Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46739 

1Section 2–8 of FAA Order 8260.19 (Flight 

Procedures and Airspace) sets forth the minimum 

frequency of review of instrument procedures. 

2The FAA has placed sample copies of the 

memorandum and checklist into the docket for this 

notice. 

3FAA Order 8260.43 (Flight Procedures 

Management Program) and FAA Order 8260.26 

(Establishing Submission Cutoff Dates for Civil 

Instrument Procedures) contain additional 

information on this process. These orders are 

available on the FAA Web site. 

FAA’s VOR MON Program. See 81 FR 

48694 (July 26, 2016). However, NPA 

IFP cancellation activities have been 

coordinated with the FAA office 

responsible for the VOR MON 

implementation program, and its input 

has been thoroughly considered. 

Proposed Policy 

All circling procedures will continue 

to be reviewed through the established 

IAP periodic review process.1 As part of 

that review process, the FAA is 

proposing that each circling procedure 

would be evaluated against the 

following questions: 

—Is this the only IAP at the airport? 

—Is this procedure a designated MON 

airport procedure? 

—If multiple IAPs serve a single runway 

end, is this the lowest circling minima 

for that runway? Note: If the RNAV 

circling minima is not the lowest, but 

is within 50’ of the lowest, the FAA 

would give the RNAV preference. 

—Would cancellation result in removal 

of circling minima from all 

conventional NAVAID procedures at 

an airport? Note: If circling minima 

exists for multiple Conventional 

NAVAID procedures, preference 

would be to retain ILS circling 

minima. 

—Would cancellation result in all 

circling minima being removed from 

all airports within 20 NMs? 

—Will removal eliminate lowest landing 

minima to an individual runway? 

The following questions are 

applicable only to circling-only 

procedures: 

—Does this circling-only procedure 

exist because of high terrain or an 

obstacle that makes a straight-in 

procedure unfeasible or which would 

result in the straight-in minimums 

being higher than the circling 

minima? 

—Is this circling-only procedure (1) at 

an airport where not all runway ends 

have a straight-in IAP, and (2) does it 

have a Final Approach Course not 

aligned within 45 degrees of a runway 

which has a straight-in IAP? 

Further consideration for cancellation 

under this policy would be terminated 

if any of the aforementioned questions 

are answered in the affirmative. If all 

questions are answered in the negative, 

the procedure would be processed as 

described in the following paragraph. 

When a candidate has been identified, 

Aeronautical Information Services 

would send a notification of procedure 

cancellation memorandum and 

completed checklist to the appropriate 

Regional Service Area, Operations 

Support Group.2 The Regional Service 

Area, Operations Support Group would 

follow the same notification process 

used for standard IFP requests.3

Consistent with FAA procedures 

outlined in the procedure cancellation 

memorandum, comments regarding the 

aforementioned circling procedure 

would need to be submitted within 30 

days of the timestamp on the 

communication media through which it 

was delivered. Comments would be 

directed to the Regional Service Area, 

Operations Support Group for 

dissemination to Aeronautical 

Information Services. Comments would 

be adjudicated by Aeronautical 

Information Services within 30 days of 

the timestamp on the communication 

media through which it was received. A 

final decision would be forwarded to 

Regional Service Area, Operations 

Support Group to disseminate to 

commenter(s). The cancellation of the 

part 97 instrument procedure will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Invitation for Comments 

The FAA invites interested parties to 

submit written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from 

implementation of the proposed policy. 

Comments should explain the reason for 

modifying or not implementing this 

proposed policy. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments or, if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will consider all comments 

it receives on or before the closing date 

for comments before acting on proposed 

policy. The FAA will consider 

comments submitted after the comment 

period has closed if it is possible to do 

so without incurring expense or delay. 

The agency may change this proposal in 

light of the comments it receives. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

22, 2017. 

Steven L. Szukala, 

Manager, Instrument Flight Procedure Group, 

Aeronautical Information Services. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21626 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of the Census 

15 CFR Part 30 

[Docket Number: 170606545–7857–01] 

RIN 0607–AA56 

Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): 

Request for Public Comments 

Regarding Standard and Routed 

Export Transactions 

AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, 

Commerce Department. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census 

(U.S. Census Bureau) is seeking public 

comments to perform a review of the 

requirements governing routed export 

transactions. In particular, the Census 

Bureau is interested in comments 

regarding the definition of a routed 

export transaction as well as the 

responsibilities of parties in routed 

export transactions. Routed export 

transactions are transactions in which 

the Foreign Principal Party in Interest 

(FPPI) controls the movement of the 

goods out of the country. There are a 

variety of reasons why the FPPI assumes 

this responsibility such as the use of a 

preferred carrier and the desire to not 

disclose the ultimate consignee to the 

U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI), 

although the ultimate consignee is 

properly identified to the U.S. 

Government. Because the FPPI controls 

the movement of the goods in a routed 

transaction and cannot file Electronic 

Export Information (EEI), the Census 

Bureau requires the FPPI to authorize a 

U.S. authorized agent or the USPPI to 

file the EEI on its behalf. This ensures 

that the Census Bureau collects the 

statistical information. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 5, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Please direct all written 

comments on this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking to the Chief, 

International Trade Management 

Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 

5K158, Washington, DC 20233–6010. 

You may also submit comments, 

identified by RIN number 0607–AA56, 

to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
46740 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments received are part of the 

public record. No comments will be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov for 

public viewing until after the comment 

period has closed. Comments will 

generally be posted without change. All 

Personally Identifiable Information (for 

example, name and address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commentor may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. The Census Bureau will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

N/A in the required fields, if you wish 

to remain anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

C. Kelly, Chief, International Trade 

Management Division, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Room 5K158, Washington, DC 

20233–6010, by phone (301) 763–6937, 

by fax (301) 763–8835, or by email 

dale.c.kelly@census.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Census Bureau is responsible for 

collecting, compiling, and publishing 

export trade statistics for the United 

States under the provisions of Title 13, 

United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 9, 

Section 301. The Automated Export 

System (AES), now part of the 

Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE), is the primary instrument used 

for collecting export trade data. Through 

the AES, the Census Bureau collects 

Electronic Export Information (EEI), the 

electronic equivalent of the export data 

formerly collected on the Shipper’s 

Export Declaration (SED), reported 

pursuant to the Foreign Trade 

Regulations (FTR), Title 15, Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), part 30. The 

EEI consists of data elements as set forth 

in 15 CFR 30.6 for an export shipment, 

and includes information such as the 

U.S. Principal Party in Interest’s 

(USPPI’s) name, address, and 

identification number, and detailed 

information concerning the exported 

product. The party responsible for the 

accuracy and timeliness of EEI data 

elements varies depending upon the 

type of export transaction; standard or 

routed. Through this notice, the Census 

Bureau is seeking public comments to 

perform a review of the requirements 

governing routed export transactions, a 

subset of export transactions, as detailed 

in the FTR, 15 CFR, part 30. 

Request for Comments 

The Census Bureau is soliciting 

comments on the clarity, usability, and 

any other matters related to the 

regulatory requirements for routed 

transactions. This will include the 

definition of a routed export transaction 

found in 15 CFR 30.1 as well as the 

general responsibilities of parties in 

routed export transactions as detailed in 

15 CFR 30.3. Suggested questions are 

below; however, any pertinent feedback 

not captured by these questions is also 

welcome: 

1. If you do not think that the 

definition of a routed export transaction 

in 15 CFR 30.1 is clearly stated, then 

what definition of routed export 

transaction would you suggest? 

2. Should the Census Bureau modify 

the list of data elements at 15 CFR 

30.3(e)(2) that the U.S. authorized agent 

is required to provide when filing the 

electronic export information? If so, 

what changes would you suggest? 

3. Should the Census Bureau modify 

the list of data elements at 15 CFR 

30.3(e)(1) that the U.S. Principal Party 

in Interest is required to provide to the 

U.S. Authorized agent? If so, what 

changes would you suggest? 

4. The carrier’s responsibilities under 

the FTR are the same in both standard 

and routed transactions. Does the FTR 

clearly communicate these 

responsibilities? If not, what 

clarification would you suggest? 

5. The data elements that the USPPI 

and U.S authorized agent are required to 

provide are currently located in Section 

30.3(e) of the FTR. However, additional 

data elements are needed to complete 

the AES filing. Below is a list of data 

elements that are required to be reported 

but for which a responsible party is not 

listed. Please provide comments on 

which party, the USPPI or the U.S. 

authorized agent, should report these 

data elements. 

Hazardous material indicator ........................................ routed export transaction indicator .............................. KPC number 

FTZ identifier ................................................................ vehicle title number ...................................................... related party indicator 

shipment reference number ......................................... vehicle title state code ................................................. export information code 

VIN/product ID .............................................................. filing option indicator 

6. Are the responsibilities of parties in 

a routed export transaction clearly 

stated? If not, what improvements 

would you suggest? 

7. How could we improve the process 

to authorize filing in a routed export 

transaction? 

8. How could the FTR be revised to 

align with the Bureau of Industry and 

Security’s Export Administration 

Regulations on routed export 

transactions? 

9. What changes would you suggest in 

Section 30.3 of the FTR that might 

improve the parties’ understanding of 

the requirements of a routed export 

transaction? 

10. What changes would you suggest 

in Section 30.3 of the FTR that might 

improve the parties’ understanding of 

their roles in a routed or standard export 

transaction? 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Ron S. Jarmin, 

Associate Director for Economic Programs, 

Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and 

Duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21569 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket No. CPSC–2017–0037] 

Petition Requesting Rulemaking on 

Magnet Sets 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC or Commission) has 

received a petition requesting that the 

Commission initiate rulemaking under 

the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA) to adopt a safety standard for 

high-powered magnet sets. The 

Commission invites written comments 

concerning the petition. 

DATES: Submit comments by December 

5, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2017– 

0037, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The Commission does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. The Commission 

encourages you to submit electronic 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS