#### Mark A. CAPPS, Charles K. Leinhenz, Jr., Cecil C. White, Jr., Patrick K. Wagner, Ronald J. Erhart, Thomas E. Lankford, Robert G. Boettge, Richard A. Cook, Ronald C. Boutilier, Randell J. Knight, James R. Jones, William G. McRee, David K. Dahl, Philip C. Hansing, Leon Moffett, Thomas J. Garris, Donald M. Bush, James H. Roberts, Leonard E. Dorsey, Walter V. Gilbreath, Jr., Thomas A. Lutz, Richard L. Lovely, Jr., David H. Teke, Clarence Allen, Charles R. McDole, Paul E. Kaffenberger, Hurben C. Thompson, Walter A. Boldry, Luis M. Rosario, David C. Holt, Lexter L. Ashmore, Paul S. Woodard, Larry L. Anderson, Roy E. Stewart, Willie J. Skidmore, Jack A. Walker, Richard A Kankiewicz, David E. Akins, Michael R. Mikolon, Michael D. Peterson, Marvin D. Wright, John I. Vaught, Kenneth A. Lovasz, Lavon T. McDaniel, James J. Weiss, Clint H. Slinker, Sr., James E. Hill, Richard A. Schaefer, Giles L. Eldridge, Jorge L. Macall, Frank Blameuser, Robert E. Maggard, Joseph Riccio, William C. Jefferson, Jack E. Thogerson, Patrick D. Mulroy, Eugene L. Mierzwa, and David L. Trentlage, Claimants-Appellees, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

Nos. 2006-7100, 2006-7101, 2006-7107, 2006-7112, 2006-7125, 2006-7144 to 2006-7146, 2006-7148 to 2006-7162, 2006-7170, 2006-7171, 2006-7175, 2006-7177 to 2006-7183, 2006-7188 to 2006-7197, 2006-7207 to 2006-7214, 2006-7217 to 2006-7223*

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 11, 2006.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

*

 The captions of these appeals are condensed only for the purposes of this order. The indi*823vidual caption of each of these appeals has not been revised.

*823BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgments in *Capps v. Nicholson,*04-2304, *Leinhenz v. Nicholson,*05-2119, *White v. Nicholson,*05-1566, *Wagner v. Nicholson,*05-1668, *Erhart v. Nicholson,*04-911, *Lankford v. Nicholson,*04-0520, *Boettge v. Nicholson,*04-1901, *Cook v. Nicholson,*04-2416, *Boutilier v. Nicholson,*05-1229, *Knight v. Nicholson,*05-1196, *Jones v. Nicholson,*05-1194, *McRee v. Nicholson,*05-1021, *Dahl v. Nicholson,*05-936, *Hansing v. Nicholson,*05-887, *Moffett v. Nicholson,*05-738, *Garris v. Nicholson,*05-793, *Bush v. Nicholson,*05-0803, *Roberts v. Nicholson,*05-0866, *Dorsey v. Nicholson,*05-883, *Gilbreath v. Nicholson,*05-303, *Lutz v. Nicholson,*05-254, *Lovely v. Nicholson,*05-249, *Teke v. Nicholson,*05-0007, *Allen v. Nicholson,*05-596, *McDole v. Nicholson,*05-250, *Kaffenberger v. Nicholson,*05-1136, *Thompson v. Nicholson,*05-1215, *Boldry v. Nicholson,*05-0027, *Rosario v. Nicholson,*05-881, *Holt v. Nicholson,*05-1097, *Ashmore v. Nicholson,*04-1409, *Woodard v. Nicholson,*04-1457, *Anderson v. Nicholson,*04-2286, *Stewart v. Nicholson,*05-0004, *Skidmore v. Nicholson,*04-2210, *Walker v. Nicholson,*05-0685, *Kankiewicz v. Nicholson,*05-0091, *Akins v. Nicholson,*05-1798, *Mikolon v. Nicholson,*05-1222, *Peterson v. Nicholson,*04-2188, *Wright v. Nicholson,*04-1744, *Vaught v. Nicholson,*04-1593, *Lovasz v. Nicholson,*04-0612, *McDaniel v. Nicholson,*05-0761, *Weiss v. Nicholson,*05-0521, *Slinker v. Nicholson,*05-1223, *Hill v. Nicholson,*05-1540, *Schaefer v. Nicholson,*05-1661, *Eldridge v. Nicholson,*05-1533, *Macall v. Nicholson,*05-0231, *Blameuser v. Nicholson,*05-0233, *Maggard v. Nicholson,*05-0885, *Riccio v. Nicholson,*05-1146, *Jefferson v. Nicholson,*05-1263, *Thogerson v. Nicholson,*05-1490, *Mulroy v. Nicholson,*05-1747, *Mierzwa v. Nicholson,*05-1751, and *Trentlage v. Nicholson,*04-2100, and remand these cases for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in *Smith v. Nicholson,*451 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.2006).

In all of the above-captioned cases, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims relied on its decision in *Smith v. Nicholson,*19 Vet.App. 63 (2005), in concluding that the claimants were entitled to separate ratings for tinnitus in each ear. We reversed that decision, holding that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims should have deferred to the Secretary’s interpretation of the regulation at issue, an interpretation that only one rating may be allowed for tinnitus in both ears. *Smith,*451 F.3d 1344. Under these circumstances, the requested relief is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motions to vacate and remand are granted.

(2) All parties shall bear their own costs.