Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices 63603

extending between a connection at

Grundy and a point within the Bristol

Industrial Park, in Bristol Township,

Bucks County, PA.

If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33512, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on: Kevin M.

Sheys, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly,

1020 Nineteenth Street, N.W., Suite 400,

Washington, DC 20036.

Decided: November 21, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–31384 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request for Notice 97–66

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

Currently, the IRS is soliciting

comments concerning Notice 97–66,

Certain Payments Made Pursuant to a

Securities Lending Transaction.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before January 30, 1998

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5571, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

should be directed to Carol Savage,

(202) 622–3945, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5569, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Certain Payments Made

Pursuant to a Securities Lending

Transaction.

OMB Number: 1545–1566.

Notice Number: Notice 97–66.

Abstract: Notice 97–66 modifies final

regulations which were effective

November 14, 1997. The Notice relaxes

the statement requirement with respect

to substitute interest payments relating

to securities loans and sale-repurchase

transactions. It also provides a

withholding mechanism to eliminate

excessive withholding on multiple

payments in a chain of substitute

dividend payments.

Current Actions: There are no changes

being made to the notice at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

377,500.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 10

minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 61,750.

The following paragraph applies to all

of the collections of information covered

by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless the collection of information

displays a valid OMB control number.

Books or records relating to a collection

of information must be retained as long

as their contents may become material

in the administration of any internal

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and

tax return information are confidential,

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments

submitted in response to this notice will

be summarized and/or included in the

request for OMB approval. All

comments will become a matter of

public record. Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology; and (e) estimates of capital

or start-up costs and costs of operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services

to provide information.

Approved: November 18, 1997.

Garrick R. Shear,

IRS Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–31402 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Summary of Precedent Opinions of the

General Counsel

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) is publishing a summary of

legal interpretations issued by the

Department’s General Counsel involving

veterans’ benefits under laws

administered by VA. These

interpretations are considered

precedential by VA and will be followed

by VA officials and employees in future

claim matters. The summary is

published to provide the public, and, in

particular, veterans’ benefit claimants

and their representatives, with notice of

VA’s interpretations regarding the legal

matter at issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jane L. Lehman, Chief, Law Library,

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20420, (202) 273–6558.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA

regulations at 38 CFR 2.6(e)(9) and

14.507 authorize the Department’s

General Counsel to issue written legal

opinions having precedential effect in

adjudications and appeals involving

veterans’ benefits under laws

administered by VA. The General

Counsel’s interpretations on legal

matters, contained in such opinions, are

conclusive as to all VA officials and

employees not only in the matter at

issue but also in future adjudications

and appeals, in the absence of a change

in controlling statute or regulation or a

superseding written legal opinion of the

General Counsel.

VA publishes summaries of such

opinions in order to provide the public

with notice of those interpretations of

the General Counsel that must be

followed in future benefit matters and to

assist veterans’ benefit claimants and

their representatives in the prosecution

of benefit claims. The full text of such

opinions, with personal identifiers

deleted, may be obtained by contacting

the VA official named above.
63604 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices

VAOPGCPREC 22–97

Question Presented

May the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) withhold monthly benefits

from beneficiaries in situations where

the payee refuses to participate in the

Electronic Funds Transfer Program?

Held

The Secretary has authority under the

DCIA to withhold monthly VA benefits

to a recipient of Federal payments

subject to the EFT program if the

recipient has not complied with the

statutory EFT requirements and is not

entitled to a waiver of their application.

Effective Date: June 20, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 23–97

Question Presented

Where a claimant has arthritis and

instability of the knee, does 38 CFR

4.71a authorize multiple ratings under

diagnostic codes 5003 and 5257?

Held

A claimant who has arthritis and

instability of the knee may be rated

separately under diagnostic codes 5003

and 5257.

Effective Date: July 1, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 24–97

Question Presented

Is a veteran who is receiving

compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C.

1151 due to blindness in both eyes

which resulted from the veteran’s

hospitalization, medical, or surgical

treatment by VA, and not incurred or

aggravated in the line of duty in the

active military, naval, or air service,

eligible for a special housing adaptation

grant under chapter 21 of title 38,

United States Code?

Held

A veteran with a disability that

resulted from VA hospitalization or

medical or surgical treatment who has

been determined eligible for

compensation ‘‘as if’’ such injury were

service connected pursuant to 38 U.S.C.

1151 is not eligible for a special housing

adaptation grant as a result of the

disability caused by VA medical care.

Effective Date: July 3, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 25–97

Question Presented

Should military retired pay that is

paid directly to a veteran’s ex-spouse by

a military finance center pursuant to a

divorce decree or garnishment order be

considered income of the veteran for

purposes of determining his or her

entitlement to Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) need-based benefits?

Held

Whether military retired pay paid

directly to a veteran’s ex-spouse by a

military finance center pursuant to a

divorce must be included in the

veteran’s annual income for purposes of

determining eligibility for need-based

veterans’ benefits is dependent upon the

property rights of the parties in the

military retired pay, as determined in

the pertinent divorce decree and any

related property settlement, interpreted

in light of applicable state law. Where,

in a divorce proceeding, military retired

pay is treated as marital property and

divided between the parties to the

proceeding, only that portion of the

retired pay which is determined to be

the property of the veteran is countable

as income of the veteran for purposes of

determining entitlement for need-based

veterans’ benefits. Where no such

division of property has occurred, the

full amount of such retired pay is

attributable to the veteran, regardless of

whether all or a portion of the retired

pay is paid directly to the veteran’s exspouse pursuant to a voluntary or

involuntary allotment or a garnishment

order.

Effective Date: July 16, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 26–97

Question Presented

Was the addition of a diagnosis of

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to

the rating schedule, effective April 11,

1980, ‘‘a liberalizing law, or a

liberalizing [Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA)] issue’’ of 38 CFR 3.114(a)?

Held

The addition of PTSD as a diagnostic

entity in the schedule for rating mental

disorders was a ‘‘liberalizing VA issue’’

for purposes of 38 CFR 3.114(a).

However, an effective date prior to the

date of claim cannot be assigned under

section 3.114(a) unless the claimant met

all eligibility criteria for the liberalized

benefit on April 11, 1980, the effective

date of the regulatory amendment

adding the diagnostic code for PTSD,

and such eligibility existed

continuously from that date to the date

of claim or administrative determination

of entitlement.

Effective Date: July 16, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 27–97

Question Presented

Whether service on a naval vessel in

the waters off the shore of Vietnam

constitutes service in the Republic of

Vietnam for purposes of 38 U.S.C.

101(29)(A), which defines the Vietnam

era as the period beginning on February

28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975,

in the case of a veteran who served in

the Republic of Vietnam during that

period.

Held

Service on a deep-water naval vessel

in waters off the shore of the Republic

of Vietnam does not constitute service

in the Republic of Vietnam for purposes

of 38 U.S.C. 101(29)(A), as added by

section 505 of the Veterans’ Benefits

Improvements Act of 1996, which

provides that the term ‘‘Vietnam era’’

means the period beginning on February

28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975,

in the case of a veteran who served in

the Republic of Vietnam during that

period.

Effective Date: July 23, 1997

VAOPGCPREC 28–97

Question Presented

Whether a person insured under

Service Disabled Veterans’ Insurance,

who does not receive a waiver of

premiums pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1912

because the insured died prior to the

continuance of total disability for six

consecutive months, is nonetheless

eligible for supplemental Service

Disabled Veterans’ pursuant to 38 U.S.C.

1922A.

Held

A person insured under Service

Disabled Veterans’ Insurance, who does

not qualify for a waiver of premiums

pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1912 because the

insured died prior to the continuance of

total disability for six months, is not

eligible for supplemental Service

Disabled Veterans Insurance pursuant to

38 U.S.C. 1922A.

VAOPGCPREC 29–97

Question Presented

Does 38 C.F.R. 3.105(e) apply to cases

subject to the special settlement review

under the provisions of the October 15,

1993, Stipulation and Order in

Fernando Giusti Bravo, et al v. U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs, et al.,

where there is no reduction of a serviceconnected disability rating which

results in reduction or discontinuance

of compensation payments currently

being made?

Held

38 C.F.R. 3.105(e) applies to cases

subject to the special settlement review

under the provisions of the October 15,

1993, Stipulation and Order in

Fernando Giusti Bravo, et al. v. U.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices 63605

Department of Veterans Affairs, et al.

only where there is a reduction of

service-connected disability rating

which results in reduction or

discontinuance of compensation

payments currently being made. Thus,

the provisions of section 3.105(e) which

require VA to provide a proposed rating

action and a 60-day pretermination

notice are inapplicable where there is

no reduction of a service-connected

disability rating which results in

reduction or discontinuance of

compensation payments currently being

made.

Effective Date: August 7, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 30–97

Question Presented

What level of special monthly

compensation (SMC) should be awarded

to a claimant with nonservice-connected

paraplegia who is entitled to

compensation under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for

disarticulation of the hips?

Held

Regardless of preexisting paraplegia,

SMC is payable at the rate prescribed in

38 U.S.C. 1114(n) to a claimant who is

entitled to compensation for bilateral

disarticulation of the hips under 38

U.S.C. 1151.

Effective Date: August 29, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 31–97

Question Presented

If the Board of Veterans’ Appeals

concludes upon reconsideration that the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional

Office erred in determining the effective

date of a reduction in compensation

pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5112(6) and 38

CFR 3.105(e), does that error render the

decision reducing the rating void ab

initio, requiring reinstatement of the

prior rating?

Held

The reduction of a disability rating, if

otherwise supportable, is not rendered

void ab initio by virtue of error in the

assignment of the effective date for it.

Effective Date: August 29, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 32–97

Question Presented

When a claimant has serviceconnected, partial hearing loss in only

one ear, should the hearing in the other

ear be considered normal for purposes

of rating the service-connected hearing

loss?

Held

If a claimant has service-connected

hearing loss in one ear and nonserviceconnected hearing loss in the other ear,

the hearing in the ear having

nonservice-connected loss should be

considered normal for purposes of

computing the service-connected

disability rating, unless the claimant is

totally deaf in both ears.

Effective Date: August 29, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 33–97

Question Presented

Are assets which are placed in an

irrevocable special needs trust

includable in the claimant’s net worth

for purposes of determining eligibility

for improved pension?

Held

Assets transferred by a legally

competent claimant, or by the fiduciary

of a leagally incompetent one, to an

irrevocable ‘‘living trust’’ or an estateplanning vehicle of the same nature

designed to preserve estate assets by

restricting trust expenditures to the

claimant’s ‘‘special needs,’’ while

maximizing the use of governmental

resources in the care and maintenance

of the claimant, should be considered in

calculating the claimant’s net worth for

improved-pension purposes.

Effective Date: August 29, 1997.

VAOPGCPREC 34–97

Question Presented

Does 38 U.S.C. 3104(b) or any other

statute or regulation, e.g., Department of

Labor Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and

associated regulations, either require or

preclude VA from assisting appellant in

purchasing a computer and related

materials for recreational activities?

Held

1. No statute or regulation, including

section 702 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 and its associated regulations,

either specifically directs VA to

authorize or precludes VA from

authorizing services and assistance of a

recreational nature as a component of an

eligible veteran’s program of

independent living services and

assistance under 38 U.S.C. 3120.

2. VA has the authority, and

responsibility, to provide all services

and assistance deemed necessary on the

facts of the particular case to enable an

eligible veteran participating in such a

program to live and function

independently in his or her family and

community without, or with a reduced

level of, the services of others. This

includes the authority to approve, when

appropriate, services and assistance that

are in whole or part recreational in

character when the services are found to

be needed to enable or enhance the

veteran’s ability to engage in family and

community activities integral to the

veteran’s achieving his or her

independent living program goals.

Effective Date: November 5, 1997.

By the Direction of the Secretary:

Robert E. Coy,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–31329 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P–M