Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices 65841

Species Covered in This Notice

The following species are covered in

this notice:

Sea Turtles

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas)

Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys

kempii)

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys

coriacea)

Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)

Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys

imbricata)

Fish

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser

brevirostrum).

New Applications Received

Application 1268: The applicant

requests a 5-year permit to continue to

maintain 1 adult shortnose sturgeon in

captivity for enhancement purposes.

The applicant currently possesses an

adult shortnose sturgeon received from

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

hatchery at Bears Bluff, SC in February

1997, under scientific research permit

ι986. Permit 986 will expire on

December 31, 2000, and the permit

holder does not wish to renew the

enhancement aspects of his permit. As

a direct result, the National Aquarium

in Baltimore is applying for an

individual permit to continue

maintenance of this fish.

Permits Issued

Notice was published on August 3,

2000 (65 FR 47715), that an application

had been filed by NCDMF for an

incidental take permit. Permit 1259 was

issued to NCDMF on October 5, 2000.

Permit 1259 authorizes the incidental

take of threatened loggerhead and green

sea turtles and endangered Kemp’s

ridley, hawksbill, and leatherback sea

turtles. NCDMF’s covered activities

include the management of the fall 2000

season of the large mesh gillnet fishery

in a specified area in southeastern

Pamlico Sound and the prosecution of

that fishery by North Carolina fishermen

in compliance with NCDMF’s

implementing regulations. The activities

are described in NCDMF’s June 21,

2000, permit application and

conservation plan (plan) and the

associated Draft Environmental

Assessment (EA), Final EA and Finding

of No Significant Impact, and the

permit. Issuance of the permit was

based on a finding that NCDMF had met

the permit issuance criteria of 50 CFR

222.307(c). Permit 125 9 was effective

upon issuance and expires on December

16, 2000.

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Craig Johnson,

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28155 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 101200C]

Marine Mammals; File No. 376-1520-01

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit amendment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr.

James H.W. Hain, Holder/Principal

Investigator, Associated Scientists of

Woods Hole, Box 721, 3 Water Street,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, has

been issued an amendment to permit

no. 376-1520 to take marine mammals

for purposes of scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related

documents are available for review

upon written request or by appointment

in the following office(s):

Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,

Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-

2289);

Regional Administrator, Northeast

Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive,

Gloucester, MA 01930, (978/281-9250);

and

Regional Administrator, Southeast

Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center

Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-

2432 (813/570-5312).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Simona Roberts or Ruth Johnson, 301/

713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

23, 1999, Notice was published in the

Federal Register (64 FR 33470) that a

request for a scientific research permit

to take various cetacean species, harbor

and grey seals, and sea turtles during

aerial/vessel surveys, collect stomach

contents and baleen, and conduct

passive acoustic activities had been

submitted by the above-named

individual. A modified version of the

permit request was issued on March 20,

2000 under authority of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the

Regulations Governing the Taking and

Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR

part 216), the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.), and the regulations governing

the taking, importing, and exporting of

endangered and threatened species (50

CFR parts 222-227). The take of right

whales, sea turtles, and stomach

contents/baleen was not issued in the

original permit.

This amendment now authorizes the

permit holder to conduct aerial surveys

and behavioral studies on right whales

in the western North Atlantic Ocean

from a blimp platform at a minimum

altitude of 500 feet directly above and

a minimum altitude of 350 feet slant

range. The expiration date has also been

extended to March 31, 2005.

Issuance of this amendment, as

required by the ESA, was based on a

finding that such permit (1) was applied

for in good faith, (2) will not operate to

the disadvantage of the endangered

species which is the subject of this

permit, and (3) is consistent with the

purposes and policies set forth in

section 2 of the ESA.

Dated: October 26, 2000.

Ann D. Terbush,

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28157 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 051500C]

Guidelines for Economic Analysis of

Fishery Management Actions

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Guidelines for Economic

Analysis of Fishery Management

Actions (Guidelines) provide guidance

on meeting the procedural and

analytical requirements of Executive

Order (E.O.) 12866 and the Regulatory

Flexibility Act(RFA)for regulatory

actions of federally managed fisheries.

Specifically, the guidelines include a

general framework for conducting

economic analyses of regulatory actions;

recommend that a preliminary

regulatory economic evaluation be

conducted early in the regulatory

process to provide information on the

impacts of proposed measures to the

public and decision makers; outline the

process for doing the regulatory impact

65842 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices

review for meeting analytical

requirements, including information

requirements, analytical procedures,

and methodologies; outline the steps for

fulfilling the requirements of the RFA;

discuss the relationship of the RFA to

other applicable law; and identify ways

of involving small entities in the

rulemaking process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theo R. Brainerd, 301-713-2337.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The objective of E.O. 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) is to improve

the Federal regulatory system. NMFS

complies with E.O. 12866 by preparing

a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) which

includes an analysis of the economic

effects of the proposed action and

alternative actions. The RIR is intended

to assist Councils and the NMFS in

selecting the regulatory approach that

maximizes net benefits (including

potential economic, environmental,

public health and safety, and other

advantages; distributive impacts, and

equity issues), unless a statute requires

another regulatory approach.

The purpose of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) is to establish as a principle of

regulatory issuance that agencies shall

endeavor, consistent with the objectives

of the regulatory action and applicable

statutes, to fit regulatory and

informational requirements to the scale

of businesses, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to

the regulation. NMFS conducts a

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

(RFAA) to assess the impacts of the

proposed/final rule on small entities

and describes steps the agency has taken

to minimize any significant economic

impact on small entities while achieving

regulatory goals.

In comparison to the previous RIR/

RFAA guidelines, these guidelines:

Incorporate the revisions to the RFA

made by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Act;

Revise the basis the agency will use

to certify that a proposed regulation will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities;

Place greater emphasis on the need for

the Regional Fishery Management

Councils and NMFS to have draft

analyses early in the Fishery

Management Plan (FMP) development

process and final analyses available

prior to a decision on the preferred

course of action. These analyses would

also be a source of information for

public comment on the expected effects

of the alternatives under consideration;

Provide recommendations concerning

key topic areas and organization for the

regulatory analyst to consider when

developing and revising the regulatory

analysis;

Based on the growing regulatory

emphasis on protected resources and

habitat, recommend that analysts

highlight, where appropriate, the effects

on the non-consumptive uses of fishery,

other living marine resources, and the

ecological benefits derived from these

resources and their habitats; and

Incorporate changes based on

comments from the public.

Comments on Draft Guidelines for

Economic Analysis of Fishery

Management Actions

By the final date (June 21, 2000) for

receiving comments on the draft

guidelines, 36 comments were received.

Comment 1: The NMFS guidelines

failed to follow the letter and spirit of

the RFA and E.O. 12866.

Response: The guidelines addressed

all applicable requirements of the RFA

and E.O. 12866. The requirements are

outlined in detail, and a stepwise

approach to meeting those requirements

is provided in the guidelines. Most of

the comments received indicated that

the guidelines provide clear and concise

guidance to analysts and set the stage

for improving the quality of economic

analyses of regulatory actions. The

Office of Advocacy at the U. S. Small

Business Administration (SBA)

reviewed the draft guidelines and

provided comments. Those comments

were incorporated into the final version

of the revised guidelines.

Comment 2: Two commenters

expressed concern that the effects of

fishery regulations on the recreational

sector will not be given adequate

attention.

Response: The guidelines state the

importance of considering the impacts

of management measures on all sectors

of the industry, including recreational

and non-consumptive users to the

extent that available data permit. All

sectors affected are considered to be

equally important in terms of

conducting the economic impact

analysis. NMFS is constantly working to

improve its data and analytical methods

for each sector so that future analyses of

management actions can be enhanced.

Comment 3: Small entities affected

must include all participants, not only

those of the commercial fishing sector

but also those of the recreational fishing

sector. The guidelines take the position

that only economic effects on the

commercial sector must be included in

economic analysis (RFAA) to comply

with the RFA.

Response: The guidelines refer to

small entities as defined by the SBA.

These include all small entities whether

commercial, recreational, or otherwise.

RFA analyses of management actions

will encompass all the small entities to

which the rule will apply.

Comment 4: The statement: ‘‘The

RFAA need only analyze the economic

impacts on small entities to which the

proposed rule will apply’’ is not true.

Response: Section 603(b)(3) of the

RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) refers to the

small entities to which the rule will

apply. However, other analyses will

examine a rule’s effects on other entities

outside the ambit of the RFA. The

analysis of the economic impacts on

small entities whether they are directly

affected, or indirectly affected by the

proposed rule are to be analyzed.

Comment 5: Two commenters agreed

with the approach to provide

preliminary economic analyses of the

impacts of proposed actions early in the

process, but stress that such analyses

should be available to the public in

sufficient time to provide comments.

This could enable resolution of

weaknesses in the analyses due to

missing or incomplete data among other

things.

Response: NMFS encourages early

presentation of economic analyses so

that weaknesses and missing or

incomplete data can be identified. In so

doing, NMFS hopes that efforts can be

made early in the process to address

those issues. The guidelines recommend

that the preliminary economic analyses

should be included in the public

hearing document. The public hearing

process provides the public with its first

opportunity to review the alternatives

and to submit comments on the analyses

of those alternatives. In addition, the

public has opportunity to comment

during public comment period at

Council meetings before final actions

are taken, and during comment period

when the proposed rules are published

in the Federal Register. In certain

instances, the Councils may request

public comment during the

development of the public hearing

document.

Comment 6: Although annual gross

sales (revenues) could appear large, net

revenues could be much less compared

to similar size businesses in other

industries. Analyses should focus on net

revenues.

Response: NMFS agrees with this

suggestion. Analyses usually attempt to

calculate and consider net revenues

when cost and revenue data are

available. However, cost data are not

available for most fisheries. NMFS is

taking steps to collect cost data for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices 65843

federally managed fisheries. As more

cost data become available, more of the

analyses will focus on computing net

revenues.

Comment 7: Differential impacts on

subsets within the fishing industry

should be considered even when a

subset does not comprise a significant

number.

Response: NMFS agrees with this

suggestion. The guidelines recommend

creation of separate classes of entities

for doing the analysis when a regulatory

action is expected to have differential

impacts based on the sizes of entities

and other characteristics. The guidelines

recommend that tiering by size or by

other appropriate characteristics be

done when differential impacts are

expected on subgroups of affected small

entities.

Comment 8: The certification process

(certifying that proposed action would

not result in significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities) tends to mask the cumulative

effects of regulatory actions on a large

segment of the fishing industry.

Cumulative effects should be analyzed

where possible. There are some routine

management actions that could be

considered as good candidates for

certification.

Response: The guidelines recommend

that conceptual and empirical analyses

should explicitly account for the

management history in a fishery by

reviewing past regulatory activities and

trends. It is expected that this approach

would incorporate cumulative effects of

management measures. Also, the

guidelines recommend that certification

only be done when the economic

analysis of the proposed action provides

adequate information on the expected

impacts.

Comment 9: Pareto criteria and

Hicksian Compensation criteria are

strictly efficiency-based and do not

attempt to make equity or distributional

judgements, but merely indicate if the

overall pie is getting bigger or not,

regardless of who wins or losses. The

footnote on Page 10, Section IV.1 of the

draft guidelines is inappropriate within

the context that distribution is being

raised in the text. One needs to point

out that distributive implications of

alternatives can and should be

determined. These distributive

implications can then be weighed along

with the net benefit results by the

regulatory authorities.

Response: The guidelines have been

revised to better reflect that economic

analysis should provide a quantitative

or qualitative estimate of changes in net

benefits expressed in monetary terms.

The guidelines indicate that it is

desirable to show how the benefits and

costs may be distributed among the

various impacted sectors / entities if the

appropriate data and analytical methods

are available. Presentation of other

measures of distributional effects such

as changes in shares of harvest or

revenues are encouraged.

Comment 10: There is need to provide

more guidance on conducting analyses

involving non-use values. It would be

useful to include an addendum to the

guidelines that addresses both

methodological and application

considerations especially with regard to

Essential Fish Habitat and MPA related

actions, as a temporary solution.

Response: Section IV of the guidelines

provides recommendations for

computing non-use values and includes

three techniques (travel cost, stated

preference, and hedonic pricing) for

computing non-use values even though

it is indicated in section III that the

guidelines do not prescribe methods.

Also, the list of references at the end of

the guidelines includes references on

non-use valuation techniques.

Comment 11: Willingness to Accept

(WTA) can be used instead of

Willingness To Pay. For example, WTA

compensation for a loss of a fishing

permit.

Response: The concept of WTA has

been included in the revised guidelines

to reflect that WTA may be preferable in

certain situations when valuing market

or non-market goods.

Comment 12: The agency should

consider existence value for

endangered/threatened species.

Response: Existence value is

discussed under non-market value in

section IV. Where appropriate, existence

value may be considered for species,

including those covered under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Comment 13: The guidelines should

mention IMPLAN as a useful package

for doing input-output analyses.

Response: There are a number of

software packages available for doing

input-output analysis. Analysts can

utilize any package they are familiar

with. It is not the agency’s policy to

promote a particular brand of product.

Comment 14: In addition to intergenerational equity and fairness issues,

irreversibility needs to be addressed.

The following sentence should be

included: ‘‘In addition, discounting of

actions intended to prevent irreversible

impacts, such as habitat damage, might

also include applying techniques that

escalate the future value of an

environmental asset over time.’’

Response: The revised guidelines

provide a discussion on the issue of

irreversibility.

Comment 15: NMFS should use focus

groups to obtain real world perspective

when data is lacking and when the

analysis is mainly qualitative.

Response: NMFS notes the comment.

NMFS and the Councils may use focus

groups when appropriate.

Comment 16: Most of NMFS

regulations are reactive to crisis

situations. They do not allow for well

documented use of analytical methods

to indicate impacts. NMFS can become

more pro-active.

Response: The purpose of the

guidelines is not to discuss the reasons

for proposing regulations, but to provide

guidance on how to conduct economic

analyses to meet the requirements of the

RFA and E.O. 12866; i.e., to analyze the

expected impacts of the proposed

regulations.

Comment 17: The guidelines should

emphasize the distinction between the

RIR and RFAA and should address the

issues under each decisional rubric.

Response: The guidelines clearly

indicate where the requirements of the

RFA and E.O. 12866 overlap and where

they differ. For each of the requirements

under the RFA and E.O. 12866, specific

guidance is provided on how to conduct

economic analyses to meet those

requirements.

Comment 18: The weight given to

non-consumptive uses could

overshadow impacts on fishermen. The

guidelines should emphasize that the

public derives important benefit from

being able to purchase seafood at stores

and that there is a separate existence

value for the U.S. seafood industry.

Response: The guidelines support the

use of existence value when it is

appropriate to address the issue. Also,

the guidelines recommend computing

producer and consumer surpluses to

capture all costs and benefits for traded

goods. Consumer surplus captures the

value consumers put on the availability

of seafood products. As noted in

Comment 2, all sectors affected should

be considered in a complete, objective,

and balanced way when conducting

economic impact analyses.

Comment 19: Information

requirements should include

consideration of the cumulative

economic and social effects of

regulations.

Response: The guidelines stress the

need for considering cumulative

impacts and include suggestions on how

to assess cumulative impacts.

Comment 20: The analyst could ‘‘back

fill’’ a framework adjustment measure

with economic and social justifications,

rather than conduct a full and fair

analysis during the actual decisionmaking process.

65844 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices

Response: The guidelines outline the

steps for doing the economic analyses

before NMFS or the Councils take final

actions. The guidelines specifically

address framework measures and the

need to ensure that regulatory actions

under a framework are adequately

analyzed.

Comment 21: The statement that the

RFA does not contain any decisional

criterion is untrue.

Response: This statement refers to the

fact that the RFA does not require that

the least costly alternative or the

alternative with the highest benefits be

selected. The RFA requires that the

agency considers a range of suitable

alternatives, and if a rejected alternative

would have a lower impact on small

entities than the chosen alternative,

justify why it chose that alternative over

the rejected alternative.

Comment 22: NMFS must find a way

to obtain reliable cost information if it

expects to do rigorous profitability

analyses.

Response: The purpose of the

guidelines is not to design methods for

collecting data, but to give guidance on

how to utilize data to do the economic

analyses. However, NMFS is currently

collecting cost data for some fisheries

and is making effort to expand cost data

collection to include more federally

managed fisheries.

Comment 23: NMFS must explore

innovative alternatives to minimize

impact on small entities while meeting

the goals and objectives of management.

Response: The analyst does not

decide on the alternatives to be

included in the regulatory document. As

such, the guidelines make no suggestion

on what should be suitable alternatives,

except that the no action alternative

must be considered and should be the

baseline from which other alternatives

are assessed. However, the Councils and

NMFS are required to explore a range of

alternatives that are consistent with the

goals and objectives of the FMP, and

select alternatives that minimize

impacts on small entities. The

guidelines provide four examples of the

types of alternatives that could be used

to minimize impact on small entities

while meeting the goals and objectives

of management.

Comment 24: The contents of the

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA) need to be expanded to include

an explanation of why NMFS chose a

particular alternative and should

include additional consideration of

economic, social and regulatory impacts

discovered in public comment on the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Response: The FRFA section of the

RFAA is structured to meet the

requirements of Section 604 of the RFA

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The guidelines for

preparing the FRFA address all the

suggestions made by the commenter.

Comment 25: The current form of the

guidelines is likely too general to be

useful for practitioners.

Response: The guidelines are

primarily written for analysts to aid

them in performing economic analyses

of regulatory actions while taking into

account the wide array of actions for

different fisheries under management. It

is also written so that it is intelligible to

managers, policy makers and to the

public in general.

Comment 26: ‘‘Efficiency’’ should be

explained in the context of fishery

management.

Response: Section IV of the guidelines

emphasizes estimating the changes in

benefits and costs associated with each

alternative to the status quo. This

incremental or marginal approach is

intended to capture differences in

efficiency among the alternatives.

However, because increased efficiency

is not the sole objective of management

actions, the guidelines do not

emphasize the conditions necessary for

an efficient allocation of resources. The

guidelines include references to the

relevant literature on benefit-cost

analysis and efficiency.

Comment 27: Appendix C of Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

Circular No. A-94 (revised January 2000)

states that OMB officially recommends

the use of real discount rates in the

range of 3.8 - 4.2 percent. The

guidelines should state clearly that

analysts should refer to OMB Circular

for the current rate schedule and future

adjustments to the schedule.

Response: The guidelines indicate

that the OMB has provided ‘‘Guidelines

and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost

Analysis of Federal Programs’’ in

Circular No. A-94 distributed by

Transmittal Memorandum No. 64

(October 29, 1992). This Circular

specifies certain discount rates that will

be updated annually when the interest

rate and inflation assumptions in the

budget are changed. It also specifies

(section 8.b.1) a real discount rate of 7.0

percent for computing net present value

when doing constant-dollar benefit-cost

analyses of proposed investments and

regulations. The rates presented in

appendix C of OMB Circular No. A-94

do not apply to regulatory analysis or

benefit-cost analysis of public

investment. They are to be used for

lease-purchase and cost-effectiveness

analysis, as specified in the Circular.

This information about appendix C is

provided in: ‘‘Memorandum for the

Heads of Departments and Agencies’’of

February 9, 2000 (M-00-06, 2000

Discount Rates for OMB Circular No. A94) and can be obtained at: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/

memoranda/m00-06.html

Comment 28: Analyses should take

cost effects into consideration.

Response: Under ‘‘Changes in the

distribution of benefits and costs’’ in

section IV.1 of the Guidelines, details

are provided on how to account for

changes in benefits and costs in the

analyses. Also, under ‘‘Information

Requirements’’ in section IV.3, 14

factors are listed for which information

should be collected to do the required

analyses when relevant. Three of these

factors are: expected changes in

harvesting costs, processing costs, and

benefits or costs incurred by specific

user groups.

Comment 29: The section on ‘‘Net

benefits within a benefit cost

framework’’ is confusing and should

include a graph illustrating the different

surplus measures.

Response: This section has been

revised and now provides clear

guidance on how to measure benefits

and costs within a benefit-cost

framework.

Comment 30: There needs to be more

guidance for conducting sensitivity

analysis.

Response: The guidelines describe

three fundamental types of analyses the

analysts could employ, if appropriate, to

deal with risk and uncertainty. They

are: (1) a qualitative description of the

areas of risk and uncertainty when

reliable data or analytical models are

unavailable; (2) a formal sensitivity

analysis in which the important

parameters are systematically varied

and the impact on expected economic

effects evaluated; and (3) a formal risk

analysis through techniques such as

Monte Carlo simulation.

Comment 31: The ‘‘Summary of

Expected Economic Effects’’ section

should include a sample schedule that

illustrates how this might look in a

particular policy assessment (e.g. quota

level) to further aid the analyst.

Response: This section only presents

a summary (as a checklist) of how the

results of the analysis should be

presented. The sample schedule referred

to would be appropriate in a

practitioners manual which could be

developed at a later date.

Comment 32: The section on ‘‘Period

of Analysis’’ is unsatisfactory. It should

include more examples on how various

factors, such as the reproductive rate of

fish stock and capital mobility and

malleability, affect the relevant time

frame of the analysis.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices 65845

Response: Specific guidance on the

period of analysis is not appropriate

because of the vast differences in the

characteristics of fisheries and the

variety of management measures. A

thorough knowledge of the particular

fishery under consideration, and the

nature of the proposed management

measures and other relevant factors (as

stated in the guidelines), must be

considered before determining the

appropriate period for the analysis.

Comment 33: The current section on

‘‘Risk and Uncertainty’’ does not

emphasize the importance of providing

a range of benefit-cost estimates as

opposed to point estimates to the

Councils.

Response: In addition to identifying

three types of analyses to deal with risk

and uncertainty, the guidelines state

that the use of conservative or best

estimates, or the use of a risk premium

added to the social discount rate is not

recommended.

Electronic Access

A copy of the revised guidelines is

available through the internet at: http:/

/www.nmfs.gov/sfa/ under ‘‘Proposed &

Final Rules, and Documents for Public

Comment.’’

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Clarence Pautzke,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28153 Filed 11–01–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND

TRADEMARK OFFICE

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

The United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO) has

resubmitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

clearance the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

AGENCY: United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO).

Title: Post Allowance and Refiling.

Form Numbers: PTO/SB/44/50/51/

51S/52/53/54/55/56/57/58 and PTOL–

85B.

Agency Approval Number: 0651–

0033.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Burden: 51,593.5 hours.

Number of Respondents: 172,475

responses.

Avg. Hours Per Response: The USPTO

estimates that it will take the public

approximately two hours to gather,

prepare, and submit a request for inter

partes reexamination of a patent. The

USPTO estimates that it will take the

public anywhere from 1.8 minutes to

two hours, depending on the complexity

of the situation, to gather, prepare, and

submit the documents associated with a

request for a certificate of correction,

reissue application, request for ex parte

reexamination of a patent, and issue fee

transmittal. These estimates are

unchanged from the last renewal of this

information collection package on

September 24, 1997.

Needs and Uses: This collection of

information is required to administer

the patent law pursuant to title 35,

U.S.C., concerning the issuance of

patents and related actions including

correcting errors in printed patents,

refiling of patent applications,

requesting ex parte or inter partes

reexamination of a patent, and

requesting a reissue patent to correct an

error in a patent.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households, businesses or other forprofit, not-for-profit institutions, farms,

Federal Government, and State, local or

tribal governments.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker

(202) 395–3897.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Susan K. Brown,

Records Officer, Data Administration

Division, Office of Data Management,

United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Crystal Park 3, 3rd Floor, Suite

310, Washington, D.C. 20231, by phone

at (703) 308–7400, or via the Internet at

(susan.brown@uspto.gov).

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent

within 30 days of publication to David

Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room

10236, New Executive Office Building,

725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC

20503.

Dated: October 25, 2000.

Susan K. Brown,

Records Officer, Data Administration

Division, Office of Data Management.

[FR Doc. 00–28067 filed 11–1–00; 8:45 a.m.]

BILLING CODE: 3510–16–P

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

Notice of Meeting

The next meeting of the Commission

of Fine Arts is scheduled for 16

November 2000 at 10 a.m., in the

Commission’s offices at the National

Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary

Square, 441 F Street, NW., Washington,

DC 20001–2728. Items of discussion

affecting the appearance of Washington,

D.C., may include buildings, parks and

memorials.

Draft agendas are available to the

public one week prior to the meeting.

Inquiries regarding the agenda and

requests to submit written or oral

statements should be addressed to

Charles H. Atherton, Secretary,

Commission of Fine Arts, at the above

address or call 202–504–2200.

Individuals requiring sign language

interpretation for the hearing impaired

should contact the Secretary at least 10

days before the meeting date.

Dated in Washington, DC, 30 October 2000.

Charles H. Atherton,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–28169 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330–01–M

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Request for Public Comments on

Cambodian Labor Law and Standards

Pursuant to the U.S.-Cambodia

Bilateral Textile Agreement

October 31, 2000.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Notice concerning Cambodian

labor law and standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Unger, International Trade Specialist,

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212. For information on categories for

which consultations have been

requested, call (202) 482–3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural

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

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as

amended.

A notice and letter to the

Commissioner of Customs published in

the Federal Register on February 8,

1999 (see 64 FR 6050) outlined the

bilateral textile agreement of January 20,

1999 in which the Governments of the

United States and Cambodia agreed to