30-Day FRN (Final Rule 2900-AP67)

899

Rules and Regulations

Federal Register
Vol. 91, No. 6
Friday, January 9, 2026

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. USCG–2025–0899]

Special Local Regulations; Recurring
Marine Events, Sector St. Petersburg
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of
regulation.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Coast Guard will enforce
a special local regulation for the
Gasparilla Invasion and Parade/Ye
Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla on January
31, 2026, to provide for the safety of life
on navigable waterways during this
event. Our regulation for recurring
marine events within the Captain of the
Port St. Petersburg identifies the
regulated area for this event in Tampa,
FL. During the enforcement periods, no
person or vessel may enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the
regulated area unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a
designated representative.
DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR
100.703 will be enforced for the location
identified in Table 1 to § 100.703, Item
1, from 9 a.m. through 6 p.m., on
January 31, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this notice of
enforcement, call or email Lieutenant
Ryan McNaughton, Sector St.
Petersburg, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
813–918–7270, email:
Ryan.A.McNaughton@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast
Guard will enforce the special local
regulation in 33 CFR 100.703 for the
Gasparilla parade regulated area
identified in Table 1 to § 100.703, Item
1, from 9 a.m. through 6 p.m. on January
31, 2026. This action is being taken to
provide for the safety of life on

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

Jkt 268001

navigable waterways during this event.
Our regulation for recurring marine
events, Captain of the Port Sector St.
Petersburg, Table 1 to § 100.703, Item 1,
specifies the location of the regulated
area for the Gasparilla parade, which
encompasses portions of Hillsborough
Bay, Seddon Channel, Sparkman
Channel and Hillsborough River located
in Tampa, FL. Under the provisions of
33 CFR 100.703(c), all persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering the
regulated area, except those persons and
vessels participating in the event, unless
they receive permission to do so from
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, or
designated representative.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR
100.703, spectator vessels may safely
transit outside the regulated area, but
may not anchor, block, loiter in, impede
the transit of festival participants or
official patrol vessels or enter the
regulated area without approval from
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a
designated representative. The Coast
Guard may be assisted by other Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agencies
in enforcing this regulation. In addition
to this notice of enforcement in the
Federal Register, the Coast Guard will
provide notice of the regulated area via
Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety
Information Bulletins, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners, and on-scene designated
representatives.
Courtney A. Sergent,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2026–00257 Filed 1–8–26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Parts 3 and 21
[Docket No. VA–2021–VBA–0025]
RIN 2900–AP67

Apportionments
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

This final rule amends
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
regulations to limit the circumstances in
which benefits will be apportioned and
to stop making need-based
apportionments. Currently, in limited

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

situations, VA may pay a portion of a
VA beneficiary’s monetary benefits
directly to the beneficiary’s dependent,
referred to as an apportionment. To
qualify, the dependent cannot reside
with the beneficiary, must demonstrate
financial need, and the apportionment
must not cause financial hardship to the
beneficiary. VA claims processors,
whose expertise is in VA benefits and
not in matters related to child or spousal
support, decide whether to take
monetary benefits from the beneficiary
and reallocate the funds to dependents.
VA claims processors can take this
action without the consent of the
beneficiary. These apportionment
decisions, which can have significant
financial consequences, are based on
both parties’ self-reported income and
self-reported expenses. Unlike State
courts, VA has no ability to compel
evidence of income and expenses.
Allegations of inadequate child or
spousal support involve complex issues
of family law that are best suited to the
expertise and authority of State courts.
VA apportionments can upset the
expectations upon which a State court
support award was predicated, requiring
a State court to expend additional
resources to revisit a prior
determination. Finally, due to their
intricacy, a significant amount of
information is needed to adjudicate
apportionment claims properly. While
this information is typically available to
State courts, VA must attempt to gather
this information from the VA
beneficiary and the beneficiary’s
dependent, which is unavoidably a
time-consuming process. The time and
effort needed to gather this information
increases VA workloads and consumes
resources that are better utilized to
process veterans’ claims. Because VA
apportionment awards may conflict
with the awards of better-situated State
family courts, and because VA lacks the
authority and expertise to make fully
informed, accurate, and economically
appropriate awards, VA is amending its
regulations to discontinue making needbased apportionment awards. VA will
continue making apportionment awards
in situations when a veteran or
surviving spouse is incarcerated, or
when an incompetent veteran, who does
not have a fiduciary, is institutionalized
at government expense. VA will not
discontinue any current apportionments
because of this rulemaking.

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1

900

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

This final rule is effective
February 9, 2026.

DATES:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Abigail Werner, Acting Chief, Part 3
Regulations Staff, Compensation
Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, (202) 461–9700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 14, 2021, VA published a
proposed rule, 86 FR 57084, to amend
its regulations to discontinue making
apportionment awards in most
circumstances. VA provided a 60-day
comment period, which ended
December 13, 2021. VA received
comments from several individuals,
organizations, and State agencies,
including the Fort McClellan Veterans
Stakeholders Group; Colorado Child
Support Services; Oregon Child Support
Program; Veterans Legal Service;
Georgia Division of Child Support
Services; Virginia’ Division of Child
Support Enforcement’ Washington
Division of Child Support; and Trinity
Advocates. VA appreciates the time and
effort expended by these commenters in
reviewing the proposed rule and in
submitting comments, as well as their
support for this rulemaking. Those
comments, which have been grouped by
category, are addressed below.
Additionally, VA has made three
changes to address errors found within
the proposed rule. First, VA has moved
the list of eligible apportionees up one
paragraph level from 38 CFR
3.451(a)(1)(i) of the proposed rule to
§ 3.451(a)(1), and has added a clause
noting that parents are not considered
dependents under § 3.23(d)(1) and thus
are not entitled to apportionment of
pension. Second, VA has corrected two
typographical errors in § 3.451(c) of the
proposed rule. Third, VA has removed
‘‘or dependent parents’’ from § 3.454(a)
of the proposed rule because parents are
not entitled to apportionment of
pension.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

I. Section by Section Discussion of the
Comments
VA received 46 comments in response
to the proposed rule. VA considered all
comments submitted. Our evaluation of
the comments did not lead to
substantial changes between the
proposed rule and this final rule. In this
section, we discuss in detail the public
comments addressing issues raised in
the proposed rule.
A. Delegation of Authority
Many commenters stated that VA
cannot delegate its exclusive
jurisdiction to State courts because that
delegation is a violation of the
Constitution and Supremacy Clause.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

Jkt 268001

Commenters also stated that VA’s
Secretary (Secretary) is not able to
delegate his powers because of 38 U.S.C.
511. Finally, commenters suggested that
the proposed rule would force Congress
to amend 38 U.S.C. 5307 to allow the
Secretary to delegate his powers to the
States.
VA Response: VA is not delegating its
authority to State courts. Congress has
provided VA broad discretionary
authority to pay apportionments out of
a VA beneficiary’s monetary benefits.
Rather, VA has decided to no longer
exercise the discretionary authority
given to it by Congress in some
scenarios because VA has determined
that State courts are better equipped at
handling child support or spousal
support agreements. Unlike VA, State
courts have the power to compel sworn
testimony and the production of
documents that can constitute evidence
of income, which VA cannot do.
Furthermore, rather than limiting the
Secretary’s ability to ‘‘delegate,’’ section
511(a) addresses the Secretary’s duty to
decide issues necessary to adjudicate
benefits claims that are before the
Secretary for resolution and the finality
of those decisions. It does not limit the
Secretary’s discretionary authority
under section 5307 to determine
whether apportionment of benefits
should be considered under particular
circumstances. This rule is aligned with
sections 5307 and 511 because VA is not
delegating its authority to State courts.
Neither the Constitution nor its
Supremacy Clause is at issue here.
When the Supreme Court explained in
Rose v. Rose that family law (‘‘domestic
relations’’) is State law, it restated word
for word a well-settled principle
announced in the same court in 1890
and summarized again in 1997. 481 U.S.
619, 625 (1987) (quoting In re Burrus,
136 U.S. 586, 593–4 (1890) (‘‘The whole
subject of the domestic relations of
husband and wife, parent and child,
belongs to the laws of the States and not
to the laws of the United States.’’) and
Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 848 (1997)
(same). Based, albeit in part, on this
principle, the Court has established a
presumption: ‘‘[b]ecause domestic
relations are preeminently matters of
state law,’’ as the Court noted in Mansell
v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 587 (1989),
‘‘we have consistently recognized that
Congress, when it passes general
legislation, rarely intends to displace
state authority in this area.’’ The
presumption is rebuttable, but only on
a showing that the State law would do
‘‘major damage’’ to ‘‘clear and
substantial interests’’ of the Federal
government. Rose, 481 U.S. at 625. Per
the Supreme Court in Rose, ‘‘[t]here

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

being no ‘major damage’ to the federal
interests underlying [section] 211(a)’’—
which Congress redesignated in 1991 as
section 511(a)—‘‘[that law] does not preempt exercise of state-court jurisdiction
to enforce a veteran’s child support,’’ or
spousal support, ‘‘obligation.’’ 481 U.S.
at 629–30.
In section 5307(a) Congress has
provided that VA may apportion
compensation and pension benefits,
including dependency and indemnity
compensation and rehabilitation
subsistence allowances paid under 38
U.S.C. Chapter 31. This authority is at
the discretion of the Secretary. In
section 5313(b)(1), Limitation on
payment of compensation and
dependency compensation to persons
incarcerated for conviction of a felony,
Congress provided that the Secretary
may apportion benefits. Similarly, in
section 5502(d), Payment to and
supervision of fiduciaries, and section
5503(a)(2), Hospitalized veterans and
estates of incompetent institutionalized
veterans, Congress provided that VA
may apportion benefits. Notably, each
apportionment authority in title 38 of
the U.S. Code is discretionary, not
mandatory, as shown by the use of the
word ‘‘may’’ or the phrase ‘‘may be
apportioned as prescribed by the
Secretary.’’ Thus, VA makes no change
based on these comments.
B. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987)
A few commenters stated that the
proposed rule discussed Rose. These
commenters explained that section 511
explicitly excludes State courts from
having jurisdiction. Another commenter
noted that the Rose ruling was based
upon the fact that the disabled veteran
in that case was never afforded a proper
VA apportionment claim review. The
same commenter indicated that the
Secretary cannot delegate duties
awarded to VA by Congress by using
Rose because the Rose case did not
include an apportionment ruling.
Another commenter indicated support
of VA’s decision by quoting supportive
language from Rose and mentioned that
State courts are already apportioning
benefits so that VA no longer needs to
apportion benefits.
VA Response: As the commenters
correctly note, section 511(a) was signed
into law four years after the Rose
decision. However, the comments
misunderstand section 511(a). Section
511(a) is a word-for-word redesignation
of section 211(a), which dates to the
passage of the Veterans Judicial Review
Act of 1988 and which Congress
contemplated in draft form as early as
1979, well before Rose. As noted above,
Congress’s intent in mandating that the

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
Secretary ‘‘shall decide all questions of
law and fact’’ was that the Secretary has
a duty to decide issues necessary to
adjudicate benefits claims. To the extent
VA ceases issuing a given category of
apportionment decisions, there is no VA
apportionment decision and therefore
no potential for a conflict with an action
by any other decisionmaker. Thus,
section 511(a) is simply inapplicable.
The question is whether VA’s
apportionment authority is
discretionary or mandatory, not whether
section 511 would authorize and
preclude review of apportionment
decisions to the extent the Secretary
continued making them.
VA also disagrees with several of the
commenters’ interpretation of the Rose
case. To clarify, the Rose case supports
the point that veterans’ disability
benefits are not exempt from claims for
spousal support and child support.
Under the Rose decision, State courts
may consider the availability of VA
benefits in determining the amount of a
veteran’s child support obligation. State
courts may also set a support award in
an amount that would necessarily
require that part of the support award be
paid out of VA benefits once they are
received by the veteran. In reaching that
determination, the Supreme Court
found that states have independent
authority to establish child support
obligations. The Supreme Court
explained that VA disability
compensation is intended to benefit
both the veteran and his or her
dependents. Therefore, the Court held
that the States’ consideration of such
benefits in establishing child support
awards did not contravene Federal law.
Some State courts have interpreted Rose
as carving out an exception to the
prohibition of attachment of VA benefits
under section 5301(a) for purposes of
child support payments. Some State
courts have extended the Rose holding
to spousal support payments.
Finally, VA reiterates that it is not
delegating its authority to State courts.
The extent of State courts’ authority is
unchanged. VA has only decided to no
longer exercise certain discretionary
authority given by Congress because VA
has identified that State courts are better
suited to handle child and spousal
support matters. It may be that part of
commenters’ confusion is in the misuse
of key terms. Technically, State courts
do not ‘‘apportion’’ VA benefits under
section 5307 or any other provision of
title 38 of the U.S. Code or title 38 of
the CFR. Apportionment is a VA
discretionary authority under Federal
law and regulations; ‘‘apportionment’’
in this context has a precise, specialized
meaning within VA law. State courts, in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

Jkt 268001

contrast, divide income under the
authority of State law. The result of a
State court’s order may be in effect
similar to an apportionment, but the
difference matters. As noted above, the
proposed rule is not in tension with
section 511(a). It also does not interfere
with the exercise of Congress’s or the
President’s military powers. The
Supreme Court has held time and again
that veterans’ benefits including
disability compensation are for the
veteran and the veteran’s family. See,
e.g., Rose, 481 U.S. at 630. The Supreme
Court has not overturned Rose and
Congress has not invalidated it. Rose
remains good law.
Accordingly, VA makes no changes
based on these comments.
C. State Courts
(1) State Court Attorneys Accreditation
and the Best Interest for Veterans
Many commenters strongly opposed
State court attorneys determining
apportionments for dependents. The
commenters indicated that State court
attorneys are not accredited or able to
equitably weigh the interests of disabled
veterans. The commenters expressed
that State court attorneys who
determined apportionment claims
would violate 38 CFR 14.629. Also,
commenters mentioned that
apportionment is an action that only VA
is equipped and competent to make, not
State court attorneys.
VA Response: Under 38 U.S.C.
5901(a) and 38 CFR 14.629(b)(1), no one
may assist claimants in the preparation,
presentation, and prosecution of their
benefits claims before VA as an attorney
unless first accredited by VA for such
purpose. As the commenters correctly
mentioned, all attorneys representing a
claimant in any type of VA benefits
claim must be accredited by VA.
However, the State court attorneys that
will litigate child support or spousal
support cases will not need VA
accreditation. This is because the State
court attorneys will be representing
individuals in their respective State
courts, not before VA. Cases for child
support or spousal support are not filed
with VA. Further, VA believes that State
courts should handle these issues
because they have the resources to make
decisions that fully weigh the impact of
their decisions on the veteran and the
dependents. VA notes that its decision
to no longer make need-based
apportionments is driven by much more
than administrative convenience for the
agency. The agency’s focus is to address
the largely outdated practice of
adjudicating apportionment claims
because supporting the needs of

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

901

veterans’ dependents is generally better
performed in State courts with superior
resources and enforcement capabilities.
VA does not make any changes based on
these comments.
(2) Disability Payments Should Not Be
Considered as Income
One commenter indicated that a
veteran’s disability compensation is the
only money received to support that
veteran’s children and themselves and
that the State courts should not consider
this in a formula as income. Another
commenter stated that VA should send
a letter forbidding States from using a
veteran’s disability payment as income
when determining child or spousal
support.
VA Response: Section 5301(a)(1) of
title 38, U.S. Code, generally exempts
VA benefits from any legal or equitable
process, such as garnishment. Although
section 5301(a)(1) generally prohibits
garnishment of VA benefits, the
Supreme Court in Rose held that State
courts may enforce support orders
against VA compensation payments. As
previously noted, in Rose, the Supreme
Court found that such consideration of
benefits in establishing child support
awards did not contravene Federal law.
This principle has not changed.
Accordingly, VA does not have
authority to forbid a State from
considering a veteran’s disability
payment as income in the spousal or
child support context.
Another commenter mentioned that
the States have no preexisting sovereign
authority, jurisdiction, or control over
the Federally appropriated monies
designated by Congress for the
compensation of military service
members, veterans, and their
dependents. Mansell, 490 U.S. at 589.
VA Response: Rose is distinguishable
from the Supreme Court’s decision in
Mansell, which held that the Former
Spouses’ Protection Act precludes
States from ‘‘the power to treat as
property divisible upon divorce military
retirement pay waived by the retiree to
receive veterans’ disability benefits.’’
490 U.S. at 594–5. The Court
specifically noted that it was not
addressing the issue discussed in Rose,
i.e., whether section 5301(a)
independently protects veterans’
benefits from consideration in assessing
child support obligations. Mansell, 490
U.S. at 587 n.6. Therefore, VA makes no
changes based on this comment.
(3) Income Withholding and
Garnishment
A commenter suggested that as an
alternative to the proposed rule VA
should amend Federal law to allow

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1

902

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

income withholding from VA benefits
for child support obligations. Another
commenter suggested VA make a change
to Federal law to allow garnishment of
all VA benefits for State court-ordered
child support obligations.
VA Response: VA cannot make
statutory changes through regulation.
Only Congress can change Federal law.
As an agency, VA derives authority to
issue regulations from laws enacted by
Congress, including the general
rulemaking authority in section 501. VA
cannot make any changes based on
these comments.
Another commenter indicated that
apportionments are necessary for some
people. The commenter mentioned that,
because State courts cannot garnish
Federal disability money, until there is
another safety net for the beneficiary,
the apportionment process should
remain in place as an option for
dependents to receive financial support.
VA Response: VA notes that there
often are several options for dependents
to receive financial support. State courts
can provide child/spousal support
through a number of means with the
ability to compel a full accounting and
enforce their decisions. Further, the
Supreme Court has held that, although
there are restrictions on garnishing VA
benefits ‘‘while in the hands of [VA],’’
they do not preclude States from
enforcing child support obligations
through any available means ‘‘once
these funds are delivered to the
veteran.’’ Rose, 481 U.S. at 635. The
Court there stated that, as opposed to an
enforcement order against an agency,
‘‘we find no indication in the statute
that a state-court order of contempt
issued against an individual is
precluded where the individual’s
income happens to be composed of
veterans’ disability benefits.’’ The reach
of State courts is much greater than that
of VA in assessing the adequate support
needed, and States have mechanisms to
enforce support orders. Thus, no change
is made based on this comment.
(4) VA Should Adopt a National Child
Support Standard for State Courts
A commenter suggested that VA draft
a national child support calculation for
the States to use for parties who are
veterans.
VA Response: VA notes that because
child support laws are constantly
evolving and are different from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the
United States, State courts are the best
venues for determining fair support
agreements. As noted above, the
Supreme Court has made clear that
‘‘[t]he whole subject of the domestic
relations . . . belongs to the laws of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

Jkt 268001

States and not to the laws of the United
States.’’ The phrase ‘‘laws of the United
States’’ means Federal law. In addition,
a veteran’s support obligation could be
required in another country. The courts
of those jurisdictions have the specific
legal expertise to make fair
determinations. No change was made
based on this comment.
D. VA’s Decision To Stop
Apportionments
Some commenters were opposed to
VA’s decision to discontinue making
need-based apportionment awards.
Specifically, those commenters
indicated that VA should not take
apportionments away unless it proposes
an alternative method for families or
that VA should still assist families with
the collection of support via
apportionment. Other commenters
mentioned that VA is making the
process more difficult for the children
who need support, and the beneficiary
will no longer support his or her
dependents. Some commenters stated
that the current process for
apportionment is the fairest way to
determine if courts are creating a
hardship by including disability
payments as income with the court’s
child support decisions. One
commenter mentioned that the needsbased consideration should be
maintained because it protects the
veteran beneficiary. Other commenters
believed that eliminating
apportionments will prevent military
families from getting child support
when the beneficiary refuses to support
their dependents from VA benefits.
Finally, one commenter suggested that
VA leave an apportionment process in
place only for child support agencies.
VA Response: VA stands by its
decision to stop making new need-based
apportionments because, as previously
noted, State courts are better equipped
to deal with these matters. State
attorneys have the expertise and
resources to investigate and decide what
is in the best interest of the veteran and
the dependent. For example, VA cannot
verify the accuracy of the self-reported
accountings that describe the level of
support needed. State courts can
investigate, verify, and enforce their
decisions. Thus, State courts are best
suited to assist families with support
collection. Additionally, VA would like
to note that when the beneficiary refuses
to support his or her dependents, or a
State court makes a legal determination
that support provided is inadequate, a
State court generally can garnish wages
or bank accounts. Finally, VA believes
State courts are better suited to interact
with child support agencies for the same

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

reasons mentioned above. Therefore, VA
makes no change based on these
comments.
E. How To Terminate/End
Apportionments
One commenter suggested that VA
provide additional clarity regarding
when apportionments terminate and
how to end apportionments.
VA Response: VA will restate from the
proposed rule and clarify how to
terminate and end apportionments.
According to 38 CFR 3.500(d), except as
otherwise provided, an apportionment
terminates on the date of the last
payment when the reason for
apportionment no longer exists.
Apportionments will continue to be
paid until the circumstances that
provided entitlement to the
apportionment no longer exist, such as
the divorce of the veteran and spouse,
death of the primary beneficiary, death
of an apportionee, or other such
circumstances that provided entitlement
to the apportionment. VA does not make
any change based on this comment.
F. Other Comments
Some commenters mentioned that the
States will be unfair, biased, and
discriminatory and that State courts will
cause a financial crisis for veterans
because VA will no longer be protecting
VA disability compensation from being
taken away from the veteran.
VA Response: Any veteran who
disagrees with a State court decision on
child or spousal support may appeal the
decision to the appropriate State
appellate court. Such veteran may seek
legal services for a State court decision
through the State bar. Further, VA
provides a list of legal clinics available
in each State for certain State court
matters, including family law. That list
is available at www.va.gov/OGC/
LegalServices.asp.
A few commenters disagreed with
VA’s second alternative mentioned in
the proposed rule. The second
alternative VA considered was setting
the apportionment amount equal to the
additional amount the veteran receives
for the apportionee as a dependent. The
commenters mentioned that the second
alternative is not feasible because this
would create an even larger backlog for
VA as well as disrupt State courts.
VA Response: In the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section to the proposed
rule, VA mentioned three alternatives it
considered while rulemaking. The first
alternative was to maintain the current
apportionment provisions and make no
changes. The second alternative was to
set the apportionment amount equal to
the additional amount the veteran

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

receives for the apportionee as a
dependent. The final alternative
mentioned in the proposed rule was to
eliminate all apportionments.
The commenters disagreed with the
second alternative mentioned. VA has
decided not to use the second
alternative because, as mentioned in the
proposed rule, VA learned this option
would cause undue hardship for the
veteran. VA also learned that this option
has the potential to disturb a State
court’s allocation of resources and
potentially disadvantage a veteran or the
dependents. For these reasons, VA
chose not to propose this option. No
change will be made based on this
comment.
One commenter suggested that VA
should consider the veteran’s pay model
of a retiree with pay when dealing with
apportionments.
VA Response: It was unclear what the
commenter was trying to convey
regarding how VA should use the
veteran’s pay model of a retiree with
apportionment claims. Accordingly, no
change has been made.
One commenter mentioned that the
information in this rulemaking about a
veteran waiving a portion of his or her
military retired pay to receive VA
benefits was obsolete because of
Mansell.
VA Response: VA would like to
clarify. In the proposed rule, VA
mentioned that under 42 U.S.C. 659,
pursuant to a valid State order, a portion
of a veteran’s disability compensation
can be withheld or garnished for
spousal or child support when a veteran
has waived a portion of his or her
military retired pay to receive VA
benefits. This is still current and has not
been made obsolete by the Mansell case.
As previously stated, the Mansell Court
specifically noted that it was not
addressing the issues in the Rose case
on whether 38 U.S.C 5301(a)
independently protects veterans’
benefits from garnishment to pay child
support. We hope this provides
clarification because 42 U.S.C. 659 is
still the governing body of law. No
change was made based on this
comment.
G. Supportive Comments
Many comments supported the
proposed rule. One commenter
mentioned that VA should not be
making decisions on apportionment
matters because family courts are better
suited to determine the right
distribution of a veteran’s income for
purposes of child and spousal support.
This commenter further stated that VA
should stop apportioning veterans’
benefits. Another commenter observed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

Jkt 268001

that State courts are already dividing
income, including veterans’ income, for
support of children and spouses so VA
should not. The same commenter also
mentioned that if VA continues
apportioning benefits there will be an
undue burden on VA’s employees and
VA’s current apportionment system is
unnecessary and inefficient. Another
commenter mentioned being pleased
with the proposed modifications to the
apportionment process. The same
commenter further indicated that VA
leaves the matters of domestic relations
to the States in every other context and
that VA should let the States handle this
matter too. Other commenters
mentioned that only a State court judge
should resolve the question of whether
a veteran has a legal obligation to
support a dependent under State law.
One commenter supported the proposed
regulation because that commenter
mentioned that States give credit to
child support beneficiaries for other
support obligations when the
beneficiary lives separately from the
dependent. The same commenter
mentioned that VA’s current system
makes obtaining this credit
unnecessarily complex and unduly
burdensome. Finally, one commenter
mentioned support for the rulemaking
but encouraged VA to collaborate with
the IV–D agencies (named after
subchapter IV–D of the Social Security
Act) and veteran service legal aid
organizations regarding the process for
applying for apportionments.
VA Response: VA also believes that
this rulemaking is a step in the right
direction for the betterment of
dependents and beneficiaries. Also, VA
collaborates with many organizations
and will continue to do so. To be clear,
although part of the justification for
discontinuing need-based
apportionments is that State courts tend
to be better suited to deciding matters of
family law, including spousal and child
support, the broader justifications apply
to places outside of U.S. States in which
VA has responsibility, such as the
Philippines and the Freely Associated
States. The reasons for VA to
discontinue need-based apportionments
are the same, regardless of where a
claimant lives. We do not make any
changes based on these comments.
H. Comments Outside of the Scope of
the Proposed Rule
A commenter mentioned that the
Secretary did not mention
apportionments during a Veterans’ Day
speech the Secretary gave. VA also
received a comment responding to the
Federal Register notice published by
VA on October 27, 2021, 86 FR 59449,

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

903

which relates to the new VA form
associated with this rule. The
submission concerns an individual
matter and is unrelated to this rule.
VA Response: These comments are
beyond the scope of this rule.
Accordingly, VA makes no changes
based on these comments.
A few other commenters submitted
comments providing opinions on
comments submitted on the proposed
rule. Specifically, a commenter noted
that other comments referenced the
Howell v. Howell Supreme Court
decision, and expressed that these
commenters were wrong to do so
because the Howell case is not relevant.
VA Response: In Howell v. Howell
(581 U.S. 214 (2017)), the Supreme
Court held that States may not order a
veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse
to make up for the military retirement
pay the veteran waived to receive VA
disability compensation. The holding
concerns a State court’s attempt to
enforce a divorce decree to restore the
amount of the military retirement pay
the veteran waived to get VA disability
pay. In Howell, the Supreme Court
expressly relied on the holding of
Mansell, and, in Mansell, as noted
above, the Court specifically noted that
it was not addressing the issue
discussed in Rose, i.e., whether 38
U.S.C. 5301(a) independently protects
veterans’ benefits from consideration in
assessing child (or spousal) support
obligations. Mansell, 490 U.S. at 587
n.6. Even if Howell limits how States
divide a veteran’s pay for purposes of
child or spousal support, it does so only
with respect to military retirement pay,
and does not undermine the rule of Rose
that State courts may take a veteran’s
benefits into account when determining
a veteran’s child support obligation. The
Howell court explicitly noted that the
appropriate amount of support could be
recalculated taking disability
compensation into account under the
rule of Rose. See Howell, 581 U.S. at
222. Howell, therefore, is inapplicable.
Further, the comment appears to be in
support of the proposed rule; it
proposes no substantive changes to the
rule. VA makes no change based on this
comment.
Another commenter noted that there
were multiple comments suggesting
‘‘this change [is] screwing over the
Veteran,’’ and disagreed saying ‘‘[i]f the
VA is supposed to be an advocate for
the Veteran; there should not be direct
avenues for angry ex-spouses to obtain
a Veteran’s benefits. It’s about time this
change is proposed. VA employees
should not be making arbitrary
decisions based on their own
sentiments. That is what the family

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1

904

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

courts are for. Stop apportioning
Veteran’s benefits.’’
VA Response: VA also believes that
this rulemaking is a step in the right
direction for the betterment of
dependents and beneficiaries. We make
no changes based on this comment.
Another commenter stated: ‘‘Some
fellow commenters have indicated the
solution in these circumstances is for
the veteran to file a request to modify
the child support. This commentary
does not take into consideration the
challenges economically disadvantaged
veterans have navigating the family
court system and the limited legal aid
options available to assist them.’’
VA Response: VA acknowledges that
there may be financial challenges with
State court proceedings, but notes that
there are options for pro bono
representation through local bar
associations. VA also notes that many of
the State court actions for divorce and
child support are completely separate
from apportionment concerns and not
driven by them. Finally, State courts
remain better equipped to justly and
fairly divide assets for the parties
involved using discovery, affidavits, and
financial evidence to which the VA does
not have access. VA makes no change
based upon this comment.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

II. Regulatory Process Matters
VA makes no changes based on the
comments received. This document
adopts as a final rule the proposed rule
published in the Federal Register on
October 14, 2021, with the technical
changes noted above.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14192
VA examined the impact of this
rulemaking as required by Executive
Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563
(Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to
assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation
is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order
13563. This final rule is a deregulatory
action under Executive Order 14192.
The regulatory impact analysis
associated with this rulemaking can be
found as a supporting document at
www.regulations.gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities as they are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

Jkt 268001

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612). The factual basis for
this certification is based on the fact that
no small entities or businesses receive
or determine entitlement to VA
apportionment payments. Therefore,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial
and final regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do
not apply.
Unfunded Mandates
This final rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that
VA consider the impact of paperwork
and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. Under
44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not
collect or sponsor the collection of
information, nor may it impose an
information collection requirement,
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. See also 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3)(vi).
As required by the PRA of 1995 (at 44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA has submitted these
information collection amendments to
OMB for its review. Notice of OMB
approval for this information collection
will be published in a future Federal
Register document. This rule will
impose the following amended
information collection requirements:
Description of respondents: The
respondent population is composed of
individuals requesting an
apportionment of a VA beneficiary’s
monetary award when that beneficiary
is incarcerated or is deemed
incompetent and hospitalized at
government expense.
Estimated frequency of responses:
Most claimants will use the
apportionment form (2900–0666 (VA
Form 21–0788)) once. However, the
frequency may vary slightly for
apportionees of incarcerated veterans,
depending on the number of times the
primary beneficiary is incarcerated. For
an incompetent veteran
institutionalized at government
expense, VA will appoint a fiduciary;
therefore, apportionment claims other
than the initial claim will not be
needed.
Estimated number of respondents: VA
anticipates the annual estimated
numbers of respondents for 2900–0666
(VA Form 21–0788) as follows:
2900–0666 (VA Form 21–0788)—In
2024, VA received 2,888 apportionment

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

claims. VA also processed 343 hospital
adjustments for veterans in receipt of
benefits who were hospitalized or in a
nursing home or receiving domiciliary
care at VA expense. Approximately 8 of
these veterans were incompetent and
potentially met the requirements for
payment of an apportionment to a
dependent. VA also completed
approximately 320 apportionments for
incarcerated veterans in 2024. Of the
2,888 annual apportionment claims, VA
estimates approximately 328 would still
need to be processed under the final
regulation.
OMB Control Number 2900–0666 (VA
Form 21–0788) is a collection of
information for an apportionment claim
currently required by VA for these
claims to be adjudicated. Because VA
requires submission of the form to file
for an apportionment, VA does not
expect an increase in the annual number
of respondents; and in fact, anticipates
a decrease in the number of claims. In
addition, VA is reducing the substance
of the collection of information on this
OMB-approved collection of
information, reducing the time needed
to complete the form from 30 minutes
to 15 minutes, thus further reducing the
respondent burden.
Estimated total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden: 2900–0666 (VA
Form 21–0788)—The annual burden is
reduced from approximately 1,444
hours per year (2888 claims times 30
minutes per claim form divided by 60)
to about 82 hours per year (328 claims
per year times 15 minutes per claim
form divided by 60). The total estimated
cost to respondents is reduced to
$2,678.12 (82 hours × $32.66/hour 1).
This submission does not involve any
recordkeeping costs.
This rulemaking mandates the use of
the VA form in the processing and
adjudication of apportionment claims.
The amendment to § 3.450 impacts the
estimated annual number of
respondents and, consequently, the
estimated total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden. It also reduces
the effect of the existing information
collection already approved by OMB.
The proposed use of information and
description of likely respondents will
remain unchanged for this form. The
response frequency is less than the
previous number estimated. The
estimated average burden per response
is reduced from 30 minutes to 15
1 The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) gathers
information on full-time wage and salary workers.
According to the latest available BLS data, the mean
hourly wage is $32.66 based on the BLS wage
code—‘‘00–0000 All Occupations.’’ This
information was taken from the following website:
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
minutes. VA estimates the total
incremental savings based on this
revised information collection to be
$44,482.92 ($47,161.04 under the
current form ¥$2,678.12 for the revised
form).
Methodology for Estimated Annual
Number of Respondents for Affected
Forms
VA has formulated the estimated total
number of annual responses for
apportionment claims by using the total
number of apportionment claims
received in 2024.
List of Subjects
38 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Pensions, and Veterans.
38 CFR Part 21
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Veterans, Vocational
education, Vocational rehabilitation.
Signing Authority
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on September 30, 2025, 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.
Taylor N. Mattson,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons stated in the
preamble, VA amends 38 CFR parts 3
and 21 as follows:

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.
[Amended]

2. Amend § 3.31(c)(3) introductory
text by removing the words ‘‘original or
increased’’.

■

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

§ 3.210

[Amended]

3. Amend § 3.210(c)(1)(ii) by:
a. Removing ‘‘apportionee,’’ from the
first sentence; and
■ b. Removing the last sentence.
■
■

§ 3.252

[Amended]

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

§ 3.400

Jkt 268001

General.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) Apportionment—(1) General rule.
Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2)
of this section, the effective date of an
apportionment is the first day of the
month after the month in which VA
receives an apportionment claim. (See
§§ 3.450 through 3.455 and 3.551.)
(2) Exceptions to general rule—(i)
Claim for benefits is pending. If a
veteran or surviving spouse (primary
beneficiary) has a claim for benefits
pending on the date that VA receives an
apportionment claim, the effective date
of the apportionment will be the
effective date of the primary
beneficiary’s award, or the date the
apportionment claimant’s entitlement
arose, whichever is later.
(ii) Apportionment claimant not yet
established as the beneficiary’s
dependent. If VA receives an
apportionment claim within 1 year of
the award of benefits to the primary
beneficiary and the apportionment
claimant has not been established as a
dependent on the primary beneficiary’s
award, the effective date of the
apportionment will be the effective date
of the primary beneficiary’s award or
the date the apportionment claimant’s
entitlement arose, whichever is later.
(iii) The primary beneficiary is
incarcerated. The effective date of an
apportionment when the primary
beneficiary is incarcerated is specified
in § 3.665 or § 3.666.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Revise § 3.450 to read as follows:
General Apportionment.

(a) Applicability. Sections 3.450
through 3.459 apply to all claims for
apportionment VA receives on or after
February 9, 2026.
(b) Existing apportionments. All
apportionments being paid as of
February 9, 2026, will continue to be
paid until the circumstances that
provided entitlement to the
apportionment no longer exist, such as
divorce of the veteran and spouse, death
of the primary beneficiary, death of an
apportionee, or other such
circumstances that provided entitlement
to the apportionment.
(c) Apportionment application.
Claims for apportionment must be
submitted to VA on a form prescribed
by the Secretary.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))
■

7. Revise § 3.451 to read as follows:

§ 3.451

4. Amend § 3.252 by removing the last
sentence of paragraph (d).

■

VerDate Sep<11>2014

5. Revise § 3.400(e) to read as follows:

§ 3.450

PART 3—ADJUDICATION

§ 3.31

■

Apportionment claims.

(a) General—(1) Veteran. All or part of
the pension or disability compensation

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

905

payable to any veteran may be
apportioned for the veteran’s spouse,
child, or children, or, in the case of
disability compensation but not
pension, for the veteran’s dependent
parent, if one of the following
conditions exist:
(i) The veteran is incompetent and is
being furnished hospital treatment,
nursing home, or domiciliary care by
the U.S., or any political subdivision
thereof; or
(ii) The veteran is incarcerated and
meets the conditions of § 3.665 or
§ 3.666.
(2) Surviving spouse. Where a child or
children of a deceased veteran is not
living with the veteran’s surviving
spouse because the surviving spouse is
incarcerated and meets the conditions of
§ 3.665 or § 3.666, the dependency and
indemnity compensation (DIC) or
pension otherwise payable to the
surviving spouse may be apportioned to
the child or children. No apportionment
shall be payable to a child who did not
reside with the surviving spouse prior to
incarceration.
(b) Apportionment to a child on active
duty. No apportionment of disability or
death benefits will be made or changed
solely because a child has entered active
duty. If an apportionment is claimed for
a child on active duty on the date the
apportionment claim is received by VA,
no apportionment will be made. If an
apportionment is being paid to the
veteran’s spouse and includes an
amount for a child, and the child enters
active duty, no change in the
apportionment will be made.
(c) Apportionment of death benefits.
Any amounts payable for children
under §§ 3.454 and 3.455 will be equally
divided among the children.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5307, 5502(d))
■

8. Revise § 3.452 to read as follows:

§ 3.452

Veteran’s benefits apportionable.

A veteran’s benefits may be
apportioned when the veteran is
receiving hospital treatment, nursing
home, or domiciliary care provided by
the U.S. or a political subdivision, upon
receipt by VA of an application:
(a) Pending appointment of fiduciary.
Pending the appointment of a guardian
or other fiduciary.
(b) Veteran receiving hospital,
domiciliary, or nursing home care—(1)
Incompetent veteran—(i) Spouse or
child. Where an incompetent veteran
without a fiduciary is receiving hospital
treatment, nursing home, or domiciliary
care provided by the U.S. or a political
subdivision, his or her benefit may be
apportioned for a spouse or child.
(ii) Dependent parent. Where an
incompetent veteran without a fiduciary

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1

906

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

is receiving hospital treatment, nursing
home, or domiciliary care provided by
the U.S. or a political subdivision, his
or her disability compensation may be
apportioned for a dependent parent.
(2) Competent veteran—(i) Section
306 pension. Where the amount of
section 306 pension payable to a
married veteran is reduced to $50
monthly under § 3.551 while a veteran
is receiving hospital, domiciliary, or
nursing home care, an apportionment
may be made to such veteran’s spouse.
The amount of the apportionment
generally will be the difference between
$50 and the total amount of pension
payable on December 31, 1978.
(ii) Improved pension. Where the
amount of improved pension payable to
a married veteran under 38 U.S.C.
1521(b) is reduced to $90 monthly
under § 3.551 an apportionment may be
made to such veteran’s spouse. The
amount of the apportionment generally
will be the difference between $90 and
the rate payable if pension were being
paid under 38 U.S.C. 1521(c), including
the additional amount payable under 38
U.S.C. 1521(e) if the veteran is so
entitled.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 5307, 5502,
5503(a); Pub. L. 95–588, section 306, 92 Stat.
2497, 2508–2510)
■

9. Revise § 3.453 to read as follows:

§ 3.453

Benefits not apportionable.

VA will not apportion benefits:
(a) Unless the spouse of a veteran files
a claim for an apportionment. If there is
a child of the veteran, an apportionment
will not be authorized unless a claim for
an apportionment is filed by or for the
child.
(b) To any beneficiary’s dependent
who is determined by VA to have been
guilty of mutiny, treason, sabotage, or
rendering assistance to an enemy of the
U.S. or its allies.
(c) After September 1, 1959, if a
veteran, spouse, child, dependent
parent, or other primary beneficiary:
(1) Forfeited benefits due to fraud or
a treasonable act; or
(2) Was convicted of subversive
activity.
Note 1 to § 3.453: See §§ 3.900 through
3.903.

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5307, 6103(b), 6104(c),
6105(a))
■

10. Revise § 3.454 to read as follows:

§ 3.454

Apportionment of pension.

(a) Disability pension. Disability
pension will be apportioned to the
veteran’s spouse or child or children.
(b) Death pension. Old-Law death
pension, section 306 death pension, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

Jkt 268001

improved pension will be apportioned
to the veteran’s child or children.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5307)
■

11. Add § 3.455 to read as follows:

§ 3.455 Apportionment of a surviving
spouse’s dependency and indemnity
compensation.

(a) Conditions under which
apportionment may be made. The
surviving spouse’s award of dependency
and indemnity compensation (DIC) will
be apportioned where there is a child
under 18 years of age and the surviving
spouse is incarcerated and meets the
provisions of § 3.665. DIC will not be
apportioned under this paragraph (a) for
a child over age 18 years unless the
child is permanently incapable of selfsupport in accordance with the
provisions of § 3.57.
(b) Rates payable. The amount of
apportionment of DIC will be
determined in accordance with the
provisions of § 3.665.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(4)(A), 104(a), 5307)
§§ 3.456 and 3.457
■

[Added and Reserved]

12. Add reserved §§ 3.456 and 3.457.

§§ 3.458 through 3.461
Reserved]

[Removed and

13. Remove and reserve §§ 3.458
through 3.461.
■ 14. Amend § 3.556 as follows:
■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the
words ‘‘unless it is determined that
apportionment for a spouse should be
continued’’;
■ b. In paragraph (e):
■ i. Remove ‘‘, in the case of a
competent veteran,’’ from the second
sentence and remove the third sentence;
and
■ ii. Revise the last sentence;
■ c. Remove the parenthetical authority
following paragraph (e); and
■ d. Add a parenthetical authority
citation at the end of the section.
The revision and addition read as
follows:
■

§ 3.556 Adjustment on discharge or
release.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) Regular discharge. * * * Where an
apportionment was made under
§ 3.551(c), the apportionment will be
discontinued effective the day
preceding the date of the veteran’s
release from the hospital, unless an
overpayment would result. In the
excepted cases, the awards to the
veteran and apportionee will be
adjusted as of date of last payment.
*
*
*
*
*
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5503)

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

15. Amend § 3.665 by revising
paragraphs (e), (h), and (i) to read as
follows:

■

§ 3.665 Incarcerated beneficiaries and
fugitive felons—compensation.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) Apportionment—(1)
Compensation. All of the compensation
not paid to an incarcerated veteran may
be apportioned to the veteran’s spouse,
child or children (in equal shares), or
dependent parent or parents (in equal
shares).
(2) DIC. All of the DIC not paid to an
incarcerated surviving spouse or other
children not in the surviving spouse’s
custody may be apportioned to another
child or children. All of the DIC not
paid to an incarcerated child may be
apportioned to the surviving spouse or
other children (in equal shares).
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Notice to dependent for whom
apportionment granted. A dependent
for whom an apportionment is granted
under this section shall be informed that
the apportionment is subject to
immediate discontinuance upon the
incarcerated person’s release or
participation in a work release or
halfway house program.
(i) Resumption upon release—(1) No
apportionment. If there was no
apportionment at the time of release
from incarceration, the released person’s
award shall be resumed the date of
release from incarceration if the
Department of Veterans Affairs receives
notice of release within 1 year following
release; otherwise, the award shall be
resumed the date of receipt of notice of
release. If there was an apportionment
award during incarceration, it shall be
discontinued the date of last payment to
the apportionee upon receipt of notice
of release of the incarcerated person.
Payment to the released person shall
then be resumed at the full rate from
date of last payment to the apportionee.
Payment to the released person from
date of release to date of last payment
to the apportionee shall be made at the
rate which is the difference between the
released person’s full rate and the sum
of:
(i) The rate that was payable to the
apportionee; and
(ii) The rate payable during
incarceration.
(2) Apportionment to a dependent
parent. An apportionment made to a
dependent parent under this section
cannot be continued beyond the
veteran’s release from incarceration
unless the veteran is incompetent and
the provisions of § 3.452(b)(1) are for
application. When a competent veteran
is released from incarceration, an

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
apportionment made to a dependent
parent shall be discontinued and the
veteran’s award resumed as provided in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 21—VETERAN READINESS AND
EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION
Subpart A—Veteran Readiness and
Employment
16. The authority citation for part 21,
subpart A, continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 18, 31,
and as noted in specific sections.
§ 21.330
■

[Removed and Reserved]

17. Remove and reserve § 21.330.

[FR Doc. 2026–00237 Filed 1–8–26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2024–0494; FRL–12517–
02–R2]

Air Plan Approval; New York; Ortho
Clinical Diagnostics
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
the State of New York’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) related to a source-specific
SIP (SSSIP) revision for Ortho Clinical
Diagnostics, 513 Technology Boulevard,
Rochester, New York (the Facility). The
EPA finds that the control options in
this SSSIP revision implement
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) with respect to
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the relevant Facility
source, which are identified as one
solvent-based film coating machine.
This SSSIP revision implements VOC
RACT for the relevant Facility source in
accordance with the requirements for
implementation of the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS. This action is being
taken in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The EPA proposed to approve
this rule on July 24, 2025, and received
one comment which was not germane.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
February 9, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02–

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:55 Jan 08, 2026

Jkt 268001

OAR–2024–0494, at https://
www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or the other submission
methods identified in the link below.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from the docket. EPA
may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit to
EPA’s docket at https://
www.regulations.gov any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). Please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets for additional submission
methods; the full EPA public comment
policy; information about CBI, PBI, or
multimedia submissions; and general
guidance on making effective
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007–
1866, at telephone number: (212) 637–
3565, email address: longo.linda@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments were received in response
to the EPA’s proposed action?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this
action?
On July 24, 2025 (90 FR 34781), the
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking that proposed to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of New
York on April 7, 2023 for purposes of
establishing RACT emission limit for
Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. The
proposed SIP revision establishes the
lowest VOC emission limit with the
application of control technology that is
reasonably available given technological
and economic feasibility considerations
for the Facility’s coating machine, 72
Machine. 72 Machine is part of a surface
coating line to produce testing slides.
The coating process falls under New
York Code of Rules and Regulations

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

907

subpart 228–1, ‘‘Surface Coating
Processes.’’
The State’s April 7, 2023 SIP
submittal consists of a RACT
demonstration that includes technical
analysis and cost assessment for seven
applicable control technologies. The
Facility’s RACT demonstration shows
that controlling the overspray is the
only VOC control technology that is
technologically and economically
feasible for 72 Machine, and that
controlling the overspray ensures the
VOC emissions will not exceed 21,600
pounds per year on a 12-month rolling
total basis.1 Under 6 NYCRR subpart
228–1.5(e), NYSDEC may allow surface
coating processes to operate with a
lesser degree of control, as established
in the applicable presumptive RACT
requirements, provided that a process
specific RACT demonstration satisfies
NYSDEC’s regulations, and it addresses
technical and economic feasibility of
utilizing compliant coatings.
The July 24, 2025 proposed action
outlines the EPA’s review of the
Facility’s RACT determination showing
three control technologies for 72
Machine that are technically feasible but
are not cost effective, which are: (1)
Thermal oxidation; (2) catalytic
oxidation; and (3) ducting the VOC
exhaust from 72 Machine to the
Facility’s other coating machine.2 The
EPA reviewed vendor quotes and cost
analyses submitted by the Facility and
compared similar sources in the United
States. The EPA confirms that no costeffective VOC control technologies have
become available that could be
implemented on 72 Machine.
The specific details of New York’s SIP
submittals and the rationale for the
EPA’s approval action are explained in
the EPA’s proposed rulemaking and are
not restated in this final action. For this
detailed information, the reader is
referred to the EPA’s July 24, 2025,
proposed rulemaking (90 FR 34781).
II. What comments were received in
response to the EPA’s proposed action?
In response to the EPA’s July 24, 2025
proposed rulemaking on New York SIP
revision submittal, the EPA received
1 The respective VOC emission limit is contained
in the Facility’s air permit, State Facility Permit, 8–
2628–00503/02001, under Condition 13, issued by
the State on October 31, 2022, and expires on
October 30, 2032. The Condition 13 is being
incorporated into the SIP and includes monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
2 The supporting documentation in the July 24,
2025 proposed action also noted four additional
control measures that were analyzed and found to
be not technically feasible to install and operate,
therefore, no cost assessment was required. Those
additional measures were: (1) liquid absorption; (2)
carbon adsorption; (3) condenser; and (4)
biofiltration.

E:\FR\FM\09JAR1.SGM

09JAR1