With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the VCAA and preceded the promulgation of the August 29, 2001, regulations. Matlock v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 188, 189 (per curiam order) (2002). Although the Court has been faithful to its caselaw here by considering the appellant’s contention for reversal, it has, once more, proceeded prematurely in deciding this case without appropriate briefing by the parties as to the applicability of the VCAA or the effect of the issuance of the August 29, 2001, regulations in view of the Federal Circuit’s opinions in Bernklau and Dyment, both supra, and of this Court’s opinions in Holliday and/or Kar-nas, both supra. 1 . 66 Fed.Reg. 45,620, 45,630-32 (Aug. 29, 2001) ("Duty to Assist” regulations, amending 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159, 3.326). 2 . See Holliday v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 280, 285 (<HOLDING>), mot. for recons, denied, 14 Vet.App. 327 (per

A: holding that the fair sentencing act does not apply retroactively to defendants whose criminal conduct occurred before its enactment even if those defendants were sentenced after its enactment
B: holding inter alia that all provisions of vcaa were retroactively applicable to claims pending at time of enactment of vcaa
C: recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment
D: holding all sections of vcaa retroactive
B.