This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

39071

Vol. 65, No. 122

Friday, June 23, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 100

[INS No. 1949–98]

RIN 1115–AF18

Jurisdictional Change for the Los

Angeles and San Francisco Asylum

Offices

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(Service) regulations to transfer asylum

office jurisdiction over the State of

Hawaii and the Territory of Guam from

the San Francisco Asylum Office to the

Los Angeles Asylum office. The Los

Angeles Asylum office will have

jurisdiction over the states of Arizona,

the southern portion of California,

Hawaii, the southern portion of Nevada

currently within the jurisdiction of the

Las Vegas Suboffice, and the Territory of

Guam. The intent of this regulation is to

reallocate Service resources and

improve processing efficiency for the

Los Angeles and San Francisco Asylum

Offices given the greater number of

asylum officers stationed in Los

Angeles.

DATES: This rule is effective July 24,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Davidson, Supervisory

Asylum Officer, or Marta Rothwarf,

Asylum Officer, Office of International

Affairs, Asylum Division, Immigration

and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street,

NW (ULLICO Building, Third Floor),

Washington, DC 20536; Telephone (202)

305–2663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Did the Service Publish a Proposed

Rule Transferring Jurisdiction Between

the Los Angeles and San Francisco

Asylum Offices?

A proposed rule discussing

jurisdictional changes for the Los

Angeles and San Francisco Asylum

Offices was published in the Federal

Register on December 8, 1999, at 64 FR

68638 with a 60-day public comment

period. No public comments concerning

the jurisdictional changes for the two

asylum offices discussed in the

proposed rule were received.

Accordingly, this final rule, changing

jurisdiction of the Los Angeles and San

Francisco Asylum Offices, will become

effective 30 days from the date of

publication in the Federal Register.

Why is Jurisdiction Being Transferred

to the Los Angeles Asylum Office?

The regulation at 8 CFR 100.4(f)(8)

gives the San Francisco Asylum Office

jurisdiction over asylum applications

filed by individuals residing in the State

of Hawaii and the Territory of Guam.

Transferring jurisdiction over the State

of Hawaii and the Territory of Guam to

the Los Angeles Asylum Office under 8

CFR 100.4(f)(7) will enable the Service

to better allocate its resources and

improve processing efficiency based on

the availability of asylum officers in the

Los Angeles Asylum Office.

How Will This Change Affect

Submission of Claims for Those

Applicants Living in Hawaii and the

Territory of Guam?

Currently, individuals residing in the

State of Hawaii and the Territory of

Guam must submit the Form I–589,

Application for Asylum and

Withholding of Removal, to the

Nebraska Service Center. After the

jurisdiction change becomes effective,

individuals residing in the State of

Hawaii and the Territory of Guam must

submit the Form I–589 to the California

Service Center. The Service will notify

the public of this change in submission

requirements through an attachment to

the Form I–589 sent out by the Service’s

Forms Centers in addition to the

publication of this rule in the Federal

Register. The Service will continue to

conduct asylum interviews in the State

of Hawaii and the Territory of Guam;

however, asylum offices from the Los

Angeles Asylum Office will conduct the

interviews rather than officers from the

San Francisco Asylum Office.

What Will Happen to Those

Applications Filed With the Nebraska

Service Center After the Change in

Jurisdiction Becomes Effective?

After the jurisdiction change becomes

effective, the Nebraska Service Center

will continue to accept asylum

applications filed by applicants residing

in the State of Hawaii and the Territory

of Guam for 30 days after the effective

date of this rule. Pending cases will be

transferred to the Los Angeles Asylum

Office for interview scheduling and

interviews. Applications received 31

days after the effective date of this rule

will be rejected due to the tight statutory

and regulatory time constraints

governing the adjudication of asylum

applications. Rejected applications will

contain a notice explaining that asylum

applications must be resubmitted to the

California Service Center. Rejected

applications are not considered filed for

work authorization purposes or for

interview scheduling until they are

properly resubmitted to the California

Service Center. Members of the public

are encouraged to save all

correspondence with the Service,

including any rejection letters received

from the Service Centers. This

correspondence may be submitted with

asylum applications in the event that

the 1-year filing deadline for asylum

applications is at issue.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Commissioner of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, in

accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has

reviewed this regulation and, by

approving it, certifies that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. The factual basis for this

determination is that this rule is

administrative in nature and merely

transfers jurisdiction for processing

asylum applications. This rule applies

to individuals submitting applications

and does not affect small entities as that

term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

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 1 year, and it will not

39072 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Therefore, no actions were

deemed necessary under the provisions

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as

defined by section 804 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of

1996. 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 foreignbased companies in domestic and

export markets.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is not considered by the

Department of Justice, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),

Regulatory Planning and Review, and

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process under

section 6(a)(3)(A).

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 section 6 of Executive

Order 13132, it is determined that this

rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a federalism summary impact

statement.

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.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 100

Organization and functions

(Government agencies).

Accordingly, part 100 of chapter I of

title 8 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 100—STATEMENT OF

ORGANIZATION

1. The authority citation for part 100

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 CFR part 2.

2. In § 100.4, paragraphs (f)(7) and

(f)(8) are revised to read as follows:

§ 100.4 Field offices.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(7) Los Angeles, California. The

Asylum Office in Los Angeles has

jurisdiction over the States of Arizona,

the southern portion of California as

listed in § 100.4(b)(16) and

§ 100.4(b)(39), Hawaii, the southern

portion of Nevada currently within the

jurisdiction of the Las Vegas Suboffice,

and the Territory of Guam.

(8) San Francisco, California. The

Asylum Office in San Francisco has

jurisdiction over the northern part of

California as listed in § 100.4(b)(13), the

portion of Nevada currently under the

jurisdiction of the Reno Suboffice, and

the States of Alaska, Oregon, and

Washington.

* * * * *

Dated: June 6, 2000.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15925 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–240–AD; Amendment

39–11790; AD 2000–12–12]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus

Industrie Model A300, A300–600, and

A310 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A300, A300–600, and A310 series

airplanes, that currently requires

inspections to detect cracks in the lower

spar axis of the nacelle pylon between

ribs 9 and 10, and repair, if necessary.

The existing AD also provides for

optional modification of the pylon,

which terminates the inspections for

Model A300 and A310 series airplanes

and increases the threshold and

repetitive interval of the inspections for

Model A300–600 series airplanes. This

amendment reduces the inspection

threshold and requires repetitive

inspections following accomplishment

of the optional modification for Model

A310 series airplanes. This amendment

is prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent fatigue cracking,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the lower spar of the pylon.

DATES: Effective July 28, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

Airbus Industrie Service Bulletins

A310–54–2016, Revision 02, dated June

11, 1999, and A310–54–2022, Revision

1, dated March 16, 1999 is approved by

the Director of the Federal Register as of

July 28, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of the

remaining Airbus Industrie publications

was approved previously by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 12,

1995 (60 FR 25604, May 12, 1995).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 95–10–03,

amendment 39–9220 (60 FR 25604, May

12, 1995), which is applicable to certain

Airbus Model A300, A300–600, and

A310 series airplanes, was published in

the Federal Register on April 20, 2000

(65 FR 21154). The action proposed to

continue to require inspections to detect

cracks in the lower spar axis of the

nacelle pylon between ribs 9 and 10,

and repair, if necessary. The action also

proposed to continue to provide for

optional modification of the pylon,

which terminates the inspections for

Model A300 and A310 series airplanes

and increases the threshold and

repetitive interval of the inspections for

Model A300–600 series airplanes. The

action also proposed to reduce the

inspection threshold and require

repetitive inspections following

accomplishment of the optional

modification for Model A310 series

airplanes.