This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

14494 

Vol. 72, No. 59 

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

8 CFR Part 1003 

[EOIR No. 147I; AG Order No. 2876–2007] 

RIN 1125–AA52 

Jurisdiction and Venue in Removal 

Proceedings 

AGENCY: Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the Department of Justice 

(Department) regulations addressing 

jurisdiction and venue in removal 

proceedings. The amendment is 

necessary due to the increasing number 

of removal hearings being conducted by 

telephone and video conference. The 

proposed rule establishes that venue 

shall lie at the place of the hearing as 

identified on the charging document or 

initial hearing notice, unless an 

immigration judge has granted a change 

of venue to a different location. The 

hearing location is the same whether or 

not the immigration judge or a party to 

the proceeding appears at the hearing 

location in person or participates in the 

hearing by telephone or video 

conference. The proposed rule also 

establishes that removal proceedings 

shall be deemed to be completed at the 

location of the final hearing, regardless 

of whether all parties are physically 

present at that location. The Department 

also proposes to amend the regulations 

to state expressly that, when the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) files a charging document, 

jurisdiction vests with the Office of the 

Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) within 

the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before April 27, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit written 

comments to Kevin Chapman, Acting 

General Counsel, Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg 

Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia, 

22041. To ensure proper handling, 

please reference RIN No. 1125–AA52 or 

EOIR docket number 147I on your 

correspondence. You may view an 

electronic version of this proposed rule 

at http://www.regulations.gov. You may 

also comment via the Internet to the 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) at eoir.regs@usdoj.gov or 

by using the http://www.regulations.gov 

comment form for this regulation. When 

submitting comments electronically, 

you must include RIN No. 1125–AA52 

in the subject box. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Chapman, Acting General 

Counsel, Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg 

Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia, 

22041, telephone (703) 305–0470 (not a 

toll-free call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed venue rule would revise the 

existing regulations to clarify the 

particular location in which venue lies 

for proceedings before immigration 

judges. 8 CFR 1003.20(a) is amended to 

state that, in removal proceedings, 

venue lies at the hearing location as 

identified on the charging document as 

defined in 8 CFR 1003.13 or the initial 

hearing notice issued pursuant to 8 CFR 

1003.18. The designated hearing 

location is also known as the location 

where a case is ‘‘docketed for a 

hearing.’’ 

The rule currently provides that 

venue shall lie at the immigration court 

where jurisdiction vests pursuant to 8 

CFR 1003.14. As revised, the regulations 

would more clearly distinguish between 

(1) the jurisdiction of the immigration 

judges over proceedings initiated under 

section 240 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229a, or 

other provisions of law, and (2) the 

proper venue or hearing location for 

particular cases. 

In particular, the Department 

proposes to amend the venue rule to 

provide greater clarity and consistency 

of interpretation, in light of the 

increasing number of removal hearings 

conducted by telephone and video 

conference, as well as EOIR’s use of 

administrative control courts for the 

creation and maintenance of records of 

proceedings as described in 8 CFR 

1003.11. This rule makes clear that the 

use of telephone or video conferencing 

or the use of administrative control 

courts for maintaining records does not 

alter or affect the designated hearing 

location where the hearing itself takes 

place. In addition, in response to 

requests from federal courts, the 

Department is amending the rule to 

specify that, for purposes of judicial 

review of final orders of removal, 

pursuant to section 242(b)(2) of the INA, 

8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(2), removal 

proceedings will be deemed to be 

completed at the location of the final 

hearing. 

Congress has expressly authorized the 

immigration judges to conduct merits 

hearings in removal proceedings 

through telephone or video conference, 

although an evidentiary hearing may be 

conducted by telephone conference only 

if the alien consents, after being advised 

of the right to proceed in person or 

through video conference. See section 

240(b)(2) of the INA; see also 8 CFR 

1003.25(c). For more than 10 years, 

immigration judges have conducted 

hearings by video conference. More than 

one-half of the immigration courts in the 

United States are equipped with the 

technology to conduct video 

conferences. 

Due to improved technology, and 

encouraged by the proven success of 

video conferencing, EOIR has 

established a Headquarters Immigration 

Court (HQIC) based at EOIR 

Headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia. 

The immigration judges assigned to the 

HQIC conduct hearings through video 

conference to assist various immigration 

courts throughout the United States by 

hearing cases on their dockets. The 

HQIC provides OCIJ with a flexible tool 

for responding to short-term resource 

needs that may arise. 

Although a useful tool in docket 

management, the increased use of 

telephone and video conferencing to 

conduct hearings complicates questions 

regarding where venue properly lies and 

where proceedings are completed. 

When telephone and video conferencing 

are used to conduct hearings, the 

parties, representatives, and 

immigration judge need not gather in a 

single physical location. As a result, the 

hearing may involve persons in different 

places, and in some cases these multiple 

geographic locations may be in different 

judicial circuits. 

OCIJ’s use of administrative control 

courts also increases the number of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14495 

1A list of administrative control courts with their 

assigned geographic areas is available to the public 

at any immigration court. See 8 CFR 1003.11. 

2The only exception involves a ‘‘clerical 

transfer,’’ which occurs when two courts have 

administrative control over the same area. 

Typically, this sharing occurs when two courts—

one a detention setting and the other a non-detained 

setting—are located in the same geographic area. A 

case may be transferred between the paired courts 

with an administrative notation. For example, if a 

detained alien who has a hearing scheduled at the 

DHS detention facility in Lancaster, California, is 

released from custody, the alien’s case may be 

clerically transferred from the Lancaster 

Immigration Court to the Los Angeles Immigration 

Court. The public list of administrative control 

courts contains information about which courts are 

subject to clerical transfers. See http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/pairedcourts.htm#NOTE. 

3 In Georcely, the hearing was held in St. Thomas, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, within the jurisdiction of the 

Third Circuit, but the record of proceedings was 

maintained by the administrative control court in 

Puerto Rico, which is within the jurisdiction of the 

First Circuit. In Ramos, the hearing was held in 

Council Bluffs, Iowa, located within the Eighth 

Circuit, but an immigration judge physically located 

in Chicago presided over the Iowa hearing via video 

conference. 

cases that involve more than one 

location. Administrative control courts 

are used to create and maintain records 

of proceedings for immigration courts 

within an assigned geographic area, 

including established immigration 

courts in different cities, as well as 

hearing locations in detail cities, in DHS 

detention facilities, or in federal, state, 

or local correctional facilities. See 8 CFR 

1003.11; 1003.13.1 All documents and 

correspondence in a particular case are 

filed with the administrative control 

court (sometimes called the ‘‘base city 

court’’), even if the hearings themselves 

are held at a different location within 

the assigned geographic area. 

For instance, Dallas, Texas (in the 

Fifth Circuit), is currently the 

administrative control court for 

immigration cases being heard at the 

immigration court in Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma (in the Tenth Circuit), and 

Arlington, Virginia (in the Fourth 

Circuit) is currently the administrative 

control court for immigration cases 

being heard at the detail location in 

Cleveland, Ohio (in the Sixth Circuit). 

When a hearing is held at a detention 

facility, documents related to the case 

may be filed with the immigration court 

having administrative control over that 

hearing location and not at the 

detention facility. Thus, one removal 

proceeding may involve more than one 

geographic location, with documents 

being filed in one place even though the 

hearings themselves are held at another 

place, often in a city or detention 

facility in a different state and 

sometimes in a different judicial circuit. 

Due to the increased number of cases 

that involve more than one geographic 

location—both because of the use of 

telephone or video conferencing and 

because of the use of administrative 

control courts—the Department has 

concluded that it is essential to clarify 

the existing regulations relating to 

venue to provide more specific 

guidance. Under this rule, the 

designated hearing location remains 

unaffected even if an immigration judge 

from a different location is conducting 

the hearing by video conference, or if 

the records in the case are filed with, 

and maintained by, an administrative 

control court in a different city. An 

immigration judge from a different city 

who is conducting a hearing by 

telephone or video conference is 

deemed to be conducting the hearing at 

the designated hearing location, just as 

if the immigration judge had been 

assigned to conduct the hearing at that 

location in person. 

This proposed rule is consistent with 

longstanding EOIR practice with respect 

to the use of administrative control 

courts, and is also consistent with 

previous guidance provided by OCIJ 

regarding hearings conducted by 

telephone or video conference. See 

Memorandum from Chief Immigration 

Judge Michael Creppy, Interim 

Operating Policies and Procedures 

Memorandum No. 04–06: Hearings 

Conducted through Telephone and 

Video Conference at 2 (Aug. 18, 2004) 

(‘‘The immigration judge’s participation 

in the hearing through video conference 

d[oes] not change the hearing location.’’) 

(available on the EOIR Web site). 

The following example illustrates the 

increased complexity of venue 

determinations and the operation of the 

new venue rule in a case involving 

multiple geographic locations. With 

respect to an alien being detained at the 

Nebraska Department of Corrections, 

DHS would institute removal 

proceedings against the alien by filing 

an NTA with the immigration court in 

Chicago, Illinois (the administrative 

control court or ‘‘base city court’’). The 

NTA or a subsequent hearing notice 

would identify the Nebraska 

Department of Corrections in Lincoln, 

Nebraska, as the hearing location. OCIJ 

may then decide to assign an 

immigration judge at the HQIC or in 

some other city to hear cases that are on 

the docket at that correctional facility, 

conducting the hearing by video 

conference rather than traveling to 

Nebraska to hear the case in person. 

In the above scenario, under this rule, 

venue would lie in Lincoln, Nebraska, 

the designated hearing location, i.e., the 

place where the case was docketed to be 

heard, not in Chicago, Illinois, or in 

Falls Church, Virginia. The hearing 

location and thus venue would remain 

unchanged, even if other events 

occurred. For instance, Lincoln would 

remain the hearing location, even if an 

immigration judge in Chicago (or 

Denver, Colorado) is substituted to 

conduct the hearing by video conference 

instead of an immigration judge at the 

HQIC in Falls Church. Similarly, the 

hearing location and thus venue would 

remain unchanged even if one of the 

parties or representatives participated in 

the hearing by telephone or video 

conference (for example, the alien’s 

attorney who is located in Cleveland, 

Ohio). Unless the immigration judge 

grants a party’s motion for a change of 

venue, the hearing location would 

remain constant, in this case at Lincoln. 

The regulations authorize an 

immigration judge to change venue only 

when one of the parties moves for a 

change of venue and the opposing party 

is given notice and the opportunity to 

respond. See 8 CFR 1003.20(b); see also 

Jian v. INS, 28 F.3d 256 (2nd Cir. 1994). 

The immigration judge may not sua 

sponte transfer venue.2 Furthermore, in 

the case of a detained alien, venue does 

not automatically change when the DHS 

moves the alien to another detention 

facility. See Jian v. INS, supra. To secure 

a change of venue, DHS must make a 

motion before the immigration judge in 

the location where venue already lies. A 

notice of hearing is issued for all 

hearings, so if an immigration judge 

grants a motion for a change of venue, 

a new hearing notice will be issued that 

reflects the new hearing location. 

The Department’s proposed 

amendments to 8 CFR 1003.20(a) also 

respond to recent decisions issued by 

two United States Circuit Courts of 

Appeals. See Georcely v. Ashcroft, 375 

F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2004); Ramos v. 

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2004) 

(Ramos I). Each of these cases involved 

more than one geographic location, 

either because of the use of an 

administrative control court or the use 

of video conferencing.3 These courts 

had to determine which court of appeals 

had authority for judicial review of the 

order of removal under section 242(b)(2) 

of the INA, which states that a petition 

for review shall be filed with the court 

of appeals for the judicial circuit in 

which the immigration judge 

‘‘completed the proceedings.’’ Both 

courts noted that the proceedings could 

be deemed to have been completed in a 

variety of places, including the place 

where the immigration judge was 

physically located, where the alien was 

physically located, where the final order 

was issued, or where the final order was 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
14496 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

formally entered. Both courts found that 

they could review the cases, but 

suggested that the Department provide 

guidance for future cases involving 

multiple geographic locations. See also 

Ramos v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 800, 803 

(7th Cir. 2005) (Ramos II) (noting the 

instruction from the Chief Immigration 

Judge that venue is not determined by 

the physical location of an immigration 

judge who is conducting the hearing by 

teleconference, but adhering to the 

court’s contrary conclusion in Ramos I 

as the law of the case). 

In accord with the rule that venue lies 

at the location where the hearing is 

scheduled to occur, as identified in the 

NTA or a subsequent hearing notice (or 

as the immigration judge may change 

venue pursuant to a motion filed for that 

purpose), the Department is further 

amending the rule to state that a case is 

deemed to be completed at the final 

hearing location. The final hearing 

location can readily be identified as the 

place of the hearing identified on the 

notice for the final hearing. The ‘‘final 

hearing’’ is the last hearing for which a 

notice was issued. As previously stated, 

a hearing notice is issued for each 

hearing and identifies the hearing 

location. The hearing location remains 

unchanged throughout a proceeding, 

unless an immigration judge grants a 

change of venue. If venue has been 

changed, all hearing notices issued after 

the change of venue will correctly list 

the new hearing location. As a result, 

the hearing notice related to the final 

hearing in a case will identify the 

location where the hearing is 

completed. Even if an immigration 

judge reserves a decision rather than 

issuing a decision during the final 

hearing, the hearing will be deemed 

completed at the hearing location listed 

on the last hearing notice issued in the 

case. 

The previous hypothetical involving 

the hearing location at the Nebraska 

Department of Corrections in Lincoln, 

Nebraska, illustrates the operation of the 

rule to determine the place where the 

immigration judge completed the 

proceedings for purposes of judicial 

review. The administrative control court 

where documents are filed is in 

Chicago, within the Seventh Circuit, 

and the immigration judge is based at 

the HQIC in Virginia, located in the 

Fourth Circuit, conducting the Lincoln 

hearing through video conferencing. In 

this scenario, venue would lie at the 

final hearing location, Lincoln, 

Nebraska. In turn, the immigration judge 

would be deemed to have completed the 

proceedings at the final hearing location 

in Lincoln, within the jurisdiction of the 

Eighth Circuit. The immigration judge, 

although physically located in Virginia, 

is deemed to be appearing and 

conducting the proceedings in Nebraska 

via video conference, as if assigned to 

conduct the hearing in person at the 

Nebraska location. Thus, for purposes of 

section 242(b)(2) of the INA, a petition 

for review should be filed in the Eighth 

Circuit, and not in the Seventh Circuit 

or the Fourth Circuit. 

Finally, this proposed rule would 

amend the jurisdiction rule at 8 CFR 

1003.14(a) to state that when DHS files 

an NTA and thereby institutes removal 

proceedings, jurisdiction over the 

proceedings vests with OCIJ within 

EOIR. This amendment is necessary to 

avoid any possible and unintended 

implication that jurisdiction over a case 

is limited to a particular immigration 

court. This amendment to the 

jurisdiction rule complements the 

revision to the venue rule, since it is the 

venue rule that determines the 

particular hearing location. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Attorney General, 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. This rule 

affects individual aliens 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 one year and also 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. 

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, 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 on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

Executive Order 12866 

The Attorney General has determined 

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and 

Review, and, accordingly, this rule has 

been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review. 

This rule merely clarifies and restates 

preexisting principles relating to the 

venue of immigration proceedings and 

does not alter existing legal principles 

or impose new obligations on aliens, 

their representatives, or the Department 

of Homeland Security (which represents 

the government in removal 

proceedings). 

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. 

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 record 

keeping or reporting requirements. 

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 1003 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal 

Services, Organization and Function 

(Government Agencies). 

Accordingly, chapter V of title 8 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 

IMMIGRATION REVIEW 

1. The authority citation for part 1003 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 

U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 

1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 

1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No. 

2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., p. 1002; 

section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100, 111 Stat. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14497 

2196–200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 

106–386, 114 Stat. 1527–29, 1531–32; section 

1505 of Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A–

326 to –328. 

2. Section 1003.14 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 1003.14 Jurisdiction and commencement 

of proceedings. 

(a) When DHS files a charging 

document with an immigration court, 

proceedings commence and jurisdiction 

vests with the Office of the Chief 

Immigration Judge within the Executive 

Office for Immigration Review. * * * 

* * * * * 

3. The section heading and paragraph 

(a) of section 1003.20 are revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1003.20 Venue; change of venue. 

(a) Venue lies at the designated place 

for the hearing as identified by the 

Department of Homeland Security on 

the charging document. If the charging 

document does not identify the place of 

the hearing, venue shall lie at the place 

of the hearing identified on the initial 

hearing notice, issued by the 

immigration court in accordance with 

§ 1003.18(b). 

(1) Venue remains at the designated 

hearing location unless an immigration 

judge has granted a motion for change 

of venue as provided in this section, 

except that the Office of the Chief 

Immigration Judge may provide for 

administrative transfers of proceedings 

from one hearing location to another 

hearing location in the same vicinity, 

with proper notice to the parties, if such 

a transfer is appropriate because the 

alien is released from custody, is taken 

into custody, or, upon release from a 

federal or state correctional facility, is 

transferred into DHS custody. 

(2) Venue lies at the designated 

hearing location, even if the 

immigration judge or any party or 

representative is not physically present 

at the hearing location and participates 

in the hearing through telephone or 

video conference. In that circumstance, 

the immigration judge shall clearly 

identify on the record the hearing 

location and the location of the 

immigration judge and the parties or 

representatives, if different. 

(3) The use and location of an 

administrative control court for the 

filing of documents and the creation and 

maintenance of records of proceedings, 

as described in § 1003.11, does not 

affect the venue of the case or the 

hearing location as provided in this 

section, nor does the venue of the case 

or the hearing location affect the use or 

location of the administrative control 

court. 

(4) For purposes of judicial review of 

a final order of removal, as provided in 

section 242(b)(2) of the Act, the 

immigration judge is deemed to 

complete the proceedings at the final 

hearing location, without regard to 

whether the immigration judge, or any 

party, representative, witness or other 

person participates in the final hearing 

through telephone or video conference. 

For purposes of this provision, the final 

hearing location refers to the place of 

the hearing identified on the notice for 

the final hearing. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Alberto R. Gonzales, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. E7–5629 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27715; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–140–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330 and A340 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to all Airbus 

Model A330–200, A330–300, A340–200, 

and A340–300 series airplanes; and 

Model A340–541 and A340–642 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires operators to revise the 

Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) 

of the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICA) to incorporate new 

information. This information includes, 

for all affected airplanes, decreased life 

limit values for certain components; and 

for Model A330–200 and -300 series 

airplanes, new inspections, compliance 

times, and new repetitive intervals to 

detect fatigue cracking, accidental 

damage, or corrosion in certain 

structures. This proposed AD would 

revise the ALS, for all affected airplanes, 

by adding new Airworthiness 

Limitations Items (ALIs) to incorporate 

service life limits for certain items and 

inspections to detect fatigue cracking, 

accidental damage or corrosion in 

certain structures, in accordance with 

the revised ALS of the ICA. This 

proposed AD results from the issuance 

of new and more restrictive service life 

limits and structural inspections based 

on fatigue testing and in-service 

findings. We are proposing this AD to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking, 

accidental damage, or corrosion in 

principal structural elements, and to 

prevent failure of certain life-limited 

parts, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 27, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

International Branch, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2007–27715; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–140–

AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. 

We specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS