55200 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

safety, but where the person or you later

wished that person had taken one,

please describe the instance.

7. If you know of instances where

safety may make taking a course in

boating safety unacceptable or

undesirable, please describe them.

8. Are your aware of the intended

uses and limits of the various kinds of

courses in boating safety (classroom,

home study, computer) and kinds of

evaluations (proctored exams, nonproctored ones) approved by the Coast

Guard?

9. What Federal requirements, if any,

should the Coast Guard propose for

boaters engaged in any particular

activities to take courses in boating

safety under any conditions?

10. Describe any other boaters,

boating, or conditions on whose

members the Coast Guard should

propose Federal requirements to take

courses in boating safety.

C. General

1. What benefits (in terms of personal

safety or other terms) do you think

would accrue from Federal

requirements to take courses in boating

safety? What cost (in terms of money,

paperwork, inconvenience, or other

terms) would accrue from such

requirements? Would the cost outweigh

the benefits?

2. Please describe any nonregulatory

ways to reduce the number of

recreational boating deaths due to a lack

of boating safety training, at lower costs

or with less burden than Federal

requirements would entail.

3. Is there any other information you

feel may help the Coast Guard reduce

the number of deaths due to recreational

boating with lower cost to, or lesser

burden on, the Coast Guard itself, the

States, and, most of all, boaters?

The Coast Guard will summarize all

comments it receives during the

comment period in response to this

notice, place a copy of the summary in

the public docket, and provide copies to

the members of NBSAC for them to

consider at their meeting in April 1998.

It will itself consider all relevant

comments in the formulation of any

regulatory and nonregulatory measures

that may follow from this notice.

Dated: October 17, 1997.

Ernest R. Riutta,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–28100 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 20

RIN 2900–AI87

Board of Veterans’ Appeals: Rules of

Practice—Continuation of

Representation Following Death of a

Claimant or Appellant

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend the

Rules of Practice of the Board of

Veterans’ Appeals (Board) to eliminate a

rule which automatically assigns a

deceased appellant’s representative to

the appellant’s survivor. This change is

necessary because of a court ruling

which eliminates the need for such a

provision.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written

comments to: Director, Office of

Regulations Management (02D),

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420. Comments

should indicate that they are submitted

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AI87.’’ All

written comments will be available for

public inspection at the above address

in the Office of Regulations

Management, Room 1158, between the

hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday (except holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven L. Keller, Chief Counsel, Board

of Veterans’ Appeals, Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20420 (202–565–

5978).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board

is an administrative body that decides

appeals from denials of claims for

veterans’ benefits.

Currently, Rule 611 (38 CFR 20.611)

provides that a person or organization

properly designated to represent a

claimant or appellant will be recognized

as the representative of his or her

survivors for a period of one year

following the death of the claimant or

appellant. This provision was deemed

necessary to ensure continuity of

representation, since Rule 1302 (38 CFR

20.1302) previously provided that,

when an appeal is pending before the

Board at the time of the appellant’s

death, the Board could complete its

action on the issues properly before it

without application from the survivors.

In Smith (Irma) v. Brown, No. 95–898

(Vet. App. June 13, 1997), the U.S. Court

of Veterans Appeals ruled that former

Rule 1302 is invalid because, pursuant

to the court’s ruling in Landicho v.

Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994), a

pending claim for compensation

benefits under chapter 11 of title 38,

United States Code, does not survive the

claimant’s death. Thus, when an

appellant dies prior to the promulgation

of the Board’s decision with regard to a

compensation claim, the Board no

longer has jurisdiction of the appeal,

and the appeal must be dismissed. Rule

1302 has been amended to provide that

an appeal pending when the veteran

dies will be dismissed. Similarly, Rule

611 was amended to eliminate a

provision permitting a deceased

appellant’s representative to continue to

act with respect to any appeal pending

upon the death of the appellant.

Because there is no longer any need

to provide for continuous

representation, we propose to eliminate

Rule 611.

The Secretary hereby certifies that

this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

they are defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This

rule will affect only the processing of

claims by VA and will not affect small

businesses. Therefore, pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is

exempt from the initial and final

regulatory flexibility analyses

requirements of §§ 603 and 604.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 20

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Veterans.

Approved: October 8, 1997.

Hershel W. Gober,

Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 38 CFR part 20 is proposed to

be amended as set forth below:

PART 20—BOARD OF VETERANS’

APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE

1. The authority citation for part 20

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a).

Subpart G—Representation

§ 20.611 [Removed]

2. In subpart G, § 20.611 is removed

and reserved.

[FR Doc. 97–28058 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P