Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 19099 

§ 550.1407 Forfeiture of unused 

compensatory time off. 

(a) After 26 pay periods. (1) Except as 

provided in paragraphs (a)(2) and (e) of 

this section, an employee must use 

accrued compensatory time off by the 

end of the 26th pay period after the pay 

period during which it was earned. If an 

employee fails to use the compensatory 

time off within 26 pay periods after it 

was earned, he or she must forfeit such 

compensatory time off. 

* * * * * 

(e) Exception due to an exigency. If an 

employee fails to use his or her 

compensatory time earned under 

§ 550.1404(a) by the end of the 26th pay 

period after the pay period during 

which it was earned due to an exigency 

of the service beyond the employee’s 

control, an authorized agency official, at 

his or her sole and exclusive discretion, 

may extend the time limit for using such 

compensatory time off for travel for up 

to an additional 26 pay periods. 

[FR Doc. E7–7266 Filed 4–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 890 

RIN 3206–AI62 

Waiver of Requirements for Continued 

Coverage During Retirement 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: Under current Federal 

Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 

Program regulations, the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) may 

waive the eligibility requirements for 

health benefits coverage as an annuitant 

for an individual when, in its sole 

discretion, it determines that it would 

be against equity and good conscience 

not to allow a person to be enrolled in 

the FEHB Program as an annuitant. The 

regulations state that an individual’s 

failure to satisfy eligibility requirements 

must be due to exceptional 

circumstances. They also list specific 

situations where a waiver will not be 

granted by OPM such as when an 

individual’s retirement is based on a 

disability or an involuntary separation, 

or when an individual was misadvised 

by his/her employing office. This final 

regulation eliminates these specific 

situations from the regulation. This final 

regulation provides OPM with more 

flexibility when granting waivers. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: This document is available 

for viewing at the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 

NW., Washington DC 20415. Send all 

comments to Michael Kaszynski, 

Insurance Policy, U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 

NW., Room 3415, Washington DC 

20415. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Kaszynski, Policy Analyst, at 

202–606–0004. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 5 

U.S.C. 8905(b), OPM may waive the 

eligibility requirements for health 

benefits coverage as an annuitant for an 

individual when, in its sole discretion, 

it determines that it would be against 

equity and good conscience not to allow 

a person to be enrolled in the FEHB 

Program as an annuitant. Under 5 CFR 

890.108, an individual’s failure to 

satisfy eligibility requirements must be 

due to exceptional circumstances. An 

individual requesting a waiver must 

provide OPM with evidence that (1) the 

individual intended to have FEHB 

coverage as an annuitant (retiree); (2) 

the circumstances that prevented the 

individual from meeting the 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 8905(b) were 

beyond the individual’s control; and (3) 

the individual acted reasonably to 

protect his or her right to continue 

coverage into retirement. 

Section 890.108 lists specific 

situations where a waiver will not be 

granted by OPM such as when an 

individual’s retirement is based on a 

disability or an involuntary separation, 

or an individual was misadvised by his/ 

her employing office. This final 

regulation eliminates these specific 

situations from 5 CFR 890.108 to 

provide more flexibility to the waiver 

process. 

On August 7, 2006, a proposed 

regulation was published in the Federal 

Register at 71 FR 44592. We received no 

comments on the proposed rule. We 

have made no changes to this rule from 

its proposed version. 

Collection of Information Requirement 

This final rule does not impose 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements that meet 

the definition of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995’s term 

‘‘collection of information’’ which 

means obtaining, causing to be obtained, 

soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to 

third parties or the public, of facts or 

opinions by or for an agency, regardless 

of form or format, calling for either 

answers to identical questions posed to, 

or identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons, other than agencies, 

instrumentalities, or employees of the 

United States; or answers to questions 

posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or 

employees of the United States which 

are to be used for general statistical 

purposes. Consequently, it need not be 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under the authority of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires agencies to analyze options for 

regulatory relief of small businesses. For 

purposes of the RFA, small entities 

include small businesses, nonprofit 

organizations, and government agencies 

with revenues of $11.5 million or less in 

any one year. This final rulemaking 

affects FEHB Program health insurance 

eligibility requirements which do not 

impact the dollar threshold. Therefore, 

I certify that this final regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

We have examined the impact of this 

final rule as required by Executive 

Order 12866 (September 1993, 

Regulatory Planning and Review), the 

RFA (September 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96–

354), section 1102(b) of the Social 

Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–4), and 

Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 

12866 (as amended by Executive Order 

13258, which merely assigns 

responsibility of duties) directs 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). A regulatory impact 

analysis must be prepared for major 

rules with economically significant 

effects ($100 million or more in any one 

year). This rule is not considered a 

major rule, as defined in section 804(2) 

of title 5, United States Code, because 

we estimate its impact will only affect 

federal government employment offices. 

Any resulting economic impact would 

not be expected to exceed the dollar 

threshold. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Review 

This final rule has been reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget in 

accordance with Executive Order 12866. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
19100 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 890 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Government employees, 

Health facilities, Health insurance, 

Health professionals, Hostages, Iraq, 

Kuwait, Lebanon, Military personnel, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Retirement. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 

890 as follows: 

PART 890—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 890 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8913; § 890.803 also 

issued under 50 U.S.C. 403p, 22 U.S.C. 4069c 

and 4069c–1; subpart L also issued under 

sec. 599C of Pub. L. 101–513, 104 Stat. 2064, 

as amended; § 890.102 also issued under 

sections 11202(f), 11232(e), 11246 (b) and (c) 

of Pub. L. 105–33, 111 Stat. 251; and section 

721 of Pub. L. 105–261, 112 Stat. 2061, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 890.108 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 890.108 Will OPM waive requirements for 

continued coverage during retirement? 

(a) Under 5 U.S.C. 8905(b), OPM may 

waive the eligibility requirements for 

health benefits coverage as an annuitant 

for an individual when, in its sole 

discretion, it determines that due to 

exceptional circumstances it would be 

against equity and good conscience not 

to allow a person to be enrolled in the 

FEHB Program as an annuitant. 

(b) The individual’s failure to satisfy 

the eligibility requirements must be due 

to exceptional circumstances. An 

individual requesting a waiver must 

provide OPM with evidence that: 

(1) The individual intended to have 

FEHB coverage as an annuitant (retiree); 

(2) The circumstances that prevented 

the individual from meeting the 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 8905(b) were 

beyond the individual’s control; and 

(3) The individual acted reasonably to 

protect his or her right to continue 

coverage into retirement. 

[FR Doc. E7–7267 Filed 4–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6329–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Parts 103, 204, 214, 245, 245a 

[CIS No. 2287–03] 

RIN 1615–AB13 

Removal of the Standardized Request 

for Evidence Processing Timeframe 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends Department 

of Homeland Security regulations to 

provide flexibility to U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services in setting the 

time allowed to applicants and 

petitioners to respond to a Request for 

Evidence or to a Notice of Intent to 

Deny. This rule also describes the 

circumstances under which U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

will issue a Request for Evidence or 

Notice of Intent to Deny before denying 

an application or petition, but United 

States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services will continue generally to 

provide petitioners and applicants with 

the opportunity to review and rebut 

derogatory information of which he or 

she is unaware. This rule also clarifies 

when petitioners and applicants may 

submit copies of documents in lieu of 

originals. 

In addition to these changes, this rule 

removes obsolete references to legacy 

agencies, and it removes obsolete 

language relating to certain legalization 

and agricultural worker programs. 

DATES: This final rule is effective June 

18, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rodger Pitcairn, Program and 

Regulations Development, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Department of Homeland Security, 111 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 

3000, Washington, DC 20529, telephone 

(202) 272–8427. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Comments Received in Response to the 

Proposed Rule 

A. Standards and Timeframes for RFE and 

NOID Responses 

B. Not Issuing at Least One RFE; Making 

Decisions on the Record 

C. Uniform Application of the 

‘‘Preponderance of Evidence’’ Standard 

D. Relationship to Premium Processing 

Regulations 

E. Substitution of Form DS–2019; 

Submitting Copies 

F. Application of the Rule 

G. Use of the Term ‘‘Biometrics Capture’’

H. Technical Correction to Final Rule 

III. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews 

I. Background 

An applicant or petitioner seeking 

immigration benefits from U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) must establish eligibility for 

such benefits. 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1). A 

Request for Evidence (RFE) is a notice 

issued by USCIS to an applicant or 

petitioner seeking immigration benefits 

requesting initial or additional evidence 

to establish eligibility. Id., 103.2(b)(8). 

Currently, USCIS must issue an RFE 

when evidence is missing from an 

application or petition. Id. In addition, 

USCIS must provide twelve weeks for 

an applicant or petitioner to respond to 

an RFE. Id. 

A Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) is 

a written notice issued by USCIS to an 

applicant or petitioner that USCIS has 

made a preliminary decision to deny the 

application or petition. A NOID may be 

based on evidence of ineligibility or on 

derogatory information known to 

USCIS, but not known to the petitioner 

or applicant. USCIS cannot, however, 

issue a NOID based on missing initial 

evidence if an RFE has not first been 

issued. The NOID provides the 

applicant or petitioner with an 

opportunity to inspect and rebut the 

evidence forming the basis of the 

decision to deny the petition or 

application. An applicant or petitioner 

usually is provided thirty days to 

respond to the evidence. 

On November 30, 2004, USCIS 

published a proposed rule to remove 

absolute requirements for, and fixed 

times to respond to, RFEs and NOIDs. 

69 FR 69549. USCIS received thirteen 

comments from individuals, 

community-based groups that assist 

nonimmigrants and immigrants pursue 

applicants for benefits, law firms, and a 

national association representing 

immigration attorneys. This final rule 

adopts the proposed rule with minor 

changes as discussed below. 

II. Comments Received in Response to 

the Proposed Rule 

This final rule addresses requirements 

that are procedural in nature and does 

not alter the substantive rights of 

applicants or petitioners for 

immigration benefits. This final rule, 

therefore, is exempt from notice and 

comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A), and could have been 

promulgated without public notice and 

comment. USCIS’ decision to 

promulgate a proposed rule does not 

alter the authority to promulgate this 

rule as a final rule. For example, the 

proposed rule contained a presumptive 

thirty-day minimum time frame for 

responses, but, after considering the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES