi is a shrunken or atrophic eyeball, there would be 
visible or palpable tissue loss, and this level of evaluation under 
diagnostic code 7800 would apply. Any other cosmetic defect of the 
eyeball that meets the criteria for disfigurement could also be 
evaluated under diagnostic code 7800, with the level of evaluation 
based on application of the criteria for disfigurement. Therefore, we 
make no change based on this comment.
    Proposed Sec.  4.75(e) instructed adjudicators to increase 
evaluations by 10 percent in situations where a claimant has anatomical 
loss of one eye with inability to wear a prosthesis. One commenter 
suggested that 10 percent be added in the absence of anatomical loss 
but with deformity and inability to wear a prosthesis. The evaluation 
criteria of diagnostic code 7800 would apply in this situation. The 
level of evaluation for deformity and inability to wear a prosthesis 
could be more or less than 10 percent, depending on the extent of 
disfigurement. However, to avoid pyramiding under 38 CFR 4.14 (``the 
evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses [is] to 
be avoided''), an evaluation under diagnostic code 7800 would preclude 
an additional 10 percent for the same deformity under Sec.  4.75. We 
have decided to also specify in Sec.  4.75(e) that the 10-percent 
increase in evaluation under that provision for anatomical loss of one 
eye with inability to wear a prosthesis precludes an evaluation under 
diagnostic code 7800 based on gross distortion or asymmetry of the eye.
    We made nonsubstantive revisions to proposed Sec.  4.75(b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f) to improve clarity.

Section 4.76 Visual Acuity

    We proposed to delete Sec.  4.83, which stated that a person not 
able to read at any one of the scheduled steps or distances, but able 
to read at the ``next scheduled step or distance,'' is to be rated as 
reading at this latter step or distance. A commenter noted that this 
rule is vital for determining whether to select the higher or lower 
evaluation and recommended that we retain Sec.  4.83. In our view, an 
adjudicator could simply refer to 38 CFR 4.7 to determine the correct 
evaluation. However, we will retain this instruction to promote 
consistency of evaluations. We have included the following language in 
Sec.  4.76(b) at Sec.  4.76(b)(4): ``To evaluate the impairment of 
visual acuity where a claimant has a reported visual acuity that is 
between two sequentially listed visual acuities, use the visual acuity 
which permits the higher evaluation.''
    We proposed that visual acuity would generally be evaluated on the 
basis of corrected distance vision. One commenter suggested that 
because VA policy is to rate on central acuity, not eccentric viewing, 
we should revise the proposed language of Sec.  4.76(b)(1) to clarify 
that even when a central scotoma is present, central visual acuity is 
evaluated based upon best corrected distance vision with central 
fixation. We agree that central visual acuity should be emphasized. To 
assure consistency of evaluation and eliminate the variability that 
could result if eccentric vision were tested, we have revised the 
language of proposed Sec.  4.76(b)(1) according to the commenter's 
suggestion. For the sake of consistency, we have also added ``central'' 
to Sec.  4.76(a) before ``uncorrected and corrected visual acuity''.
    Another commenter asked how visual acuity is determined if central 
fixation is not possible. Visual acuity can be determined in these 
cases by optometrists and ophthalmologists, because they are routinely 
trained in special methods and techniques that allow them to assess 
visual acuity and/or function when there is loss of central fixation. 
Thus, central visual acuity can still be used to rate visual 
impairment, even if central fixation is impossible.
    In Sec.  4.76(b)(1), we proposed to amend how we evaluate visual 
acuity where there is a significant difference in the lens required to 
correct distance vision in the poorer eye compared to the lens required 
to correct distance vision in the better eye. We proposed to evaluate 
the visual acuity of the poorer eye using either its uncorrected visual 
acuity or its visual acuity as corrected by a lens that does not differ 
by more than three diopters from the lens needed for correction of the 
other eye, whichever results in better combined visual acuity. This 
provision reduced the diopter difference required for application of 
this provision from the current requirement of more than four diopters 
to a requirement of more than three diopters. We proposed to reduce the 
diopter difference because at more than three diopters there is a 
significant possibility that a claimant will have visual difficulties. 
However, we have learned that even reducing the diopter difference 
required for application of this provision from more than four diopters 
to more than three diopters may still not assure that the individual's 
brain will be able to ``fuse'' the two differently sized images. The 
inability to do so results in an intolerable optical correction from 
clinically significant aniseikonia (where the ocular image of an object 
as seen by one eye differs in size and shape from that seen by the 
other).
    Therefore, we have decided to remove the language ``by a lens that 
does not

[[Page 66546]]

differ by more than three diopters from the lens needed for correction 
of the other eye.'' By permitting evaluation based on either 
uncorrected vision or corrected vision without specifying the 
refractive power of the lens, we can accommodate both individuals who 
do experience visual difficulty when wearing such different lenses and 
individuals who do not experience visual difficulty.
    Further, we have added to Sec.  4.76(b)(1) language stating, ``and 
either the poorer eye or both eyes are service connected'' to emphasize 
VA's authority to service connect unilateral visual impairment. This 
additional language clarifies that VA evaluators must apply this 
provision whether disability of either only one eye (the poorer eye) or 
both eyes is service-connected.
    We made nonsubstantive revisions to proposed Sec.  4.76(a), (b)(1), 
(b)(2) and (b)(3) to improve clarity.

Section 4.76a Computation of Average Concentric Contraction of Visual 
Fields

    We proposed to remove Sec.  4.76a because directions for evaluating 
visual fields were revised and moved to Sec.  4.77. The proposed rule 
did not make it clear whether or not Table III and Figure 1, which are 
part of Sec.  4.76a, were to be retained. Table III lists the normal 
degrees of the visual field at the eight principal meridians and also 
gives an example of computing concentric contraction of abnormal visual 
fields. One commenter suggested that we retain the example of computing 
visual fields because it is useful for understanding the material on 
average concentric contraction. We agree, and although we have deleted 
from Sec.  4.76a the text preceding Table III, we have retained Table 
III (including the example) and Figure 1 in the final rule.

Section 4.77 Visual Fields

    Proposed Sec.  4.77(a) stated that to be adequate for VA purposes, 
examinations of visual fields must be conducted using a Goldmann 
kinetic perimeter or equivalent kinetic method, using a standard target 
size and luminance (Goldmann's equivalent (III/4e)). It required that 
at least 16 meridians 221/2 degrees apart be charted for each eye. 
Table III listed the normal extent of the visual fields (in degrees) at 
the 8 principal meridians (45 degrees apart). It also stated that the 
examination must be supplemented by the use of a tangent screen when 
the examiner indicates it is necessary.
    The preamble to the proposed rule also stated that until there are 
reliable standards for comparing the results from static and kinetic 
perimetry, we propose to retain the requirement for the use of Goldmann 
kinetic perimetry, which is more reliable than the alternatives. One 
commenter suggested that VA's disability examination worksheet for the 
eye also specify the use of a Goldmann kinetic perimeter or equivalent 
kinetic examination method.
    After the proposed rule was published, software programs for 
automated perimetry were developed that completely simulate results 
from Goldmann perimetry and can be charted on standard Goldmann charts. 
The Compensation and Pension Service, after consultation with the 
Veterans Health Administration's Chiefs of Ophthalmology and Optometry, 
sent a letter (FL06-21) on November 8, 2006, to the Veterans Benefits 
Administration regional offices stating that Humphrey Model 750, 
Octopus Model 101, and later versions of these perimetric devices with 
simulated kinetic Goldmann testing capability are acceptable devices 
for determining the extent of visual field loss for compensation and 
pension eye rating examinations.
    Therefore, we have changed proposed Sec.  4.77(a) to indicate that 
examiners must assess visual fields using either Goldmann kinetic 
perimetry or automated perimetry using Humphrey Model 750, Octopus 
Model 101, or later versions of these perimetric devices with simulated 
kinetic Goldmann testing capability. We also clarified the directions 
about the Goldmann equivalent that must be used for phakic (normal), 
aphakic, and pseudophakic individuals. The content of the disability 
examination worksheets is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and we 
make no change based on the comment about the worksheet.
    We proposed to evaluate visual fields by using a Goldmann kinetic 
perimeter or equivalent kinetic method, using a standard target size 
and luminance (Goldmann's equivalent (III/4e)). That Goldmann 
equivalent is useful for evaluating visual fields except in certain 
cases where a larger equivalent size is needed. We have therefore 
clarified the use of Goldmann equivalents in the final rule by revising 
proposed Sec.  4.77(a) to state that, for phakic (normal) individuals, 
as well as for pseudophakic or aphakic individuals who are well adapted 
to intraocular lens implant or contact lens correction, visual field 
examinations must be conducted using a standard target size and 
luminance, which is Goldmann's equivalent III/4e. For aphakic 
individuals not well adapted to contact lens correction or pseudophakic 
individuals not well adapted to intraocular lens implant, visual field 
examinations must be conducted using Goldmann's equivalent IV/4e.
    Proposed Sec.  4.77(a) stated that ``[a]t least two recordings of 
visual fields must be made'' for purposes of VA's disability 
evaluations. We have learned from vision specialists that this is not 
necessary and is not standard procedure, since the visual field outline 
is determined by testing multiple objects along each meridian. 
Therefore, we have removed the language requiring ``two recordings'' as 
unnecessary. In conjunction with this change, we have also removed the 
proposed statement that the confirmed visual fields must be made a part 
of the examination report. Instead, we have stated in Sec.  4.77(a) 
that in all cases, the results of visual field examinations must be 
recorded on a standard Goldmann chart. We additionally require that the 
Goldmann chart be included with the examination report.
    Proposed Sec.  4.77(a) also said that the examination must be 
supplemented by the use of a tangent screen when the examiner indicates 
it is necessary. We have determined that a 30-degree threshold visual 
field with the Goldmann III stimulus size could be used in lieu of a 
tangent screen. This test provides information similar to the tangent 
screen. For this reason, the final rule provides that adjudicators must 
consider either of these two tests when additional testing of visual 
fields becomes necessary, and requires that the examination report 
include either the tracing of the tangent screen or the tracing of the 
30-degree threshold visual field.
    We made further nonsubstantive revisions to proposed Sec.  4.77(a), 
(b), and (c) to improve clarity.

Section 4.78 Muscle Function

    In proposed Sec.  4.78(b)(1), we provided guidance concerning the 
evaluation of diplopia, and proposed that adjudicators assign an 
evaluation for diplopia for only one eye. Further, we proposed that 
where a claimant has both diplopia and decreased visual acuity or a 
visual field defect, the corrected visual acuity for the poorer eye (or 
the affected eye, if only one eye is service-connected) is deemed to 
be, depending on the severity of the diplopia, between one and three 
steps poorer, provided that the adjusted level of corrected visual 
acuity does not exceed 5/200. Using the adjusted visual acuity for the 
poorer eye (or the affected eye) and the corrected visual acuity for 
the better eye, we proposed that the claimant's visual impairment be 
evaluated under diagnostic codes 6064 through 6066.

[[Page 66547]]

Proposed diagnostic code 6064 refers to light perception only (LPO), 
which exceeds a visual acuity level of 5/200. Hence, an evaluation 
under diagnostic code 6064 is not permitted under Sec.  4.78(b). 
Therefore, in Sec.  4.78(b)(1) we have omitted reference to diagnostic 
code 6064.
    We proposed not to retain in Sec.  4.78(b)(1) the rule from former 
Sec.  4.77 (Examination of muscle function) which stated that 
``[d]iplopia which is only occasional or correctable is not considered 
a disability,'' since it pertains to the issue of service connection 
rather than evaluation. Section 4.78(b)(1) addresses evaluation of 
muscle function rather than service connection. One commenter stated 
that this rule provides useful guidance to adjudicators considering 
claims for service connection for diplopia. In response to this 
comment, and because disease of or injury to one or more extraocular 
eye muscles may cause diplopia which is occasional or correctable, 
rather than including this language in Sec.  4.78(b)(1), we have added 
a note under diagnostic code 6090 (diplopia) stating that in accordance 
with 38 CFR 4.31, diplopia that is occasional or that is correctable 
with spectacles is evaluated at 0 percent. This would clarify how to 
evaluate diplopia with these characteristics.
    In order to remove any doubt about the difference between Sec.  
4.78(b)(2), which explains how to evaluate diplopia that is present in 
more than one quadrant or range of degrees, and Sec.  4.78(b)(3), which 
explains how to evaluate diplopia that exists in two separate areas of 
the same eye, we have changed the language of Sec.  4.78(b)(2) from 
``[w]hen diplopia is present in more than one quadrant,'' as proposed, 
to ``[w]hen diplopia extends beyond more than one quadrant''. This is 
similar to the language in the current rating schedule and will ensure 
a clear distinction between these provisions.
    We made nonsubstantive revisions to proposed Sec.  4.78 (a) and (b) 
to improve clarity.

Section 4.79 Schedule of Ratings--Eye

    We proposed to evaluate angle-closure glaucoma (diagnostic code 
6012), which often presents as a red, painful eye, sometimes 
accompanied by nausea and vomiting, either on the basis of visual 
impairment or on the basis of incapacitating episodes, whichever 
results in a higher evaluation. We proposed to evaluate open-angle 
glaucoma (diagnostic code 6013), which generally presents as painless, 
chronic, progressive loss of vision, solely on the basis of visual 
impairment because open-angle glaucoma is unlikely to result in 
incapacitating episodes.
    One commenter questioned why angle-closure glaucoma based on 
incapacitating episodes does not include a 10-percent evaluation for 
incapacitating episodes of at least 1 week, but less than 2 weeks total 
duration per year, when diagnostic codes 6000 through 6009 provide for 
such an evaluation. Under the proposed rule, a minimum evaluation of 10 
percent would be assigned for angle-closure glaucoma if continuous 
medication is required. In our view, virtually all claimants with 
symptomatic angle-closure glaucoma would require continuous medication, 
which would entitle them to a minimum 10-percent evaluation. Therefore, 
we did not propose a 10-percent evaluation based on incapacitating 
episodes. We make no change based upon this comment.
    One commenter suggested that we evaluate both angle-closure and 
open-angle glaucoma on the basis of visual field loss or central visual 
acuity impairment, whichever results in a higher evaluation. Section 
4.75(a) states that the evaluation of visual impairment is based on 
impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of 
refraction), visual field, and muscle function. All three elements of 
visual impairment may be present in glaucoma, although visual field 
loss is most common. Not only would the commenter's suggestion limit 
the rating possibilities to two of the three elements of visual 
impairment, it also would not allow for evaluation of angle-closure 
glaucoma based on incapacitating episodes. Section 4.75(b) states that 
eye examinations must be conducted by a licensed optometrist or 
ophthalmologist, and such specialists are unlikely to overlook a visual 
field defect or any other type of visual impairment in an individual 
with glaucoma. In our judgment, allowing evaluation to be based on any 
of the three elements of visual impairment or on incapacitating 
episodes is a fair way to assess glaucoma and to assure that the 
veteran is evaluated based on the disabling effects that provide the 
higher benefit. We have therefore not adopted the commenter's 
suggestion.
    We proposed that certain eye disabilities be evaluated either on 
visual impairment or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in a 
higher evaluation. We proposed to define an incapacitating episode as a 
period of acute symptoms severe enough to require bed rest and 
treatment by a physician or other healthcare provider.
    One commenter suggested that the rating formula based on 
incapacitating episodes--60 percent if there are incapacitating 
episodes of at least 6 weeks total duration per year, 40 percent if 
there are incapacitating episodes of at least 4 weeks, but less than 6 
weeks, total duration per year, etc.--is miserly because a veteran will 
be compensated only for visual impairment or periods of incapacitation, 
but not both, and with less than bedrest, the veteran receives nothing.
    In most eye diseases, visual impairment will be the major problem 
and therefore the more common basis of evaluation. With modern medical 
and surgical treatment, few patients require bedrest of any duration 
for eye disease. However, an evaluation based on incapacitating 
episodes might be higher in those few cases in which bedrest might be 
required, e.g., angle-closure glaucoma with severe pain, nausea, and 
vomiting. If bedrest is not required, evaluation is based on visual 
impairment. The evaluations based on visual impairment and those based 
on incapacitating episodes are both meant to account for the average 
occupational impairment. Providing alternative criteria allows the 
rater to evaluate using the set of criteria more favorable to the 
veteran.
    The same commenter asked why there is a maximum evaluation of 60 
percent for incapacitating episodes.
    As stated above, with modern medical and surgical treatment, very 
few, if any, veterans will experience incapacitating episodes of more 
than 6 weeks total duration per year due to eye disease. However, for 
any who do, 38 CFR 4.16(a), which provides for a total evaluation based 
on individual unemployability, and 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1), which provides 
for extra-schedular evaluations in cases where an evaluation is 
inadequate because the condition presents such an unusual disability 
picture that applying the regular schedular standards would be 
impractical, provide reasonable alternatives for assigning an 
evaluation greater than 60 percent. In our judgment, the range of 
evaluations we have provided based on incapacitating episodes of eye 
disease will adequately compensate veterans, and a 100-percent 
evaluation level based on incapacitating episodes is not warranted.
    Conditions evaluated on the basis of incapacitating episodes are 
entitled to a 60-percent evaluation when the claimant has experienced 
at least 6 weeks of incapacitating episodes over the preceding 12 
months. One commenter suggested that, in some cases, an adjudicator 
would not be able

[[Page 66548]]

to assign the maximum 60-percent evaluation until after the passage of 
an entire year, and felt that evaluations based upon incapacitating 
episodes should be retroactive to the date of the first incapacitating 
episode, regardless of when it occurred.
    By statute (38 U.S.C. 5110(a)), except as otherwise provided, the 
effective date of an award of compensation will be fixed in accordance 
with the facts but not before the date of receipt of the claim. 
Furthermore, an award of increased compensation will be effective the 
earliest date it is ascertainable that an increase in disability 
occurred if application is received within 1 year of that date. 38 
U.S.C. 5110(b)(2). Otherwise, the effective date is the date the claim 
was received. 38 CFR 3.400(o)(2). We are aware of no special provisions 
that would apply to the evaluation of incapacitating episodes of the 
eye. Under governing law, entitlement to a 60-percent rating would not 
arise until 6 weeks of incapacitating episodes have taken place, and 
the effective date could not be established before then. Once the 
claimant has experienced 6 weeks of incapacitating episodes, the 60-
percent evaluation will be assigned, even if the evaluation occurs 
within several months of the initial incapacitating episode. In cases 
where it takes the entire 12-month period for a claimant to experience 
6 weeks of incapacitating episodes, the 60-percent evaluation will be 
assigned at that time. However, during the interim, a rating 
corresponding to the total duration of incapacitating episodes already 
experienced may be assigned. That is to say, once 1 week of 
incapacitating episodes is experienced, a 10-percent rating may be 
assigned; once 2 weeks of incapacitating episodes are experienced, a 
20-percent rating may be assigned; etc. We make no change based on this 
comment.
    The proposed criteria based on incapacitating episodes referred to 
the total duration of incapacitating episodes ``per year''. To clarify 
that we mean during the preceding 12-month period, and not the calendar 
year, we have changed this language to refer to incapacitating episodes 
``during the past 12 months''. This language is consistent with other 
provisions in the rating schedule that evaluate incapacitating episodes 
(e.g., diagnostic code 5243, intervertebral disc syndrome, and 
diagnostic code 7354, hepatitis C). We are also adding language to 
indicate that bed rest must be prescribed by a physician to the notes 
following diagnostic codes 6000 through 6009 and diagnostic code 6012 
of the rating schedule. This clarifies VA's intent in the proposed rule 
and makes a nonsubstantive change for clarification purposes.
    One commenter asked for clarification as to whether the absence of 
light perception is to be evaluated as anatomical loss of one eye 
(diagnostic code 6063) or light perception only (diagnostic code 6064).
    Section 4.75(d) states that the evaluation for visual impairment of 
one eye must not exceed 30-percent unless there is anatomical loss of 
the eye. This is clear and straightforward and names no exceptions. 
Therefore, in evaluating visual acuity of one eye, no light perception 
is evaluated the same as light perception only. To avoid confusion, we 
have revised the titles of diagnostic codes 6062 to ``No more than 
light perception in both eyes'' and 6064 to ``No more than light 
perception in one eye.''
    As previously discussed under one of the comments about diplopia, 
we have added a note to diagnostic code 6090 stating that occasional or 
correctable diplopia will be evaluated as 0-percent disabling.
    One commenter asked that we clarify whether the use of an eye patch 
for diplopia warrants special monthly compensation (SMC) (see 38 CFR 
3.350) for loss or loss of use of an eye. Since the eye is present when 
an eye patch is used for diplopia, SMC for loss of an eye is not 
warranted. Visual impairment due to diplopia is determined without the 
eye patch, and it could be at any level of severity, so SMC for loss of 
use of an eye is also not warranted. The fact that the eye is not being 
used when it is patched does not necessarily mean it cannot be used, 
which would be required for loss of use.
    We use the word ``alternatively'' instead of the proposed 
``otherwise'' in diagnostic code 6011 for clarity and add ``if this 
would result in a higher evaluation'' for further guidance. We use 
similar language in diagnostic code 6081 for the same purpose. We 
additionally edited the proposed criteria for evaluating malignant 
neoplasms of the eyeball (diagnostic code 6014) for the sake of 
clarity.
    VA appreciates the comments submitted in response to the proposed 
rule. Based on the rationale stated in the proposed rule and in this 
document, the proposed rule is adopted as final with the changes noted.

Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and 
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any year. This final rule would have no such effect on 
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

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 Executive 
Order classifies a ``significant regulatory action,'' requiring review 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such 
review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule 
that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy 
implications of this final rule has been examined, and it has been 
determined to be a significant regulatory action under the Executive 
Order because it is likely to result in a rule that may raise novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612. This final rule would not affect any small entities. Only VA 
beneficiaries could be directly

[[Page 66549]]

affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is 
exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis 
requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and 
titles are 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for 
Veterans, and 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected 
Disability.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4

    Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.

    Approved: August 6, 2008.
Gordon H. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 4, subpart B, is 
amended as set forth below:

PART 4--SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.

Subpart B--Disability Ratings

0
2. Section 4.75 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  4.75  General considerations for evaluating visual impairment.

    (a) Visual impairment. The evaluation of visual impairment is based 
on impairment of visual acuity (excluding developmental errors of 
refraction), visual field, and muscle function.
    (b) Examination for visual impairment. The examination must be 
conducted by a licensed optometrist or by a licensed ophthalmologist. 
The examiner must identify the disease, injury, or other pathologic 
process responsible for any visual impairment found. Examinations of 
visual fields or muscle function will be conducted only when there is a 
medical indication of disease or injury that may be associated with 
visual field defect or impaired muscle function. Unless medically 
contraindicated, the fundus must be examined with the claimant's pupils 
dilated.
    (c) Service-connected visual impairment of only one eye. Subject to 
the provisions of 38 CFR 3.383(a), if visual impairment of only one eye 
is service-connected, the visual acuity of the other eye will be 
considered to be 20/40 for purposes of evaluating the service-connected 
visual impairment.
    (d) Maximum evaluation for visual impairment of one eye. The 
evaluation for visual impairment of one eye must not exceed 30 percent 
unless there is anatomical loss of the eye. Combine the evaluation for 
visual impairment of one eye with evaluations for other disabilities of 
the same eye that are not based on visual impairment (e.g., 
disfigurement under diagnostic code 7800).
    (e) Anatomical loss of one eye with inability to wear a prosthesis. 
When the claimant has anatomical loss of one eye and is unable to wear 
a prosthesis, increase the evaluation for visual acuity under 
diagnostic code 6063 by 10 percent, but the maximum evaluation for 
visual impairment of both eyes must not exceed 100 percent. A 10-
percent increase under this paragraph precludes an evaluation under 
diagnostic code 7800 based on gross distortion or asymmetry of the eye 
but not an evaluation under diagnostic code 7800 based on other 
characteristics of disfigurement.
    (f) Special monthly compensation. When evaluating visual 
impairment, refer to 38 CFR 3.350 to determine whether the claimant may 
be entitled to special monthly compensation. Footnotes in the schedule 
indicate levels of visual impairment that potentially establish 
entitlement to special monthly compensation; however, other levels of 
visual impairment combined with disabilities of other body systems may 
also establish entitlement.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1114 and 1155)



0
3. Section 4.76 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  4.76  Visual acuity.

    (a) Examination of visual acuity. Examination of visual acuity must 
include the central uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for 
distance and near vision using Snellen's test type or its equivalent.
    (b) Evaluation of visual acuity. (1) Evaluate central visual acuity 
on the basis of corrected distance vision with central fixation, even 
if a central scotoma is present. However, when the lens required to 
correct distance vision in the poorer eye differs by more than three 
diopters from the lens required to correct distance vision in the 
better eye (and the difference is not due to congenital or 
developmental refractive error), and either the poorer eye or both eyes 
are service connected, evaluate the visual acuity of the poorer eye 
using either its uncorrected or corrected visual acuity, whichever 
results in better combined visual acuity.
    (2) Provided that he or she customarily wears contact lenses, 
evaluate the visual acuity of any individual affected by a corneal 
disorder that results in severe irregular astigmatism that can be 
improved more by contact lenses than by eyeglass lenses, as corrected 
by contact lenses.
    (3) In any case where the examiner reports that there is a 
difference equal to two or more scheduled steps between near and 
distance corrected vision, with the near vision being worse, the 
examination report must include at least two recordings of near and 
distance corrected vision and an explanation of the reason for the 
difference. In these cases, evaluate based on corrected distance vision 
adjusted to one step poorer than measured.
    (4) To evaluate the impairment of visual acuity where a claimant 
has a reported visual acuity that is between two sequentially listed 
visual acuities, use the visual acuity which permits the higher 
evaluation.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)



0
4. In Sec.  4.76a, remove the introductory text, retain Table III--
Normal Visual Field Extent at 8 Principal Meridians, retain Figure 1. 
Chart of visual field showing normal field right eye and abnormal 
contraction visual field left eye and the text and table following 
Figure 1, and add an authority citation at the end of the section to 
read as follows.


Sec.  4.76a  Computation of average concentric contraction of visual 
fields.

* * * * *

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)



0
5. Section 4.77 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading.
0
b. Removing the introductory text and adding, in its place, paragraphs 
(a), (b), and (c).
0
c. Retaining Figure 2. Goldmann Perimeter Chart.
0
d. Adding an authority citation at the end of the section.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  4.77  Visual fields.

    (a) Examination of visual fields. Examiners must use either 
Goldmann kinetic perimetry or automated perimetry using Humphrey Model 
750, Octopus Model 101, or later versions of these perimetric devices 
with simulated kinetic Goldmann testing capability. For phakic (normal) 
individuals, as well as for pseudophakic or aphakic individuals who are 
well adapted to intraocular lens implant or contact lens correction, 
visual field examinations must be conducted using a standard target 
size

[[Page 66550]]

and luminance, which is Goldmann's equivalent III/4e. For aphakic 
individuals not well adapted to contact lens correction or pseudophakic 
individuals not well adapted to intraocular lens implant, visual field 
examinations must be conducted using Goldmann's equivalent IV/4e. In 
all cases, the results must be recorded on a standard Goldmann chart 
(see Figure 1), and the Goldmann chart must be included with the 
examination report. The examiner must chart at least 16 meridians 22\1/
2\ degrees apart for each eye and indicate the Goldmann equivalent 
used. See Table III for the normal extent (in degrees) of the visual 
fields at the 8 principal meridians (45 degrees apart). When the 
examiner indicates that additional testing is necessary to evaluate 
visual fields, the additional testing must be conducted using either a 
tangent screen or a 30-degree threshold visual field with the Goldmann 
III stimulus size. The examination report must then include the tracing 
of either the tangent screen or of the 30-degree threshold visual field 
with the Goldmann III stimulus size.
    (b) Evaluation of visual fields. Determine the average concentric 
contraction of the visual field of each eye by measuring the remaining 
visual field (in degrees) at each of eight principal meridians 45 
degrees apart, adding them, and dividing the sum by eight.
    (c) Combination of visual field defect and decreased visual acuity. 
To determine the evaluation for visual impairment when both decreased 
visual acuity and visual field defect are present in one or both eyes 
and are service connected, separately evaluate the visual acuity and 
visual field defect (expressed as a level of visual acuity), and 
combine them under the provisions of Sec.  4.25.
* * * * *

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)



0
6. Section 4.78 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  4.78  Muscle function.

    (a) Examination of muscle function. The examiner must use a 
Goldmann perimeter chart that identifies the four major quadrants 
(upward, downward, left and right lateral) and the central field (20 
degrees or less) (see Figure 2). The examiner must chart the areas of 
diplopia and include the plotted chart with the examination report.
    (b) Evaluation of muscle function. (1) An evaluation for diplopia 
will be assigned to only one eye. When a claimant has both diplopia and 
decreased visual acuity or visual field defect, assign a level of 
corrected visual acuity for the poorer eye (or the affected eye, if 
disability of only one eye is service-connected) that is: one step 
poorer than it would otherwise warrant if the evaluation for diplopia 
under diagnostic code 6090 is 20/70 or 20/100; two steps poorer if the 
evaluation under diagnostic code 6090 is 20/200 or 15/200; or three 
steps poorer if the evaluation under diagnostic code 6090 is 5/200. 
This adjusted level of corrected visual acuity, however, must not 
exceed a level of 5/200. Use the adjusted visual acuity for the poorer 
eye (or the affected eye, if disability of only one eye is service-
connected), and the corrected visual acuity for the better eye (or 
visual acuity of 20/40 for the other eye, if only one eye is service-
connected) to determine the percentage evaluation for visual impairment 
under diagnostic codes 6065 through 6066.
    (2) When diplopia extends beyond more than one quadrant or range of 
degrees, evaluate diplopia based on the quadrant and degree range that 
provides the highest evaluation.
    (3) When diplopia exists in two separate areas of the same eye, 
increase the equivalent visual acuity under diagnostic code 6090 to the 
next poorer level of visual acuity, not to exceed 5/200.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)



0
7. Section 4.79 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  4.79  Schedule of ratings--eye.

                           Diseases of the Eye
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6000 Choroidopathy, including uveitis, iritis, cyclitis, and
 choroiditis.
6001 Keratopathy.
6002 Scleritis.
6006 Retinopathy or maculopathy.
6007 Intraocular hemorrhage.
6008 Detachment of retina.
6009 Unhealed eye injury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      General Rating Formula for Diagnostic Codes 6000 through 6009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Evaluate on the basis of either visual impairment due to
     the particular condition or on incapacitating episodes,
     whichever results in a higher evaluation.
    With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of           60
     at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months..............
    With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of           40
     at least 4 weeks, but less than 6 weeks, during the past
     12 months...............................................
    With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of           20
     at least 2 weeks, but less than 4 weeks, during the past
     12 months...............................................
    With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of           10
     at least 1 week, but less than 2 weeks, during the past
     12 months...............................................
Note: For VA purposes, an incapacitating episode is a period
 of acute symptoms severe enough to require prescribed bed
 rest and treatment by a physician or other healthcare
 provider.
6010 Tuberculosis of eye:
    Active...................................................        100
    Inactive: Evaluate under Sec.   4.88c or Sec.   4.89 of
     this part, whichever is appropriate.
6011 Retinal scars, atrophy, or irregularities:
    Localized scars, atrophy, or irregularities of the                10
     retina, unilateral or bilateral, that are centrally
     located and that result in an irregular, duplicated,
     enlarged, or diminished image...........................
    Alternatively, evaluate based on visual impairment due to
     retinal scars, atrophy, or irregularities, if this would
     result in a higher evaluation.
6012 Angle-closure glaucoma:
    Evaluate on the basis of either visual impairment due to
     angle-closure glaucoma or incapacitating episodes,
     whichever results in a higher evaluation.
    With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of           60
     at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months..............

[[Page 66551]]

 
    With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of           40
     at least 4 weeks, but less than 6 weeks, during the past
     12 months...............................................
    With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of           20
     at least 2 weeks, but less than 4 weeks, during the past
     12 months...............................................
    Minimum evaluation if continuous medication is required..         10
Note: For VA purposes, an incapacitating episode is a period
 of acute symptoms severe enough to require prescribed bed
 rest and treatment by a physician or other healthcare
 provider.
6013 Open-angle glaucoma:
    Evaluate based on visual impairment due to open-angle
     glaucoma.
    Minimum evaluation if continuous medication is required..         10
6014 Malignant neoplasms (eyeball only):
    Malignant neoplasm of the eyeball that requires therapy          100
     that is comparable to that used for systemic
     malignancies, i.e., systemic chemotherapy, X-ray therapy
     more extensive than to the area of the eye, or surgery
     more extensive than enucleation.........................
Note: Continue the 100-percent rating beyond the cessation of
 any surgical, X-ray, antineoplastic chemotherapy or other
 therapeutic procedure. Six months after discontinuance of
 such treatment, the appropriate disability rating will be
 determined by mandatory VA examination. Any change in
 evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination
 will be subject to the provisions of Sec.   3.105(e) of this
 chapter. If there has been no local recurrence or
 metastasis, evaluate based on residuals.
    Malignant neoplasm of the eyeball that does not require
     therapy comparable to that for systemic malignancies:
    Separately evaluate visual impairment and nonvisual
     impairment, e.g., disfigurement (diagnostic code 7800),
     and combine the evaluations.
6015 Benign neoplasms (of eyeball and adnexa):
    Separately evaluate visual impairment and nonvisual
     impairment, e.g., disfigurement (diagnostic code 7800),
     and combine the evaluations.
6016 Nystagmus, central......................................         10
6017 Trachomatous conjunctivitis:
    Active: Evaluate based on visual impairment, minimum.....         30
    Inactive: Evaluate based on residuals, such as visual
     impairment and disfigurement (diagnostic code 7800).
6018 Chronic conjunctivitis (nontrachomatous):
    Active (with objective findings, such as red, thick               10
     conjunctivae, mucous secretion, etc.)...................
    Inactive: Evaluate based on residuals, such as visual
     impairment and disfigurement (diagnostic code 7800).
6019 Ptosis, unilateral or bilateral:
    Evaluate based on visual impairment or, in the absence of
     visual impairment, on disfigurement (diagnostic code
     7800).
6020 Ectropion:
    Bilateral................................................         20
    Unilateral...............................................         10
6021 Entropion:
    Bilateral................................................         20
    Unilateral...............................................         10
6022 Lagophthalmos:
    Bilateral................................................         20
    Unilateral...............................................         10
6023 Loss of eyebrows, complete, unilateral or bilateral.....         10
6024 Loss of eyelashes, complete, unilateral or bilateral....         10
6025 Disorders of the lacrimal apparatus (epiphora,
 dacryocystitis, etc.):
    Bilateral................................................         20
    Unilateral...............................................         10
6026 Optic neuropathy:
    Evaluate based on visual impairment.
6027 Cataract of any type:
 Preoperative:
    Evaluate based on visual impairment.
 Postoperative:
    If a replacement lens is present (pseudophakia), evaluate
     based on visual impairment. If there is no replacement
     lens, evaluate based on aphakia.
6029 Aphakia or dislocation of crystalline lens:
    Evaluate based on visual impairment, and elevate the
     resulting level of visual impairment one step.
    Minimum (unilateral or bilateral)........................         30
6030 Paralysis of accommodation (due to neuropathy of the             20
 Oculomotor Nerve (cranial nerve III)).
6032 Loss of eyelids, partial or complete:
    Separately evaluate both visual impairment due to eyelid
     loss and nonvisual impairment, e.g., disfigurement
     (diagnostic code 7800), and combine the evaluations.
6034 Pterygium:
    Evaluate based on visual impairment, disfigurement
     (diagnostic code 7800), conjunctivitis (diagnostic code
     6018), etc., depending on the particular findings.
6035 Keratoconus:
    Evaluate based on impairment of visual acuity.
6036 Status post corneal transplant:
    Evaluate based on visual impairment.
    Minimum, if there is pain, photophobia, and glare                 10
     sensitivity.............................................
6037 Pinguecula:
    Evaluate based on disfigurement (diagnostic code 7800).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66552]]

 
                   Impairment of Central Visual Acuity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6061 Anatomical loss of both eyes \1\........................        100
6062 No more than light perception in both eyes \1\..........        100
6063 Anatomical loss of one eye: \1\
    In the other eye 5/200 (1.5/60)..........................        100
    In the other eye 10/200 (3/60)...........................         90
    In the other eye 15/200 (4.5/60).........................         80
    In the other eye 20/200 (6/60)...........................         70
    In the other eye 20/100 (6/30)...........................         60
    In the other eye 20/70 (6/21)............................         60
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         50
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         40
6064 No more than light perception in one eye: \1\
    In the other eye 5/200 (1.5/60)..........................        100
    In the other eye 10/200 (3/60)...........................         90
    In the other eye 15/200 (4.5/60).........................         80
    In the other eye 20/200 (6/60)...........................         70
    In the other eye 20/100 (6/30)...........................         60
    In the other eye 20/70 (6/21)............................         50
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         40
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         30
6065 Vision in one eye 5/200 (1.5/60):
    In the other eye 5/200 (1.5/60)..........................     \1\100
    In the other eye 10/200 (3/60)...........................         90
    In the other eye 15/200 (4.5/60).........................         80
    In the other eye 20/200 (6/60)...........................         70
    In the other eye 20/100 (6/30)...........................         60
    In the other eye 20/70 (6/21)............................         50
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         40
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         30
6066 Visual acuity in one eye 10/200 (3/60) or better:
Vision in one eye 10/200 (3/60):
    In the other eye 10/200 (3/60)...........................         90
    In the other eye 15/200 (4.5/60).........................         80
    In the other eye 20/200 (6/60)...........................         70
    In the other eye 20/100 (6/30)...........................         60
    In the other eye 20/70 (6/21)............................         50
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         40
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         30
Vision in one eye 15/200 (4.5/60):
    In the other eye 15/200 (4.5/60).........................         80
    In the other eye 20/200 (6/60)...........................         70
    In the other eye 20/100 (6/30)...........................         60
    In the other eye 20/70 (6/21)............................         40
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         30
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         20
Vision in one eye 20/200 (6/60):
    In the other eye 20/200 (6/60)...........................         70
    In the other eye 20/100 (6/30)...........................         60
    In the other eye 20/70 (6/21)............................         40
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         30
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         20
Vision in one eye 20/100 (6/30):
    In the other eye 20/100 (6/30)...........................         50
    In the other eye 20/70 (6/21)............................         30
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         20
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         10
Vision in one eye 20/70 (6/21):
    In the other eye 20/70 (6/21)............................         30
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         20
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         10
Vision in one eye 20/50 (6/15):
    In the other eye 20/50 (6/15)............................         10
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         10
Vision in one eye 20/40 (6/12):
    In the other eye 20/40 (6/12)............................         0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Review for entitlement to special monthly compensation under 38 CFR
  3.350.


[[Page 66553]]


                 Ratings for Impairment of Visual Fields
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6080 Visual field defects:
    Homonymous hemianopsia...................................         30
Loss of temporal half of visual field:
    Bilateral................................................         30
    Unilateral...............................................         10
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 20/70 (6/21)............
Loss of nasal half of visual field:
    Bilateral................................................         10
    Unilateral...............................................         10
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 20/50 (6/15)............
Loss of inferior half of visual field:
    Bilateral................................................         30
    Unilateral...............................................         10
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 20/70 (6/21)............
Loss of superior half of visual field:
    Bilateral................................................         10
    Unilateral...............................................         10
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 20/50 (6/15)............
Concentric contraction of visual field:
    With remaining field of 5 degrees: \1\
    Bilateral................................................        100
    Unilateral...............................................         30
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 5/200 (1.5/60)..........
With remaining field of 6 to 15 degrees:
    Bilateral................................................         70
    Unilateral...............................................         20
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 20/200 (6/60)...........
With remaining field of 16 to 30 degrees:
    Bilateral................................................         50
    Unilateral...............................................         10
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 20/100 (6/30)...........
With remaining field of 31 to 45 degrees:
    Bilateral................................................         30
    Unilateral...............................................         10
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 20/70 (6/21)............
With remaining field of 46 to 60 degrees:
    Bilateral................................................         10
    Unilateral...............................................         10
    Or evaluate each affected eye as 20/50 (6/15)............
6081 Scotoma, unilateral:
    Minimum, with scotoma affecting at least one-quarter of           10
     the visual field (quadrantanopsia) or with centrally
     located scotoma of any size.............................
    Alternatively, evaluate based on visual impairment due to
     scotoma, if that would result in a higher evaluation....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Review for entitlement to special monthly compensation under 38 CFR
  3.350.


                Ratings for Impairment of Muscle Function
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Equivalent
                  Degree of diplopia                     visual acuity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6090 Diplopia (double vision):
    (a) Central 20 degrees...........................     5/200 (1.5/60)
    (b) 21 degrees to 30 degrees
        (1) Down.....................................    15/200 (4.5/60)
        (2) Lateral..................................      20/100 (6/30)
        (3) Up.......................................       20/70 (6/21)
    (c) 31 degrees to 40 degrees
        (1) Down.....................................      20/200 (6/60)
        (2) Lateral..................................       20/70 (6/21)
        (3) Up.......................................       20/40 (6/12)
Note: In accordance with 38 CFR 4.31, diplopia that
 is occasional or that is correctable with spectacles
 is evaluated at 0 percent.
6091 Symblepharon:
    Evaluate based on visual impairment,
     lagophthalmos (diagnostic code 6022),
     disfigurement (diagnostic code 7800), etc.,
     depending on the particular findings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 66554]]


(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)


Sec. Sec.  4.80, 4.83, and 4.84  [Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Sections 4.80, 4.83, and 4.84 are removed and reserved.


Sec. Sec.  4.83a and 4.84a  [Removed]

0
9. Sections 4.83a and 4.84a are removed.

[FR Doc. E8-26304 Filed 11-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P