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

51582 

Vol. 82, No. 214 

Tuesday, November 7, 2017 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

APHIS-2015-0057. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 340 

[Docket No. APHIS–2015–0057] 

RIN 0579–AE15 

Importation, Interstate Movement, and 

Environmental Release of Certain 

Genetically Engineered Organisms 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: We are withdrawing a 

proposed rule that would have revised 

our regulations regarding the 

importation, interstate movement, and 

environmental release of certain 

genetically engineered organisms. We 

are taking this action after considering 

the comments we received following the 

publication of the proposed rule. 

DATES: We are withdrawing the 

proposed rule published January 19, 

2017 (82 FR 7008) as of November 7, 

2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Sidney Abel, Assistant Deputy 

Administrator, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1238; (301) 851–3896. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 19, 2017, we published in the 

Federal Register (82 FR 7008–7039, 

Docket No. APHIS–2015–0057) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations in 7 

CFR part 340 regarding the importation, 

interstate movement, and environmental 

release of certain genetically engineered 

(GE) organisms. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 120 days ending May 

19, 2017. We extended the deadline for 

comments until June 19, 2017, in a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on February 10, 2017 (Docket 

No. APHIS–2015–0057, 82 FR 10312– 

10313). We received 203 comments by 

that date. They were from GE 

developers, growers of GE crops, GE 

industry and agricultural trade 

associations, universities and academic 

researchers, organic producers and trade 

associations, consumer safety and 

environmental advocacy groups, a 

Federal agency, and private citizens. 

Many commenters objected to the 

scope of the proposed rule. Some 

thought that our criteria for designating 

GE organisms as regulated organisms 

were too expansive, potentially 

resulting in our regulating a wider range 

of GE organisms than necessary and 

thereby increasing, rather than reducing, 

the regulatory burden for the 

biotechnology industry. Other 

commenters, however, thought that 

certain exemptions and exclusions 

contained in the proposed rule would 

effectively narrow the scope of our 

regulatory authority over GE organisms 

and increase the risk of the unintended 

presence of GE crops in organic and 

other non-GE crops. 

The January 2017 proposed rule 

represented a major change from our 

existing ‘‘regulate first/analyze later’’ 

approach to one that entailed assessing 

new GE organisms to determine if they 

posed plant pest or noxious weed risks 

and then regulating only organisms that 

did present risks. Some commenters 

expressed concern that the proposed 

risk assessment process could prove 

lengthy, cumbersome, and confusing, 

thereby hindering innovation and 

preventing GE products from getting to 

market in a timely manner. Though we 

did provide exclusions that would have 

allowed GE organisms with certain 

plant/trait combinations to bypass the 

risk assessment process, these 

commenters viewed the exclusions as 

too narrow. Other commenters, 

however, took the opposite view. These 

commenters objected to our proposed 

exemption from the risk assessment 

process of products having plant/trait 

combinations corresponding to specific 

organisms that had been granted 

nonregulated status based on previous 

risk assessments. A number of these 

commenters also thought the proposed 

process as a whole would be 

insufficiently rigorous, with some 

objecting specifically to our proposal to 

no longer require the submission of field 

test data as part of the assessment 

process. 

Another issue that drew many 

comments was our proposal to 

incorporate our noxious weed authority 

into the biotechnology regulations in 

part 340. Noting that noxious weeds are 

also regulated under the Plant 

Protection and Quarantine regulations 

in 7 CFR part 360, commenters 

expressed concern that this proposal 

could result in the creation of two 

parallel but inconsistent regulatory 

systems and thus more regulatory 

uncertainty. 

Finally, many commenters expressed 

opposition to genetic engineering in 

general, as well as concerns about a 

wide range of issues, many of which 

were outside the scope of the proposed 

rule. For example, commenters stated 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) should 

consider non-safety-based risks, such as 

economic and social impacts, including 

impacts on the marketability of non-GE 

products. Other commenters requested 

that APHIS regulations include 

provisions related to the labeling of GE 

products and raised concerns regarding 

health effects of GE products and 

increased pesticide use. 

Based on the scope of comments 

received on the January 2017 proposed 

rule, we have decided to withdraw the 

rule and to begin a fresh stakeholder 

engagement aimed at exploring 

alternative policy approaches. Because 

of rules limiting ex parte 

communications with respect to active 

rulemakings, publication of the 2017 

proposed rule has constrained our 

ability to talk about alternatives with 

stakeholders. Withdrawing the proposed 

rule will lift this constraint and provide 

for a more open and robust policy 

dialogue. 

Therefore, we are withdrawing the 

January 19, 2017, proposed rule 

referenced above. As we explore a full 

range of policy alternatives, we will 

consider the comments we received on 

the proposed rule, as well as new 

scientific knowledge, and continue to 

seek the active and open input of 

stakeholders. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.3. 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Proposed Rules 51583 

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of 

November 2017. 

Michael C. Gregoire, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24202 Filed 11–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–1059; Product 

Identifier 2017–CE–035–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Piper 

Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA–28–140, 

PA–28–150, PA–28–160, PA–28–180, 

PA–28–235, PA–32–260, and PA–32– 

300 airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of corrosion found 

in an area of the main wing spar not 

easily accessible for inspection. This 

proposed AD would require installing 

an inspection access panel in the lower 

wing skin near the left and the right 

main wing spars if not already there, 

inspecting the left and the right main 

wing spars for corrosion, and taking all 

necessary corrective actions. We are 

proposing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 22, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 

2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 

32960; telephone: (772) 567–4361; 

Internet: www.piper.com. You may 

review this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Policy and 

Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

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–2017– 

1059 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 NPRM, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Office (phone: 800–647– 

5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

McCully, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia 

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; 

telephone: (404) 474–5548; fax: (404) 

474–5606; email: william.mccully@faa.

gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2017–1059; Product Identifier 2017–CE– 

035–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this NPRM. We will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this NPRM 

because of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this NPRM. 

Discussion 

We received two reports of significant 

corrosion found on the main wing spars 

on certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models 

PA–28–140, PA–28–150, PA–28–160, 

PA–28–180, PA–28–235, PA–32–260, 

and PA–32–300 airplanes. The 

corrosion was found during 

maintenance in an area that is not easily 

accessible for inspection. This 

condition, if not detected and corrected, 

could cause the main wing spar to fail. 

This failure could result in loss of 

control. 

Related Service Information Under 

1 CFR Part 51 

We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. 

Service Bulletin No. 1304, dated August 

23, 2017. The service bulletin describes 

procedures for installing an inspection 

access panel in the lower wing skin near 

the left and the right main wing spars, 

if not already there, inspect for 

corrosion, and, if corrosion is found, 

taking all necessary corrective actions. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by the means 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 11,476 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Main wing spar inspection .............. 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$170 to inspect both wings.

Not Applicable ................................ $170 $1,950,920 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS