Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for “Marriage”, “Spouse”, and “Domestic Partnership”, 19238-19241 [granule310]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19238
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 300–3
[FTR Amendment 2015–02; FTR Case 2014–
301; Docket No. 2014–0012; Sequence No.
1]
RIN 3090–AJ44
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
Terms and Definitions for ‘‘Marriage’’,
‘‘Spouse’’, and ‘‘Domestic
Partnership’’
Office of Government-wide
Policy, U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
The General Services
Administration (GSA) is amending the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by
adding terms and definitions for
‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’, and by
revising the definition of ‘‘Domestic
Partnership’’.
PART 180—[AMENDED]
DATES:
SUMMARY:
Dated: April 1, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.582:
a. Add alphabetically the entries for
‘‘Dill, seed’’, ‘‘Fruit, stone, group 12–
12’’, ‘‘Herb subgroup19A’’, and ‘‘Nut,
tree, group 14–12, except pistachio’’ to
the table in paragraph (a)(1).
■ b. Remove the entries for ‘‘Fruit,
stone, group 12’’, and ‘‘Nut, tree, group
14’’ in the table in paragraph (a)(1).
The amendments read as follows:
■
■
§ 180.582 Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for
residues.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
This rule is effective April 10,
2015, subject to retroactivity principles
as discussed herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
clarification of content, contact Mr. Rick
Miller, Office of Government-wide
Policy (MA), Travel and Relocation
Policy Division, U.S. General Services
Administration, 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 Amendment 2015–02, FTR
Case 2014–301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage
Parts per
Act (DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7,
Commodity
million
provided that, when used in Federal
law, the term ‘‘marriage’’ would mean
only a legal union between one man and
*
*
*
*
*
Dill, seed ...............................
40 one woman as husband and wife, and
that the term ‘‘spouse’’ referred only to
*
*
*
*
*
a person of the opposite sex who is a
Fruit, stone, group 12–12 .....
2.5 husband or a wife. Because of DOMA,
the Federal Government had been
*
*
*
*
*
prohibited from recognizing marriages
Herb subgroup 19A ..............
40
of same-sex couples for all Federal
purposes, including travel and
*
*
*
*
*
relocation entitlements.
Nut, tree, group 14–12, exOn June 17, 2009, President Obama
cept pistachio ....................
0.04
signed a Presidential Memorandum on
Federal Benefits and Non*
*
*
*
*
Discrimination stating that ‘‘[t]he heads
*
*
*
*
*
of all other executive departments and
[FR Doc. 2015–08079 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am]
agencies, in consultation with the Office
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
of Personnel Management, shall conduct
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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, 133 S. Ct. 2675
(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
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR),
codified in Title 41 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Chapters 300–304
(41 CFR Chapters 300–304).
GSA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register on June 26, 2014 (79
FR 36279). The proposed rule
recommended adding a definition for
the terms ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’,
and revising the definition of the term
‘‘Domestic Partnership’’.
B. Summary of Comments Received
In response to the proposed rule, GSA
received comments from six different
entities (one Federal agency, one
Federal employee, two individuals, and
two associations). Some comments
received were generally supportive as to
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the implementation of the changes to
the FTR and some comments opposed
the changes as written. All comments
were carefully considered in the
development of this final rule.
Two commenters supported the
proposed rule without any additional
changes made. One commenter
requested a minor editorial change in
section 300–3.1 in the revised definition
for ‘‘Domestic Partner’’, noting that the
parenthetical ‘‘or foreign country’’ is not
used in the term ‘‘Domestic
Partnership’’. The parenthetical ‘‘or
foreign country’’ was used in the
proposed rule for Supplementary
Information under ‘‘A. Background’’ in
explaining ‘‘Domestic Partnership’’, and
is used in the new term ‘‘Marriage’’.
They recommended further amending
the term ‘‘Domestic Partnership’’ to add
the term ‘‘or foreign country’’ after the
word ‘‘state’’ in proposed paragraph 10
of the definition. GSA made the minor
editorial change.
One commenter suggested that the
effective date of the final rule be
retroactive prior to the date of the
Windsor decision (June 26, 2013). The
comment stated this would allow
employees who relocated prior to the
Windsor decision, and who were legally
married in states that recognized samesex marriages, to be allowed to claim
relocation entitlements for their samesex spouses. This rule is effective from
the date of publication, subject to
retroactivity principles as discussed
herein. As to retroactive application, if
an employee or former employee
amends a claim for reimbursement
based upon application of the Windsor
decision for expenses incurred prior to
the effective date of this rule or prior to
the date of the Windsor decision, the
agency that authorized the travel or
relocation should make a determination
based upon the relevant circumstances
of each individual case, in light of
governing legal principles and agency
regulations.
The two associations submitted
comments opposing the changes in the
proposed rule as written. Those
comments are addressed herein
together. One comment opposed adding
to the definition of domestic partnership
in section 300–3.1, the requirement that
employees ‘‘certify that they would
marry but for the failure of their state of
residence to permit same-sex marriage’’
for those employees who reside in a
state or other jurisdiction (or foreign
country) whose laws do not permit
same-sex marriage. In the same
comment, the association also opposed
requiring domestic partners, who reside
in states or jurisdictions (or foreign
countries) that authorize the marriage of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
two individuals of the same sex, to
marry to be eligible for relocation
entitlements as an immediate family
member, if the employee is relocating to
a foreign country.
The commenters stated that the
changes would apply to Americans
officially assigned to, or in transit to,
foreign locations, and these individuals
and their families would be at risk of
losing existing legal protections and
support provided to legally recognized
partners. They also stated that by
requiring employees to marry or certify
their intent to do so, may put these
employees and their partners and
families at risk of persecution,
incarceration, and execution while
assigned abroad.
GSA recognizes that the legal
landscape is rapidly changing, and
certain states and other jurisdictions, as
well as foreign countries, currently do
not allow same-sex marriages. However,
the proposed definition for the term
‘‘domestic partnership’’ in the FTR is in
accordance with the definition used for
other Federal employees benefit
programs, and therefore, will not be
changed. Employees with same-sex
domestic partners living in states or
other jurisdictions (or foreign countries)
that allow them to marry have access to
many, if not all, of the protections that
married opposite-sex couples enjoy.
Therefore, a separate category under the
FTR’s term ‘‘immediate family member’’
will not be created for employees and
their domestic partners who live in
states or other jurisdictions (or foreign
countries) that allow them to marry but
choose not to marry.
One comment suggested that GSA
should make clear that agencies retain
the authority to assign personnel abroad
and afford staff and family assigned
abroad the protections and support that
will best promote the safety, efficiency,
and effectiveness of their operation
overseas. Since recruitment and
assignment procedures are outside of
the scope of the FTR, GSA did not
address this issue.
Another comment suggested that the
proposed changes would promote illegal
discrimination and invidious state or
other jurisdiction practices towards
same-sex couples with regard to
marriage, divorce, adoption,
inheritance, property, tax filing, and
spousal benefits. The changing of state
or other jurisdiction benefit laws for
marriage and/or domestic partners is
outside the scope of the FTR, and
therefore, is not addressed by GSA.
The associations strongly opposed
GSA ‘‘abolishing’’ domestic partner
benefits already extended. The
associations stated that, given the
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19239
limited access to marriage and other
forms of non-marital relationship
recognition for same-sex couples, along
with the aforementioned issues
associated with requiring couples to
marry or certify an intent to marry, the
proposed change would add further
burdens for same-sex couples.
Therefore, they suggested GSA should
expand the terms for ‘‘spouse’’,
‘‘marriage’’, and ‘‘domestic partnership’’
to apply to both same-sex and oppositesex domestic partners, thus extending
travel and relocation benefits to partners
in all relationships.
GSA is not abolishing already
extended travel and relocation benefits.
Rather, GSA is limiting benefits moving
forward for same-sex domestic partners
who choose not to marry, despite
residing in states or other jurisdictions
(or foreign countries) whose laws
authorize same-sex marriage. Same-sex
domestic partners who reside in states
or other jurisdictions (or foreign
countries) whose laws do not authorize
same-sex marriage will still be
permitted to claim travel and relocation
benefits based upon the FTR and agency
procedures for immediate family
members. At this time, GSA is not
including opposite-sex domestic
partners as part of an employee’s
immediate family.
C. Major Changes in This Final Rule
Based upon the comments received
and suggested changes, the final rule
updates the FTR by adding the
definitions ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’,
and revises the definition of ‘‘Domestic
partnership’’.
The term ‘‘marriage’’ is added to
include any marriage, including a
marriage between individuals of the
same sex, that was entered into in a
state or other jurisdiction (or foreign
country) whose laws authorize the
marriage, even if the married couple is
domiciled in a state or other jurisdiction
(or foreign country) that does not
recognize the validity of the marriage.
The term also includes common law
marriage in states or other jurisdictions
where such marriages are recognized, so
long as they are proven according to the
applicable state/jurisdiction laws. The
term ‘‘spouse’’ is added 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
other jurisdiction (or foreign) law that
are not denominated as a marriage
under that state’s or other jurisdiction’s
(or foreign country’s) law, and the terms
‘‘spouse’’, ‘‘husband and wife’’,
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19240
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘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 or other jurisdiction
was not relevant to the determination of
coverage eligibility for travel and
relocation benefits. Now that FTR
coverage is available to the same-sex
spouses of Federal employees, pursuant
to Windsor and the amendments
finalized by this rule, GSA has
reconsidered the need and scope of the
extension of FTR coverage to same-sex
domestic partners. When the proposed
rule was published on June 26, 2014,
only a minority of states recognized
same-sex marriages. However since
then, a majority of states currently
permit same-sex marriage; therefore
many same-sex couples have the same
access to marriage that is available to
opposite-sex couples. However, until
marriage is available to same-sex
couples in all fifty states and other
jurisdictions, 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 is tailoring FTR
coverage to those same-sex couples who
would marry, but live in states or other
jurisdictions (or foreign countries)
where same-sex marriage is prohibited.
Same-sex couples living in states or
other jurisdictions that allow them to
marry have access to many, if not all, of
the protections that married oppositesex couples enjoy. Therefore, for
employees living in states or other
jurisdictions 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 or
other jurisdictions in which they live,
however, it is appropriate to extend FTR
coverage to same-sex domestic partners
in the form described in this regulation.
The term ‘‘domestic partnership’’ is
updated to read that same-sex domestic
partners that have a documented
domestic partnership, and reside in a
state or other jurisdiction (or foreign
country) whose laws do not permit
same-sex marriage or recognize their
validity, will still be considered an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
immediate family member, under the
FTR and agency policy, only if they
certify that they would marry but for the
failure of their state or other jurisdiction
(or foreign country) of residence to
permit same-sex marriage. For those
individuals who reside in states or other
jurisdictions (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.
Due to current statutory restrictions,
however, this final rule does not apply
to the relocation income tax allowance
or the income tax reimbursement
allowance for state taxes when the
applicable state law does not recognize
same-sex marriage.
This case is included in GSA’s
retrospective review of existing
regulations under Executive Order
13563. Additional information is
located in GSA’s retrospective review
(2015), available at www.gsa.gov/
improvingregulations.
D. 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 final rule has
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. This final rule
is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final 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
final rule is also exempt from
Administrative Procedure Act per 5
U.S.C. 553(a)(2), because it applies to
agency management or personnel.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the changes to the
Federal Travel Regulation do not
impose recordkeeping or information
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
G. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
This final 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: April 3, 2015.
Denise Turner Roth,
Acting Administrator of General Services.
For the reasons set forth in the
Preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701–5709,
5721–5738, and 5741–5742, GSA
amends 41 CFR part 300–3, as set forth
below:
PART 300–3—GLOSSARY OF TERMS
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.
2. Amend § 300–3.1 by—
a. In the definition ‘‘Domestic
partnership’’ by—
■ 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 or other
jurisdiction (or foreign country) of
residence to permit same-sex marriage.
*
*
*
*
*
Marriage—A legal union between
individuals that was entered into in a
state or other jurisdiction (or foreign
country) whose laws authorize the
marriage, even if the married couple is
domiciled in a state or other jurisdiction
(or foreign country) that does not
recognize the validity of the marriage.
The term also includes common law
marriage in a state or other jurisdiction
(or foreign country) where such
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
marriages are recognized, so long as
they are proven according to the
applicable state, other jurisdiction, or
foreign laws. The term marriage does
not include registered domestic
partnerships, civil unions, or other
similar formal relationships recognized
under state or other jurisdiction (or
foreign country) law that are not
denominated as a marriage under that
state’s or other jurisdiction (or foreign
country’s) law.
*
*
*
*
*
Spouse—Any individual who is
lawfully married (unless legally
separated), including an individual
married to a person of the same sex who
was legally married in a state or other
jurisdiction (including a foreign
county), 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 lawful
marriage; it also does not include
individuals in a marriage in a
jurisdiction outside the United States
that is not recognized as a lawful
marriage under United States law.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–08193 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket ID FEMA–2015–0001; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8377]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule identifies
communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this
rule, the suspension will not occur and
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
a notice of this will be provided by
publication in the Federal Register on a
subsequent date. Also, information
identifying the current participation
status of a community can be obtained
from FEMA’s Community Status Book
(CSB). The CSB is available at https://
www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.
DATES: The effective date of each
community’s scheduled suspension is
the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) listed in the
third column of the following tables.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended
on the suspension date or for further
information, contact Bret Gates, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4133.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not
otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities
agree to adopt and administer local
floodplain management measures aimed
at protecting lives and new construction
from future flooding. Section 1315 of
the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits the sale of NFIP flood
insurance unless an appropriate public
body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The
communities listed in this document no
longer meet that statutory requirement
for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59.
Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the
third column. As of that date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in
the community. We recognize that some
of these communities may adopt and
submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain
management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue
to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood
insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of such communities will be
published in the Federal Register.
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth
column of the table. No direct Federal
financial assistance (except assistance
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act not in connection with a
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19241
flood) may be provided for construction
or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not
participating in the NFIP and identified
for more than a year on FEMA’s initial
FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This
prohibition against certain types of
Federal assistance becomes effective for
the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and
public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and
unnecessary because communities listed
in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
Each community receives 6-month,
90-day, and 30-day notification letters
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer
stating that the community will be
suspended unless the required
floodplain management measures are
met prior to the effective suspension
date. Since these notifications were
made, this final rule may take effect
within less than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This rule is categorically excluded from
the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Considerations. No
environmental impact assessment has
been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Administrator has determined that this
rule is exempt from the requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance
coverage unless an appropriate public
body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The
communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and
after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the
communities unless remedial action
takes place.
Regulatory Classification. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under the criteria of section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This rule involves no policies that have
federalism implications under Executive
Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule meets the applicable
standards of Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
does not involve any collection of
information for purposes of the
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 19238-19241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: granule310]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 300–3
[FTR Amendment 2015–02; FTR Case 2014–301; Docket No.
2014–0012; Sequence No. 1]
RIN 3090–AJ44
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for
“Marriage”, “Spouse”, and “Domestic
Partnership”
AGENCY: Office of Government-wide Policy, U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by adding terms and definitions for
“Marriage” and “Spouse”, and by revising the
definition of “Domestic Partnership”.
DATES: This rule is effective April 10, 2015, subject to retroactivity
principles as discussed herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact
Mr. Rick Miller, Office of Government-wide Policy (MA), Travel and
Relocation Policy Division, U.S. General Services Administration, 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 Amendment
2015–02, FTR Case 2014–301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), codified at 1
U.S.C. 7, provided that, when used in 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 had
been prohibited from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for all
Federal purposes, including 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, 133 S.
Ct. 2675 (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 Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), codified in Title 41
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapters 300–304 (41 CFR
Chapters 300–304).
GSA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on June 26,
2014 (79 FR 36279). The proposed rule recommended adding a definition
for the terms “Marriage” and “Spouse”, and
revising the definition of the term “Domestic Partnership”.
B. Summary of Comments Received
In response to the proposed rule, GSA received comments from six
different entities (one Federal agency, one Federal employee, two
individuals, and two associations). Some comments received were
generally supportive as to
[[Page 19239]]
the implementation of the changes to the FTR and some comments opposed
the changes as written. All comments were carefully considered in the
development of this final rule.
Two commenters supported the proposed rule without any additional
changes made. One commenter requested a minor editorial change in
section 300–3.1 in the revised definition for “Domestic
Partner”, noting that the parenthetical “or foreign
country” is not used in the term “Domestic
Partnership”. The parenthetical “or foreign country”
was used in the proposed rule for Supplementary Information under
“A. Background” in explaining “Domestic
Partnership”, and is used in the new term “Marriage”.
They recommended further amending the term “Domestic
Partnership” to add the term “or foreign country”
after the word “state” in proposed paragraph 10 of the
definition. GSA made the minor editorial change.
One commenter suggested that the effective date of the final rule
be retroactive prior to the date of the Windsor decision (June 26,
2013). The comment stated this would allow employees who relocated
prior to the Windsor decision, and who were legally married in states
that recognized same-sex marriages, to be allowed to claim relocation
entitlements for their same-sex spouses. This rule is effective from
the date of publication, subject to retroactivity principles as
discussed herein. As to retroactive application, if an employee or
former employee amends a claim for reimbursement based upon application
of the Windsor decision for expenses incurred prior to the effective
date of this rule or prior to the date of the Windsor decision, the
agency that authorized the travel or relocation should make a
determination based upon the relevant circumstances of each individual
case, in light of governing legal principles and agency regulations.
The two associations submitted comments opposing the changes in the
proposed rule as written. Those comments are addressed herein together.
One comment opposed adding to the definition of domestic partnership in
section 300–3.1, the requirement that employees “certify
that they would marry but for the failure of their state of residence
to permit same-sex marriage” for those employees who reside in a
state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws do not
permit same-sex marriage. In the same comment, the association also
opposed requiring domestic partners, who reside in states or
jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that authorize the marriage of two
individuals of the same sex, to marry to be eligible for relocation
entitlements as an immediate family member, if the employee is
relocating to a foreign country.
The commenters stated that the changes would apply to Americans
officially assigned to, or in transit to, foreign locations, and these
individuals and their families would be at risk of losing existing
legal protections and support provided to legally recognized partners.
They also stated that by requiring employees to marry or certify their
intent to do so, may put these employees and their partners and
families at risk of persecution, incarceration, and execution while
assigned abroad.
GSA recognizes that the legal landscape is rapidly changing, and
certain states and other jurisdictions, as well as foreign countries,
currently do not allow same-sex marriages. However, the proposed
definition for the term “domestic partnership” in the FTR
is in accordance with the definition used for other Federal employees
benefit programs, and therefore, will not be changed. Employees with
same-sex domestic partners living in states or other jurisdictions (or
foreign countries) that allow them to marry have access to many, if not
all, of the protections that married opposite-sex couples enjoy.
Therefore, a separate category under the FTR's term “immediate
family member” will not be created for employees and their
domestic partners who live in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign
countries) that allow them to marry but choose not to marry.
One comment suggested that GSA should make clear that agencies
retain the authority to assign personnel abroad and afford staff and
family assigned abroad the protections and support that will best
promote the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of their operation
overseas. Since recruitment and assignment procedures are outside of
the scope of the FTR, GSA did not address this issue.
Another comment suggested that the proposed changes would promote
illegal discrimination and invidious state or other jurisdiction
practices towards same-sex couples with regard to marriage, divorce,
adoption, inheritance, property, tax filing, and spousal benefits. The
changing of state or other jurisdiction benefit laws for marriage and/
or domestic partners is outside the scope of the FTR, and therefore, is
not addressed by GSA.
The associations strongly opposed GSA “abolishing”
domestic partner benefits already extended. The associations stated
that, given the limited access to marriage and other forms of non-
marital relationship recognition for same-sex couples, along with the
aforementioned issues associated with requiring couples to marry or
certify an intent to marry, the proposed change would add further
burdens for same-sex couples. Therefore, they suggested GSA should
expand the terms for “spouse”, “marriage”, and
“domestic partnership” to apply to both same-sex and
opposite-sex domestic partners, thus extending travel and relocation
benefits to partners in all relationships.
GSA is not abolishing already extended travel and relocation
benefits. Rather, GSA is limiting benefits moving forward for same-sex
domestic partners who choose not to marry, despite residing in states
or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) whose laws authorize
same-sex marriage. Same-sex domestic partners who reside in states or
other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) whose laws do not authorize
same-sex marriage will still be permitted to claim travel and
relocation benefits based upon the FTR and agency procedures for
immediate family members. At this time, GSA is not including opposite-
sex domestic partners as part of an employee's immediate family.
C. Major Changes in This Final Rule
Based upon the comments received and suggested changes, the final
rule updates the FTR by adding the definitions “Marriage”
and “Spouse”, and revises the definition of “Domestic
partnership”.
The term “marriage” is added to include any marriage,
including a marriage between individuals of the same sex, that was
entered into in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country)
whose laws authorize the marriage, even if the married couple is
domiciled in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) that
does not recognize the validity of the marriage. The term also includes
common law marriage in states or other jurisdictions where such
marriages are recognized, so long as they are proven according to the
applicable state/jurisdiction laws. The term “spouse” is
added 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 other jurisdiction (or foreign)
law that are not denominated as a marriage under that state's or other
jurisdiction's (or foreign country's) law, and the terms
“spouse”, “husband and wife”,
[[Page 19240]]
“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 or other jurisdiction was not relevant to the determination of
coverage eligibility for travel and relocation benefits. Now that FTR
coverage is available to the same-sex spouses of Federal employees,
pursuant to Windsor and the amendments finalized by this rule, GSA has
reconsidered the need and scope of the extension of FTR coverage to
same-sex domestic partners. When the proposed rule was published on
June 26, 2014, only a minority of states recognized same-sex marriages.
However since then, a majority of states currently permit same-sex
marriage; therefore many same-sex couples have the same access to
marriage that is available to opposite-sex couples. However, until
marriage is available to same-sex couples in all fifty states and other
jurisdictions, 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 is
tailoring FTR coverage to those same-sex couples who would marry, but
live in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) where
same-sex marriage is prohibited.
Same-sex couples living in states or other jurisdictions that allow
them to marry have access to many, if not all, of the protections that
married opposite-sex couples enjoy. Therefore, for employees living in
states or other jurisdictions 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 or other jurisdictions in which they live,
however, it is appropriate to extend FTR coverage to same-sex domestic
partners in the form described in this regulation.
The term “domestic partnership” is updated to read that
same-sex domestic partners that have a documented domestic partnership,
and reside in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose
laws do not permit same-sex marriage or recognize their validity, will
still be considered an immediate family member, under the FTR and
agency policy, only if they certify that they would marry but for the
failure of their state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) of
residence to permit same-sex marriage. For those individuals who reside
in states or other jurisdictions (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.
Due to current statutory restrictions, however, this final rule
does not apply to the relocation income tax allowance or the income tax
reimbursement allowance for state taxes when the applicable state law
does not recognize same-sex marriage.
This case is included in GSA's retrospective review of existing
regulations under Executive Order 13563. Additional information is
located in GSA's retrospective review (2015), available at www.gsa.gov/
improvingregulations.
D. 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 final rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final 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 final rule is
also exempt from Administrative Procedure Act per 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2),
because it applies to agency management or personnel.
F. 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.
G. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This final 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: April 3, 2015.
Denise Turner Roth,
Acting Administrator of General Services.
For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, under 5 U.S.C.
5701–5709, 5721–5738, and 5741–5742, GSA amends 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 §&thnsp;300–3.1 by—
0
a. In the definition “Domestic partnership” by—
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:
§&thnsp;300–3.1 What do the following terms mean?
* * * * *
Domestic Partnership— * * *
(10) Certify that they would marry but for the failure of their
state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) of residence to permit
same-sex marriage.
* * * * *
Marriage—A legal union between individuals that was entered
into in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws
authorize the marriage, even if the married couple is domiciled in a
state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) that does not
recognize the validity of the marriage. The term also includes common
law marriage in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country)
where such
[[Page 19241]]
marriages are recognized, so long as they are proven according to the
applicable state, other jurisdiction, or foreign laws. The term
marriage does not include registered domestic partnerships, civil
unions, or other similar formal relationships recognized under state or
other jurisdiction (or foreign country) law that are not denominated as
a marriage under that state's or other jurisdiction (or foreign
country's) law.
* * * * *
Spouse—Any individual who is lawfully married (unless legally
separated), including an individual married to a person of the same sex
who was legally married in a state or other jurisdiction (including a
foreign county), 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 lawful
marriage; it also does not include individuals in a marriage in a
jurisdiction outside the United States that is not recognized as a
lawful marriage under United States law.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015–08193 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
