Summary of Precedent Opinions of the General Counsel, 35414-35415 [2014-14476]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
35414
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Notices
Regulatory Activities Division, Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th
Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop
9W–11, Washington, DC 20219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from
OMB for each collection of information
they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of
information’’ is defined in 44 U.S.C.
3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include
agency requests or requirements that
members of the public submit reports,
keep records, or provide information to
a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a
60-day notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of
information, including each proposed
extension of an existing collection of
information, before submitting the
collection to OMB for approval. To
comply with this requirement, the OCC
is publishing notice of the proposed
collection of information set forth in
this document.
The OCC is proposing to extend
approval of the following information
collection:
Title: Fair Housing Home Loan Data
System Regulation.
OMB Control No.: 1557–0159.
Description: The Fair Housing Act (42
U.S.C. 3605) prohibits discrimination in
the financing of housing on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. The Equal Credit Opportunity
Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) prohibits
discrimination in any aspect of a credit
transaction on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, marital
status, age, receipt of income from
public assistance, or exercise of any
right under the Consumer Credit
Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
The OCC is responsible for ensuring that
national banks and Federal savings
associations comply with those laws.
The OCC needs this information to
fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
The information collection
requirements are as follows:
• 12 CFR 27.3(a) requires national
banks that are required to collect data
on home loans under 12 CFR part 203 1
to present the data on Form FR HMDA–
LAR,2 or in automated format in
accordance with the HMDA–LAR
instructions, and to include one
additional item (the reason for denial)
on the HMDA–LAR. Section 27.3(a) also
lists exceptions to the HMDA–LAR
1 This regulation has been transferred to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (12
CFR part 1003).
2 Loan Application Register, https://www.ffiec.gov/
hmda/pdf/hmdalar2011.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:31 Jun 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
recordkeeping requirements. Federal
savings associations generate this
information pursuant to the CFPB’s
Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003.
• 12 CFR 27.3(b) lists the information
banks should seek to obtain from an
applicant as part of a home loan
application, and also sets forth
information that a bank must disclose in
collecting certain information from an
applicant.
• 12 CFR 27.3(c) sets forth additional
information required to be kept in the
loan file.
• 12 CFR 27.4 states that the OCC
may require a national bank to maintain
a Fair Housing Inquiry/Application Log
found in Appendix III to part 27 if there
is reason to believe that the bank is
engaging in discriminatory practices or
if analysis of the data compiled by the
bank under the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (12 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.)
and 12 CFR part 203 indicates a pattern
of significant variation in the number of
home loans between census tracts with
similar incomes and home ownership
levels differentiated only by race or
national origin.
• 12 CFR 27.5 requires a national
bank to maintain the information
required by § 27.3 for 25 months after
the bank notifies the applicant of action
taken on an application, or after
withdrawal of an application.
• 12 CFR 27.7 requires a national
bank to submit the information required
by §§ 27.3 and 27.4 to the OCC upon its
request, prior to a scheduled
examination using the Monthly Home
Loan Activity Format form in Appendix
I to part 27 and the Home Loan Data
Form in Appendix IV to part 27.
Type of Review: Regular.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profit.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,927.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
31,704 hours.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and
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
OCC, including whether the information
has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC’s
estimate of the burden of the
information collection;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection on respondents, including
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Dated: June 16, 2014.
Stuart Feldstein,
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities
Division.
[FR Doc. 2014–14397 Filed 6–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Summary of Precedent Opinions of the
General Counsel
Department of Veterans Affairs
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) is publishing a summary of
legal interpretations issued by the Office
of the 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 involving the same legal
issues. The summary is published to
provide the public, and, in particular,
Veterans’ benefits claimants and their
representatives, with notice of VA’s
interpretations regarding the legal
matters at issue.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan P. Sokoll, Law Librarian,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue NW. (026H),
Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–7623.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A VA
regulation at 38 CFR 2.6(e)(8) delegates
to the General Counsel the power to
designate an opinion as precedential
and 38 CFR 14.507(b) specifies that
precedential opinions involving
Veterans’ benefits are binding on VA
officials and employees in subsequent
matters involving the legal issue
decided in the precedent opinion. The
interpretation of the General Counsel on
legal matters, contained in such
opinions, is conclusive as to all VA
officials and employees, not only in the
matter at issue, but also in future
adjudications and appeals involving the
same legal issues, 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Notices
the General Counsel that must be
followed in future benefit matters and to
assist Veterans’ benefits 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 or by
accessing the opinions on the Internet at
https://www.va.gov/ogc/
precedentopinions.asp.
VAOPGCPREC 3–2014
Questions Presented
On September 4, 2013, the Attorney
General announced that the President
directed the Executive Branch to cease
enforcement of the definitions of
‘‘spouse’’ and ‘‘surviving spouse’’ in
title 38, United States Code, to the
extent that they limit recognition of
marital status to couples of the opposite
sex. Given the President’s instruction,
how should VA determine effective
dates for benefits based on same-sex
marriage?
Held
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. The President’s directive to cease
enforcement of the definitions of
‘‘spouse’’ and ‘‘surviving spouse’’ in
title 38, United States Code, to the
extent that those definitions preclude
recognition of same-sex marriages,
should be given retroactive effect as it
relates to claims still open on direct
review as of September 4, 2013. If VA
awards benefits in such a case, the
effective date of the award should be
determined under 38 U.S.C. § 5110 as if
the statutes barring recognition of samesex marriage were not in effect when the
claim was filed.
2. For new claims or reopened claims
received after September 4, 2013, VA
should apply 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g) to
assign an effective date if to do so would
be to the claimant’s benefit. However, if
a new claim establishes entitlement to
an effective date earlier than September
4, 2013, by operation of 38 U.S.C.
§ 5110(d)–(f), (h), (j)–(l), or (n), then
section 5110(g) should not be applied to
limit the availability of that earlier
effective date.
Effective Date: June 17, 2014.
Will A. Gunn,
General Counsel, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:31 Jun 19, 2014
Jkt 232001
VAOPGCPREC 4–2014
Question Presented
How will the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) administer spousal benefits
in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 103(c) in
light of variances in state law on the
issue of same-sex marriage?
Held
1. The plain language of section
103(c) requires that a person be married
to a Veteran to be considered the
‘‘spouse’’ of the Veteran and requires
VA to look to state law to determine the
validity of a marriage. A domestic
partnership or civil union that is not
recognized as a ‘‘marriage’’ under state
law cannot be considered a valid
marriage for VA purposes.
2. Section 103(c) provides two
alternative bases for determining the
validity of a marriage. Section 103(c)
provides that VA shall look to ‘‘the law
of the place where the parties resided at
the time of the marriage or the law of
the place where the parties resided
when the right to benefits accrued’’
(emphasis added). Under this standard,
if a marriage is valid in one of the places
of residence identified in the statute, it
will be valid for VA purposes, even if
it was not recognized as valid under the
laws of any other place in which the
parties resided.
3. Under section 103(c), ‘‘at the time
of the marriage’’ means when the parties
entered into the marriage. If the parties’
marriage is valid under the law of the
place where they resided at the time of
the inception of their marriage, it is
valid for VA purposes.
4. We construe the term ‘‘when the
right to benefits accrued’’ in section
103(c) to refer to: (1) The point in time
at which the claimant filed a claim that
is ultimately found to be meritorious in
establishing entitlement to a benefit or
increased benefit for which a marriage
to a Veteran is a prerequisite; or (2) if
entitlement cannot be established as
existing at the time the claim is
submitted, then at such later date as of
which all requirements of entitlement
are met. Once VA has determined a
marriage valid under section 103(c),
such determination shall be recognized
in subsequent adjudicatory decisions
involving the same or other VA benefits
unless there is a change in marital status
through death or judicial action.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
35415
5. The phrase ‘‘place where the
parties resided’’ is interpreted to mean
the place where the parties regularly
lived or had their home, as
distinguished from a place in which
they were present on a temporary basis.
The provision includes parties who
lived in a place continuously for a
reasonable period of time and those who
relocated to a place with the intent to
live there either permanently or for a
reasonable period of time. A party’s
temporary absence from the place they
ordinarily lived would not defeat the
finding that they resided in that place.
If the parties resided in different
jurisdictions at their time of marriage,
VA may consider the marriage valid for
VA purposes if it is valid under the law
of either jurisdiction. In addition to U.S.
states, the term ‘‘place’’ may include
U.S. territories and possessions, the
District of Columbia, foreign nations,
and other areas governed by a
recognized system of laws pertaining to
marriage, such as tribal laws.
6. The plain language of section
103(c) applies only to determine the
validity of a marriage to a Veteran. It
thus applies for purposes of establishing
eligibility or ineligibility for benefits or
services provided on the basis of the
marriage of a ‘‘veteran’’ (including, in
some instances, active-duty service
members and others defined to be
‘‘veterans’’ under certain statutory
provisions). In other instances, however,
when VA provides benefits or services
based on the marital status of an
individual who is not considered a
Veteran, section 103(c) generally would
not apply in determining the validity of
a marriage to such an individual.
Effective Date: June 17, 2014.
Will A. Gunn,
General Counsel, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Signing Authority: On June 17, 2014, Will
A. Gunn, General Counsel, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to
sign and submit this notice to the Office of
the Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director, Office of Regulations Policy and
Management, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014–14476 Filed 6–19–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
E:\FR\FM\20JNN1.SGM
20JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35414-35415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14476]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Office of the 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
involving the same legal issues. The summary is published to provide
the public, and, in particular, Veterans' benefits claimants and their
representatives, with notice of VA's interpretations regarding the
legal matters at issue.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan P. Sokoll, Law Librarian,
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW. (026H),
Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7623.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A VA regulation at 38 CFR 2.6(e)(8)
delegates to the General Counsel the power to designate an opinion as
precedential and 38 CFR 14.507(b) specifies that precedential opinions
involving Veterans' benefits are binding on VA officials and employees
in subsequent matters involving the legal issue decided in the
precedent opinion. The interpretation of the General Counsel on legal
matters, contained in such opinions, is conclusive as to all VA
officials and employees, not only in the matter at issue, but also in
future adjudications and appeals involving the same legal issues, 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
[[Page 35415]]
the General Counsel that must be followed in future benefit matters and
to assist Veterans' benefits 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 or by accessing the opinions on the Internet at
https://www.va.gov/ogc/precedentopinions.asp.
VAOPGCPREC 3-2014
Questions Presented
On September 4, 2013, the Attorney General announced that the
President directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of the
definitions of ``spouse'' and ``surviving spouse'' in title 38, United
States Code, to the extent that they limit recognition of marital
status to couples of the opposite sex. Given the President's
instruction, how should VA determine effective dates for benefits based
on same-sex marriage?
Held
1. The President's directive to cease enforcement of the
definitions of ``spouse'' and ``surviving spouse'' in title 38, United
States Code, to the extent that those definitions preclude recognition
of same-sex marriages, should be given retroactive effect as it relates
to claims still open on direct review as of September 4, 2013. If VA
awards benefits in such a case, the effective date of the award should
be determined under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5110 as if the statutes barring
recognition of same-sex marriage were not in effect when the claim was
filed.
2. For new claims or reopened claims received after September 4,
2013, VA should apply 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5110(g) to assign an effective
date if to do so would be to the claimant's benefit. However, if a new
claim establishes entitlement to an effective date earlier than
September 4, 2013, by operation of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5110(d)-(f), (h),
(j)-(l), or (n), then section 5110(g) should not be applied to limit
the availability of that earlier effective date.
Effective Date: June 17, 2014.
Will A. Gunn,
General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
VAOPGCPREC 4-2014
Question Presented
How will the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administer spousal
benefits in accordance with 38 U.S.C. Sec. 103(c) in light of
variances in state law on the issue of same-sex marriage?
Held
1. The plain language of section 103(c) requires that a person be
married to a Veteran to be considered the ``spouse'' of the Veteran and
requires VA to look to state law to determine the validity of a
marriage. A domestic partnership or civil union that is not recognized
as a ``marriage'' under state law cannot be considered a valid marriage
for VA purposes.
2. Section 103(c) provides two alternative bases for determining
the validity of a marriage. Section 103(c) provides that VA shall look
to ``the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the
marriage or the law of the place where the parties resided when the
right to benefits accrued'' (emphasis added). Under this standard, if a
marriage is valid in one of the places of residence identified in the
statute, it will be valid for VA purposes, even if it was not
recognized as valid under the laws of any other place in which the
parties resided.
3. Under section 103(c), ``at the time of the marriage'' means when
the parties entered into the marriage. If the parties' marriage is
valid under the law of the place where they resided at the time of the
inception of their marriage, it is valid for VA purposes.
4. We construe the term ``when the right to benefits accrued'' in
section 103(c) to refer to: (1) The point in time at which the claimant
filed a claim that is ultimately found to be meritorious in
establishing entitlement to a benefit or increased benefit for which a
marriage to a Veteran is a prerequisite; or (2) if entitlement cannot
be established as existing at the time the claim is submitted, then at
such later date as of which all requirements of entitlement are met.
Once VA has determined a marriage valid under section 103(c), such
determination shall be recognized in subsequent adjudicatory decisions
involving the same or other VA benefits unless there is a change in
marital status through death or judicial action.
5. The phrase ``place where the parties resided'' is interpreted to
mean the place where the parties regularly lived or had their home, as
distinguished from a place in which they were present on a temporary
basis. The provision includes parties who lived in a place continuously
for a reasonable period of time and those who relocated to a place with
the intent to live there either permanently or for a reasonable period
of time. A party's temporary absence from the place they ordinarily
lived would not defeat the finding that they resided in that place. If
the parties resided in different jurisdictions at their time of
marriage, VA may consider the marriage valid for VA purposes if it is
valid under the law of either jurisdiction. In addition to U.S. states,
the term ``place'' may include U.S. territories and possessions, the
District of Columbia, foreign nations, and other areas governed by a
recognized system of laws pertaining to marriage, such as tribal laws.
6. The plain language of section 103(c) applies only to determine
the validity of a marriage to a Veteran. It thus applies for purposes
of establishing eligibility or ineligibility for benefits or services
provided on the basis of the marriage of a ``veteran'' (including, in
some instances, active-duty service members and others defined to be
``veterans'' under certain statutory provisions). In other instances,
however, when VA provides benefits or services based on the marital
status of an individual who is not considered a Veteran, section 103(c)
generally would not apply in determining the validity of a marriage to
such an individual.
Effective Date: June 17, 2014.
Will A. Gunn,
General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Signing Authority: On June 17, 2014, Will A. Gunn, General
Counsel, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to
sign and submit this notice to the Office of the Federal Register
for publication electronically as an official document of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director, Office of Regulations Policy and Management, Office of the
General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-14476 Filed 6-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
