71366 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

establish controlled airspace at Clark 

County Airport, Clark, SD. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 6, 2014 and 

effective September 15, 2014, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AGL SD E5 Clark, SD [New] 

Clark County Airport, ND 

(Lat. 48°28′48′′ N., long. 099°14′11′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile 

radius of Clark County Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on November 24, 

2014. 

Humberto Melendez, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28363 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4901–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AP18 

Additional Compensation on Account 

of Children Adopted Out of Veteran’s 

Family 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

adjudication regulations to clarify that a 

veteran will not receive the dependent 

rate of disability compensation for a 

child who is adopted out of the 

veteran’s family. This action is 

necessary because applicable VA 

adjudication regulations are currently 

construed as permitting a veteran, 

whose former child was adopted out of 

the veteran’s family, to receive the 

dependent rate of disability 

compensation for the adopted-out child, 

which constitutes an unwarranted 

award of benefits not supported by the 

applicable statute and legislative 

history. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through 

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to Director, Regulation Policy 

and Management (02REG), Department 

of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 

Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, 

DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AP18—Additional Compensation on 

Account of Children Adopted Out of 

Veteran’s Family.’’ Copies of comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection in the Office of Regulation 

Policy and Management, Room 1068, 

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday (except 

holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for 

an appointment. (This is not a toll-free 

number.) In addition, during the 

comment period, comments may be 

viewed online through the Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) at 

www.Regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Li, Section Chief, Regulations 

Staff (211D), Compensation Service, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–9700. (This is not a 

toll-free telephone number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to 38 U.S.C. 1115, a veteran entitled to 

compensation based on a serviceconnected disability rated not less than 

30 percent is entitled to an additional 

rate of disability compensation for each 

of his or her children. Section 101(4)(A) 

of title 38, United States Code, defines 

‘‘child’’ to include an unmarried person 

under the age of 18 years who is a 

legitimate child, a legally adopted child, 

a stepchild who is a member of the 

veteran’s household or was a member of 

the veteran’s household at the time of 

the veteran’s death, or an illegitimate 

child. See also 38 CFR 3.57. The statute 

also provides some exceptions for 

individuals who are permanently 

incapable of self-support and 

individuals who are pursuing an 

education. See 38 U.S.C. 101(4)(A); see 

also 38 CFR 3.57. Additionally, 38 CFR 

3.58 provides that ‘‘[a] child of a veteran 

adopted out of the family of the veteran 

. . . is nevertheless a child within the 

meaning of that term as defined by 

§ 3.57 and is eligible for benefits payable 

under all laws administered by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs.’’ See 

VA Op. Gen. Couns. Prec. 16–94 (1994) 

(‘‘pursuant to [§ 3.58] a child adopted 

out of a veteran’s family may remain a 

child of the veteran for VA purposes’’). 

Therefore, under current regulations, 

VA is required to pay a veteran 

additional disability compensation for a 

child who otherwise meets the 

requirements under § 3.57 but has been 

adopted out of the veteran’s family. 

However, VA believes its 

longstanding interpretation in § 3.58 as 

it applies to 38 U.S.C. 1115 is 

inconsistent with the statute’s clear 

purpose to provide for payments to a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71367 

veteran that are based primarily upon 

the veteran’s needs for purposes of 

supporting his or her dependent family 

members. This purpose is evident from 

the statute’s language, structure, and 

legislative history. VA believes Congress 

did not intend for section 1115 to 

provide additional disability 

compensation to a veteran on account of 

a child who is adopted out of the 

veteran’s family. In such cases, it is 

clear that any payment to the veteran on 

account of the adopted-out child would 

rarely, if ever, fulfill the clear purpose 

of section 1115 to provide for the 

expense of supporting that child. As 

such, VA proposes to amend its 

regulations, particularly 38 CFR 3.57, 

3.58, and 3.458, to eliminate this 

additional compensation paid to 

veterans for such children. 

I. History of 38 U.S.C. 1115 and Bases 

for Rulemaking 

The definition of ‘‘child’’ in 38 U.S.C. 

101(4)(A), which refers to legitimate, 

illegitimate, adopted, and certain 

stepchildren, is ambiguous as to 

whether it encompasses a biological 

child who has been legally adopted out 

of the veteran’s family. As noted above, 

VA historically has concluded that an 

adopted-out child will be considered 

the veteran’s child for purposes of all 

benefits administered by VA. However, 

providing payments to a veteran under 

38 U.S.C. 1115 on the basis of an 

adopted-out child creates an anomaly 

that undermines the clear purpose of 

that statute. 

Section 1115 provides that certain 

veterans entitled to disability 

compensation ‘‘shall be entitled to 

additional compensation for dependents 

in the following monthly amounts.’’ 

(Emphasis added.) The term 

‘‘dependent’’ is not defined for purposes 

of title 38 generally or section 1115 

specifically, but is commonly 

understood to refer to a person who is 

legally or factually reliant upon the 

veteran for support. Although a veteran 

ordinarily will have a legal and moral 

obligation to support his or her 

biological child, that is not the case 

when the child has been adopted out of 

the veteran’s family. A child-parent 

relationship typically ‘‘does not exist 

between an [adopted-out child] and the 

[adopted-out child’s] genetic parents.’’ 

See Astrue v. Capato ex rel. B.N.C., 132 

S. Ct. 2021, 2030 (2012) (quoting Unif. 

Probate Code § 2–119(a), 8 U.L.A. 55 

(Supp. 2011)). Accordingly, we believe 

an adopted-out child generally would 

not be a ‘‘dependent’’ within the 

meaning of 38 U.S.C. 1115. 

Further, section 1115(1) provides that 

the dependents’ allowance will be paid, 

in monthly amounts, ‘‘[i]f and while 

[the veteran] . . . has . . . one or more 

children.’’ The statute thus clearly refers 

to the present existence of a parentchild relationship. Even if the child’s 

biological relationship or pre-adoption 

legal relationship to the veteran may 

provide a basis for certain types of VA 

benefits, it would not provide a basis for 

payment under section 1115 if the 

parent-child relationship has been 

severed at the time relevant to current 

payments. 

The payments authorized by 38 U.S.C. 

1115 are paid in addition to payments 

authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1114 as 

payment for the level of impairment 

caused by the veteran’s serviceconnected disability. Because payments 

under section 1115 are in addition to 

payments for impairment due to 

disability and because they are paid ‘‘for 

dependents,’’ the clear purpose of 

section 1115 is to provide payments to 

the disabled veteran because of the 

economic burden associated with 

providing for dependents. See Rose v. 

Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 630–31 (1987) 

(citing 38 U.S.C. 315 (now codified as 

38 U.S.C. 1115) and concluding that 

‘‘Congress clearly intended veterans’ 

disability benefits to be used, in part, for 

the support of veterans’ dependents’’). 

We do not believe that Congress 

intended to authorize payment to the 

veteran of a dependents’ allowance in 

cases where the veteran does not have 

a present parent-child relationship with 

the adopted-out child and thus would 

not incur the economic burdens the 

statute is designed to address. 

The legislative history of the statute 

further supports this interpretation. The 

current version of 38 U.S.C. 1115 

originated in 1958 under Public Law 

85–857, 72 Stat. 1121. However, ‘‘[t]he 

additional compensation for dependents 

was first authorized by Public Law 877, 

80th Congress, approved July 2, 1948.’’ 

Letter from Bradford Morse, Dep. Adm. 

U.S. Vet. Adm., to Rep. Olin E. Teague, 

Chair, H. Comm. on Veterans Affairs, 

contained in H.R. Rep. No. 86–1541, at 

3 (1960). By enacting this statute, 

Congress intended that a veteran 

entitled to compensation based on a 

service-connected disability rated not 

less than a designated level would 

receive additional compensation on 

account of his or her children. 

Additionally, ‘‘the legislative history 

[of Public Law 80–877] indicates that 

one of the reasons for limiting the 

benefits provided by the act to persons 

60 percent or more disabled was based 

on the fact that this group of veterans 

because of the serious nature of their 

disabilities are not generally in a 

position to supplement their 

compensation payments by income from 

steady employment’’ and ‘‘veterans with 

disabilities rated less than 50 percent 

are generally able to supplement their 

compensation payments with other 

income.’’ See H.R. Rep. No. 86–1541, at 

3–4. In view of section 1115’s legislative 

history, VA believes Congress intended 

the section 1115 allowance to only 

supplement a veteran’s income, that is, 

to provide additional budgetary support 

within the veteran’s household expense 

framework. Section 101(13) of title 38, 

U.S.C., in part, defines the term 

‘‘compensation’’ as a ‘‘monthly payment 

made by the Secretary to a veteran 

because of service-connected disability’’ 

(emphasis added), which may be 

supplemented by ‘‘other income’’ to 

support the veteran’s family, see H.R. 

Rep. No. 1541, at 4. Compare with 38 

U.S.C. 101(14) (defining the term 

‘‘dependency and indemnity 

compensation’’ as ‘‘a monthly payment 

made by the Secretary to a . . . child’’) 

(emphasis added). Thus, the section 

1115 allowance was provided for those 

veterans who likely were unable to 

supplement their compensation 

payments to support their family with 

‘‘other income’’ due to their serviceconnected disabilities. 

The Secretary, however, does not 

interpret the legislative history to 

support, nor intend this rulemaking, to 

restrict to any degree a child’s right to 

receive VA benefits in the child’s own 

right, such as dependency and 

indemnity compensation (DIC), which is 

not necessarily dependent upon a 

continuing, legally based parent-child 

relationship. See 38 CFR 3.5 (referring 

to a child’s entitlement to DIC); 38 

U.S.C. 101(14) (defining DIC as ‘‘a 

monthly payment made by the Secretary 

to a . . . child’’) (emphasis added). The 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit has held that the dependent’s 

allowance, or child’s allowance under 

section 1115, is provided to the veteran, 

not to the veteran’s children (or other 

dependents). See Sharp v. Nicholson, 

403 F.3d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(‘‘[T]he reference [in 38 U.S.C. 1115] to 

‘additional compensation’ . . . 

indicates that the veteran, who is 

already entitled to some degree of 

compensation for his service-connected 

disability, is also entitled to a 

supplementary amount because he or 

she has dependents.’’). See also H.R. 

Rep. No. 1541, at 3–4. We find it 

significant that payments under section 

1115 are payments to the veteran based 

on the veteran’s relationship to the 

purported child, whereas DIC and 

certain other benefits are paid to the 

child in his or her own right. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

71368 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

VA’s current regulation at 38 CFR 

3.58 derives from a line of VA legal 

opinions consistently holding that a 

child’s adoption out of a veteran’s 

family does not affect the child’s right 

to receive DIC or similar benefits 

payable to the child in his or her own 

right. One of the earliest of these 

opinions, which was relied upon in part 

to support VA’s current policy in § 3.58, 

was issued by the Bureau of War Risk 

Insurance, a predecessor agency to VA, 

in 1919 and prior to enactment of 

section 1115. This opinion stated, ‘‘An 

adopted child, is in a legal sense, the 

child both of its natural and of its 

adopting parents, and is not, because of 

the adoption, deprived of its rights of 

inheritance from its natural parents, 

unless the statute of the state of its 

domicile expressly so provides.’’ See 

Memorandum, Bureau of War Risk 

Insurance, General Counsel (Apr. 5, 

1919). The Secretary notes that, similar 

to DIC and unlike additional 

compensation under section 1115, 

inheritance rights of a child who is 

adopted from the biological parents are 

not contingent on an existing childparent relationship or financial 

dependency on the biological parents 

and may survive a legal adoption, 

depending upon the laws of individual 

states. See Child Welfare Information 

Gateway, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human 

Services, Interstate Inheritance Rights 

for Adopted Persons 2 (2012), available 

at https://www.childwelfare.gov/

systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/

inheritance.pdf. Because the additional 

compensation payable to a veteran for a 

child under 38 U.S.C. 1115 is the benefit 

of the veteran, not the child, the logic 

of the prior VA opinions and the 

analogy to the child’s right to inherit 

from the veteran who is the child’s 

biological parent are not relevant to 

section 1115. 

We recognize that this interpretation 

may be viewed as treating an adoptedout child’s status as the veteran’s 

‘‘child’’ differently for purposes of 

section 1115 in comparison to other 

benefits. However, we believe our 

interpretation is warranted by the 

specific requirements and clear purpose 

of section 1115, which distinguish that 

statute from statutes governing DIC and 

other benefits, and by the rationale in 

prior VA opinions for finding that 

adoption out of the veteran’s family 

does not terminate the child’s right to 

receive benefits in his or her own right. 

We believe our interpretation is 

reasonable and logically comports with 

the intent of Congress. 

II. Proposed Regulatory Amendments 

For the reasons discussed above, VA 

proposes to implement this 

interpretation of section 1115 by 

modifying 38 CFR 3.57, 3.58, and 3.458. 

The proposed amendment to § 3.57 

would add a third exception to the 

definition of child in § 3.57(a) to 

provide that the definition of child does 

not include a child who is adopted out 

of a veteran’s family in connection with 

any benefits that are provided to a 

veteran pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1115. The 

amended regulation would state that 

this limitation would not apply to any 

VA benefit payable directly to a child in 

the child’s own right, such as DIC under 

38 CFR 3.5. The same limitation would 

be added to § 3.58, the regulation 

governing a child adopted out of a 

family. Both proposed amendments 

would be consistent with the legislative 

intent of section 1115 to provide 

supplemental income to a veteran to 

enhance the veteran’s efforts to provide 

financial support to the veteran’s then 

constituted family. Congress recognized 

that this supplemental income was 

necessary because the veteran’s serviceconnected disability or disabilities 

would hinder the veteran’s ability to 

generate earned income. Once a child is 

no longer a member of the veteran’s 

family, the veteran’s corresponding 

family-related expenses would 

presumably and proportionately 

decrease, so the veteran should no 

longer receive increased compensation 

due to the child, who would no longer 

be financially dependent on the veteran. 

Consistent with the intent of 

Congress, specifically that the 

additional benefits that are provided 

under section 1115 are intended to 

supplement the veteran’s income, VA 

also proposes to amend 38 CFR 3.458, 

which sets forth limitations on the 

apportionment of a veteran’s benefits. 

VA proposes to amend § 3.458 to 

exclude the apportionment of section 

1115 benefits in the case of an adoptedout child because section 1115 benefits 

would no longer be payable in the case 

of an adopted-out child. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), unless OMB waives such review 

as, ‘‘any regulatory action that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) Create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

Materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in this Executive 

Order.’’ 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this regulatory action 

have been examined, and it has been 

determined not to be a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

VA’s impact analysis can be found as 

a supporting document at http://

www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 

hours after the rulemaking document is 

published. Additionally, a copy of the 

rulemaking and its impact analysis are 

available on VA’s Web site at http://

www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the 

link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published 

From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to 

Date.’’ 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this proposed rule would 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. 601–12). This 

proposed rule would not directly affect 

small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt 

from the initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirements of 

sections 603 and 604. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71369 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This proposed rule would 

have no such effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

provisions constituting a collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

21). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.102, Compensation for ServiceConnected Deaths for Veterans’ 

Dependents; 64.105, Pension to 

Veterans, Surviving Spouses, and 

Children; 64.109, Veterans 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Disability; and 64.110, Veterans 

Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Death. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose 

D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on November 21, 2014, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Dated: November 26, 2014. 

William F. Russo, 

Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy 

& Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 

3 as follows: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, 

and Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A continues to read as follows: 

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

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 3.57 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1) introductory 

text, removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (3)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraphs (a)(2) through (4)’’; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(4). 

■ c. Adding an authority citation 

immediately following paragraph (a)(4). 

■ d. Revising the Cross References at the 

end of the section. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 3.57 Child. 

(a) * * * 

(4) For purposes of any benefits 

provided under 38 U.S.C. 1115, 

Additional compensation for 

dependents, the term child does not 

include a child of a veteran who is 

adopted out of the family of the veteran. 

This limitation does not apply to any 

benefit administered by the Secretary 

that is payable directly to a child in the 

child’s own right, such as dependency 

and indemnity compensation under 38 

CFR 3.5. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(4), 501, 1115) 

* * * * * 

CROSS REFERENCES: Improved pension 

rates. See § 3.23. Improved pension 

rates; surviving children. See § 3.24. 

Child adopted out of family. See § 3.58. 

Child’s relationship. See § 3.210. 

Helplessness. See § 3.403(a)(1). 

Helplessness. See § 3.503(a)(3). 

Veteran’s benefits not apportionable. 

See § 3.458. School attendance. See 

§ 3.667. Helpless children—SpanishAmerican and prior wars. See § 3.950. 

■ 3. Revise § 3.58 to read as follows: 

§ 3.58 Child adopted out of family. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, a child of a veteran 

adopted out of the family of the veteran 

either prior or subsequent to the 

veteran’s death is nevertheless a child 

within the meaning of that term as 

defined by § 3.57 and is eligible for 

benefits payable under all laws 

administered by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

(b) A child of a veteran adopted out 

of the family of the veteran is not a child 

within the meaning of § 3.57 for 

purposes of any benefits provided under 

38 U.S.C. 1115, Additional 

compensation for dependents. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(4)(A), 1115) 

CROSS REFERENCES: Child. See § 3.57. 

Veteran’s benefits not apportionable. 

See § 3.458. 

■ 4. Amend § 3.458 by: 

■ (a) In paragraph (d) removing the 

phrase ‘‘, except the additional 

compensation payable for the child’’. 

■ (b) Adding Cross References at the end 

of the section. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 3.458 Veterans benefits not 

apportionable. 

* * * * * 

CROSS REFERENCES: Child. See § 3.57. 

Child adopted out of family. See § 3.58. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28374 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0352; FRL–9919–97– 

OAR] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Montana Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Billings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Montana. On July 13, 2011, the 

Governor of Montana’s designee 

submitted to EPA a second 10-year 

maintenance plan for the Billings area 

for the carbon monoxide (CO) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This maintenance plan 

addresses maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS for a second 10-year period 

beyond the original redesignation. EPA 

is also proposing approval of an 

alternative monitoring strategy for the 

Billings CO maintenance area, which 

was submitted by the Governor’s 

designee on June 22, 2012. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0352, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS