80 FR 9987 - Authorization To Seize Property Involved in Drug Offenses for Administrative Forfeiture (2012R-9P)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 37 (February 25, 2015)

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.

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9987-9989]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03839]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 multiple criminal enterprises and uncover 
drug-related 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.

[[Page 9988]]

In other situations, ATF had to request that the local U.S. Attorney's 
office pursue a judicial forfeiture of such drug-related 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 of 
according to law in a timely and cost-efficient 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,

[[Page 9989]]

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-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and 
export markets.

Congressional Review Act

    This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and 
organization and does not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency 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

0
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.


Sec.  0.130  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  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