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

46425 

Vol. 82, No. 192 

Thursday, October 5, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 33 and 35 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–14–0099; FV15–33/35–1] 

Regulations Issued Under Authority of 

the Export Apple Act and Export 

Grapes and Plums; Changes to Export 

Reporting Requirements; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 

proposed rule to change the reporting of 

export certificate information under 

regulations issued pursuant to the 

Export Apple Act and the Export Grape 

and Plum Act. After reviewing and 

considering the comments received, the 

agency has decided not to proceed with 

this action. 

DATES: As of October 5, 2017, the 

proposed rule published on December 5, 

2016, at 81 FR 87486, is withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shannon Ramirez, Compliance and 

Enforcement Specialist, or Vincent 

Fusaro, Compliance and Enforcement 

Branch Chief, Marketing Order and 

Agreement Division, Specialty Crops 

Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (202) 

720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or 

Email: Shannon.Ramirez@ams.usda.gov 

or VincentJ.Fusaro@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

withdrawal is issued under the Export 

Apple Act (7 U.S.C. 581–590) and the 

Export Grape and Plum Act (7 U.S.C. 

591–599) (together hereinafter referred 

to as the ‘‘Export Fruit Acts’’). The 

Export Fruit Acts promote foreign trade 

of fruit grown in the United States by 

authorizing the implementation of 

regulations related to quality, container 

markings, and inspection requirements. 

These regulations are contained in 7 

CFR part 33 (Regulations Issued under 

the Export Apple Act) and 7 CFR part 

35 (Export Grapes and Plums). 

This action withdraws a proposed 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on December 5, 2016, (81 FR 87486) and 

reopened for further comment on 

January 23, 2017, (82 FR 7733) and 

February 23, 2017, (82 FR 11413) on 

changes to the reporting of export 

certificate information under regulations 

issued under the Export Fruit Acts. 

Specifically, the proposed rule would 

have required shippers of apples and 

grapes exported from the United States 

that are subject to inspection to enter 

the certificate number from inspection 

certificates (i.e., Export Form 

Certificates) into the Automated Export 

System (AES). For apples shipped to 

Canada in bulk containers, which are 

exempt from inspection requirements, 

shippers would have been required to 

enter a special exemption code defined 

by the Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) in lieu of entering an Export 

Form Certificate number. Shippers 

would also have been required to 

maintain paper or electronic copies of 

the certificates and to provide copies of 

the certificates to the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) upon request. 

AMS is responsible for monitoring 

apple and grape export shipments, and 

these proposed regulatory changes 

would help ensure that these shipments 

comply with inspection and 

certification requirements. 

In addition, the proposed rule would 

have defined ‘‘shipper’’ and removed 

the requirement that carriers of exported 

apples and grapes retain certificates on 

file (because the requirement to retain 

the certificates would have shifted to 

shippers of exported apples and grapes). 

It would have also removed regulations 

that are no longer applicable to grape 

exports and would have added structure 

and language to clarify the regulations. 

Plums are not currently regulated 

under the Export Grape and Plum Act; 

therefore, this change would not have 

impacted shipments of plums exported 

from the United States. 

During the proposed rule’s initial 30- 

day comment period (December 5, 2016, 

through January 4, 2017), six comments 

were received. Two of those comments 

included requests to extend the 

comment period. To allow further 

public review of the proposed changes, 

USDA reopened the comment period for 

60 days on January 23, 2017, and then 

further extended the comment period 

for an additional 30 days, through April 

24, 2017. Four comments were received 

during the reopened comment period. 

Two comments were also received on 

May 1, 2017, one week after the close 

of the comment period (these two 

comments, which were in letter form, 

were dated before the end of the 

comment period: March 22, 2017, and 

April 10, 2017). All the comments may 

be viewed on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov. Of the twelve 

comments received, two requested an 

extension of the initial comment period 

(as noted above), five were in support, 

and five were opposed. 

In summary, the five supporting 

comments were generally brief and in 

favor of the proposed changes. The 

opposing comments detailed concerns 

about the impact of the proposed 

changes on shippers, specifically, and 

the export industry, generally. Some 

commenters noted that the changes 

would result in a substantive increase in 

burden and costs to shippers without 

adding quality benefits, stating that this 

could lead to reduced efficiency and 

vitality of export operations. One 

commenter indicated that requiring a 

shipper to maintain the export 

certificates on file would be a 

duplication of recordkeeping, because 

those same certificates are maintained 

for five years by the commenter’s state 

agricultural department. Another 

commenter noted that the changes 

would represent a major barrier to trade 

because of the complicated logistics of 

ocean shipments of exported apples and 

could cause economic harm. 

Some commenters stated that the 

proposed rule did not contain 

quantifiable data that demonstrated 

non-compliance with the existing 

requirements, observing that shipments 

appear to have been properly inspected 

and certified for years without the 

proposed additional monitoring to 

ensure compliance with these 

requirements. One commenter 

questioned using a special USDAdefined code in AES for exempt bulk 

shipments of apples to Canada because 

it appears to be a temporary workaround 

that would be used only until a new 

harmonized tariff code could be 

developed to identify these exempt 

shipments; the commenter suggested 

delaying the change until a permanent 

solution was developed in light of the 

non-urgent nature of the change. Some 

commenters also raised issues about the 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
46426 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

entry of information in AES, such as 

whether shipments bound for Canada 

require such entry and that it is a 

shipper’s agent or freight forwarder— 

not a shipper—who enters data into 

AES. One commenter also 

recommended that the proposed 

‘‘shipper’’ definition be more 

descriptive to provide further clarity in 

the regulations. 

Given the opposing comments 

received, AMS has determined that the 

proposed rule changing the reporting 

requirements under the Export Fruit 

Acts should not be finalized. AMS 

intends to conduct outreach with export 

industry stakeholders and consider 

other compliance monitoring activities 

as it reconsiders whether changes will 

be proposed in the future. Accordingly, 

the proposed rule to change the 

reporting of export certificate 

information under regulations issued 

pursuant to the Export Fruit Acts 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 5, 2016, (81 FR 87486) is 

hereby withdrawn. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 33 

Apples, Exports, Pears, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 48 Stat. 124; 7 U.S.C. 581–590. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 35 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Exports, Grapes, Plums, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 74 Stat. 734; 75 Stat. 220; 7 

U.S.C. 591–599. 

Dated: September 28, 2017. 

Bruce Summers, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21183 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–0523; Airspace 

Docket No. 17–ACE–9] 

Proposed Amendment of Class E 

Airspace; Fort Scott, KS; and 

Phillipsburg, KS 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort 

Scott, KS, and Phillipsburg Municipal 

Airport, Phillipsburg, KS. The FAA is 

proposing this action due to the 

decommissioning of the Fort Scott nondirectional beacon (NDB) and the 

Phillipsburg NDB and the cancellation 

of the associated instrument approach 

procedures. This action would enhance 

the safety and management of 

instrument flight rules (IFR) operations 

at these airports. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 20, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 

366–9826, or (800) 647–5527. You must 

identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2017– 

0523; Airspace Docket No. 17–ACE–9 at 

the beginning of your comments. You 

may also submit comments through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office between 

9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except federal holidays. 

FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, and 

subsequent amendments can be viewed 

online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ 

publications/. For further information, 

you can contact the Airspace Policy 

Group, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. The Order is 

also available for inspection at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of FAA 

Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 

741–6030, or go to https://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. 

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Operations Support 

Group, Central Service Center, 10101 

Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

amend Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort 

Scott, KS, and Phillipsburg Municipal 

Airport, Phillipsburg, KS, to support IFR 

operations at these airports. 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2017–0523/Airspace 

Docket No. 17–ACE–9.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

All communications received before 

the specified closing date for comments 

will be considered before taking action 

on the proposed rule. The proposal 

contained in this notice may be changed 

in light of the comments received. A 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerned with this rulemaking will be 

filed in the docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS