35168 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If adverse comments are received that

do not pertain to all documents subject

to this rulemaking action, those

documents not affected by the adverse

comments will be finalized in the

manner described here. Only those

documents that receive adverse

comments will be withdrawn in the

manner described here.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by July 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to David

Campbell, Air Protection Division,

Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 841

Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the Air

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 841

Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107; and the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Campbell, (215) 566–2196, at the

EPA Region III office or via e-mail at

campbell.dave@epamail.epa.gov. While

information may be requested via email, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information pertaining to this action,

VOC RACT determinations for

individual sources located in

Pennsylvania, provided in the Direct

Final action of the same title which is

located in the Rules and Regulations

section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 13, 1998.

William Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 98–17118 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Ch. I

[CC Docket No. 98–94; FCC 98–118]

Testing New Technologies

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: On June 11, 1998, the Federal

Communications Commission released a

Notice of Inquiry to solicit public

comment about the effects of existing

Title II regulations on experiments

involving advanced telecommunications

technology conducted by firms subject

to those regulations. The document, part

of the Commission’s 1998 biennial

regulatory review, seeks comment about

various initiatives the Commission

could undertake in order to promote

technology testing, including use of the

Commission’s biennial review power to

repeal or modify regulations, and,

alternatively, use of the Commission’s

authority to forbear from applying

certain statutory provisions and

Commission rules.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

July 21, 1998. Reply comments are due

on or before August 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to the Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, NW, Suite 222, Washington, DC

20554, with a copy to Scott Bergmann

of the Common Carrier Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 2033 M

Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC

20554. Parties should also file one copy

of any documents filed in this docket

with the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th St., NW,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Beers, Deputy Chief of the

Industry Analysis Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418–0952, or

Scott K. Bergmann, Industry Analysis

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at

(202) 418–7102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Inquiry released June 11, 1998 (FCC 98–

118). The full text of this Notice of

Inquiry is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239,

1919 M Street, Washington, DC 20554.

The complete text also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc. (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

St., NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Summary of the Public Notice

1. In the Notice of Inquiry (Notice),

the Commission solicits public

comment about the effects of its existing

Title II regulations on experiments

involving advanced telecommunications

technology conducted by firms subject

to these regulations. The inquiry is

based on the Commission’s belief that

experiments involving new technology,

including technical trials and market

trials, are a critical step in the process

of introducing new services that benefit

the public. The Commission seeks to

ensure that its regulation does not

unnecessarily discourage applicants

from conducting experiments involving

new technology and new applications of

existing technology. The Commission

seeks comment on ways in which it may

redesign its regulation in order to

encourage and facilitate such tests.

2. Section 7 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended (the

Communications Act or the Act), states

that it is ‘‘the policy of the United States

to encourage the provision of new

technologies and services to the public.’’

More recently, Congress reinforced

section 7 by adding section 706 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Section 706(a) encourages the

deployment of advanced

telecommunications services by

directing the Commission to ‘‘encourage

the deployment on a reasonable and

timely basis of advanced

telecommunications capability to all

Americans * * * by utilizing, in a

manner consistent with the public

interest, convenience, and necessity,

price cap regulation, regulatory

forbearance, measures that promote

competition in the local

telecommunications market, or other

regulating methods that remove barriers

to infrastructure investment.’’ Pursuant

to these congressional directives, the

Notice seeks public comment about a

broad range of issues relating to the

Commission’s regulation of technology

testing.

3. Pursuant to new section 11,

Congress has required the Commission

to conduct a biennial review of

regulations that apply to operations or

activities of any provider of

telecommunications service and to

repeal or modify any regulation it

determines to be ‘‘no longer necessary

in the public interest.’’ Accordingly, the

Commission has begun a comprehensive

1998 biennial review of

telecommunications and other

regulations to promote ‘‘meaningful

deregulation and streamlining where

competition or other considerations

warrant such action.’’ The Notice is thus

undertaken in conjunction with the

Commission’s 1998 biennial regulatory

review and in it the Commission asks,

inter alia, whether and how the

Commission can apply its section 11

deregulatory and streamlining mandate

to remove or restructure existing

regulations in order to promote

technology testing.

4. Alternatively, the Commission asks

in the Notice whether it should and can
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules 35169

use its new forbearance authority to

accomplish the same goal. New section

10 of the Communications Act requires

the Commission to forbear from

applying sections of the Act and its

regulations to carriers and services upon

satisfying a stated three-part test.

Telecommunications carriers and

classes of telecommunications carriers

may file applications seeking such

forbearance treatment. The Notice seeks

comment on whether the Commission

should undertake specific efforts to

encourage or promote such forbearance

applications relating to technology

testing or, alternatively, should define a

class of experimental services that

would qualify for forbearance treatment.

5. The Commission does not,

however, limit the record of this

proceeding to those alternatives. Rather,

the Commission encourages

commenters to offer any and all relevant

and helpful suggestions to promote

technology testing by regulated

companies. Well-considered proposals

to eliminate or streamline regulations

governing technology testing would

further the Commission’s on-going procompetition and pro-consumer

regulatory mandate. In the last few

decades, the telecommunications

industry has experienced radical

changes in its technologies, services,

and markets. In response to these

changes, the Commission has

increasingly adopted policies that

reflect the view that open entry and

competition bring greater benefits to

consumers and society than traditional

regulation of markets dominated by one

or a few carriers. Moreover, Congress in

the 1996 Act has advanced this trend by

aggressively promoting a new,

competition-driven marketplace. New

technologies and new applications of

existing technologies will be critical in

ensuring that the United States benefits

from the competitive opportunities they

will foster.

6. The Commission seeks comment

about the effect of its regulation on

experiments involving new technology

and on whether affirmative steps are

necessary to further encourage and

facilitate testing by removing regulatory

barriers to such testing. The

Commission believes that its regulatory

processes should not unduly impede

experiments in new technology, and

asks commenters in this proceeding to

discuss fully how current Commission

regulatory practices might tend to

promote or frustrate necessary and

desirable technology testing. To this

end, the Notice asks commenters to

address comprehensively those

requirements currently imposed

pursuant to the Act, including all

relevant Commission rules and

requirements, on those firms seeking to

conduct experiments.

7. For example, under current

requirements, depending on the nature

of the technology or service to be tested,

a firm seeking to conduct technical or

market trials might be required to obtain

several different approvals, including,

e.g., a tariff authorization under section

203, a certificate under section 214,

approvals of Comparably Efficient

Interconnection (CEI) and Open

Network Architecture (ONA) plans

under the Computer III rules, a

developmental or experimental radio

license, as well as, in specific cases,

waivers of various Commission rules.

All of these rule requirements serve

legitimate and, indeed, compelling

regulatory ends under certain

circumstances. Tariff requirements, for

example, are one way to help ensure

that ratepayers pay just and reasonable

rates and do not suffer from unlawful

discrimination. CEI and ONA plans help

ensure that carriers do not prefer their

own enhanced service operations to the

detriment of competitive enhanced

service providers. Radio licensing, inter

alia, prevents radio frequency

interference caused by and to cochannel and adjacent channel service

providers. The Commission seeks

comment regarding whether any

existing rule requirements in these areas

can be relaxed or avoided in the context

of short-term experimental testing of

new technology and new applications of

existing technology.

8. The Commission asks commenters

to develop a specific record on how,

from planning and regulatory

perspectives, firms engage in

experiments, including both technical

trials and market trials of services using

new technology. For example,

commenters should indicate whether

carriers must have particular

authorizations in place prior to

conducting technical or market trials of

a service, or whether such authorization

is only required prior to the commercial

offering of a service. The Commission

also seeks comment on the extent to

which non-carriers, i.e., equipment

manufacturers or vendors, are

responsible for technology testing and

the extent to which these non-carriers

are subject to any of the Commission’s

requirements in their testing of new

technologies.

9. Based on the inquiry described

above, the Commission may determine

that certain of its common carrier

regulations impede testing and

experimentation with new technologies

and new applications of existing

technologies. For that reason, the

Commission explores possible

alternative approaches to encourage and

facilitate technology experiments,

namely, using section 11(b) to create

streamlined authorization procedures

(based on current Part 5 procedures

governing wireless test applications)

and applying regulatory forbearance

under section 10 of the Act to ‘‘carve

out’’ exceptional treatment for qualified

tests. By suggesting these alternatives

the Commission does not preclude

discussion of others, and encourages

commenters to offer any and all relevant

and helpful suggestions. The

Commission seeks specific comment on

the ramifications of allowing technology

testing to be conducted through market

trials, i.e., trials in which customers pay

to obtain the service being tested. The

Commission thinks that such market

trials can be a useful way to develop

‘‘real world’’ information that is relevant

to the introduction of new technology.

At the same time, the Commission will

in every case take steps to ensure that

customers—including ratepayers of

regulated carriers—do not improperly

subsidize technology testing, and the

Commission solicits comment on ways

to ensure that the costs of such trials

continue to be borne by shareholders.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

10. Pursuant to § 1.1204(b)(1) of the

Commission’s rules, the proceeding is

exempt from the prohibitions and

restrictions in the ex parte requirements.

B. Comment Filing Procedures

11. General. Pursuant to applicable

procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.415, 1.419, interested parties shall file

comments not later than July 21, 1998,

and reply comments not later than

August 5, 1998. To file formally in the

proceeding, you must file an original

and six copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

must file an original and twelve copies.

Comments and reply comments should

be sent to the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, NW, Room 222, Washington, DC

20554, with copies to: Thomas J. Beers,

Common Carrier Bureau, Industry

Analysis Division, 2033 M Street, NW,

Room 500, Washington, DC 20554; Scott

K. Bergmann, Common Carrier Bureau,

Industry Analysis Division, 2033 M

Street, NW, Room 500, Washington, DC

20554. Parties should file one copy of

any documents filed in this docket with

the Commission’s copy contractor,
35170 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Proposed Rules

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M Street, NW, Room 239,

Washington, DC 20554.

12. Other requirements. Comments

and reply comments must also comply

with § 1.49 and all other applicable

sections of the Commission’s rules. We

also direct all interested parties to

include the name of the filing party and

the date of the filing on each page of

their comments and reply comments.

13. Commenters may also file

informal comments or an exact copy of

formal comments electronically via the

Internet at: <http:dettifoss.fcc.gov:8080/

cgi-bin/ws.exe/beta/ecfs/upload.hts>.

Only one copy of electronically filed

comments must be submitted.

Commenters must note on the subject

line whether an electronic submission is

an exact copy of formal comments.

Commenters also must include their full

name and U.S. Postal Service mailing

address in their submissions. Further

information on the process of

submitting comments electronically is

available at that location and at <http:/

/www.fcc.gov/e-file>.

14. Parties are also asked to submit

comments and reply comments on

diskette. Such diskette submissions

would be in addition to and not a

substitute for the formal filing

requirements addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to: Ms. Terry Conway, Common

Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis

Division, 2033 M Street, NW, Room 500,

Washington, DC 20554. Such diskettes

should be on a 3.5 inch diskette

formatted in an IBM compatible format

using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows

software. The diskette should be

submitted in ‘‘read only’’ mode. The

diskette should be clearly labeled with

the party’s name, proceeding, type of

pleading (comment or reply comments)

and date of submission. The diskette

should be accompanied by a cover

letter.

III. Ordering Clauses

15. Accordingly, it is ordered,

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 11,

218 and 403 of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections

151, 154(i), 157, 160, 161, 218, 403, that

notice is hereby given of the inquiry

described above and that comment is

sought on these issues.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17079 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3972]

RIN 2127–AG76

Anthropomorphic Test Dummy;

Occupant Crash Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend 49 CFR part 572 by adding

design and performance specifications

for a new, more advanced 6-year-old

child dummy. The agency believes that

the new dummy, part of the family of

Hybrid III test dummies, is more

representative of humans than the

existing 6-year-old child dummy

specified by the agency, and allows the

assessment of more types of potential

injuries. The new dummy is especially

needed to evaluate the effects of air bag

deployment on children, but would also

provide greater and more useful

information in a variety of environments

to better evaluate child safety. Adding

the dummy to part 572 would be the

first step toward using the dummy to

evaluate the safety of air bags for

children. The issue of specifying use of

the dummy in determining compliance

with performance test requirements,

e.g., as part of the agency’s occupant

protection standard and/or child

restraint standard, will be addressed in

future rulemakings.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number, and be submitted to:

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590 (Docket hours are from 10 a.m. to

5 p.m.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

nonlegal issues: Stan Backaitis, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards (telephone:

202–366–4912). For legal issues:

Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief

Counsel (202–366–2992). Both can be

reached at the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On November 14, 1991, NHTSA

published in the Federal Register (56

FR 57830) a final rule establishing

specifications and performance criteria

for a test dummy representing a 6-yearold child. The specifications and

performance criteria were set forth as

subpart I of 49 CFR part 572. The agency

explained that adding the subpart I 6-

year-old child dummy to part 572 was

a possible first step toward using the

dummy to test the compliance of

booster seats and other types of child

restraint systems as part of Safety

Standard No. 213, Child Restraint

Systems. The agency subsequently

added the dummy to Standard No. 213

in a final rule published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 35126) on July 6, 1995.

In these rulemakings, NHTSA

recognized that a more advanced 6-yearold child dummy was under

development, and the possible future

desirability of adopting such a dummy.

In commenting on the agency’s proposal

to add the subpart I dummy to Standard

No. 213, the American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA)

suggested that the agency instead add a

6-year-old child dummy based on the

50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy.

AAMA stated that this dummy had

improved anthropometric emulation,

more human-like response, and superior

instrumentation capability.

NHTSA explained its decision to

adopt the Subpart I 6-year-old child

dummy, rather than a more advanced

dummy, as follows:

The issue of whether NHTSA should adopt

the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy instead of

the (Subpart I) dummy was addressed in the

NPRM and in the rule adopting the 6-yearold dummy specifications into part 572.

NHTSA’s position has been that, while the

Hybrid III dummy might have potential

advantages over the (Subpart I) dummy in the

number of injury parameters the dummies

can measure, rulemaking on the latter

dummy should not be delayed pending

assessment of the performance of the new

dummy. NHTSA stated in the part 572 final

rule:

The (Subpart I) dummy’s ability to measure

HIC, chest acceleration and femur loads, and

its ability to replicate the motions and

excursions of a child in a crash are sufficient

to provide valid assessment of the injury

potential of child restraint systems in a

reliable manner. Since the (Subpart I)

dummy is ready now, and a final rule

specifying the dummy will help improve

safety, the agency believes it is appropriate

to proceed with adding the dummy to part

572.

Likewise, NHTSA believes rulemaking

adopting use of a 6-year-old dummy in

Standard 213 compliance tests should not be

delayed pending evaluation of the suitability

and availability of the dummy as a test