### 9987 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

(a) Applicability

This AD applies to Model S–76A, S–76B, S–76C, and S–76D helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) up to and including 761050, certificated in any category, with a tail drive shaft (TDS) part number (P/N) and S/N as follows:

(a) P/N 76361–04004 (all dash numbers) with an S/N up to and including A127– 01092; or

(b) P/N 76361–04604 (all dash numbers) with an S/N with a prefix A240 or B240, or with an S/N C240–00001 through C240–
00880.
(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as loose or fractured TDS flange-to-shaft attachment hardware. This condition could result in loss of a tail rotor drive and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective March 12, 2015.
(d) Compliance

You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(e) Required Actions

Within 30 hours time-in-service: (1) Inspect each TDS flange attachment hardware at all four locations for looseness and torque stripe misalignment as depicted in Figure 1 and shown in Figure 2 of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76–66–52, Basic Issue, dated April 1, 2014 (ASB). Inspect each nut to determine whether it can be rotated by hand. Determine whether the hardware is assembled correctly by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph B.(3)(a) through B.(3)(b) of the ASB. Determine the torque of each nut.

(2) If there is no looseness, torque stripe misalignment, incorrect hardware assembly, and if no nut can be rotated by hand and thetorque of any nut is not less than 105 inchpounds, no further action is required by this AD.

(3) If there is looseness, torque stripe misalignment, incorrect hardware assembly, a nut rotated by hand, or the torque of any nut is less than 105 inch-pounds, do the following:

(i) Apply an index mark to the flange and shaft to make sure the flange is reinstalled in the same position and to maintain shaft balance, unbolt and remove the flange from the shaft, and visually inspect each radius washer for wear or fretting. Replace any washer with wear or fretting.

(ii) Inspect the flange and shaft for a crack, fracture, wear on the mounting hole, and diameter by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.D.(5)(a) through 3.D.(5)(e), of the ASB. If the flange and shaft fail any of the inspection criteria, before further flight, replace the TDS with an airworthy TDS.

(iii) Align index marks, install the flange on the shaft, and coat the grip length of each bolt and the contact surfaces on each radius washer and washer with epoxy polyamide primer. (iv) Torque each nut by following either paragraph D.(9) or D.(10) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB.
(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238– 7761; email michael.schwetz@faa.gov.

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(g) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6510 Tail Rotor Drive Shaft.
(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76–66–52, Basic issue, dated April 1, 2014.

(ii) Reserved. (3) For Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1–800– Winged–S or 203–416–4299; email sikorskywcs@sikorsky.com

.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February
9, 2015. Bruce E. Cain, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2015–03703 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE** 

**28 CFR Part 0**

**[AG Order No. 3495–2015]**

**Authorization To Seize Property Involved in Drug Offenses for**  **Administrative Forfeiture (2012R–9P)**

**AGENCY :**  Department of Justice.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Department of Justice is amending its regulations to delegate to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) authority to seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled substance offenses.

**DATES :**  This rule is effective February 25, 2015.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226, telephone: (202) 648–7070.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Background

After the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) became part of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in January 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296), the Attorney General delegated to ATF the authority to investigate, seize, and forfeit property involved in a violation or attempted violation within its investigative jurisdiction. See 28 CFR 0.130(b)(1). ATF investigations focusing on violent crime frequently involve complex criminal organizations with multiplecriminal enterprises and uncover drugrelated offenses in addition to offenses within ATF’s primary jurisdiction, such as violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, or the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 114. In such investigations, ATF historically did not have authority under 21 U.S.C. Chapter 13 to seize for administrative forfeiture property involved in controlled substance offenses. Instead, ATF generally referred such property to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which is primarily responsible for investigating violations of drug laws contained in title 21 of the United States Code. DEA would then initiate, process, and conclude all necessary administrative forfeiture actions for the controlled substance-related property.


### 9988 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

In other situations, ATF had to request that the local U.S. Attorney’s officepursue a judicial forfeiture of such drugrelated property.

The Department believes that forfeiting the assets of criminals is an essential tool in combating criminal activity that provides law enforcement with the ability to dismantle criminal organizations, deprive wrongdoers of the proceeds of their crimes, and deter crime. The Department further believes that administrative forfeiture permits the expedient and effective use of this valuable law enforcement tool.

An uncontested administrative forfeiture can be perfected in 60–90 days for minimal cost, including the personal notice to interested parties and the notice by publication required by statute. Conversely, the costs associated with judicial forfeiture can amount to hundreds or thousands of dollars and the judicial process generally can take anywhere from 6 months to years. In the meantime, the government incurs additional costs if the property requires storage or maintenance until a final order of forfeiture can be obtained.

One of the primary missions of ATF is to combat firearm-related violent crime. The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established. Upon review of the current role and mission of ATF within DOJ, the Attorney General decided to authorize a temporary delegation of title 21 seizure and forfeiture authority to determine whether such authority can enhance the effectiveness of ATF in the investigation of violent crimes involving firearms. On August 21, 2012, the Attorney General signed a final rule delegating seizure and forfeiture authority under 21 U.S.C. 881 to the ATF for a trial period of one year, effective February 25, 2013. 77 FR 51698 (Aug. 27, 2012). By subsequent action, the Attorney General extended the same authority to ATF for an additional one-year period to give ATF more time to refine its process, fully hire and train all necessary staff, and further demonstrate the effectiveness of the delegation in the investigation of violent crimes involving firearms. 79 FR 12060 (Mar. 4, 2014).

ATF has refined its title 21 asset forfeiture process, and strengthened the overall asset forfeiture program, by changing organizational structure, adding experienced personnel and resources to review and more efficiently process all of ATF’s administrative forfeitures, and providing additional asset forfeiture training to all agency personnel involved in the forfeiture process, together with a renewed focus on the proper execution of all phases of ATF’s asset forfeiture mission to ensure that all interested parties are afforded due process under the law, that all seized assets are accounted for and properly maintained, and that all forfeited property is disposed ofaccording to law in a timely and costefficient manner.

This authority has given ATF the ability to process drug-related property seized in criminal investigations in which firearms and explosives also are seized. From February 25, 2013, to September 30, 2014, ATF used its authority under title 21 to seize more than 1,700 assets with a total value in excess of $19,300,000.

The delegation of authority has afforded cost savings to the United States government by streamlining the forfeiture process to prevent unnecessary burden on the judicial system and the public and by permitting the government to process forfeitures within a single agency. The grant of title 21 seizure and forfeiture authority will permit ATF to continue its use of asset forfeiture as a valuable tool in support of its law enforcement mission and enable the Department to further increase the speed and efficiency of uncontested forfeiture actions.

Final Rule

This rule amends the regulations in 28 CFR part 0 to delegate to the Director of ATF the authority to seize, forfeit, and remit or mitigate the forfeiture of property in accordance with 21 U.S.C.
881.

Forfeiting the assets of criminals is an essential tool in combating criminal activity and provides law enforcement with the capacity to dismantle criminal organizations, deprive wrongdoers of the proceeds of their illegal activities, and deter crime. Therefore, the Attorney General has decided to delegate to the Director of ATF without a time limit administrative seizure and forfeiture authority under title 21 to permit expedient and effective use of this valuable law enforcement tool in the investigation of violent crime involving firearms. How This Document Complies With the Federal Administrative Requirements for Rulemaking
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

Notice and comment rulemaking is not required for this final rule. Under the APA, ‘‘rules of agency organization, procedure or practice,’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), that do not ‘‘affect[] individual rights and obligations,’’ Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232 (1974), are exempt from the general notice and comment requirements of section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code. See JEM Broad. Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (section 553(b)(A) applies to ‘‘agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency’’) (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The revisions to the regulations in 28 CFR part 0 are purely a matter of agency organization, procedure, and practice that will not affect individual rights and obligations. This rule does not expand the government’s ability as a matter of law to effectuate forfeitures; it simply authorizes the Director of ATF to effectuate such forfeitures. Internal delegations of authority such as in this final rule are ‘‘rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice’’ under the APA. In addition, this rule is exempt from the usual requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effective date because, as an internal delegation of authority, it relates to a matter of agency management or personnel. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Department. Further, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this
matter.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and with Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.’’ This rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters as described by Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)(3) and, therefore, is not a ‘‘regulation’’ or ‘‘rule’’ as defined by that Executive Order.

This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor will it adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,


### 9989 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities. Accordingly, this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as defined in Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12988

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform.’’

Executive Order 13132

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ the Department has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-basedenterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and export markets. Congressional Review Act

This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantiallyaffect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. Accordingly, it is not a rule for purposes of the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0

Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing. Authority and Issuance

Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Attorney General, including 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 0 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

**PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE** 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 0 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515–519.

**§ 0.130 [Amended]**

■ 2. In § 0.130, amend paragraph (b)(2) by removing the second sentence.

Dated: February 20, 2015. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 2015–03839 Filed 2–24–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4410–19–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF LABOR**

**Wage and Hour Division**

**29 CFR Part 825**

**RIN 1235–AA09**

**Definition of Spouse Under the Family and Medical Leave Act** 

**AGENCY :**  Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Department of Labor’s (Department) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) revises the regulation defining ‘‘spouse’’ under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA or the Act) in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, which found section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional.

**DATES :**  This Final Rule is effective March 27, 2015.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mary Ziegler, Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S– 3502, Frances Perkins Building, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this Final Rule may be obtained in alternative formats (large print, braille, audio tape or disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693–0675 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1–877–889– 5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.

Questions of interpretation and/or enforcement of the agency’s current regulations may be directed to the nearest WHD district office. Locate the nearest office by calling WHD’s toll-free help line at (866) 4US–WAGE ((866) 487–9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time zone, or log onto WHD’s Web site for a nationwide listing of WHD district and area offices at http://www.dol.gov/whd/america2.htm

. Please visit http://www.dol.gov/whd for more information and resources about the laws administered and enforced by WHD. Information and compliance assistance materials specific to this Final Rule can be found at: http:// www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/spouse/

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

A. What the FMLA Provides

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take job-protected, unpaid leave, or to substitute appropriate accrued paid leave, for up to a total of 12 workweeks in a 12-month period for the birth of the employee’s son or daughter and to care for the newborn child; for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care; to care for the employee’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter with a serious health condition; when the employee is unable to work due to the employee’s own serious health condition; or for any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty. 29 U.S.C. 2612. An eligible employee may also take up to 26 workweeks of FMLA leave during a ‘‘single 12-month period’’ to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness, when the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the servicemember. Id.

FMLA leave may be taken in a block, or under certain circumstances, intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule. Id. In addition to providing job-protected family and medical leave, employers must also maintain any preexisting group health plan coverage for an employee on FMLA-protected leave under the same conditions that would apply if the employee had not taken leave. 29 U.S.C. 2614. Once the leave period is concluded, the employer