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

39953 

Vol. 79, No. 133 

Friday, July 11, 2014 

1 Generally, cases commence before an 

immigration judge when DHS files a charging 

document against an alien with the immigration 

court. See 8 CFR 1003.14(a). 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

8 CFR Part 1003 

[EOIR Docket No. 177; AG Order No. 3447– 

2014] 

RIN 1125–AA77 

Designation of Temporary Immigration 

Judges 

AGENCY: Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) regulations relating to 

the organization of the Office of the 

Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) to allow 

the Director of EOIR to designate or 

select, with the approval of the Attorney 

General, temporary immigration judges. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective July 11, 2014. Written 

comments must be submitted on or 

before September 9, 2014. Comments 

received by mail will be considered 

timely if they are postmarked on or 

before that date. The electronic Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) 

will accept comments until midnight 

eastern time at the end of that day. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit written 

comments to Jeff Rosenblum, General 

Counsel, Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg 

Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia 

20530. To ensure proper handling, 

please reference RIN No. 1125–AA77 or 

EOIR docket No. 177 on your 

correspondence. You may submit 

comments electronically or view an 

electronic version of this interim rule at 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, 5107 

Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, 

Virginia 20530; telephone (703) 305– 

0470 (not a toll-free call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personally identifiable 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personally 

identifiable information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also locate 

all the personally identifiable 

information you do not want posted 

online in the first paragraph of your 

comment and identify what information 

you want redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Personally identifiable information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. 

Confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will not be placed in the public docket 

file. If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person by 

appointment, please see the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ paragraph. 

II. Background 

The Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) administers the nation’s 

immigration court system. EOIR 

primarily decides whether foreign-born 

individuals who are charged by the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) with violating immigration law 

pursuant to the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA) should be ordered 

removed from the United States, or 

should be granted relief or protection 

from removal and be permitted to 

remain in the United States.1 EOIR is 

also responsible for conducting other 

immigration-related adjudications, 

including hearings regarding custody or 

bond determinations made by DHS. 

To make these critical determinations, 

EOIR’s Office of the Chief Immigration 

Judge (OCIJ) has approximately 250 

immigration judges who conduct 

administrative court proceedings, in 59 

immigration courts nationwide. EOIR’s 

appellate component, the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board), primarily 

decides appeals of immigration judge 

decisions. The Board is the highest 

administrative tribunal for interpreting 

and applying U.S. immigration law. 

EOIR is a component of the Department 

of Justice (DOJ or Department). 

The immigration judges are attorneys 

appointed by the Attorney General as 

administrative judges qualified to 

conduct the cases assigned to them. 

They are subject to the supervision of 

the Attorney General in performing their 

prescribed duties, but, subject to the 

applicable governing standards, exercise 

independent judgment and discretion in 

considering and determining the cases 

before them. See INA sec. 101(b)(4) (8 

U.S.C. 1101(b)(4)); 8 CFR 1003.10(b), 

(d). Decisions of the immigration judges 

are subject to review by the Board 

pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.1(a)(1) and 

(d)(1); in turn, the Board’s decisions can 

be reviewed by the Attorney General, as 

provided in 8 CFR 1003.1(g) and (h). 

Decisions of the Board and the Attorney 

General are subject to judicial review. 

III. Proposal for Designation of 

Temporary Immigration Judges 

EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate 

immigration cases by fairly, 

expeditiously, and uniformly 

interpreting and administering the 

Nation’s immigration laws. In order to 

more efficiently accomplish the 

agency’s commitment to promptly 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39954 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2EOIR’s FY2013 Statistical Year Book, prepared 

by EOIR’s Office of Planning and Technology, is 

available at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/statspub/

fy13syb.pdf. 

3This average does not take into account attrition 

in the immigration judge corps during FY 2013 or 

the difference in docket size geographically or by 

docket type (i.e., detained, non-detained, juvenile, 

and institutional hearing program). 

4See American Bar Association Commission on 

Immigration, Reforming the Immigration System: 

Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, 

Efficiency, and Professionalism in Adjudication, at 

2–37 (February 2010). 

decide the large volume of immigration 

cases, this rule amends the agency’s 

regulations relating to the organization 

of OCIJ to allow the Director of EOIR to 

designate or select, with the approval of 

the Attorney General, one or more 

temporary immigration judges. 

EOIR is currently managing the largest 

caseload the immigration court system 

has ever seen. Due to attrition in the 

immigration judge corps and continuing 

budgetary restrictions, the Department 

believes that the designation of 

temporary immigration judges will 

provide an appropriate means of 

flexibility in responding to the 

increased challenges facing the 

immigration courts. 

An issue of continuing concern to the 

Department is EOIR’s pending caseload 

in the immigration courts. At the end of 

FY 2013, there were 350,330 cases 

pending at the immigration courts, 

marking an increase of 22,901 cases 

pending above those at the end of FY 

2012. See 2013 EOIR Stat. Y.B. W1.2 Of 

those, 38 percent were received prior to 

FY 2012. Id. As DHS continues its 

obligation to enforce the immigration 

laws of the United States, EOIR 

anticipates that its caseload will 

continue to increase, especially as DHS 

continues to use new technologies to 

increase efficiencies in the 

identification, apprehension, detention, 

and removal of aliens. 

Even without a continually increasing 

caseload, the dockets currently handled 

by the immigration judge corps are 

substantial. At the end of FY 2013, 

350,330 pending cases were being 

handled by approximately 250 

immigration judges, averaging 1,401 

matters per immigration judge.3 By 

comparison, a recent study indicated 

that judges for the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals hear approximately 700 cases 

each year per judge and Social Security 

Administration administrative law 

judges decide approximately 500 cases 

each year per judge.4 There is a 

particular need to assist EOIR’s larger 

courts, namely New York, NY; Los 

Angeles, CA; San Antonio, TX; San 

Francisco, CA; Pearsall, TX, which 

received 43 percent of all asylum 

applications (15,661) filed with the 

immigration courts in FY 2013. See 

2013 EOIR Stat. Y.B. J3. EOIR must be 

poised to handle not only its routine 

workload, but also emergency or special 

situations, such as a sudden influx of 

asylum seekers. 

In response to increases in 

immigration court workload and DOJ 

priorities, EOIR undertook a major 

initiative that resulted in the hiring of 

more than 50 new immigration judges 

during FY 2010 and through the second 

quarter of FY 2011. However, as of June 

2014, attrition and budgetary 

restrictions resulted in a net increase of 

only 13 immigration judges since FY 

2009. The Department believes that the 

designation of temporary immigration 

judges will provide an appropriate 

means of responding to the increasing 

pending caseload in the immigration 

courts. While the designation of 

temporary immigration judges is not a 

substitute for the ongoing need to hire 

additional permanent immigration 

judges, designation of temporary 

immigration judges should improve 

EOIR’s ability to adjudicate cases in a 

timely manner. 

OCIJ provides overall program 

direction, articulates policies and 

procedures, and establishes priorities 

for the immigration courts. The Chief 

Immigration Judge will continue to 

monitor caseload volume, trends, and 

geographic concentration and will 

adjust resources accordingly. Where 

appropriate, temporary immigration 

judges could be assigned to a discrete 

category of cases, such as motions and 

bond proceedings, freeing up permanent 

immigration judge time to adjudicate 

more complicated removal cases and 

increase the number of matters EOIR 

could bring to a final disposition. From 

FY 2009 to FY 2013, approximately 70 

percent of the cases before the 

immigration courts were completed 

without the alien applying for relief 

from removal. Bond-related matters, 

however, have increased by 12 percent 

from FY 2009 (51,584) to FY 2013 

(57,699), along with a 104 percent 

increase in motions for change of venue 

and a 161 percent increase in case 

transfers over the same period. See 2013 

EOIR Stat. Y.B. 11, A7. 

However, to ensure the flexibility 

necessary to address record caseloads 

and to handle exigent circumstances, 

this rule would not limit the assignment 

of temporary immigration judges in the 

type of cases they may adjudicate, 

except as otherwise provided by the 

Chief Immigration Judge, per the 

authority granted in 8 CFR 1003.9 and 

in this interim rule. As discussed below, 

the Chief Immigration Judge will be 

responsible for ensuring that each 

temporary immigration judge has the 

necessary training, experience, and 

skills to properly adjudicate the matters 

assigned. 

This rule amends EOIR’s regulations 

at 8 CFR 1003.10 by adding a new 

paragraph (e). The amendments will 

allow the Director of EOIR to designate 

or select, with the approval of the 

Attorney General, former Board 

members, former immigration judges, 

administrative law judges employed 

within or retired from EOIR, and 

administrative law judges from other 

Executive Branch agencies to act as 

temporary immigration judges for 

renewable six-month terms. 

Administrative law judges from other 

agencies must have the consent of their 

agencies to be designated as temporary 

immigration judges. In addition, the 

Director of EOIR will be able to 

designate, with the approval of the 

Attorney General, attorneys who have at 

least 10 years of legal experience in the 

field of immigration law and are 

currently employed by the Department 

of Justice to act as temporary 

immigration judges for renewable sixmonth terms. The 10 years of experience 

must be gained after admission to the 

bar and may be gained through 

employment by the federal, state, or 

local government, the private sector, 

universities, non-governmental 

organizations, or a combination of such 

experience. In order to allow greater 

flexibility, the rule does not specify 

particular titles or job descriptions for 

Department attorneys with 10 years of 

immigration law experience. 

Accordingly, attorneys at the 

Department with 10 years of 

immigration law experience may qualify 

for designation as temporary 

immigration judges. 

In evaluating candidates for 

designation as a temporary immigration 

judge, EOIR anticipates that it will 

generally employ the same selection 

criteria and process it applies with 

respect to the hiring of permanent 

immigration judges. Characteristics that 

would qualify a candidate for 

designation as a temporary immigration 

judge include the ability to demonstrate 

the appropriate temperament to serve as 

a judge; knowledge of immigration laws 

and procedures; substantial litigation 

experience, preferably in a high-volume 

context; experience handling complex 

legal issues; experience conducting 

administrative hearings; and knowledge 

of practices and procedures. Designation 

of such individuals will help ensure 

efficiency in the adjudication of removal 

cases and preserve the integrity of the 

overall process, without sacrificing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 39955 

fairness and due process. As is the case 

for all immigration judges, EOIR 

provides a process for the filing and 

consideration of complaints. 

IV. Training for Temporary 

Immigration Judges 

Among EOIR’s 2008–2013 strategic 

goals and objectives was the goal to 

provide for a workforce that is skilled, 

diverse, and committed to excellence, 

and that exhibits the highest standards 

of integrity. It is important that those 

who appear before EOIR’s tribunals 

have trust in the agency and in the work 

that it does. EOIR is committed to 

providing training to new and 

experienced immigration judges, 

including temporary immigration 

judges. 

EOIR will provide the training 

necessary for temporary immigration 

judges to perform the assigned duties. 

The Chief Immigration Judge may 

choose to specify particular types of 

matters for which each temporary 

immigration judge will be assigned, 

consistent with the individual’s training 

and experience. Each judge will be 

supervised by the Assistant Chief 

Immigration Judge assigned to the local 

immigration court where the temporary 

immigration judge will be assigned. The 

Assistant Chief Immigration Judge will 

be available as an additional source of 

assistance and guidance, and will be 

responsible for conducting periodic 

reviews of the temporary immigration 

judge’s performance and reporting his or 

her findings to the Chief Immigration 

Judge. 

EOIR also ensures that immigration 

judges receive continuing education. 

For instance, in addition to new 

immigration judge training, EOIR held 

mandatory Immigration Judge Legal 

Training Conferences in 2009 and 2010 

and Immigration Judge Legal Training 

Programs in 2011, 2012, and 2013. This 

training covered many substantive 

immigration legal issues, including 

those relating to asylum, criminal 

matters, bond, adjustment of status, and 

a variety of other topics. The training 

also provided information on subjects 

ranging from immigration cases 

involving unaccompanied alien 

children and respondents with mental 

competency issues to immigration fraud 

and courtroom management. 

Immigration Judge Legal Training 

Programs were recorded and will be 

available to temporary immigration 

judges. 

OCIJ maintains an Immigration Judge 

Benchbook. The Benchbook includes 

scripts, introductory guides, checklists, 

worksheets, and sample orders as well 

as links to a number of immigrationrelated legal resources. OCIJ also 

maintains an Immigration Court Practice 

Manual, a comprehensive guide that 

sets forth uniform procedures, 

recommendations, and requirements for 

practice before the immigration courts. 

Additional resources for immigration 

judges are available through EOIR’s 

virtual law library, which includes BIA 

decisions, circuit court decisions, 

regulations, and country-specific 

information. 

Given the many training options and 

resources available to immigration 

judges, EOIR will provide training as 

necessary for the performance of each 

temporary immigration judge’s assigned 

duties. 

V. Public Comments 

This rule is exempt from the usual 

requirements of prior notice and 

comment and a 30-day delay in effective 

date because, as an internal delegation 

of authority, it relates to a matter of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The 

Department is nonetheless promulgating 

this rule as an interim rule with 

opportunity for post-promulgation 

comment. This will provide the public 

with an opportunity for comment before 

the Department issues a final rule on 

these matters. 

VI. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), ‘‘[w]henever an agency is 

required by section 553 of [the RFA], or 

any other law, to publish general notice 

of proposed rulemaking for any 

proposed rule . . . the agency shall 

prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis.’’ 8 U.S.C. 603(a). Such analysis 

is not required when a rule is exempt 

from notice and comment rulemaking 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because this is a 

rule of internal agency organization and 

therefore is exempt from notice and 

comment rulemaking, no RFA analysis 

under 5 U.S.C. 603 is required for this 

rule. 

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. 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 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. 

D. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) 

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 the Office of Management 

and Budget has concurred in this 

determination. Nevertheless, the 

Department certifies that this regulation 

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. The benefits of this interim 

rule include providing the Department 

with an appropriate means of 

responding to current and future 

increases or surges in the number, size, 

or type of immigration court matters. 

The public will benefit from the 

designation of temporary immigration 

judges because such designations will 

help EOIR better accomplish its mission 

of adjudicating cases in a timely 

manner. Temporary immigration judges 

will receive appropriate training and 

supervision for this role. This rule will 

not have a substantial economic impact 

on Department functions to the extent 

that individuals who may act as 

temporary immigration judges are 

already employed by the Department. 

The Department does not foresee any 

burdens to the public or the 

Department. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39956 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rule has been prepared in 

accordance with the standards 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 interim rule 

because there are no new or revised 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. 

H. Congressional Review Act 

This action pertains to agency 

management and personnel and, 

accordingly, is not a ‘‘rule’’ as that term 

is used by the Congressional Review Act 

(CRA) (Subtitle E of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA)), 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Therefore, 

the reports to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

specified by 5 U.S.C. 801 are not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 1003 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal 

services, Organization and functions 

(Government agencies). 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, the Attorney General 

amends part 1003 of chapter V of title 

8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 

IMMIGRATION REVIEW 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1003 

continues 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. 

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. Revise § 1003.10 by adding a new 

paragraph (e), to read as follows: 

§ 1003.10 Immigration judges. 

* * * * * 

(e) Temporary immigration judges. (1) 

Designation. The Director is authorized 

to designate or select temporary 

immigration judges as provided in this 

paragraph (e). 

(i) The Director may designate or 

select, with the approval of the Attorney 

General, former Board members, former 

immigration judges, administrative law 

judges employed within or retired from 

EOIR, and administrative law judges 

from other Executive Branch agencies to 

serve as temporary immigration judges 

for renewable terms not to exceed six 

months. Administrative law judges from 

other Executive Branch agencies must 

have the consent of their agencies to be 

designated as temporary immigration 

judges. 

(ii) In addition, the Director may 

designate, with the approval of the 

Attorney General, Department of Justice 

attorneys with at least 10 years of legal 

experience in the field of immigration 

law to serve as temporary immigration 

judges for renewable terms not to 

exceed six months. 

(2) Authority. A temporary 

immigration judge shall have the 

authority of an immigration judge to 

adjudicate assigned cases and 

administer immigration court matters, 

as provided in the immigration laws and 

regulations, subject to paragraph (e)(3) 

of this section. 

(3) Assignment of temporary 

immigration judges. The Chief 

Immigration Judge is responsible for the 

overall oversight and management of the 

utilization of temporary immigration 

judges and for evaluating the results of 

the process. The Chief Immigration 

Judge shall ensure that each temporary 

immigration judge has received a 

suitable level of training to enable the 

temporary immigration judge to carry 

out the duties assigned. 

Dated: July 8, 2014. 

James M. Cole, 

Deputy Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16279 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0876; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NE–27–AD; Amendment 39– 

17895; AD 2014–14–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

plc Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768– 

60, 772–60, and 772B–60 turbofan 

engines. This AD requires modification 

of the engine by removing an electronic 

engine control (EEC) incorporating EEC 

software standard A14 or earlier and 

installing an EEC eligible for 

installation. This AD was prompted by 

an uncontained multiple turbine blade 

failure on an RR RB211 Trent 772B 

turbofan engine. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent failure of the intermediatepressure (IP) turbine disk drive arm or 

burst of the high-pressure turbine disk, 

which could lead to uncontained engine 

failure and damage to the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

August 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact RollsRoyce plc, Corporate Communications, 

P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; 

phone: 011–44–1332–242424; fax: 011– 

44–1332–249936; email: http://

www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_

team.jsp; or Web site: https://

www.aeromanager.com. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA. For information on the availability 

of this material at the FAA, call 781– 

238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0876; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for the Docket 

Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES