80 FR 19238 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for “Marriage”, “Spouse”, and “Domestic Partnership”
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 69 (April 10, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 69 (April 10, 2015)
| Page Range | 19238-19241 | |
| FR Document | 2015-08193 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 19238-19241] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-08193] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
![19238 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
VII. Congressional Review Act GENERAL SERVICES a review of the benefits provided by
ADMINISTRATION their respective departments and
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
agencies to determine what authority
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 41 CFR Part 300–3 they have to extend such benefits to
submit a report containing this rule and
[FTR Amendment 2015–02; FTR Case 2014– same-sex domestic partners of Federal
other required information to the U.S. employees.’’ As part of its review, GSA
Senate, the U.S. House of 301; Docket No. 2014–0012; Sequence No.
1] identified a number of changes to the
Representatives, and the Comptroller Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) that
General of the United States prior to RIN 3090–AJ44 could be made. Subsequently, on June 2,
publication of the rule in the Federal 2010, President Obama signed a
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
Presidential Memorandum directing
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Terms and Definitions for ‘‘Marriage’’,
agencies to immediately take actions,
‘‘Spouse’’, and ‘‘Domestic
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 consistent with existing law, to extend
Partnership’’
certain benefits, including travel and
Environmental protection, AGENCY: Office of Government-wide relocation benefits, to same-sex
Administrative practice and procedure, Policy, U.S. General Services domestic partners of Federal employees,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides Administration (GSA). and where applicable, to the children of
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping same-sex domestic partners of Federal
ACTION: Final rule.
requirements. employees.
Dated: April 1, 2015. SUMMARY: The General Services GSA published an interim rule and a
Susan Lewis, Administration (GSA) is amending the final rule, respectively in the Federal
Director, Registration Division, Office of Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by Register on November 3, 2010, and on
Pesticide Programs. adding terms and definitions for September 28, 2011 (75 FR 67629 and
‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’, and by 76 FR 59914), that fulfilled the
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is revising the definition of ‘‘Domestic Presidential Memorandum by, among
amended as follows: Partnership’’. other things, amending the definition of
DATES: This rule is effective April 10, ‘‘immediate family’’ in the FTR to
PART 180—[AMENDED] include same-sex domestic partners and
2015, subject to retroactivity principles
their dependents.
■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 as discussed herein.
On June 26, 2013, in United States v.
continues to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Windsor, 570 U.S. 12, 133 S. Ct. 2675
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. clarification of content, contact Mr. Rick (2013), the Supreme Court of the United
Miller, Office of Government-wide States (Supreme Court) held Section 3 of
■ 2. In § 180.582: Policy (MA), Travel and Relocation DOMA unconstitutional. As a result of
■ a. Add alphabetically the entries for Policy Division, U.S. General Services this decision, GSA is now able to extend
‘‘Dill, seed’’, ‘‘Fruit, stone, group 12– Administration, at 202–501–3822 or travel and relocation entitlements to
12’’, ‘‘Herb subgroup19A’’, and ‘‘Nut, email at rodney.miller@gsa.gov. Contact Federal employees who are legally
tree, group 14–12, except pistachio’’ to the U.S. General Services married to spouses of the same sex.
the table in paragraph (a)(1). Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5707, the
■ b. Remove the entries for ‘‘Fruit, Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Administrator of General Services is
stone, group 12’’, and ‘‘Nut, tree, group Washington, DC 20405–0001, 202–501– authorized to prescribe necessary
14’’ in the table in paragraph (a)(1). 4755, for information pertaining to regulations to implement laws regarding
The amendments read as follows: status or publication schedules. Please Federal employees who are traveling
cite FTR Amendment 2015–02, FTR while in the performance of official
§ 180.582 Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for Case 2014–301.
residues. business away from their official
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: stations. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 5738
(a) * * * mandates that the Administrator of
(1) * * * A. Background
General Services prescribe regulations
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage relating to official relocation. The
Parts per Act (DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7,
Commodity million overall implementing authority is the
provided that, when used in Federal Federal Travel Regulation (FTR),
law, the term ‘‘marriage’’ would mean codified in Title 41 of the Code of
* * * * * only a legal union between one man and Federal Regulations, Chapters 300–304
Dill, seed ............................... 40 one woman as husband and wife, and (41 CFR Chapters 300–304).
that the term ‘‘spouse’’ referred only to GSA published a proposed rule in the
* * * * * a person of the opposite sex who is a Federal Register on June 26, 2014 (79
Fruit, stone, group 12–12 ..... 2.5 husband or a wife. Because of DOMA, FR 36279). The proposed rule
the Federal Government had been recommended adding a definition for
* * * * * prohibited from recognizing marriages
Herb subgroup 19A .............. 40
the terms ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’,
of same-sex couples for all Federal and revising the definition of the term
* * * * * purposes, including travel and ‘‘Domestic Partnership’’.
Nut, tree, group 14–12, ex- relocation entitlements.
B. Summary of Comments Received
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
cept pistachio .................... 0.04 On June 17, 2009, President Obama
signed a Presidential Memorandum on In response to the proposed rule, GSA
* * * * * Federal Benefits and Non- received comments from six different
Discrimination stating that ‘‘[t]he heads entities (one Federal agency, one
* * * * * of all other executive departments and Federal employee, two individuals, and
[FR Doc. 2015–08079 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] agencies, in consultation with the Office two associations). Some comments
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P of Personnel Management, shall conduct received were generally supportive as to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:04 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19307/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19241
marriages are recognized, so long as a notice of this will be provided by flood) may be provided for construction
they are proven according to the publication in the Federal Register on a or acquisition of buildings in identified
applicable state, other jurisdiction, or subsequent date. Also, information SFHAs for communities not
foreign laws. The term marriage does identifying the current participation participating in the NFIP and identified
not include registered domestic status of a community can be obtained for more than a year on FEMA’s initial
partnerships, civil unions, or other from FEMA’s Community Status Book FIRM for the community as having
similar formal relationships recognized (CSB). The CSB is available at http:// flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the
under state or other jurisdiction (or www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
foreign country) law that are not DATES: The effective date of each 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This
denominated as a marriage under that community’s scheduled suspension is prohibition against certain types of
state’s or other jurisdiction (or foreign the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) listed in the Federal assistance becomes effective for
country’s) law. third column of the following tables. the communities listed on the date
* * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If shown in the last column. The
Spouse—Any individual who is you want to determine whether a Administrator finds that notice and
lawfully married (unless legally particular community was suspended public comment procedures under 5
separated), including an individual on the suspension date or for further U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and
married to a person of the same sex who information, contact Bret Gates, Federal unnecessary because communities listed
was legally married in a state or other Insurance and Mitigation in this final rule have been adequately
jurisdiction (including a foreign Administration, Federal Emergency notified.
county), that recognizes such marriages, Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Each community receives 6-month,
regardless of whether or not the Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4133. 90-day, and 30-day notification letters
individual’s state of residency SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP addressed to the Chief Executive Officer
recognizes such marriages. The term enables property owners to purchase stating that the community will be
‘‘spouse’’ does not include individuals Federal flood insurance that is not suspended unless the required
in a formal relationship recognized by a otherwise generally available from floodplain management measures are
state, which is other than lawful private insurers. In return, communities met prior to the effective suspension
marriage; it also does not include agree to adopt and administer local date. Since these notifications were
individuals in a marriage in a floodplain management measures aimed made, this final rule may take effect
jurisdiction outside the United States at protecting lives and new construction within less than 30 days.
that is not recognized as a lawful from future flooding. Section 1315 of National Environmental Policy Act.
marriage under United States law. the National Flood Insurance Act of This rule is categorically excluded from
* * * * * 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
[FR Doc. 2015–08193 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] prohibits the sale of NFIP flood Environmental Considerations. No
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P insurance unless an appropriate public environmental impact assessment has
body adopts adequate floodplain been prepared.
management measures with effective Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
enforcement measures. The Administrator has determined that this
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
communities listed in this document no rule is exempt from the requirements of
SECURITY
longer meet that statutory requirement the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
Federal Emergency Management for compliance with program the National Flood Insurance Act of
Agency regulations, 44 CFR part 59. 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42
Accordingly, the communities will be U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance
44 CFR Part 64 suspended on the effective date in the coverage unless an appropriate public
third column. As of that date, flood body adopts adequate floodplain
[Docket ID FEMA–2015–0001; Internal insurance will no longer be available in management measures with effective
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8377] enforcement measures. The
the community. We recognize that some
of these communities may adopt and communities listed no longer comply
Suspension of Community Eligibility with the statutory requirements, and
submit the required documentation of
AGENCY: Federal Emergency legally enforceable floodplain after the effective date, flood insurance
Management Agency, DHS. management measures after this rule is will no longer be available in the
ACTION: Final rule. published but prior to the actual communities unless remedial action
suspension date. These communities takes place.
SUMMARY: This rule identifies will not be suspended and will continue Regulatory Classification. This final
communities where the sale of flood to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood rule is not a significant regulatory action
insurance has been authorized under insurance. A notice withdrawing the under the criteria of section 3(f) of
the National Flood Insurance Program suspension of such communities will be Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
(NFIP) that are scheduled for published in the Federal Register. 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
suspension on the effective dates listed In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood 58 FR 51735.
within this rule because of Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
noncompliance with the floodplain identifies the Special Flood Hazard This rule involves no policies that have
management requirements of the Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. federalism implications under Executive
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
program. If the Federal Emergency The date of the FIRM, if one has been Order 13132.
Management Agency (FEMA) receives published, is indicated in the fourth Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
documentation that the community has column of the table. No direct Federal Reform. This rule meets the applicable
adopted the required floodplain financial assistance (except assistance standards of Executive Order 12988.
management measures prior to the pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
effective suspension date given in this Disaster Relief and Emergency does not involve any collection of
rule, the suspension will not occur and Assistance Act not in connection with a information for purposes of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:04 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_19307/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-21 10:08:40
Document Modified: 2018-02-21 10:08:40
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective April 10, 2015, subject to retroactivity principles as discussed herein. | |
| 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. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 19238 | |
| RIN Number | 3090-AJ44 | |
| CFR Associated | Government Employees; Relocation; Travel and Transportation Expenses |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR