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

53537 

Vol. 70, No. 174 

Friday, September 9, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 966 

[Docket No. FV05–966–1 FR] 

Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Revisions 

in Requirements for Certificates of 

Privilege 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule revises the 

Certificate of Privilege (COP) 

requirements currently prescribed under 

the Florida tomato marketing order 

(order). The order regulates the handling 

of tomatoes grown in Florida and is 

administered locally by the Florida 

Tomato Committee (Committee). This 

rule requires those interested in 

receiving Florida tomatoes shipped 

under a COP to apply to the Committee 

to become an approved receiver. This 

rule also clarifies the definitions for 

processing and pickling as used in the 

rules and regulations under the order. 

These changes will assist the Committee 

in assuring that COP tomatoes are 

disposed of into COP outlets. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes 

effective September 10, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William G. Pimental, Southeast 

Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; 

Telephone: (863) 324–3375; Fax: (863) 

325–8793; or George Kelhart, Technical 

Advisor, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 720–2491; Fax: (202) 

720–8938. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is issued under Marketing 

Agreement No. 125 and Marketing 

Order No. 966, both as amended (7 CFR 

part 966), regulating the handling of 

tomatoes grown in Florida, hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is 

effective under the Agricultural 

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This rule will 

not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This final rule revises the COP 

requirements currently prescribed under 

the order. This rule requires all parties 

interested in receiving Florida tomatoes 

shipped under a COP to apply to the 

Committee to become an approved 

receiver. This change will assist the 

Committee in preventing tomatoes 

shipped under a COP from entering 

unauthorized outlets. This rule also 

clarifies the definitions for processing 

and pickling as used in the rules and 

regulations under the order. The 

Committee unanimously recommended 

these changes at a meeting held on 

September 9, 2004. 

Section 966.54 of the order provides 

authority for the modification, 

suspension, and termination of 

regulations to facilitate the handling of 

tomatoes for special purposes such as 

export, charity, processing, or other 

purposes as specified by the Committee 

and approved by USDA. Section 966.56 

of the order provides authority for the 

application of adequate safeguards to 

prevent tomatoes handled pursuant to 

§ 966.54 from entering channels of trade 

for other than the specified purpose or 

purposes. Sections 966.120–123 of the 

order’s rules and regulations specify the 

provisions required under a COP to 

allow tomatoes for pickling, processing, 

charity, relief, export, or experimental 

purposes to be shipped free from certain 

order requirements. The COP 

procedures include safeguards to ensure 

that the tomatoes are shipped for these 

purposes. The safeguards are also 

highlighted in § 966.323(c). Section 

966.323(g) specifies the definition of 

processing. 

This final rule adds § 966.124 to the 

order’s rules and regulations. This 

section requires that handlers only ship 

tomatoes under a COP to receivers 

approved by the Committee and 

outlines the receiver application 

procedures. Section 966.323(c) is also 

modified to reflect the new COP 

requirements. 

The COP provisions allow tomatoes 

for pickling, processing, charity, relief, 

export, or experimental purposes to be 

shipped free from certain order 

requirements. Consequently, it is 

important that adequate safeguards exist 

to assure that such tomatoes are 

disposed of properly. For example, the 

Committee noted that tomatoes shipped 

during the 2003–04 season under a COP 

for processing were being shipped into 

the domestic fresh market and not for 

the intended COP purpose. 

The volume of tomatoes shipped for 

processing under COPs is significant 

enough to negatively impact the market 

for fresh tomatoes if these tomatoes are 

utilized in markets other than those 

specified in the COP. Last season, nearly 

500,000 25-pound equivalent units of 

53538 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Florida tomatoes were shipped under 

COPs. Consequently, the Committee 

agreed that additional steps need to be 

taken to ensure that tomatoes shipped 

under a COP are only utilized for the 

purposes specified. 

Last season, when the issue with COP 

tomatoes surfaced, the Committee staff 

looked for ways to address the problem. 

Using the current safeguard procedures, 

those handlers who had shipped to 

receivers that had used tomatoes 

shipped under a COP for purposes 

different than specified had their COPs 

canceled. Some handlers noted that they 

had shipped the tomatoes to their 

receiver in good faith, and that the 

receiver was responsible for the 

problem. Further, because the handlers 

had used COPs to ship to more than one 

receiver, those handlers affected were 

no longer able to take advantage of the 

exemptions provided under the COP 

provisions. 

Considering this, the Committee 

believes one way to help ensure that 

tomatoes shipped under a COP are not 

being misused is to provide for 

safeguards on receivers. To address the 

situation, the Committee recommended 

that all receivers interested in receiving 

tomatoes shipped under a COP be 

required to apply to the Committee to 

become an approved receiver. In 

addition, handlers are only able to ship 

under a COP to those approved 

receivers. 

Should a receiver utilize the tomatoes 

for purposes other than specified under 

the COP, their status as an approved 

receiver with the Committee will be 

rescinded. As a result, such a receiver 

will no longer be eligible to receive 

tomatoes from any handler under a 

COP, but will only be able to receive 

tomatoes meeting the existing grade and 

size requirements under the order. 

Under the provisions added by this 

rule, anyone interested in receiving 

tomatoes under a COP will have to file 

an application with the Committee for 

review and approval. This includes 

persons acquiring tomatoes for 

processing or pickling, as well as 

tomatoes acquired for relief or charity, 

for export, for experimental purposes, or 

for other purposes specified by the 

Committee. This application includes 

the name, address, telephone number, 

and e-mail address of applicant 

(receiver), the purpose for which the 

COP tomatoes will be used, physical 

address where the stated privilege 

purpose will be accomplished, an 

indication of whether or not the receiver 

packs, repacks, or sells fresh tomatoes, 

a statement that the tomatoes obtained 

will only be used for the purposes stated 

in the COP, a statement agreeing to 

undergo random inspections by the 

Committee, and an agreement to submit 

reports as required. The Committee 

believes that this additional information 

will be valuable in helping to verify 

legitimate receivers. 

The Committee staff will use the 

information in the application to 

investigate and approve receivers 

wanting to receive tomatoes under 

COPs. The approved receivers and the 

tomatoes shipped under the COP 

provisions will be monitored 

throughout the year. If during the season 

an approved receiver is found to be 

handling tomatoes in ways other than 

specified under the COP, that receiver’s 

approval will be rescinded. The 

Committee believes this change will 

help better assure that COP tomatoes are 

shipped into the intended COP outlets. 

Moreover, handlers who may have 

shipped to non-compliant receivers will 

still be able to ship to other approved 

COP receivers. 

This rule also amends the definition 

for processing contained in § 966.323 

and adds a definition for pickling. Over 

the past few years, there have been an 

increasing number of questions 

surrounding what constitutes a fresh 

product and what constitutes 

processing. To help reduce any 

confusion and to ensure uniformity, the 

Committee believes it is important to 

make the definitions for processing and 

pickling in the order’s rules and 

regulations as clear as possible. 

Currently, processing is defined as the 

manufacture of any tomato product 

which has been converted into juice, or 

preserved by any commercial process, 

including canning, dehydrating, drying, 

and the addition of chemical 

substances. This rule amends this 

definition to specify further that all 

processing procedures must result in a 

product that does not require 

refrigeration until opened. 

In addition to the changes to the 

definition for processing, a specific 

definition for pickling is also added. 

Pickling is defined as tomatoes 

preserved in a brine or vinegar solution. 

These clarifications should lessen the 

chance of confusion between handlers 

and purchasers regarding tomatoes 

covered under a COP. 

The Committee believes this rule will 

strengthen the existing safeguard 

provisions and will help deter the use 

of Florida COP tomatoes for 

unauthorized purposes. By requiring 

persons who wish to receive tomatoes 

under COPs to apply to the Committee 

to become approved receivers, the 

Committee has additional information 

regarding receivers and the ability to 

rescind their approved receiver status, if 

necessary. The Committee also believes 

enhancing the definitions for processed 

and pickled tomatoes helps further 

clarify the appropriate uses of tomatoes 

shipped under a COP. Therefore, the 

Committee voted unanimously to make 

these changes. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities. 

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this 

final regulatory flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small 

entity orientation and compatibility. 

There are approximately 100 

producers of tomatoes in the production 

area and approximately 80 handlers 

subject to regulation under the 

marketing order. Small agricultural 

producers are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) as those 

having annual receipts less than 

$750,000, and small agricultural service 

firms are defined as those whose annual 

receipts are less than $6,000,000 (13 

CFR 121.201). Currently, there are about 

20 receivers who obtain tomatoes under 

COPs. 

Based on industry and Committee 

data, the average annual price for fresh 

Florida tomatoes during the 2003–04 

season was approximately $8.04 per 25- 

pound container, and fresh shipments 

for the 2003–04 season totaled 

57,989,624 25-pound cartons of 

tomatoes. Committee data indicates 

approximately 25 percent of the 

handlers handle 94 percent of the total 

volume shipped outside the regulated 

area. Based on the average price, about 

75 percent of handlers could be 

considered small businesses under 

SBA’s definition. Therefore, the 

majority of Florida tomato handlers may 

be classified as small entities. It is 

believed that the majority of Florida 

tomato receivers and producers may be 

classified as small entities. 

This final rule revises the COP 

requirements currently prescribed under 

the order. This rule requires those 

interested in receiving Florida tomatoes 

shipped under a COP to apply to the 

Committee to become an approved 

receiver. This change will assist the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53539 

Committee in assuring that tomatoes 

shipped under COPs are used for the 

intended COP purposes. This rule also 

clarifies the definitions for processing 

and pickling as used in the rules and 

regulations under the order. These 

clarifications will help reduce confusion 

between handlers and purchasers of 

tomatoes covered under a COP. The 

Committee unanimously recommended 

these changes at a meeting held on 

September 9, 2004. This rule adds 

§ 966.124 to the rules and regulations, 

amends the safeguard provisions 

specified in § 966.323(c), and revises the 

definitions specified in § 966.323(g). 

Authority for these actions is provided 

for in §§ 966.54 and 966.56 of the order. 

These changes are not expected to 

result in any increased costs for 

growers, handlers, or receivers who 

comply with COP requirements. The 

Committee recommended these changes 

to improve compliance with the 

provisions established under COPs. 

Because nearly 99 percent of Florida 

tomato shipments are utilized in the 

domestic fresh market, it is important to 

assure that tomatoes shipped under 

COPs are disposed of properly. 

Adequate safeguards are needed for this 

purpose. 

This action will have a beneficial 

impact on producers, handlers, and 

receivers in that it will continue to 

allow approved receivers to obtain COP 

tomatoes. Handlers shipping to 

approved COP receivers also benefit 

because the non-compliant receivers 

will be removed from the Committee’s 

approved receiver list and the handler 

can continue to take advantage of the 

exemptions by shipping to other 

approved COP receivers. Clarifying the 

definitions of processing and pickling 

also helps alleviate some of the 

questions and any confusion concerning 

what constitutes these procedures. The 

opportunities and benefits of this rule 

are expected to be equally available to 

all tomato handlers and growers 

regardless of their size of operation. 

However, requiring receivers to 

register with the Committee imposes an 

additional reporting burden on both 

small and large receivers. Requiring 

receivers to apply annually will increase 

the annual burden by five minutes per 

receiver, for a total burden of 1.67 hours 

(5 minutes per response × 1 response 

per receiver × 20 receivers). Although 

this action places an additional burden 

on receivers of Florida COP tomatoes, 

the benefits of having the additional 

information regarding receivers 

outweigh the increase in reporting 

burden. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this action. One alternative 

considered was to further restrict 

handlers when shipping tomatoes under 

a COP. The Committee recognized that 

some industry members have developed 

markets for these tomatoes, which 

would otherwise be discarded. 

Therefore, the Committee voted to make 

the changes in this rule rather than 

further restricting this outlet. Another 

alternative considered was to only 

require processors and picklers to apply 

to the Committee. However, the 

Committee believed that the application 

process should be applicable to all 

parties receiving tomatoes under a COP. 

Consequently, this alternative was 

rejected. 

As noted in the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this final rule. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

tomato industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Committee 

deliberations. Like all Committee 

meetings, the September 9, 2004, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their views on this issue. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on May 27, 2005 (70 FR 30647). 

Copies of the rule were mailed or sent 

via facsimile to all Committee members 

and tomato handlers. Finally, the rule 

was made available through the Internet 

by the Office of the Federal Register. A 

60-day comment period ending July 26, 

2005, was provided to allow interested 

persons to respond to the proposal. No 

comments were received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

As mentioned previously, this action 

requires an additional collection of 

information. These information 

collection requirements are discussed in 

the following section. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection 

requirements that are contained in this 

rule were approved by the Office of 

Management and Budge (OMB), under 

OMB No. 0581–0231. The information 

collection has been merged into OMB 

No. 0581–0178, Vegetable and Specialty 

Crops Marketing Orders, which expires 

October 31, 2007. 

In summary, this final rule establishes 

reporting requirements authorized 

under the Florida tomato order. 

Information would be reported on form 

number FTC–111. These additional 

reporting requirements will enable the 

Committee to collect information from 

persons wishing to receive Florida 

tomatoes exempt from certain order 

requirements under a COP. The 

Committee will evaluate this 

information and determine whether an 

entity is qualified to receive COP 

tomatoes. This form will help ensure 

compliance with the regulations and 

assist the Committee and USDA with 

oversight and planning. The estimated 

burden due to this form required of each 

entity annually is 5 minutes per person, 

with a total increased burden estimated 

at 1.67 hours. 

Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act Compliance 

The Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) is committed to compliance with 

the Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act (GPEA), which requires Government 

agencies in general to provide the public 

the option of submitting information or 

transacting business electronically to 

the maximum extent possible. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

It is further found that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register (5 

U.S.C. 553) because the final rule 

should be effective by the start of the 

2005–06 season, which begins October 

10, 2005. Further, handlers are aware of 

this rule, which was recommended at a 

public meeting. Also, a 60-day comment 

period was provided for in the proposed 

rule. No comments were received. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966 

Marketing agreements, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is amended as 

follows: 

53540 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 966—TOMATOES GROWN IN 

FLORIDA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 966 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. In part 966, a new § 966.124 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 966.124 Approved receiver. 

(a) Approved receiver. Any person 

who desires to acquire, as an approved 

receiver, tomatoes for purposes as set 

forth in § 966.120(a), shall annually, 

prior thereto, file an application with 

the committee on a form approved by it, 

which shall contain, but not be limited 

to, the following information: 

(1) Name, address, contact person, 

telephone number, and e-mail address 

of applicant; 

(2) Purpose of shipment; 

(3) Physical address of where 

manufacturing or other specified 

purpose is to occur; 

(4) Whether or not the receiver packs, 

repacks or sells fresh tomatoes; 

(5) A statement that the tomatoes 

obtained exempt from the fresh tomato 

regulations will not be resold or 

transferred for resale, directly or 

indirectly, but will be used only for the 

purpose specified in the corresponding 

certificate of privilege; 

(6) A statement agreeing to undergo 

random inspection by the committee; 

(7) A statement agreeing to submit 

such reports as is required by the 

committee. 

(b) The committee, or its duly 

authorized agents, shall give prompt 

consideration to each application for an 

approved receiver and shall determine 

whether the application is approved or 

disapproved and notify the applicant 

accordingly. 

(c) The committee, or its duly 

authorized agents, may rescind a 

person’s approved receiver status upon 

proof satisfactory that such a receiver 

has handled tomatoes contrary to the 

provisions established under the 

Certificate of Privilege. Such action 

rescinding approved receiver status 

shall apply to and not exceed a 

reasonable period of time as determined 

by the committee or its duly authorized 

agents. Any person who has been 

denied as an approved receiver or who 

has had their approved receiver status 

rescinded, may appeal to the committee 

for reconsideration. Such an appeal 

shall be made in writing. 

■ 3. In § 966.323, a new paragraph (5) is 

added to paragraph (c), and paragraph 

(g) is amended by revising the 

definitions of Processing and U.S. 

tomato Standards, and by adding a 

definition for Pickling to read as 

follows: 

§ 966.323 Handling regulations. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) Make shipments only to those who 

have qualified with the committee as 

approved receivers. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * *Processing as used in 

§§ 966.120 and 966.323 means the 

manufacture of any tomato product 

which has been converted into juice, or 

preserved by any commercial process, 

including canning, dehydrating, drying, 

and the addition of chemical 

substances. Further, all processing 

procedures must result in a product that 

does not require refrigeration until 

opened. Pickling as used in §§ 966.120 

and 966.323 means to preserve tomatoes 

in a brine or vinegar solution. U.S. 

tomato standards means the revised 

United States Standards for Fresh 

Tomatoes (7 CFR 51.1855 through 

51.1877), effective October 1, 1991, as 

amended, or variations thereof specified 

in this section. Other terms in this 

section shall have the same meaning as 

when used in Marketing Agreement No. 

125, as amended, and this part, and the 

U.S. tomato standards. 

Dated: September 2, 2005. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–17860 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22309; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–159–AD; Amendment 

39–14254; AD 2005–18–14] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Avions 

Marcel Dassault-Breguet Model Falcon 

10 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to all Dassault Model 

Falcon 10 series airplanes. The existing 

AD currently requires revising the 

airplane flight manual (AFM) and 

installing a placard in the flight deck to 

prohibit flight into known or forecasted 

icing conditions. In lieu of the AFM 

revision and placard installation, that 

AD allows identifying the part number 

of each flexible hose in the wing (slat) 

anti-icing system, performing repetitive 

inspections of each hose for 

delamination, and performing corrective 

actions if necessary. This AD adds the 

following actions (also in lieu of the 

AFM revision and placard installation): 

New repetitive inspections for 

delamination at reduced intervals, 

corrective actions if necessary, and an 

additional AFM revision to include a 

statement to track flight cycles when the 

slat anti-icing system is activated. This 

AD also provides an option to 

repetitively replace the existing flexible 

hoses with improved flexible hoses, 

which terminates the repetitive 

inspection requirements. This AD 

results from a report of in-service 

delamination of a flexible hose in the 

slat anti-icing system at a time earlier 

than previously reported. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent collapse of the 

flexible hoses in the slat anti-icing 

system, which could lead to insufficient 

anti-icing capability and, if icing is 

encountered in this situation, could 

result in reduced controllability of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

September 26, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of September 26, 2005. 

On April 26, 2005 (70 FR 18282, April 

11, 2005), the Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of Dassault Alert Service 

Bulletin F10–A312, dated February 25, 

2005, including the Service Bulletins 

Compliance Card. 

We must receive any comments on 

this AD by November 8, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

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,