Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for “Marriage,” “Spouse,” and “Domestic Partnership”, 36279-36281 [2014-14703]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 123 / Thursday, June 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
proposal and will take final action upon
that proposal separately.
EPA believes that neither these events
nor any other events warrant any
alterations in the criteria for evaluation
of Ohio’s opacity rules or in the analysis
of Ohio’s June 4, 2003, submission.
Actions on other parts of OAC Chapter
3745–17 rules and actions pertinent to
revision of the cross reference in OAC
3745–17–03(A) and other provisions
related to air quality standards are not
pertinent to EPA’s proposed disapproval
of the revisions to the substantive
opacity provisions of OAC 3745–17–03.
EPA has not issued any revised
guidance or taken other action on issues
pertinent to its review of Ohio’s opacity
rule revisions. Therefore, EPA believes
that no new issues have arisen since its
June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval
and the associated comment period that
warrant consideration before EPA takes
final action on these rule revisions.
However, EPA is specifically soliciting
comment on whether any events
subsequent to the comment period on
the June 27, 2005, action should have
any impact on that proposed
disapproval, and if so how those events
should influence the appropriate
criteria.
II. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is soliciting comments on
whether any events which have
occurred, or any policy considerations
which have arisen, after the comment
period on EPA’s June 27, 2005,
proposed disapproval of revisions to
Ohio’s opacity rules in OAC 3745–17–
03 should be considered by EPA in
evaluating these rule revisions. EPA’s
proposed rulemaking of June 27, 2005,
solicited comments that could be made
at that time and EPA is not soliciting
resubmission of prior comments or
submission of additional comments that
could have been made at that time. EPA
is specifically soliciting only comments
that could not have been made at the
time of its prior proposed rulemaking
because they are based upon events or
policy considerations that arose
subsequent to that comment period.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and, therefore, is not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely proposes to
disapprove state law as not meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to disapprove a state rule, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
36279
April 23, 1997), because it proposes to
disapprove a state rule.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a
state submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Thus, the requirements of section 12(d)
of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 10, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
[FR Doc. 2014–14831 Filed 6–25–14; 8:45 am]
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
41 CFR Part 300–3
[FTR Case 2014–301; Docket No. 2014–
0012, Sequence 1]
RIN 3090–AJ44
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
Terms and Definitions for ‘‘Marriage,’’
‘‘Spouse,’’ and ‘‘Domestic
Partnership’’
Office of Government-wide
Policy, General Services Administration
(GSA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
36280
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 123 / Thursday, June 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
The General Services
Administration (GSA) is proposing to
amend the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR) by adding terms and definitions
for ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse,’’ and by
proposing to revise the definition of
‘‘Domestic Partnership’’.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
written comments to the Regulatory
Secretariat at one of the address shown
below on or before August 25, 2014 to
be considered in the formation of the
final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by FTR Case 2014–301 by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portals:
https://www.regulations.gov. Submit
comments via the Federal eRulemaking
portal by searching for ‘‘FTR Case 2014–
301’’. Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’
that corresponds with ‘‘FTR Case 2014–
301’’ and follow the instructions
provided at the screen. Please include
your name, company name (if any), and
‘‘FTR Case 2014–301’’ on your attached
document.
• Fax: 202–208–1398.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Attn: Hada
Flowers, Washington, DC 20405–0001.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite FTR case 2014–301 in all
correspondence related to this case. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
clarification of content, contact Rick
Miller, Office of Government-wide
Policy, Travel and Relocation Policy
Division at (202) 501–3822 or email at
rodney.miller@gsa.gov. Contact the U.S.
General Services Administration,
Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB),
1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC
20405–0001, (202) 501–4755, for
information pertaining to status or
publication schedules. Please cite FTR
Case 2014–301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
A. Background
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA) provided that, when used
in a Federal law, the term ‘‘marriage’’
would mean only a legal union between
one man and one woman as husband
and wife, and that the term ‘‘spouse’’
referred only to a person of the opposite
sex who is a husband or a wife. Because
of DOMA, the Federal Government has
been heretofore prohibited from
recognizing marriages of same-sex
couples for the purposes of travel and
relocation entitlements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:46 Jun 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
On June 17, 2009, President Obama
signed a Presidential Memorandum on
Federal Benefits and NonDiscrimination stating that ‘‘[t]he heads
of all other executive departments and
agencies, in consultation with the Office
of Personnel Management, shall conduct
a review of the benefits provided by
their respective departments and
agencies to determine what authority
they have to extend such benefits to
same-sex domestic partners of Federal
employees.’’ As part of its review, GSA
identified a number of changes to the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) that
could be made. Subsequently, on June 2,
2010, President Obama signed a
Presidential Memorandum directing
agencies to immediately take actions,
consistent with existing law, to extend
certain benefits, including travel and
relocation benefits, to same-sex
domestic partners of Federal employees,
and, where applicable, to the children of
same-sex domestic partners of Federal
employees.
GSA published an interim rule and a
final rule, respectively in the Federal
Register on November 3, 2010, and on
September 28, 2011 (75 FR 67629 and
76 FR 59914), that fulfilled the
Presidential Memorandum by, among
other things, amending the definition of
‘‘immediate family’’ in the FTR to
include same-sex domestic partners and
their dependents.
On June 26, 2013, in United States v.
Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013), the
Supreme Court of the United States
(Supreme Court) held Section 3 of
DOMA unconstitutional. As a result of
this decision, GSA is now able to extend
travel and relocation entitlements to
Federal employees who are legally
married to spouses of the same sex.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5707, the
Administrator of General Services is
authorized to prescribe necessary
regulations to implement laws regarding
Federal employees who are traveling
while in the performance of official
business away from their official
stations. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 5738
mandates that the Administrator of
General Services prescribe regulations
relating to official relocation. The
overall implementing authority is the
FTR, codified in Title 41 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Chapters 300–304
(41 CFR Chapters 300–304).
Pursuant to this authority, this
proposed rule adds a definition for the
terms ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse,’’ and
proposes to revise the definition of the
term ‘‘Domestic Partnership.’’ Due to
current statutory restrictions, however,
this proposed final rule does not apply
to the relocation income tax allowance
or the income tax reimbursement
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
allowance for state tax laws when the
applicable state does not recognize
same-sex marriage.
The term ‘‘marriage’’ is proposed to
include any marriage, including a
marriage between individuals of the
same sex, that was entered into in a
state (or foreign country) whose laws
authorize the marriage, even if the
married couple is domiciled in a state
(or foreign country) that does not
recognize the validity of the marriage.
The term also includes common law
marriage in states where such marriages
are recognized, so long as they are
proven according to the applicable state
laws. The term ‘‘spouse’’ is proposed to
include any individual who has entered
into such a marriage.
The term ‘‘marriage’’ will not include
registered domestic partnerships, civil
unions, or other similar formal
relationships recognized under state (or
foreign country) law that are not
denominated as a marriage under that
state’s (or foreign country’s) law, and
the terms ‘‘spouse,’’ ‘‘husband and
wife,’’ ‘‘husband,’’ and ‘‘wife’’ do not
include individuals who have entered
into such a relationship. This
conclusion will apply regardless of
whether individuals who have entered
into such relationships are of the
opposite sex or the same sex.
At the time the definition of
‘‘immediate family’’ in the FTR was
amended to include same-sex domestic
partners and their dependents, Section
3 of DOMA prohibited GSA from
recognizing same-sex marriages. Thus,
the availability of same-sex marriage in
a particular state was not relevant to the
determination of coverage eligibility for
travel and relocation benefits. Now that,
pursuant to Windsor and the
amendments proposed by this rule, FTR
coverage is available to the same-sex
spouses of Federal employees, GSA has
reconsidered the need and scope of the
extension of FTR coverage to same-sex
domestic partners. A minority of states
currently permits same-sex marriage,
and therefore, many same-sex couples
do not have the same access to marriage
that is available to opposite-sex couples.
Until marriage is available to same-sex
couples in all fifty states, the extension
of benefits to same-sex domestic
partners will continue to play an
important role in bridging the gap in
legal treatment between same-sex and
opposite-sex couples. Therefore, GSA
proposes tailoring FTR coverage to those
same-sex couples who would marry, but
live in states where same-sex marriage
is prohibited.
Same-sex couples living in states that
allow them to marry have access to
many, if not all, of the protections that
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 123 / Thursday, June 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules
married opposite-sex couples enjoy.
Therefore, for employees living in states
where they are able to marry, there is
less need to create a separate path by
which same-sex domestic partners are
eligible for FTR benefits. For those
employees unable to marry under the
laws of the states in which they live,
however, it is appropriate to extend FTR
coverage to same-sex domestic partners
in the form described in this regulation.
Therefore, the term ‘‘domestic
partnership’’ is proposed to be updated
to read that same-sex domestic partners
that have a documented domestic
partnership, and reside in a state (or
foreign country) whose laws do not
recognize the validity of same-sex
marriage will still be considered an
immediate family member under the
FTR, only if they certify that they would
marry but for the failure of their state of
residence to permit same-sex marriage.
For those individuals who reside in
states (or foreign countries) that
authorize the marriage of two
individuals of the same sex, the
individuals will no longer be considered
domestic partners or immediate family
members due to the certification
requirement.
B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
This proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This
proposed rule is also exempt from
Administrative Procedure Act per 5
U.S.C. 553(a)(2), because it applies to
agency management or personnel.
Jkt 232001
E. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
This proposed rule is also exempt
from Congressional review prescribed
under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely
to agency management and personnel.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 300–3
Government employees, Relocation,
Travel, and Transportation expenses.
Dated: June 18, 2014.
Christine J. Harada,
Associate Administrator, Office of
Governmentwide Policy.
For the reasons set forth in the
Preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701–5709,
5721–5738, and 5741–5742, GSA
proposes to amend 41 CFR part 300–3,
as set forth below:
[FR Doc. 2014–14703 Filed 6–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
■
1. The authority citation for 41 CFR
part 300–3 continues to read as follows:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c);
49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C.
5741–5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353;
E.O. 11609, as amended; 3 CFR, 1971–1975
Comp., p. 586, OMB Circular No. A–126,
revised May 22, 1992.
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
2. Amend § 300–3.1 by—
a. In the definition ‘‘Domestic
partnership’’
■ 1. Removing from paragraph (8) the
word ‘‘and’’ at the end of the sentence;
■ 2. Removing from paragraph (9) the
period at the end of the sentence and
adding ‘‘; and’’ in its place; and
■ 3. Adding paragraph (10); and
■ b. Adding, in alphabetical order, the
definitions ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’.
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 300–3.1
mean?
What do the following terms
*
*
*
*
Domestic partnership— * * *
(10) Certify that they would marry but
for the failure of their state of residence
to permit same-sex marriage.
*
*
*
*
*
Marriage—A legal union between
individuals that was entered into in a
state (or foreign country) whose laws
authorize the marriage, even if the
married couple is domiciled in a state
PO 00000
Frm 00041
[Docket No. 140422365–4365–01]
RIN 0648–XD267
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To
Identify the Central North Pacific
Population of Humpback Whale as a
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and
Delist the DPS Under the Endangered
Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request
for information.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to identify the
Central North Pacific population of
humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) as a Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) and delist the DPS under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We
find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
Therefore, we are continuing our status
SUMMARY:
*
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
14:46 Jun 25, 2014
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the changes to the
Federal Travel Regulation do not
impose recordkeeping or information
collection requirements, or the
collection of information from offerors,
contractors, or members of the public
that require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget under 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
(or foreign country) that does not
recognize the validity of the marriage.
The term also includes common law
marriage in a state (or foreign country)
where such marriages are recognized, so
long as they are proven according to the
applicable state or foreign laws. The
term marriage does not include
registered domestic partnerships, civil
unions, or other similar formal
relationships recognized under state (or
foreign country) law that are not
denominated as a marriage under that
state’s (or foreign country’s) law.
*
*
*
*
*
Spouse—Any individual who is
lawfully married, including an
individual married to a person of the
same sex who was legally married in a
state that recognizes such marriages,
regardless of whether or not the
individual’s state of residency
recognizes such marriages. The term
‘‘spouse’’ does not include individuals
in a formal relationship recognized by a
state, which is other than marriage, such
as a domestic partnership or a civil
union.
PART 300–3—GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
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
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. This is a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ and
therefore, was subject to review under
section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, dated September
30, 1993. Accordingly, the proposed
rule has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. This proposed
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
36281
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36279-36281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14703]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 300-3
[FTR Case 2014-301; Docket No. 2014-0012, Sequence 1]
RIN 3090-AJ44
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for
``Marriage,'' ``Spouse,'' and ``Domestic Partnership''
AGENCY: Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36280]]
SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to
amend the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by adding terms and
definitions for ``Marriage'' and ``Spouse,'' and by proposing to revise
the definition of ``Domestic Partnership''.
DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the
Regulatory Secretariat at one of the address shown below on or before
August 25, 2014 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FTR Case 2014-301 by any of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portals: https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for
``FTR Case 2014-301''. Select the link ``Comment Now'' that corresponds
with ``FTR Case 2014-301'' and follow the instructions provided at the
screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and ``FTR Case
2014-301'' on your attached document.
Fax: 202-208-1398.
Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory
Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Attn: Hada Flowers, Washington,
DC 20405-0001.
Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FTR case 2014-
301 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact
Rick Miller, Office of Government-wide Policy, Travel and Relocation
Policy Division at (202) 501-3822 or email at rodney.miller@gsa.gov.
Contact the U.S. General Services Administration, Regulatory
Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405-
0001, (202) 501-4755, for information pertaining to status or
publication schedules. Please cite FTR Case 2014-301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provided that, when
used in a Federal law, the term ``marriage'' would mean only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and that the
term ``spouse'' referred only to a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife. Because of DOMA, the Federal Government has been
heretofore prohibited from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples
for the purposes of travel and relocation entitlements.
On June 17, 2009, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum
on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination stating that ``[t]he heads
of all other executive departments and agencies, in consultation with
the Office of Personnel Management, shall conduct a review of the
benefits provided by their respective departments and agencies to
determine what authority they have to extend such benefits to same-sex
domestic partners of Federal employees.'' As part of its review, GSA
identified a number of changes to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)
that could be made. Subsequently, on June 2, 2010, President Obama
signed a Presidential Memorandum directing agencies to immediately take
actions, consistent with existing law, to extend certain benefits,
including travel and relocation benefits, to same-sex domestic partners
of Federal employees, and, where applicable, to the children of same-
sex domestic partners of Federal employees.
GSA published an interim rule and a final rule, respectively in the
Federal Register on November 3, 2010, and on September 28, 2011 (75 FR
67629 and 76 FR 59914), that fulfilled the Presidential Memorandum by,
among other things, amending the definition of ``immediate family'' in
the FTR to include same-sex domestic partners and their dependents.
On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013),
the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held Section 3
of DOMA unconstitutional. As a result of this decision, GSA is now able
to extend travel and relocation entitlements to Federal employees who
are legally married to spouses of the same sex. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
5707, the Administrator of General Services is authorized to prescribe
necessary regulations to implement laws regarding Federal employees who
are traveling while in the performance of official business away from
their official stations. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 5738 mandates that the
Administrator of General Services prescribe regulations relating to
official relocation. The overall implementing authority is the FTR,
codified in Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapters 300-
304 (41 CFR Chapters 300-304).
Pursuant to this authority, this proposed rule adds a definition
for the terms ``Marriage'' and ``Spouse,'' and proposes to revise the
definition of the term ``Domestic Partnership.'' Due to current
statutory restrictions, however, this proposed final rule does not
apply to the relocation income tax allowance or the income tax
reimbursement allowance for state tax laws when the applicable state
does not recognize same-sex marriage.
The term ``marriage'' is proposed to include any marriage,
including a marriage between individuals of the same sex, that was
entered into in a state (or foreign country) whose laws authorize the
marriage, even if the married couple is domiciled in a state (or
foreign country) that does not recognize the validity of the marriage.
The term also includes common law marriage in states where such
marriages are recognized, so long as they are proven according to the
applicable state laws. The term ``spouse'' is proposed to include any
individual who has entered into such a marriage.
The term ``marriage'' will not include registered domestic
partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships
recognized under state (or foreign country) law that are not
denominated as a marriage under that state's (or foreign country's)
law, and the terms ``spouse,'' ``husband and wife,'' ``husband,'' and
``wife'' do not include individuals who have entered into such a
relationship. This conclusion will apply regardless of whether
individuals who have entered into such relationships are of the
opposite sex or the same sex.
At the time the definition of ``immediate family'' in the FTR was
amended to include same-sex domestic partners and their dependents,
Section 3 of DOMA prohibited GSA from recognizing same-sex marriages.
Thus, the availability of same-sex marriage in a particular state was
not relevant to the determination of coverage eligibility for travel
and relocation benefits. Now that, pursuant to Windsor and the
amendments proposed by this rule, FTR coverage is available to the
same-sex spouses of Federal employees, GSA has reconsidered the need
and scope of the extension of FTR coverage to same-sex domestic
partners. A minority of states currently permits same-sex marriage, and
therefore, many same-sex couples do not have the same access to
marriage that is available to opposite-sex couples. Until marriage is
available to same-sex couples in all fifty states, the extension of
benefits to same-sex domestic partners will continue to play an
important role in bridging the gap in legal treatment between same-sex
and opposite-sex couples. Therefore, GSA proposes tailoring FTR
coverage to those same-sex couples who would marry, but live in states
where same-sex marriage is prohibited.
Same-sex couples living in states that allow them to marry have
access to many, if not all, of the protections that
[[Page 36281]]
married opposite-sex couples enjoy. Therefore, for employees living in
states where they are able to marry, there is less need to create a
separate path by which same-sex domestic partners are eligible for FTR
benefits. For those employees unable to marry under the laws of the
states in which they live, however, it is appropriate to extend FTR
coverage to same-sex domestic partners in the form described in this
regulation.
Therefore, the term ``domestic partnership'' is proposed to be
updated to read that same-sex domestic partners that have a documented
domestic partnership, and reside in a state (or foreign country) whose
laws do not recognize the validity of same-sex marriage will still be
considered an immediate family member under the FTR, only if they
certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state of
residence to permit same-sex marriage. For those individuals who reside
in states (or foreign countries) that authorize the marriage of two
individuals of the same sex, the individuals will no longer be
considered domestic partners or immediate family members due to the
certification requirement.
B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This is a ``significant regulatory action,'' and
therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. Accordingly,
the proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This proposed rule is
also exempt from Administrative Procedure Act per 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2),
because it applies to agency management or personnel.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to
the Federal Travel Regulation do not impose recordkeeping or
information collection requirements, or the collection of information
from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the
approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq.
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This proposed rule is also exempt from Congressional review
prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency
management and personnel.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 300-3
Government employees, Relocation, Travel, and Transportation
expenses.
Dated: June 18, 2014.
Christine J. Harada,
Associate Administrator, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701-
5709, 5721-5738, and 5741-5742, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR part 300-
3, as set forth below:
PART 300-3--GLOSSARY OF TERMS
0
1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 300-3 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118; 5
U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 5741-5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353;
E.O. 11609, as amended; 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586, OMB Circular
No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992.
0
2. Amend Sec. 300-3.1 by--
0
a. In the definition ``Domestic partnership''
0
1. Removing from paragraph (8) the word ``and'' at the end of the
sentence;
0
2. Removing from paragraph (9) the period at the end of the sentence
and adding ``; and'' in its place; and
0
3. Adding paragraph (10); and
0
b. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions ``Marriage'' and
``Spouse''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 300-3.1 What do the following terms mean?
* * * * *
Domestic partnership-- * * *
(10) Certify that they would marry but for the failure of their
state of residence to permit same-sex marriage.
* * * * *
Marriage--A legal union between individuals that was entered into
in a state (or foreign country) whose laws authorize the marriage, even
if the married couple is domiciled in a state (or foreign country) that
does not recognize the validity of the marriage. The term also includes
common law marriage in a state (or foreign country) where such
marriages are recognized, so long as they are proven according to the
applicable state or foreign laws. The term marriage does not include
registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal
relationships recognized under state (or foreign country) law that are
not denominated as a marriage under that state's (or foreign country's)
law.
* * * * *
Spouse--Any individual who is lawfully married, including an
individual married to a person of the same sex who was legally married
in a state that recognizes such marriages, regardless of whether or not
the individual's state of residency recognizes such marriages. The term
``spouse'' does not include individuals in a formal relationship
recognized by a state, which is other than marriage, such as a domestic
partnership or a civil union.
[FR Doc. 2014-14703 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P