70888 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Notices

7. How should the issue of moral

rights be treated, both in relation to

current and future industry practices

and past fixed performances not

protected by this Instrument? Should

they be waivable or transferable? Has

the Basic Proposal addressed concerns

adequately? Would any additional

language be helpful in clarifying U.S.

current practices?

8. One mechanism for indicating a

consensus in the WCT and WPPT where

treaty language was not appropriate was

the Agreed Statement. What, if any,

Agreed Statements would be desirable

to use to augment the Basic Proposal?

In your response, please include the

following: (1) Clearly identify the matter

being addressed; (2) provide examples,

where appropriate, of the matter being

addressed; (3) identify, if possible, any

relevant legal authorities applicable to

the matter being addressed; and (4)

provide suggestions regarding how the

matter should be addressed by the

United States.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Q. Todd Dickinson,

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual

Property and Director of the United States

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 00–30331 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Final Environmental Assessment (EA)

and Finding of No Significant Impact

(FNSI) for BRAC 95 Disposal and

Reuse of East Fort Baker, California

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Public

Law 101–510 (as amended), and the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Act of 1990, the Defense Base Closure

and Realignment Commission

recommended the closure of East Fort

Baker, California.

The Final EA evaluates the

environmental impacts of the disposal

and subsequent reuse of the 91-acre

installation. Enactment of the Golden

Gate National Recreation Area Act

(Public Law 92–589) requiring that,

when the Department of Defense

determined that it no longer had a need

for East Fort Baker, the property would

transfer to the jurisdiction of the

Secretary of the Interior. Disposal of

East Fort Baker to the Secretary of the

Interior will allow the property to be

reused in accordance with the National

Park Service’s Proposed Plan. Pursuant

to the National Environmental Policy

Act, the National Park Service prepared

a final environmental impact statement

(EIS) that examined and analyzed the

environmental impacts of the Proposed

Plan and its alternatives. This final EIS

has been incorporated by reference into

the Army’s disposal and reuse EA. The

only other alternative examined by the

Army was the no action alternative.

Under the no action alternative, the

Army would not dispose of property,

but would maintain it in a caretaker

status for an indefinite period. Based on

the environmental analysis documented

in the EA, the Army has determined that

the proposed disposal action would

have no significant direct, indirect or

cumulative impact on the natural or

human environment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before December 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the EA may be

obtained by writing to Mr. Jerry Fuentes,

Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District,

Environmental Resources Branch, 1325

J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jerry Fuentes at (916) 557–7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice

of Intent (NOI) declaring the Army’s

intent to prepare an EA for the closure

of East Fort Baker was published in the

Federal Register on September 22, 1995

(60 FR 49264).

The Final EA and FNSI are available

for review at the Marin County Free

Library, Marin County Civic Center, San

Rafael, CA 94903 and the Sausalito

Public Library, 420 Litho, Sausalito, CA

94965.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Raymond J. Fatz,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health), OASA (I&E).

[FR Doc. 00–30180 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.

SUMMARY: The Acting Leader,

Regulatory Information Management

Group, 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

December 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Acting

Desk Officer, Department of Education,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503 or should be electronically

mailed to the internet address

LaurenlWittenberg@omb.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires

that the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) provide interested

Federal agencies and the public an early

opportunity to comment on information

collection requests. OMB may amend or

waive the requirement for public

consultation to the extent that public

participation in the approval process

would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations. The Acting

Leader, Regulatory Information

Management Group, Office of the Chief

Information Officer, publishes that

notice containing proposed information

collection requests prior to submission

of these requests to OMB. Each

proposed information collection,

grouped by office, contains the

following: (1) Type of review requested,

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of

the collection; (4) Description of the

need for, and proposed use of, the

information; (5) Respondents and

frequency of collection; and (6)

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping

burden. OMB invites public comment.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

William Burrow,

Acting Leader, Regulatory Information

Management, Office of the Chief Information

Officer.

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services

Type of Review: New.

Title: National Longitudinal

Transition Study-2 (NLTS–2) Survey

Package.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour

Burden:

Responses: 18,977

Burden Hours: 7,843

Abstract: NLTS2 will provide

nationally representative information

about youth with disabilities in

secondary school and in transition to

adult life, including their

characteristics, programs and services

and achievements in multiple domains