82 FR 57336 - Procedures Further Implementing the Annual Limitation on Suspension of Deportation and Cancellation of Removal
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Office for Immigration Review Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 232 (December 5, 2017)
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 232 (December 5, 2017)
| Page Range | 57336-57340 | |
| FR Document | 2017-26104 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 57336-57340] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-26104] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Part 1240 [EOIR Docket No. 180; AG Order No. 4034-2017] RIN 1125-AA25 Procedures Further Implementing the Annual Limitation on Suspension of Deportation and Cancellation of Removal AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the Executive Office for Immigration Review (``EOIR'') regulations governing the annual limitation on cancellation of removal and suspension of deportation decisions. The amendment eliminates certain procedures created in 1998 that were used to convert 8,000 conditional grants of suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal to outright grants before the end of fiscal year 1998. In addition, it authorizes immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (``Board'') to issue final decisions denying applications, without restriction, regardless of whether the annual limitation has been reached. DATES: This rule is effective January 4, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0470 (not a toll-free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation On November 30, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a rule proposing to amend EOIR's regulations relating to the annual limitation on cancellation of removal and suspension of deportation. 81 FR 86291 (Nov. 30, 2016). The comment period ended on January 30, 2017. The Department received four comments. For the reasons set forth below, the proposed rule is adopted without change. II. Background and Summary The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (``IIRIRA''), Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, added section 240A(e) to the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'' or the ``Act''), Public Law 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8, 18, and 22 U.S.C.), by establishing an annual limitation on the number of aliens who may be granted suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal followed by adjustment of status. The annual limitation is as follows: [T]he Attorney General may not cancel the removal and adjust the status under this section, nor suspend the deportation and adjust the status under section 244(a) (as in effect before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996), of a total of more than 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year. INA sec. 240A(e)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1229b(e)(1)). On October 3, 1997, the Department issued an interim rule, which authorized immigration judges and the Board to grant applications for suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal only on a ``conditional basis.'' 62 FR 51760, 51762 (Oct. 3, 1997). This interim rule was a temporary measure to give the Department time to decide how best to implement the annual statutory limitation. Pursuant to the rule, the Chief Immigration Judge instructed immigration judges to convert previously reserved grants of suspension and cancellation to conditional grants. On November 19, 1997, Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (``NACARA''), Public Law 105-100, title II, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193-2201, which amended section 240A(e) of the Act. NACARA reaffirmed the annual limitation of 4,000 grants but exempted from the limitation certain nationals of Guatemala, El Salvador, and the former Soviet bloc countries. See NACARA sec. 204, 111 Stat. at 2200-01. NACARA provided for an additional 4,000 suspension/cancellation grants to increase the annual limitation to a total of 8,000 for fiscal year 1998 only. Id. On September 30, 1998, the Department issued the current interim rule, which eliminated the ``conditional grant'' process established in the October 1997 interim rule and provided new procedures for immigration judges and the Board to follow with respect to implementing the numerical limitation on suspension and cancellation of removal imposed by IIRIRA and NACARA, 63 FR 52134 (Sept. 30, 1998) (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21 (as in effect prior to publication of this rule)). First, the interim rule created a process to address a discrete issue that required resolution before the end of fiscal year 1998: The interaction between the October 1997 interim rule authorizing immigration judges and the Board to grant applications for suspension and cancellation on a ``conditional basis,'' see 62 FR 51760, 51762 (Oct. 3, 1997), and the enactment of NACARA in November 1997, which added 4,000 grants to the statutory annual limitation, creating a total of 8,000 available grants for fiscal year 1998, see NACARA sec. 202, 111 Stat. at 2193-96. These procedures were set forth in 8 CFR 1240.21(b) (as in effect prior to publication of this rule). See 63 FR at 52138-39. Second, the interim rule created a new procedure for processing applications for suspension and cancellation in order to avoid exceeding the annual limitation. See 63 FR at 52139-40 (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21(c) (as in effect prior to publication of this rule)). The rule eliminated the conditional grant process. Id. at 52138 (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21(a)(2)). Instead, under the interim rule, immigration judges and the Board issued grants of suspension or cancellation in chronological order until grants were no longer available in a fiscal year. The interim rule provided that when grants were no longer available in a fiscal year, ``further decisions to grant or deny such relief shall be reserved'' until grants become available in a future fiscal year. Id. at 52140 (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21(c)(1) (as in effect prior to publication of this rule)). With respect to denials, the interim rule stated that immigration judges and the Board ``may deny without reserving decision or may [[Page 57337]] pretermit those suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal applications in which the applicant has failed to establish statutory eligibility for relief.'' Id. However, the interim rule prohibited immigration judges and the Board from basing such denials ``on an unfavorable exercise of discretion, a finding of no good moral character on a ground not specifically noted in section 101(f) of the [INA], a failure to establish exceptional or extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative in cancellation cases, or a failure to establish extreme hardship to the applicant and/or qualifying relative in suspension cases.'' Id. For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule ``Procedures Further Implementing the Annual Limitation on Suspension of Deportation and Cancellation of Removal,'' see 81 FR 86291 (Nov. 30, 2016), on November 30, 2016, the Department proposed to amend the 1998 interim rule codified at 8 CFR 1240.21 (as in effect prior to publication of this rule). The comment period ended on January 30, 2017. The Department received four comments. For the reasons discussed below, the Department will adopt the proposed amendments to 8 CFR 1240.21 as final without change. The final rule makes three amendments to the current interim regulation. First, the final rule eliminates the text of 8 CFR 1240.21(b) (as in effect prior to publication of this rule), which, as discussed above, established a procedure to convert 8,000 conditional grants of suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal to outright grants before the end of fiscal year 1998 and to convert some conditional grants to grants of adjustment of status under NACARA. The need for such procedures ceased to exist after fiscal year 1998. Second, the final rule amends the interim rule to allow immigration judges and the Board to issue final decisions denying cancellation and suspension applications, without restriction, regardless of whether the annual limitation has been reached. Under the final rule, after the annual limitation has been reached, only grants would be required to be reserved. The final rule will apply prospectively and will have no effect on decisions that were reserved prior to the final rule's effective date. Lastly, the final rule makes a technical amendment to 8 CFR 1240.21(c). III. Comments and Responses As noted above, the Department received four comments in response to the proposed rule. One comment was from the American Immigration Lawyers Association; one was from an attorney with a private law firm, and two were from individual commenters. The comments are addressed by topic because some commenters raised multiple subjects and some comments overlapped. None of the commenters expressed concern with the final rule's elimination of certain procedures created in 1998 to convert 8,000 conditional grants of suspension and cancellation to outright grants before the end of fiscal year 1998. Additionally, none of the commenters expressed concern with the final rule's technical amendment to 8 CFR 1240.21(c). Rather, the commenters focused on the rule's provision authorizing immigration judges and the Board to issue final decisions denying cancellation and suspension applications, without restriction, regardless of whether the annual limitation has been reached. There is nothing in the statutory language suggesting that decisions denying eligibility need to be delayed; the statutory provision only calls for delaying decisions to grant such relief when necessary because the statutory cap has been reached in a particular year. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the purpose of this amendment is to: ``decrease the high volume of reserved decisions that result when the annual limitation is reached early in the fiscal year; reduce the associated delays caused by postponing the resolution of pending cases before EOIR; and provide an applicant with knowledge of a decision in the applicant's case on or around the date of the hearing held on the applicant's suspension or cancellation application.'' 81 FR 86291. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the rule will unfairly disadvantage applicants because it ``freezes the record in place for purposes of a decision denying cancellation or suspension but leaves it open for a potentially positive reserved decision.'' For example, the commenter hypothesized that under the interim rule an immigration judge is required to reserve decision on a cancellation application, which might otherwise be denied for failure of the applicant to meet the statutory requirement that the applicant must demonstrate that the applicant's removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. The commenter states that if the immigration judge had reserved the decision and the applicant's qualifying relative develops serious health-problems while the reserved denial is still pending, the applicant could present this new information and potentially obtain cancellation of removal. On the other hand, under the final rule, an immigration judge would be required to reserve a decision on an application which would otherwise be granted (but for the annual statutory limitation) if the applicant demonstrated that the applicant's removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative such as the applicant's United States citizen child who is in poor health. If the applicant's qualifying child dies or ``ages-out'' and no longer qualifies as a ``qualifying relative'' while the decision is reserved, the applicant may lose eligibility for cancellation of removal. In light of these concerns, the commenter urges EOIR to keep the interim rule in place. Response: The Department declines to change the final rule in light of this comment. As an initial matter, the Department notes that the final rule is consistent with section 240A(e)(1) of the INA, which limits the number of aliens who may be granted suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal to 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year. The Department has determined that the statute does not prohibit the issuance of denials of suspension or cancellation applications once the annual limitation has been reached, but it does require immigration judges and the Board to reserve applications that are to be granted until numbers become available in a subsequent fiscal year. Moreover, the possibility that an applicant's qualifying relative may ``age-out'' or die while a decision is reserved exists under the current interim regulations. This final regulation therefore does not create a greater likelihood that an applicant may lose eligibility due to a qualifying relative ``aging out'' or dying while a decision is reserved. The Department also notes that an applicant may file a motion to reopen if the applicant's qualifying relative experiences a change in circumstances that may qualify the applicant to receive cancellation of removal after the applicant's application was denied. The same commenter suggests that an applicant may be unable to file a motion to reopen if the applicant has been removed from the United States. EOIR notes, however, that most federal courts of appeal have held that the physical removal of an alien from the United States before a timely motion to reopen is filed does not preclude the alien from pursuing a motion to reopen, notwithstanding the current regulatory [[Page 57338]] departure bar set forth at 8 CFR 1003.2(d) and 1003.23(b)(1).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See e.g. Jian Le Lin v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 681 F.3d 1236, 1240 (11th Cir. 2012) (stating that ``Congress intended to ensure aliens the right to file one motion to reopen regardless of their geographical location''); Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 678 F.3d 811, 818 (10th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (same); Prestol Espinal v. Att'y Gen., 653 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2011) (same); Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that ``the physical removal of a petitioner by the United States does not preclude the petitioner from pursuing a motion to reopen'' (quotation marks omitted)); Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 102 (2d Cir. 2011) (stating that ``the BIA must exercise its full jurisdiction to adjudicate a statutory [i.e. timely and not number barred] motion to reopen by an alien who is removed or otherwise departs the United States before or after filing the motion''); William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329, 332 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that section 240(c)(7)(A) of the Act ``unambiguously provides an alien with the right to file one motion to reopen, regardless of whether he is within or without the country''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: One commenter stated that ``[i]f EOIR decides to implement the proposed rule for applications that were previously reserved, [it should] notify the [applicant] and counsel of any intent to deny the case'' so that the applicant and counsel can supplement the record with additional evidence prior to the issuance of a decision. Response: As noted above, the final rule will apply prospectively beginning thirty days after the rule's publication and will have no effect on decisions that were reserved prior to the final rule's effective date. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988) (``[A]dministrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.''). Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the final rule will create an incentive for immigration judges and the Board to deny otherwise meritorious cancellation and suspension applications because it will ease EOIR's docket pressures and alleviate the backlog of reserved cases. Response: The Department does not agree with the commenter's speculation that the rule will create an incentive for immigration judges and the Board to deny otherwise meritorious claims. Immigration judges and Board members are required to exercise their ``independent judgment and discretion'' in deciding all cases that come before them and adjudicate cases based on the law and facts presented. See 8 CFR 1003.10(b), 1003.1(d)(1)(ii). There is a presumption of regularity that attaches to the actions of government agencies, see United States Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10 (2001), and the Supreme Court has long held that adjudicators such as immigration judges are ``assumed to be [individuals] of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances.'' Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 55 (1975) (internal quotation mark omitted). Additionally, as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, immigration judges and the Board will still be required under this final rule to provide a legal and factual analysis for all decision denying cancellation and suspension applications. See 8 CFR 1003.37, 1003.1(d)(1). If an applicant believes an immigration judge's decision was erroneous and not based on the appropriate applicable law and the facts of the case, the applicant may appeal the immigration judge's decision to the Board, 8 CFR 1003.38, and after exhausting administrative remedies, an applicant may be able to file a petition for review in the appropriate circuit court of appeals. See INA sec. 242 et seq. (8 U.S.C. 1252 et seq.). Comment: One commenter suggested that, instead of adopting as final the provisions of the proposed rule, EOIR should adopt a rule allowing immigration judges and the Board to ``provisionally approve or provisionally deny'' cancellation or suspension applications once the annual numerical limitation has been reached. Response: The Department has previously determined that the statutory language and history of the cancellation cap provision does not support a permanent regime based on conditional grants. As discussed more fully in the preamble to the proposed rule, on September 30, 1996, Congress enacted IIRIRA, which included a statutory cap on the number of applications for suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal that the Attorney General could grant each fiscal year. On October 3, 1997, the Department adopted a conditional grant process as a temporary measure that gave the Department time to consider how best to implement the statutory cap. 62 FR 51760. After considering the issue, the Department determined that the statute does not support a conditional grant system that carries over from year to year (such as the one established in the 1997 interim regulation) because the statutory cap language in section 240A(e) of the INA has been interpreted to mean that those eligible applicants must be granted relief of suspension or cancellation during the fiscal year in which they are given a grant under the cap. 63 FR at 52135-36. Therefore, the Department eliminated the conditional grant process with its publication of the current interim rule. Id. (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21(c) (as in effect prior to publication of this rule)). The Department continues to believe that the statute does not support returning to a ``conditional grant'' or ``provisional grant'' system. Accordingly, the Department will not change the rule to adopt the commenter's suggestion. IV. Regulatory Requirements A. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department has reviewed this regulation in accordance with the RFA (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and the Attorney General certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule will not regulate ``small entities,'' as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). B. 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 were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. C. 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(2). 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 on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. D. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) The Department has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Moreover, this rule eliminates existing costs associated with the prior interim rule for purposes of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Specifically, EOIR estimates that this rule will reduce the administrative [[Page 57339]] burden and scheduling complications, as well as related costs, associated with cancellation of removal cases subject to the annual limitation.\2\ See EOIR, OPPM 12-01 (outlining current procedures immigration judges and court staff must follow to reserve denials). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ To estimate the above cost savings, EOIR used available data from the Case Access System for EOIR, granular time records from EOIR's Office of Chief Immigration Judge, and Office of Administration cost modules. The analysis was limited to non- detained non-legal permanent resident cancellation of removal applications adjudicated by immigration courts from Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 through FY 2017 (August 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, in cases involving denials, immigration judges will no longer be required to render oral decisions via an audiocassette and ship the audio tape to EOIR headquarters for a transcription but instead can issue an oral or written decision immediately. EOIR estimates that this could save the agency $607,000 annually. Second, in cases involving denials, the new regulation will alleviate the need for the immigration court to both store case files and communicate with parties about the status of cases while reserved, which could save the government $18,000 annually. Third, in cases involving denials, there will no longer be a need to refresh background checks, see 8 CFR 1003.47, that expire while a case sits in reserve and which are required to be current before an immigration judge issues a decision. EOIR estimates this could save the government $152,000 annually. Finally, once numbers become available each fiscal year, many immigration judges dispose of their cases by calling the parties back into court for a hearing to confirm completion of required background checks and to render an oral decision. Additionally, in some cases, new information may arise, which may require additional hearing time. In cases involving denials, an immigration judge may issue a decision immediately, which circumvents the need to reschedule or rehear these cases. EOIR estimates that this may save the government approximately $748,000 annually. Accordingly, EOIR estimates this rule will eliminate existing costs associated with the current interim regulation in the amount of $1.5 million annually. This rule has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), and Executive Order 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 consideration of potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. It calls on each agency to periodically review its existing regulations and determine whether any should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives. The Department is issuing this final rule consistent with these Executive Orders. This rule would allow the adjudication of suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal cases, without unnecessary delays, in appropriate cases where the immigration judge or the Board determines that the application for such relief should be denied. The Department expects this rule would reduce the number of reserved suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal cases once the annual limitation has been reached. Further, this rule will have a positive economic impact on Department functions because it will significantly reduce the administrative work and scheduling complications associated with suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal cases subject to the annual limitation. While this rule would remove the current restrictions on issuing denials, immigration judges and the Board will still be required to provide a legal analysis for all decisions denying a suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal application. Accordingly, the Department does not foresee any burdens to the public as a result of this rule. To the contrary, it will benefit the public by saving administrative costs and allowing earlier resolution of cases. E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 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 section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. G. Paperwork Reduction Act The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements. List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 1240 Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal services, Organization and functions (Government agencies). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Justice amends 8 CFR part 1240 as follows: PART 1240--PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE REMOVABILITY OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES 0 1. The authority citation for part 1240 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1182, 1182, 1186a, 1186b, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1252 note, 1361, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. L. 105-100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681). 0 2. Amend Sec. 1240.21 by removing and reserving paragraph (b) and revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(1) to read as follows: Sec. 1240.21 Suspension of deportation and adjustment of status under section 244(a) of the Act (as in effect before April 1, 1997) and cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b) of the Act for certain nonpermanent residents. * * * * * (c) Grants of suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal in fiscal years subsequent to fiscal year 1998. On and after October 1, 1998, the Immigration Court and the Board may grant applications for suspension of deportation and adjustment of status under section 244(a) of the Act (as in effect prior to April 1, 1997) or cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b) of the Act that meet the statutory requirements for such relief and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion until the annual numerical limitation has been reached in that fiscal year. The awarding of such relief shall be determined according to the date the order granting such relief becomes final as defined in Sec. Sec. 1003.1(d)(7) and 1003.39 of this chapter. [[Page 57340]] (1) Applicability of the annual limitation. When grants are no longer available in a fiscal year, further decisions to grant such relief must be reserved until such time as a grant becomes available under the annual limitation in a subsequent fiscal year. * * * * * Dated: November 21, 2017. Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General. [FR Doc. 2017-26104 Filed 12-4-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-30-P
![57336 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
U.S.C. 1444a(d), has a maximum of for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg NACARA reaffirmed the annual
$13,750 for each offense. Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA limitation of 4,000 grants but exempted
(11) Office of the Secretary—(i) Civil 22041, telephone (703) 305–0470 (not a from the limitation certain nationals of
penalty for making, presenting, toll-free call). Guatemala, El Salvador, and the former
submitting or causing to be made, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Soviet bloc countries. See NACARA sec.
presented or submitted, a false, 204, 111 Stat. at 2200–01. NACARA
fictitious, or fraudulent claim as defined I. Public Participation provided for an additional 4,000
under the Program Fraud Civil On November 30, 2016, the suspension/cancellation grants to
Remedies Act of 1986, codified at 31 Department published in the Federal increase the annual limitation to a total
U.S.C. 3802(a)(1), has a maximum of Register a rule proposing to amend of 8,000 for fiscal year 1998 only. Id.
$10,958. EOIR’s regulations relating to the annual On September 30, 1998, the
(ii) Civil penalty for making, limitation on cancellation of removal Department issued the current interim
presenting, submitting or causing to be and suspension of deportation. 81 FR rule, which eliminated the ‘‘conditional
made, presented or submitted, a false, 86291 (Nov. 30, 2016). The comment grant’’ process established in the
fictitious, or fraudulent written period ended on January 30, 2017. The October 1997 interim rule and provided
statement as defined under the Program Department received four comments. new procedures for immigration judges
Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, For the reasons set forth below, the and the Board to follow with respect to
codified at 31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(2), has a proposed rule is adopted without implementing the numerical limitation
maximum of $10,958. change. on suspension and cancellation of
Dated: November 28, 2017. removal imposed by IIRIRA and
II. Background and Summary NACARA, 63 FR 52134 (Sept. 30, 1998)
Stephen L. Censky,
The Illegal Immigration Reform and (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21 (as in effect
Deputy Secretary.
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prior to publication of this rule)).
[FR Doc. 2017–26194 Filed 12–4–17; 8:45 am]
(‘‘IIRIRA’’), Public Law 104–208, Div. C, First, the interim rule created a
BILLING CODE 3410–90–P 110 Stat. 3009–546, added section process to address a discrete issue that
240A(e) to the Immigration and required resolution before the end of
Nationality Act (‘‘INA’’ or the ‘‘Act’’), fiscal year 1998: The interaction
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Public Law 82–414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952) between the October 1997 interim rule
(codified as amended in scattered authorizing immigration judges and the
Executive Office for Immigration sections of 8, 18, and 22 U.S.C.), by Board to grant applications for
Review establishing an annual limitation on the suspension and cancellation on a
number of aliens who may be granted ‘‘conditional basis,’’ see 62 FR 51760,
8 CFR Part 1240 suspension of deportation or 51762 (Oct. 3, 1997), and the enactment
[EOIR Docket No. 180; AG Order No. 4034– cancellation of removal followed by of NACARA in November 1997, which
2017] adjustment of status. The annual added 4,000 grants to the statutory
RIN 1125–AA25 limitation is as follows: annual limitation, creating a total of
[T]he Attorney General may not cancel the 8,000 available grants for fiscal year
Procedures Further Implementing the removal and adjust the status under this 1998, see NACARA sec. 202, 111 Stat.
Annual Limitation on Suspension of section, nor suspend the deportation and at 2193–96. These procedures were set
Deportation and Cancellation of adjust the status under section 244(a) (as in forth in 8 CFR 1240.21(b) (as in effect
Removal effect before the enactment of the Illegal prior to publication of this rule). See 63
Immigration Reform and Immigrant FR at 52138–39.
AGENCY: Executive Office for Responsibility Act of 1996), of a total of more Second, the interim rule created a
Immigration Review, Department of than 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year. new procedure for processing
Justice. INA sec. 240A(e)(1) (8 U.S.C. applications for suspension and
ACTION: Final rule. 1229b(e)(1)). cancellation in order to avoid exceeding
On October 3, 1997, the Department the annual limitation. See 63 FR at
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is issued an interim rule, which 52139–40 (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21(c)
amending the Executive Office for authorized immigration judges and the (as in effect prior to publication of this
Immigration Review (‘‘EOIR’’) Board to grant applications for rule)). The rule eliminated the
regulations governing the annual suspension of deportation and conditional grant process. Id. at 52138
limitation on cancellation of removal cancellation of removal only on a (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21(a)(2)).
and suspension of deportation ‘‘conditional basis.’’ 62 FR 51760, 51762 Instead, under the interim rule,
decisions. The amendment eliminates (Oct. 3, 1997). This interim rule was a immigration judges and the Board
certain procedures created in 1998 that temporary measure to give the issued grants of suspension or
were used to convert 8,000 conditional Department time to decide how best to cancellation in chronological order until
grants of suspension of deportation and implement the annual statutory grants were no longer available in a
cancellation of removal to outright limitation. Pursuant to the rule, the fiscal year. The interim rule provided
grants before the end of fiscal year 1998. Chief Immigration Judge instructed that when grants were no longer
In addition, it authorizes immigration immigration judges to convert available in a fiscal year, ‘‘further
judges and the Board of Immigration previously reserved grants of decisions to grant or deny such relief
Appeals (‘‘Board’’) to issue final suspension and cancellation to shall be reserved’’ until grants become
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
decisions denying applications, without conditional grants. available in a future fiscal year. Id. at
restriction, regardless of whether the On November 19, 1997, Congress 52140 (codified at 8 CFR 1240.21(c)(1)
annual limitation has been reached. enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and (as in effect prior to publication of this
DATES: This rule is effective January 4, Central American Relief Act rule)). With respect to denials, the
2018. (‘‘NACARA’’), Public Law 105–100, title interim rule stated that immigration
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean II, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193–2201, which judges and the Board ‘‘may deny
King, General Counsel, Executive Office amended section 240A(e) of the Act. without reserving decision or may
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Dec 04, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM 05DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57568/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 57337
pretermit those suspension of from the American Immigration reserved denial is still pending, the
deportation or cancellation of removal Lawyers Association; one was from an applicant could present this new
applications in which the applicant has attorney with a private law firm, and information and potentially obtain
failed to establish statutory eligibility two were from individual commenters. cancellation of removal. On the other
for relief.’’ Id. However, the interim rule The comments are addressed by topic hand, under the final rule, an
prohibited immigration judges and the because some commenters raised immigration judge would be required to
Board from basing such denials ‘‘on an multiple subjects and some comments reserve a decision on an application
unfavorable exercise of discretion, a overlapped. which would otherwise be granted (but
finding of no good moral character on a None of the commenters expressed for the annual statutory limitation) if the
ground not specifically noted in section concern with the final rule’s elimination applicant demonstrated that the
101(f) of the [INA], a failure to establish of certain procedures created in 1998 to applicant’s removal would result in
exceptional or extremely unusual convert 8,000 conditional grants of exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to a qualifying relative in suspension and cancellation to outright hardship to a qualifying relative such as
cancellation cases, or a failure to grants before the end of fiscal year 1998. the applicant’s United States citizen
establish extreme hardship to the Additionally, none of the commenters child who is in poor health. If the
applicant and/or qualifying relative in expressed concern with the final rule’s applicant’s qualifying child dies or
suspension cases.’’ Id. technical amendment to 8 CFR ‘‘ages-out’’ and no longer qualifies as a
For the reasons discussed in the 1240.21(c). ‘‘qualifying relative’’ while the decision
preamble to the proposed rule Rather, the commenters focused on is reserved, the applicant may lose
‘‘Procedures Further Implementing the the rule’s provision authorizing eligibility for cancellation of removal. In
Annual Limitation on Suspension of immigration judges and the Board to light of these concerns, the commenter
Deportation and Cancellation of issue final decisions denying urges EOIR to keep the interim rule in
Removal,’’ see 81 FR 86291 (Nov. 30, cancellation and suspension place.
2016), on November 30, 2016, the applications, without restriction, Response: The Department declines to
Department proposed to amend the regardless of whether the annual change the final rule in light of this
1998 interim rule codified at 8 CFR limitation has been reached. There is comment. As an initial matter, the
1240.21 (as in effect prior to publication nothing in the statutory language Department notes that the final rule is
of this rule). The comment period ended suggesting that decisions denying consistent with section 240A(e)(1) of the
on January 30, 2017. The Department eligibility need to be delayed; the INA, which limits the number of aliens
received four comments. For the reasons statutory provision only calls for who may be granted suspension of
discussed below, the Department will delaying decisions to grant such relief deportation or cancellation of removal
adopt the proposed amendments to 8 when necessary because the statutory to 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year. The
CFR 1240.21 as final without change. cap has been reached in a particular Department has determined that the
The final rule makes three year. As explained in the preamble to statute does not prohibit the issuance of
amendments to the current interim the proposed rule, the purpose of this denials of suspension or cancellation
regulation. First, the final rule amendment is to: ‘‘decrease the high applications once the annual limitation
eliminates the text of 8 CFR 1240.21(b) volume of reserved decisions that result has been reached, but it does require
(as in effect prior to publication of this when the annual limitation is reached immigration judges and the Board to
rule), which, as discussed above, early in the fiscal year; reduce the reserve applications that are to be
established a procedure to convert 8,000 associated delays caused by postponing granted until numbers become available
conditional grants of suspension of the resolution of pending cases before in a subsequent fiscal year.
deportation and cancellation of removal EOIR; and provide an applicant with Moreover, the possibility that an
to outright grants before the end of fiscal knowledge of a decision in the applicant’s qualifying relative may ‘‘age-
year 1998 and to convert some applicant’s case on or around the date out’’ or die while a decision is reserved
conditional grants to grants of of the hearing held on the applicant’s exists under the current interim
adjustment of status under NACARA. suspension or cancellation application.’’ regulations. This final regulation
The need for such procedures ceased to 81 FR 86291. therefore does not create a greater
exist after fiscal year 1998. Second, the Comment: One commenter expressed likelihood that an applicant may lose
final rule amends the interim rule to concern that the rule will unfairly eligibility due to a qualifying relative
allow immigration judges and the Board disadvantage applicants because it ‘‘aging out’’ or dying while a decision is
to issue final decisions denying ‘‘freezes the record in place for purposes reserved.
cancellation and suspension of a decision denying cancellation or The Department also notes that an
applications, without restriction, suspension but leaves it open for a applicant may file a motion to reopen if
regardless of whether the annual potentially positive reserved decision.’’ the applicant’s qualifying relative
limitation has been reached. Under the For example, the commenter experiences a change in circumstances
final rule, after the annual limitation has hypothesized that under the interim that may qualify the applicant to receive
been reached, only grants would be rule an immigration judge is required to cancellation of removal after the
required to be reserved. The final rule reserve decision on a cancellation applicant’s application was denied. The
will apply prospectively and will have application, which might otherwise be same commenter suggests that an
no effect on decisions that were denied for failure of the applicant to applicant may be unable to file a motion
reserved prior to the final rule’s meet the statutory requirement that the to reopen if the applicant has been
effective date. Lastly, the final rule applicant must demonstrate that the removed from the United States. EOIR
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
makes a technical amendment to 8 CFR applicant’s removal would result in notes, however, that most federal courts
1240.21(c). exceptional and extremely unusual of appeal have held that the physical
hardship to a qualifying relative. The removal of an alien from the United
III. Comments and Responses commenter states that if the immigration States before a timely motion to reopen
As noted above, the Department judge had reserved the decision and the is filed does not preclude the alien from
received four comments in response to applicant’s qualifying relative develops pursuing a motion to reopen,
the proposed rule. One comment was serious health-problems while the notwithstanding the current regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Dec 04, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM 05DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57568/page/2.svg)
![57338 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
departure bar set forth at 8 CFR conscience and intellectual discipline, 1240.21(c) (as in effect prior to
1003.2(d) and 1003.23(b)(1).1 capable of judging a particular publication of this rule)). The
Comment: One commenter stated that controversy fairly on the basis of its own Department continues to believe that the
‘‘[i]f EOIR decides to implement the circumstances.’’ Withrow v. Larkin, 421 statute does not support returning to a
proposed rule for applications that were U.S. 35, 55 (1975) (internal quotation ‘‘conditional grant’’ or ‘‘provisional
previously reserved, [it should] notify mark omitted). grant’’ system. Accordingly, the
the [applicant] and counsel of any intent Additionally, as explained in the Department will not change the rule to
to deny the case’’ so that the applicant preamble to the proposed rule, adopt the commenter’s suggestion.
and counsel can supplement the record immigration judges and the Board will
still be required under this final rule to IV. Regulatory Requirements
with additional evidence prior to the
issuance of a decision. provide a legal and factual analysis for A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Response: As noted above, the final all decision denying cancellation and The Department has reviewed this
rule will apply prospectively beginning suspension applications. See 8 CFR regulation in accordance with the RFA
thirty days after the rule’s publication 1003.37, 1003.1(d)(1). If an applicant (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and the Attorney
and will have no effect on decisions that believes an immigration judge’s General certifies that this rule will not
were reserved prior to the final rule’s decision was erroneous and not based have a significant economic impact on
effective date. See Bowen v. Georgetown on the appropriate applicable law and a substantial number of small entities.
Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988) the facts of the case, the applicant may The rule will not regulate ‘‘small
(‘‘[A]dministrative rules will not be appeal the immigration judge’s decision entities,’’ as that term is defined in 5
construed to have retroactive effect to the Board, 8 CFR 1003.38, and after U.S.C. 601(6).
unless their language requires this exhausting administrative remedies, an
result.’’). applicant may be able to file a petition B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
Comment: One commenter expressed for review in the appropriate circuit 1995
concern that the final rule will create an court of appeals. See INA sec. 242 et This rule will not result in the
incentive for immigration judges and seq. (8 U.S.C. 1252 et seq.). expenditure by State, local, and tribal
the Board to deny otherwise meritorious Comment: One commenter suggested governments, in the aggregate, or by the
cancellation and suspension that, instead of adopting as final the private sector, of $100 million or more
applications because it will ease EOIR’s provisions of the proposed rule, EOIR in any one year, and it will not
docket pressures and alleviate the should adopt a rule allowing significantly or uniquely affect small
backlog of reserved cases. immigration judges and the Board to governments. Therefore, no actions were
Response: The Department does not ‘‘provisionally approve or provisionally deemed necessary under the provisions
agree with the commenter’s speculation deny’’ cancellation or suspension of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
that the rule will create an incentive for applications once the annual numerical of 1995.
immigration judges and the Board to limitation has been reached.
deny otherwise meritorious claims. Response: The Department has C. Small Business Regulatory
Immigration judges and Board members previously determined that the statutory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
are required to exercise their language and history of the cancellation This rule is not a major rule as
‘‘independent judgment and discretion’’ cap provision does not support a defined by section 251 of the Small
in deciding all cases that come before permanent regime based on conditional Business Regulatory Enforcement
them and adjudicate cases based on the grants. As discussed more fully in the Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
law and facts presented. See 8 CFR preamble to the proposed rule, on 804(2). This rule will not result in an
1003.10(b), 1003.1(d)(1)(ii). There is a September 30, 1996, Congress enacted annual effect on the economy of $100
presumption of regularity that attaches IIRIRA, which included a statutory cap million or more; a major increase in
to the actions of government agencies, on the number of applications for costs or prices; or significant adverse
see United States Postal Serv. v. suspension of deportation and effects on competition, employment,
Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10 (2001), and the cancellation of removal that the investment, productivity, innovation, or
Supreme Court has long held that Attorney General could grant each fiscal on the ability of United States-based
adjudicators such as immigration judges year. On October 3, 1997, the companies to compete with foreign-
are ‘‘assumed to be [individuals] of Department adopted a conditional grant based companies in domestic and
process as a temporary measure that export markets.
1 See e.g. Jian Le Lin v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 681 F.3d gave the Department time to consider
1236, 1240 (11th Cir. 2012) (stating that ‘‘Congress how best to implement the statutory D. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
intended to ensure aliens the right to file one cap. 62 FR 51760. After considering the (Regulatory Planning and Review), and
motion to reopen regardless of their geographical issue, the Department determined that 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
location’’); Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 678 F.3d Controlling Regulatory Costs)
811, 818 (10th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (same); Prestol the statute does not support a
Espinal v. Att’y Gen., 653 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. conditional grant system that carries The Department has determined that
2011) (same); Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d over from year to year (such as the one this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that ‘‘the established in the 1997 interim action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
physical removal of a petitioner by the United
States does not preclude the petitioner from
regulation) because the statutory cap Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
pursuing a motion to reopen’’ (quotation marks language in section 240A(e) of the INA Review and, therefore, it has not been
omitted)); Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 102 (2d Cir. has been interpreted to mean that those reviewed by the Office of Management
2011) (stating that ‘‘the BIA must exercise its full eligible applicants must be granted and Budget.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
jurisdiction to adjudicate a statutory [i.e. timely and
not number barred] motion to reopen by an alien
relief of suspension or cancellation Moreover, this rule eliminates
who is removed or otherwise departs the United during the fiscal year in which they are existing costs associated with the prior
States before or after filing the motion’’); William v. given a grant under the cap. 63 FR at interim rule for purposes of Executive
Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329, 332 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating 52135–36. Therefore, the Department Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
that section 240(c)(7)(A) of the Act ‘‘unambiguously
provides an alien with the right to file one motion
eliminated the conditional grant process Controlling Regulatory Costs.
to reopen, regardless of whether he is within or with its publication of the current Specifically, EOIR estimates that this
without the country’’). interim rule. Id. (codified at 8 CFR rule will reduce the administrative
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Dec 04, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM 05DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57568/page/3.svg)
![57340 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Applicability of the annual the availability of this material at the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition
limitation. When grants are no longer FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also for certain Airbus Model A318 and
available in a fiscal year, further available on the Internet at http:// A319 series airplanes; and Model A320–
decisions to grant such relief must be www.regulations.gov by searching for 211, –212, –214, –216, –231, –232, and
reserved until such time as a grant and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– –233 airplanes. The MCAI states:
becomes available under the annual 0709. During installation in production of new
limitation in a subsequent fiscal year. wing box ribs on post-mod 39729 aeroplanes,
Examining the AD Docket
* * * * * it was discovered that the centre wing lower
You may examine the AD docket on rib foot angle was not matching with the
Dated: November 21, 2017. the Internet at http:// bottom skin panel inner surface.
Jefferson B. Sessions III, www.regulations.gov by searching for This condition, if not detected and
Attorney General. and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– corrected, could induce fatigue cracking of
[FR Doc. 2017–26104 Filed 12–4–17; 8:45 am] 0709; or in person at the Docket the skin panel at the rib foot attachment, with
possible detrimental effect on wing structural
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P Management Facility between 9 a.m. integrity.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, This condition was initially addressed by
except Federal holidays. The AD docket Airbus on the production line through
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION contains this AD, the regulatory adaptation mod 152155, then through mod
evaluation, any comments received, and 152200. For affected aeroplanes in service,
Federal Aviation Administration other information. The street address for Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320–
the Docket Office (telephone 800–647– 57–1205, providing instructions for repetitive
14 CFR Part 39 5527) is Docket Management Facility, detailed inspections (DET) or special detailed
inspections (SDI), and SB A320–57–1207,
[Docket No. FAA–2017–0709; Product U.S. Department of Transportation, providing modification instructions.
Identifier 2016–NM–200–AD; Amendment Docket Operations, M–30, West For the reasons described above, this
39–19115; AD 2017–25–01] Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., (DET or SDI) of the wing bottom skin lower
RIN 2120–AA64
Washington, DC 20590. surface for crack detection and, depending on
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: findings, the accomplishment of applicable
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also
Airplanes includes reference to an optional
International Section, Transport modification (Airbus SB A320–57–1207),
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind providing terminating action for the
Administration (FAA), Department of Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; repetitive inspections required by this
Transportation (DOT). telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227– [EASA] AD.
ACTION: Final rule. 1149.
The corrective action for cracking is to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: repair using a method approved by the
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Discussion Manager, International Section,
Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Transport Standards Branch, FAA;
We issued a notice of proposed EASA; or Airbus’s EASA Design
Model A319 series airplanes; and Model rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
A320–211, –212, –214, –216, –231, Organization Approval. You may
part 39 by adding an AD that would examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
–232, and –233 airplanes. This AD was apply to certain Airbus Model A318 and
prompted by a report indicating that the the Internet at http://
A319 series airplanes; and Model A320– www.regulations.gov by searching for
lower rib foot angle of the center wing 211, –212, –214, –216, –231, –232, and
box did not match with the bottom skin and locating Docket No. FAA–2017–
–233 airplanes. The NPRM published in 0709.
panel inner surface. This AD requires the Federal Register on July 25, 2017
repetitive inspections for cracking of the (82 FR 34453) (‘‘the NPRM’’). The Comments
external bottom skin in certain areas on NPRM was prompted by a report
the left and right wings, and corrective We gave the public the opportunity to
indicating that the lower rib foot angle participate in developing this AD. The
actions if necessary. We are issuing this of the center wing box did not match
AD to address the unsafe condition on following presents the comment
with the bottom skin panel inner received on the NPRM and the FAA’s
these products. surface. The NPRM proposed to require response.
DATES: This AD is effective January 9, repetitive inspections for cracking of the
2018. external bottom skin in certain areas on Request To Include Technical
The Director of the Federal Register the left and right wings, and corrective Adaptations
approved the incorporation by reference actions if necessary, and provided an Delta Airlines asked for another
of certain publications listed in this AD optional terminating modification for ‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer’’
as of January 9, 2018. the repetitive inspections. We are subparagraph acknowledging Technical
ADDRESSES: For service information issuing this AD to detect and correct Adaptations from Airbus to be added
identified in this final rule, contact cracking of the external bottom skin in under paragraph (j) of the proposed AD,
Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 the area of the rib 2 attachment of the ‘‘Other FAA AD Provisions.’’ Delta
Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 wings, which could result in reduced observed that the FAA provision for
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 structural integrity of the wings. contacting the manufacturer in
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email The European Aviation Safety Agency paragraph (j) of the proposed AD would
account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; (EASA), which is the Technical Agent provide allowances for corrective
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You for the Member States of the European actions without alternative methods of
may view this referenced service Union, has issued EASA AD 2016–0222, compliance (AMOCs). Delta noted that
information at the FAA, Transport dated November 7, 2016 (referred to operators often receive Technical
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue after this as the Mandatory Continuing Adaptations that include an EASA
SW., Renton, WA. For information on Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the Design Organization Approval (DOA)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:53 Dec 04, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM 05DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57568/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2017-12-04 23:44:47
Document Modified: 2017-12-04 23:44:47
| 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 January 4, 2018. | |
| Contact | Jean King, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0470 (not a toll-free call). | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 57336 | |
| RIN Number | 1125-AA25 | |
| CFR Associated | Administrative Practice and Procedure; Aliens; Immigration; Legal Services and Organization and Functions (government Agencies) |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR