35490 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 312f. This action is not 

expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

IV. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

V. Additional Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or amendment 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this rulemaking action, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93 

Air traffic control, Airspace, 

Navigation (air). 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I. 

PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC 

RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 93 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 

40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 

44719, 46301. 

■ 2. Amend § 93.101 to read as follows: 

§ 93.101 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes a special air 

traffic rule for civil helicopters 

operating VFR along the North Shore, 

Long Island, New York, between August 

6, 2012 and August 6, 2016. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in 

Washington, DC, on June 2, 2014. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14457 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 32 

[Docket No.: OJP (BJA) 1646] 

RIN 1121–AA80 

Public Safety Officers’ Benefits 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, 

Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP) of the U.S. Department of Justice 

is amending its regulation defining 

‘‘Spouse’’ for purposes of implementing 

the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits 

(PSOB) Act, associated statutes, and 

Program. Prior to the Supreme Court 

invalidating section 3 of the Defense of 

Marriage Act (DOMA) DOMA prevented 

OJP from recognizing same-sex 

surviving spouses for the purposes of 

awarding PSOB Act benefits. As 

amended, the final regulation recognizes 

as a spouse, for purposes of the PSOB 

program, a person who lawfully enters 

into a marriage in one jurisdiction, even 

when living in another jurisdiction, and 

without regard to the law of the other 

jurisdiction. 

DATES: Effective July 23, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hope Janke, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA), OJP, at (202) 514– 

6278, or toll-free at 1 (888) 744–6153. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In a document published in the 

Federal Register on March 5, 2014 (79 

FR 12434), OJP proposed to amend its 

regulation at 28 CFR 32.3, defining 

spouse for purposes of the PSOB Act 

and program. The comment period 

ended on April 4, 2014. OJP received 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 35491 

1 ‘‘Parent-child relationship means a relationship 

between a public safety officer and another 

individual, in which the officer has the role of 

parent (other than biological or legally-adoptive), as 

shown by convincing evidence.’’ 28 CFR 32.3. 

four comments from interested 

individuals and organizations. Three of 

the commentators generally approved of 

the proposed amendments but suggested 

that OJP broaden its definition of spouse 

and child. One commentator stated that 

OJP’s definition exceeded the federalism 

framework in Windsor and suggested 

that OJP revise the regulation to 

recognize only those marriages valid 

under the law of the individual’s 

domicile. The comments are discussed 

below. Based on the rationale described 

in this document and in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking, OJP adopts the 

proposed rule as indicated in this 

document. 

II. Comments 

Definition of Spouse 

We received several comments 

regarding the scope of the proposed 

definition of spouse. Concerned that the 

new rule would have no effect on states 

that do not allow same-sex marriage, or 

only allow common law marriages, one 

commentator suggested that OJP revise 

the rule to include in the definition of 

a spouse those persons in a same-sex 

relationship for ten or more years. Two 

commentators suggested that OJP 

expand the proposed definition of 

spouse to include persons in other 

‘‘legally recognized’’ or ‘‘non-marriage 

legal unions’’ such as civil unions and 

domestic partnerships. 

OJP’s current and proposed definition 

of spouse are premised on its 

interpretation of the laws authorizing 

payment of benefits to surviving 

spouses, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 3796(a), as 

requiring that an individual must be in 

a valid marriage to be considered a 

spouse. Accordingly, we make no 

change to the proposed rule based on 

the comments. 

Definition of Child 

Citing various concerns that a legal 

relationship between a parent and child, 

as determined by state law, is often 

necessary to establish eligibility as a 

‘‘child’’ for federal benefits, one 

commentator recommended that OJP 

expand its definition of ‘‘stepchild’’ to 

include the child of a parent standing in 

loco parentis, ‘‘where in loco parentis 

means those with day-to-day 

responsibilities to care for and 

financially support a child, with whom 

a biological or legal relationship is not 

necessary.’’ 

Current OJP regulations define an 

adopted child as an individual (1) 

legally adopted by the public safety 

officer (PSO), or (2) known by the PSO 

not to be his or her biological child, and 

in a parent-child relationship with the 

PSO despite such knowledge.1 Because 

the regulatory definition provides 

eligibility based on a parent-child 

relationship that does not require the 

PSO to be or have been married to the 

biological or legally adoptive parent of 

the child or to have legally adopted the 

child, the existing definition satisfies 

the commentator’s request. As a result, 

we make no changes to current 

regulations. 

One commentator, citing concerns 

about possible bias of state-level claims 

processors, suggested that OJP revise 

§ 32.3 by adding to the definition of 

parent-child relationship the following 

language: ‘‘A parent-child relationship 

should be assessed without regard to the 

sexual orientation or gender identity of 

the parties involved.’’ 

OJP disagrees that such change is 

necessary. Apart from a hearing that 

may be conducted locally by OJP 

appointed hearing officers, all PSOB 

claims are processed in BJA’s 

Washington, DC, office, and reviewed 

by PSOB Counsel to ensure compliance 

with governing law. Moreover, nothing 

in the current regulatory definition of 

parent-child relationship, or OJP’s 

process for adjudicating claims requires 

that OJP assess the sexual orientation or 

gender identity of the PSO upon which 

a finding as to the existence of a parentchild relationship would be based. 

Because such information is not 

relevant to BJA finding whether a 

person acted as a parent to a child, we 

make no changes based on this 

comment. 

The Proposed Rule Is Inconsistent With 

Windsor 

Asserting that the proposed definition 

of spouse was contrary to the federalism 

framework in U.S. v. Windsor, one 

commentator stated that OJP should 

have conducted a Federalism 

Assessment before publishing the 

proposed rule and requested that OJP 

revise the final rule to determine marital 

status based on the law of the PSO’s 

domicile. 

The Federalism Assessment 

contemplated by Executive Order 13132 

(1999) involves a determination as to 

whether a proposed rule would have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the federal 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

rule, governing the identification of who 

is a proper beneficiary in a relatively 

small federal program (700 claims 

annually) paying benefits to individuals 

has no substantial direct effect on the 

States or on a particular State. 

Moreover, the rule does not change the 

relationship between state and federal 

governments, or alter the distribution of 

power between such governments. 

Accordingly, OJP’s position that no 

Federalism Assessment was necessary 

remains unchanged. 

The Windsor decision held that it was 

unconstitutional for the federal 

government to treat unequally a subset 

of state-sanctioned marriages. With the 

Court’s invalidation of section 3 of the 

Defense of Marriage Act, OJP sought to 

fashion a rule that enables it to 

efficiently and fairly provide benefits to 

the surviving spouses and children of 

fallen PSOs in an increasingly mobile 

workforce that often marries in one state 

and resides in another. OJP is 

authorized to prescribe regulations 

necessary to carry out the PSOB 

program, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 3796c(a), and a 

regulation reflecting a policy choice to 

pay benefits based on the law of the 

place in which a valid marriage was 

entered is consistent with Windsor’s 

dictate against federal discrimination 

against a subset of marriages. As a 

result, we make no change based on the 

comments. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563— 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation, and in accordance with 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

section 1(b), General Principles of 

Regulation. 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). The costs of implementing this 

rule would be minimal, as it would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

The Office of Justice Programs has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of the Executive Order, and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
35492 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule would not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The PSOB 

program provides benefits to 

individuals and does not impose any 

special or unique requirements on 

States or localities. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order No. 

13132, OJP has determined that this rule 

does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) & 

(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988. 

Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the 

Executive Order, nothing in this rule or 

any previous rule (or in any 

administrative policy, directive, ruling, 

notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) 

directly relating to the program that is 

the subject of this rule is intended to 

create any legal or procedural rights 

enforceable against the United States, 

except as may be contained within part 

32 of title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons: this rule addresses 

federal agency procedures; furthermore, 

this rule would make amendments to 

clarify existing regulations and agency 

practice concerning public safety 

officers’ death, disability, and education 

benefits and would do nothing to 

increase the financial burden on any 

small entities. Therefore, an analysis of 

the impact of this rule on such entities 

is not required under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule would not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule would not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The PSOB program is a 

federal benefits program that provides 

benefits directly to qualifying 

individuals. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 32 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Education, Emergency medical services, 

Firefighters, Law enforcement officers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rescue squad. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, part 32 of chapter I of 

Title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 32—PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ 

DEATH, DISABILITY, AND 

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 

BENEFITS CLAIMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

Part 32 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. ch. 46, subch. XII; 42 

U.S.C. 3782(a), 3787, 3788, 3791(a), 

3793(a)(4) & (b), 3795a, 3796c–1, 3796c–2; 

sec. 1601, title XI, Pub. L. 90–351, 82 Stat. 

239; secs. 4 through 6, Pub. L. 94–430, 90 

Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 2, Pub. L. 107–37, 115 

Stat. 219. 

■ 2. Amend § 32.3 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Spouse’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 32.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Spouse means someone with whom 

an individual entered into marriage 

lawfully under the law of the 

jurisdiction in which it was entered into 

and from whom the individual is not 

divorced, and includes a spouse living 

apart from the individual, other than 

pursuant to divorce, except that, 

notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, to determine whether an individual 

is a spouse of a public safety officer 

within the meaning of this definition 

when more than one individual is 

purported to be such a spouse, the 

PSOB Program will apply the law of the 

jurisdiction that it determines has the 

most significant interest in the marital 

status of the public safety officer: 

(1) On the date of the officer’s death, 

with respect to a claim under subpart B 

of this part or by virtue of such death; 

or 

(2) As of the injury date, with respect 

to a claim not under subpart B of this 

part or by virtue of the officer’s death. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 13, 2014. 

Karol V. Mason, 

Assistant Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14504 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[USCG–2014–0323] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation; Tennessee 

River, Mile 464.0 to 465.0, 

Chattanooga, TN 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary special local 

regulation for the waters of the 

Tennessee River beginning at mile 

marker 464.0 and ending at mile marker 

465, extending bank to bank. This zone 

is necessary to protect participants of 

the ‘‘Chattanooga Waterfront Triathlon’’ 

during the swim portion of the event. 

Entry into this area is prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley or 

designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:00 

a.m. to 9:30 a.m. June 29, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble are part of docket [USCG– 

2014–0323]. To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type the docket 

number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. You may also visit the 

Docket Management Facility in Room 

W12–140 on the ground floor of the 

Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call Petty Officer Chad Phillips, 

Marine Safety Detachment Nashville, at 

(615) 736–5421 or email at 

chad.e.phillips@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Cheryl 

Collins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms 

BNM Broadcast Notices to Mariners 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Regulatory History and Information 

This event and special local 

regulation is currently listed under 33 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES