Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Notices 41547

1 63 Fed. Reg. at 8831.

2 63 Fed. Reg. at 31798.

3 63 Fed. Reg. at 31798.

A–428–811 ....... Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products.

C–429–812 Inland Steel Bar Company and USS/Kobe Steel Company (Petitioners)—Anticircumvention inquiry to determine whether

Saarstahl A.G. and Thyssen Stahl A.G. are circumventing the order by shipping leaded steel billets to the United States,

where they are converted into the hot-rolled carbon steel products covered by the order.

Country ............. Italy

A–475–818 ....... Certain Pasta.

Borden, Inc., Hershey Foods Corp., Gooch Foods, Inc., (Petitioners)—Anticircumvention inquiry to determine whether Barilla

S.r.L. is importing pasta in the United States in bulk (defined as packages of greater than five pounds) and repackaging the

pasta into packages of five pounds or less for sale in the retail market; and whether such repackaging constitutes circumvention of the antidumping duty order.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on the accuracy of the list of

pending scope clarification requests.

Any comments should be submitted to

the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, Room B–099, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: July 28, 1998.

Maria Harris Tildon,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–20798 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

[Docket No. 980212036–8172–03]

Request for Comments on the

Enhancement of the .us Domain Space

AGENCY: National Telecommunications

and Information Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice, Request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

requests comments on future expansion

and administration of the .us domain

space. The registry for .us domain space,

administered by the Information

Sciences Institute at the University of

California, is currently administered as

a locality based hierarchy in which

second level domain space is allocated

to states and U.S. territories. The .us

domain space has typically been used

by branches of state and local

government, although some commercial

names have been assigned. This notice,

through a series of questions, requests

public comment on issues relating to

future administration, and possible

expansion, of the .us domain space.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The Department invites the

public to submit written comments in

paper or electronic form. Comments

may be mailed to Karen Rose, Office of

International Affairs (OIA), National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA), Room 4701,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230. Paper

submissions should include a version

on diskette in ASCII, Word Perfect

(please specify version), or Microsoft

Word (please specify version) format.

Comments submitted in electronic

form may be sent to

usdomain@ntia.doc.gov. Electronic

comments should be submitted in the

formats specified above.

Comments received will be posted on

the NTIA website at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov. Detailed information

on electronic filing is available at http:/

/www.ntia.doc.gov/efiling/.

Comments should be numbered and

organized in response to the questions

set forth in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Rose, NTIA/OIA, (202) 482–0365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 20, 1998, NTIA

published ‘‘Improvement of Technical

Management of Internet Names and

Addresses; Proposed Rule,’’ 63 Fed. Reg.

8825 (1998) (also posted at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/

domainname/domainname130.htm).

The notice analyzed issues of generic

Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), including

the future of gTLD registries and the

possible creation of new gTLDs. Section

VII. D. briefly addressed the national or

‘‘country-code’’ domain (ccTLD) for the

United States, .us as follows:

At present, the IANA (Internet Assigned

Numbers Authority at the University of

Southern California) administers .us as a

locality based hierarchy in which secondlevel domain space is allocated to states and

US territories. This name space is further

subdivided into localities. General

registration under localities is performed on

an exclusive basis by private firms that have

requested delegation from IANA. The .us

name space has typically been used by

branches of state and local governments,

although some commercial names have been

assigned. Where registration for a locality has

not been delegated, the IANA itself serves as

the registrar.

Some in the Internet community have

suggested that the pressure for unique

identifiers in the .com gTLD could be

relieved if commercial use of the .us space

was encouraged. Commercial users and

trademark holders, however, find the current

locality-based system too cumbersome and

complicated for commercial use. Expanded

use of the .us TLD could alleviate some of the

pressure for new generic TLDs and reduce

conflicts between American companies and

others vying for the same domain name.

Clearly, there is much opportunity for

enhancing the .us domain space, and the .us

domain could be expanded in many ways

without displacing the current geopolitical

structure. Over the next few months, the U.S.

government will work with the private sector

and state and local governments to determine

how best to make the .us domain more

attractive to commercial users. It may also be

appropriate to move the gTLDs traditionally

reserved for U.S. government use (i.e. .gov

and .mil), into a reformulated .us ccTLD.

The U.S. government will further explore

and seek public input on these issues

through a separate Request for Comment on

the evolution of the .us name space.

However, we welcome any preliminary

comments at this time.1

On June 10, 1998, NTIA published a

Statement of Policy on DNS

administration, ‘‘Management of

Internet Names and Addresses,’’ 63 Fed.

Reg. 31741 (1998) (also posted at http:/

/www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/

domainname/6l5l98dns.htm). The

document summarized the responses to

the .us comment solicitation as follows:

Many commenters suggested that the

pressure for unique identifiers in the .com

gTLD could be relieved if commercial use of

the .us space was encouraged. Commercial

users and trademark holders, however, find

the current locality-based system too

cumbersome and complicated for commercial

use. They called for expanded use of the .us

TLD to alleviate some of the pressure for new

generic TLDs and reduce conflicts between

American companies and others vying for the

same domain name. Most commenters

support an evolution of the .us domain

designed to make this name space more

attractive to commercial users.2

The document also restated the U.S.

Government’s intent to request public

comment on the future of .us.3
41548 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Notices

While administration of .us is

managed by the same personnel as the

IANA services, it does not fall under the

DARPA/IANA contract and should

therefore be considered a separate

service of the Information Sciences

Institute (ISI) at the University of

Southern California.

We are now formally soliciting public

comment on the future of the .us

domain space. Respondents should find

it useful to review the full text of

‘‘Improvement of Technical

Management of Internet Names and

Addresses’’ and ‘‘Management of

Internet Names and Addresses’’ for

general background information on the

Internet domain name system and its

management. Respondents should also

find useful RFC 1480: ‘‘The .US

Domain’’ (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/

rfc1480.txt), as well as ISI’s posted

policies for .us (http://www.isi.edu/innotes/usdnr/) for information regarding

current the structure and management

of the .us domain.

Additional Background

The Statement of Policy

‘‘Management of Internet Names and

Addresses’’ invited the international

community of private sector Internet

stakeholders to work together to form a

new, private, not-for-profit corporation

to manage DNS functions. The new

corporation would gradually assume

various responsibilities for the

administration of the domain name

system now performed by or on behalf

of the U.S. Government. The document

noted, however, that national

governments would continue to have

authority to manage or establish policy

for their own ccTLDs.

Other country-code domains are

managed by a variety of entities, either

non-profit or for-profit, but almost

always on an exclusive basis. In many

cases, the registry remains delegated to

the same university or research institute

to which it was assigned in the early

days of the Internet. In a few cases, the

assigned entity is an ISP cooperative

(e.g., Nominet, the registry for .uk). In

virtually all cases (with the notable

exception of Nominet), the registry

maintenance and registration functions

are handled by the same entity and not

treated separately. In the event of

disputes over the assignment of countrycode registries, ISI defers to national

governments, some of which operate

their registry through a public agency.

Many of the allocation and

governance issues under .us and other

country-codes are ultimately analogous

to the issues in gTLDs. The early

availability and extensive use of gTLDs

by U.S. companies, however, allowed

.us to develop separately under a

hierarchical geopolitical structure. By

contrast, other country-code TLDs

typically offer second-level domains on

a more or less open and unrestricted

basis or allow unrestricted third-level

domains under a few two-character

sector codes, such as .co for commercial

or .ac for academic. To our knowledge,

no other country-code domain is

managed under a geopolitically ordered

regime similar to .us.

Some have suggested using domain

space for purposes such as zoning or

credentialing. With respect to zoning for

example, there have been suggestions

that creating a domain for adult

entertainment could facilitate filtering

while reducing liability risk for those

businesses that register under it.

Likewise, a wide range of credentialed

domains are possible, i.e., domains in

which the registrant warrants that it

meets some standard or in which a third

party authority (e.g., a trade

organization, a licensing agency, a bank)

certifies the identity or characteristics of

the registrant. It may be desirable to

delegate such domains to a certifying

entity, or to an entity that sets and

maintains the standard in the case of

self-certifying registrants. To our

knowledge, no national registry has

attempted such a regime of industry

identifiers or other classifications at the

second or lower levels.

Questions for Public Comment

While the public is free to comment

on any issue related to the .us domain

space, the Department is particularly

interested in receiving input from the

questions provided below:

1. How should the present geographic

structure of .us be extended or

modified? What changes should be

made in RFC 1480 or the posted policies

for .us?

2. What are the benefits and costs of

different options for allocating secondlevel domains under .us? How should

the allocation of such second-level

domains be decided and administered?

What should be the terms of delegation?

3. Specifically, should specialpurpose second-level domains be

created under .us? What are the benefits

and costs of creating particular specialpurpose domains (e.g., industryspecific, credentialing, zoning)? How

should such domains be created and

administered? Are there reasons to map

names and other addressing and

identification systems (e.g., postal

addresses, telephone numbers,

longitude and latitude, uniform resource

numbers or others) into .us?

4. Alternatively, should .us be treated

as an unrestricted top-level domain like

.com or should one or more specific

second-level domains such as .co.us or

.com.us be used for unrestricted

assignment of domain names (as in

.com)? How should such unrestricted

domains be administered and by whom?

5. How should conflicting proposals

and claims to manage or use .us

subdomains be resolved? Who should

have responsibility for coordinating

policy for .us over the long term? What

public oversight, if any, should be

provided?

6. What rules and procedures should

be used to minimize conflicts between

trademarks and domain names under

.us? Should this problem be treated

differently at international, national,

state, and local levels? Should special

privileges be accorded to famous

trademarks, such as a right to register

directly under .us or a procedure to

preempt the use of the trademark in a

range of subdomains?

7. What role should states play in the

allocation and registration of their

respective subdomains? Should

commercial names be permitted under

states as third-level domains? Or should

such third-level domains be limited to

special categories such as domestic

corporations or other state-licensed

entities? Should states and localities

operate registries and accept

registrations directly? To what extent

should state policies be coordinated and

through what mechanisms and

procedures?

8. How well has the system of

delegating third-level domains

(localities) to private registrars on an

exclusive basis worked? How could it be

improved? Should registrars be

accountable to their delegated localities

(just as country-code registries are

accountable to national governments)?

Should registrars be limited to a single

jurisdiction? Should multiple

competing registrars be able to register

under any local, state, or specialpurpose domain under .us as in the plan

proposed for generic Top-Level

Domains?

9. How should the operation of the .us

registry be supported? Should uniform

registration (and renewal) fees be

instituted? Should registrars contribute

to the operation of the registry?

10. What are best management and

allocation practices for country-code

domains? What practices should be

emulated or avoided?

11. By what type of entity should .us

be administered? Private, governmental,

or quasi-governmental? For profit or

not-for-profit? What are the advantages

and disadvantages of using one type of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Notices 41549

entity (private, public, for profit, not-forprofit) over the others?

Kathy Smith,

Acting Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 98–20732 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Amendment of Visa Requirements for

Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber

Textile Products Produced or

Manufactured in the Republic of

Turkey

July 29, 1998.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs amending

visa requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Unger, International Trade Specialist,

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1862, as

amended.

Effective on August 10, 1998, the

existing export visa arrangement

between the Governments of the United

States and Turkey is being amended to

include the coverage of textile products

in Categories 352, 652 and merged

Categories 352/652, produced or

manufactured in Turkey and exported

from Turkey on and after August 10,

1998. As a result, an export visa will be

required for such products.

Merchandise in merged Categories 352/

652 may be accompanied by either the

appropriate merged category visa or the

correct category visa corresponding to

the actual shipment. There will be a

grace period from August 10, 1998

through September 8, 1998 during

which products exported from Turkey

in Categories 352, 652 and 352/652 shall

not be denied entry for lack of a visa.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 62 FR 66057,

published on December 17, 1997). Also

see 52 FR 6859, published on March 5,

1987.

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

July 29, 1998.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on March 2, 1987, as amended,

by the Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements. That

directive concerns export visa requirements

for certain cotton and man-made fiber textile

products, produced or manufactured in

Turkey for which the Government of Turkey

has not issued an appropriate export visa.

Effective on August 10, 1998, you are

directed to require a visa for products in

Categories 352 and 652, produced or

manufactured in Turkey and exported from

Turkey on and after August 10, 1998.

Merchandise in Categories 352 and 652 may

be visaed as merged Categories 352/652 or

the correct category corresponding to the

actual shipment. There will be a grace period

from August 10, 1998 through September 8,

1998 during which products exported from

Turkey in Categories 352, 652 and 352/652

shall not be denied entry for lack of a visa.

Shipments entered or withdrawn from

warehouse according to this directive which

are not accompanied by an appropriate

export visa shall be denied entry and a new

visa must be obtained.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 98–20736 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Science Board Task Force on

National Imagery and Mapping Agency

(NIMA)

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee

meetings.

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board

Task Force on National Imagery and

Mapping Agency (NIMA) will meet in

closed session on July 30–31, 1998 at

SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington,

Virginia. In order for the Task Force to

obtain time sensitive classified

briefings, critical to the understanding

of the issues, this meeting is scheduled

on short notice.

The mission of the Defense Science

Board is to advise the Secretary of

Defense through the Under Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition and Technology

on scientific and technical matters as

they affect the perceived needs of the

Department of Defense. At this meeting

the Task Force will review the

objectives and plans of the National

Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)

to meet the needs of the national and

military intelligence customers as they

enter the 21st Century.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

Pub. L. No. 92–463, as amended (5

U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has been

determined that this DSB Task Force

meeting concerns matters listed in 5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that

accordingly this meeting will be closed

to the public.

Dated: July 28, 1998.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 98–20662 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review;

comment request.

SUMMARY: The Acting Deputy Chief

Information Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer, invites comments

on the submission for OMB review as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on or before

September 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Danny Werfel, Desk Officer,

Department of Education, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th

Street, NW., Room 10235, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503. Requests for copies of the

proposed information collection

requests should be addressed to Patrick

J. Sherrill, Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue, S.W., Room

5624, Regional Office Building 3,

Washington, D.C. 20202–4651.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick J. Sherrill (202) 708–8196.

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information