Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 37777

amendments to the West Virginia

program.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 948

codifying decisions concerning the West

Virginia program are being amended to

implement this decision.

VI. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon corresponding Federal regulations

for which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data for assumptions for the

corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

or any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: June 28, 1998.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,

Subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 948—WEST VIRGINIA

1. The authority citation for part 948

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 948.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 948.15 Approval of West Virginia

regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

Original

amendment

submission

date

Date of final

publication

Citation/description

* * * * *

February 23,

1998.

July 14, 1998 WV Code

Sections

22B–1–

7(d), 7(h);

22B–3–4.

WV Regulations

CSR 38–

2–

1.2(c)(1).

Vacating of

retroactive

approval

published

on February 21,

1996.

3. Section 948.16 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph

(ppp), and by revising paragraphs (nnn)

and (ooo) to read as follows:

§ 948.16 Required regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(nnn) By September 14, 1998, West

Virginia must submit either a proposed

amendment or a description of an

amendment to be proposed, together

with a timetable for adoption, to revise

Section 22B–1–7(d) to remove unjust

hardship as a criterion to support the

granting of temporary relief from an

order or other decision issued under

Chapter 22, Article 3 of the West

Virginia Code.

(ooo) By September 14, 1998, West

Virginia must submit either a proposed

amendment or a description of an

amendment to be proposed, together

with a timetable for adoption, to revise

Section 22B–1–7(h) by removing

reference to Article 3, Chapter 22.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–18738 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network

31 CFR Part 103

RIN 1506–AA18

Amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act

Regulations Regarding Reporting and

Recordkeeping by Card Clubs;

Correction

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Financial Crimes

Enforcement Network (‘‘FinCEN’’)

published in the Federal Register of

January 13, 1998, a final rule amending

the regulations implementing the statute

generally referred to as the Bank Secrecy

Act, to include certain gaming

establishments, commonly called ‘‘card

clubs,’’ ‘‘card rooms,’’ ‘‘gaming clubs,’’

or ‘‘gaming rooms’’ within the definition

of financial institution subject to the

Bank Secrecy Act. This document

contains a correction to the preamble to

the final rule.

DATES: Effective on August 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leonard C. Senia, Senior Financial

Enforcement Officer, Office of Program

Development, Financial Crimes

Enforcement Network, (703) 905–3931,

or Cynthia L. Clark, Deputy Chief

Counsel, Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network, (703) 905–3758.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.

98–743, published in the Federal
37778 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Register of January 13, 1998, (63 FR

1919), the Office of Management and

Budget (‘‘OMB’’) control number is

incorrect. This correction replaces the

incorrect OMB control number.

In rule FR Doc. 98–743, published on

January 13, 1998, (63 FR 1919) make the

following correction. On page 1923, in

the first column, lines 2 and 3, remove

the words ‘‘control number 1506–0063’’

and add the words ‘‘control number

1505–0063 (redesignated by the Office

of Management and Budget as 1506–

0009).’’

Dated: July 8, 1998.

Peter Djinis,

Acting Director,

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

[FR Doc. 98–18659 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–03–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 4

RIN 2900–AI46

Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Cold

Injuries

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Schedule for Rating Disabilities by

revising the provisions governing

evaluations for cold injury residuals.

The intended effect of this amendment

is to provide evaluation criteria based

on current medical knowledge about the

long-term effects of cold injury that can

be applied to any part of the body

affected by cold injury.

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment

is effective August 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caroll McBrine, M.D., Consultant,

Regulations Staff (211B), Compensation

and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–7230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of March 28, 1997 (62

FR 14832), we published a proposal to

revise the provisions of VA’s rating

schedule (38 CFR part 4) governing

evaluations for frozen feet (38 CFR

4.104, diagnostic code 7122). The

purpose of the proposal was to update

the evaluation criteria so that they

would be consistent with current

medical knowledge and encompass the

broad range of residuals now known to

result from cold injuries. We proposed

to retitle the diagnostic code from

residuals of frozen feet to residuals of

cold injury, to indicate that body parts

other than the feet could be included.

We invited interested persons to submit

written comments on the proposal.

As part of a final rule published in the

Federal Register of December 11, 1997

(62 FR 65207), which revised the

cardiovascular portion of the rating

schedule (38 CFR 4.104), we adopted

the revision proposed on March 28,

1997, with only minor changes.

However, we had received comments

from the Disabled American Veterans

and two interested individuals in

response to the March 28, 1997, notice

of proposed rulemaking. This document

responds to those comments and further

revises the rating schedule provisions

governing evaluations for cold injury

residuals.

One commenter suggested that in

rating decisions we change our method

of ‘‘coding’’ disabilities associated with

cold injury in order to identify the body

system or specific body part affected,

whether the affected body part is on the

left or right side, and the percentage

evaluation for each affected body part.

While the information the commenter

asks us to include is part of the written

rating decision, that information is not,

nor does it need to be, reflected by the

diagnostic code. The purpose of

diagnostic codes is merely to identify

disabilities for statistical purposes.

Diagnostic codes are numbers assigned

to each condition listed in the Schedule

for Rating Disabilities. Citation to a

diagnostic code in a rating decision

identifies the rating criteria used to

determine the evaluation assigned to a

particular disability and facilitates VA

statistical analysis. See 38 CFR 4.27.

Adopting the commenter’s suggestion

would have no substantive effect on

veterans’ disability ratings. We therefore

make no change in response to this

comment.

Another commenter submitted a copy

of a 1951 article entitled Cold Injuries in

Korea During Winter of 1950–51 by Lt.

Col. K. D. Orr, M.C., and Capt. D. C.

Fainer, M.C. The commenter maintains

that the study reflected in the article,

although flawed, is the basis of most

thinking regarding cold injuries and has

been used to miseducate doctors. The

commenter suggested that, rather than

focusing on ‘‘frostbite,’’ we take into

account the impact of extreme cold on

internal organs and define cold injury to

include a broad range of conditions,

including cardiovascular and

respiratory conditions, which he

contends are the long-term residuals of

hypothermia.

There has been considerable research

on cold injuries since 1951, when the

article to which the commenter refers

was published. Medical information

reviewed in developing the Veterans

Health Administration Information

Letter (IL 10–96–030, December 31,

1996) concerning the care and

examination of veterans with late effects

of cold injuries was the medical basis

for our revision of the evaluation criteria

for frostbite. The 1951 Orr-Fainer article

was not among the authorities cited in

the information letter.

Another commenter stated that VA’s

Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21–

1, Part VI, para. 11.20, mentions other

signs and symptoms, such as joint pain

and stiffness, weakness of hands or feet,

Raynaud’s phenomenon, and vascular

insufficiency, that may represent

chronic effects of cold injury. He

recommended that we include all of

these conditions in the evaluation

criteria for cold injury (diagnostic code

7122) so that the criteria are as

comprehensive as possible and do not

omit any symptoms that could be

attributed to cold injuries.

Simply because a condition could be

the result of cold injury does not mean

that it is the result of cold injury in a

given claim. All of the conditions

mentioned have other possible

etiologies, and it will require a medical

determination in each case to establish

whether a condition claimed as a

residual of a cold injury is the residual

of a cold injury. Furthermore, there are

so many conditions which could be

residuals of cold injury, that should we

attempt to provide a comprehensive list,

we might inadvertently omit conditions

that individual veterans might suffer as

a result of cold injury. Some of the

conditions mentioned by the

commenter, e.g., Raynaud’s

phenomenon, might well warrant higher

evaluations in their own right than the

maximum evaluation of 30 percent

allowed under diagnostic code 7122.

Therefore, rather than including those

conditions in the evaluation criteria for

cold injuries, we have revised note (1)

to indicate that such conditions may be

evaluated separately unless they are

used to support an evaluation under

diagnostic code 7122.

The same commenter suggested that,

since pain is one of the evaluation

criteria for cold injury residuals,

including arthralgia (joint pain) as well

is redundant.

Since the medical concept that

arthralgia may result from cold injury is

relatively new, we believe it is

important to specify that symptom in

the evaluation criteria along with the

less specific symptom of pain.