Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

52990

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
practice quoting 5 U.S.C. 553bA.
In addition, the changes in this interim rule may be made immediately effective because this interim rule is not a substantive rule under 35 U.S.C. 553d.
Moreover, the Office, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553bB, finds good cause to adopt the changes in this interim rule without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, as such procedures would be contrary to the public interest. Delay in the promulgation of this interim rule to provide prior notice and comment procedures would cause harm to those applicants who desire to file a request for Track One prioritized examination with a new application or request for continued examination. Immediate implementation of the changes in this interim rule is in the public interest because: 1 The public does not need time to conform its conduct, as the changes in this interim rule do not add any additional requirement for requesting prioritized examination of an application; and 2 those applicants who would otherwise be ineligible for prioritized examination will benefit from the immediate implementation of the changes in this interim rule. See Natl Customs Brokers & Forwarders Assn of Am., Inc. v. United States, 59
F.3d 1219, 122324 Fed. Cir. 1995. In addition, pursuant to authority at 5
U.S.C. 553d3, the Office finds good cause to adopt the changes in this interim rule without the 30-day delay in effectiveness as such delay would be contrary to the public interest.
Immediate implementation of the changes in this interim rule is in the public interest because: 1 The public does not need time to conform its conduct, as the changes in this interim rule do not add any additional requirement for requesting prioritized examination of an application; and 2
those applicants who would otherwise be ineligible for prioritized examination will benefit from the immediate implementation of the changes in this interim rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
C. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review: This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 Sept. 30, 1993.
D. Executive Order 13563 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review: The Office has complied with Executive
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Sep 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

Order 13563 Jan. 18, 2011.
Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: 1 Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; 2 tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; 3 selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; 4 specified performance objectives; 5 identified and assessed available alternatives; 6 involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole, and provided online access to the rulemaking docket;
7 attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across Government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; 8 considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and 9 ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.
E. Executive Order 13132
Federalism: This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 Aug. 4, 1999.
F. Executive Order 13175 Tribal Consultation: This rulemaking will not:
1 Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, 2 impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, or 3
preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175
Nov. 6, 2000.
G. Executive Order 13211 Energy Effects: This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211
May 18, 2001.
H. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform: This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3a and 3b2 of Executive Order 12988 Feb. 5, 1996.
I. Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children: This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 Apr. 21, 1997.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

J. Executive Order 12630 Taking of Private Property: This rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 Mar. 15, 1988.
K. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., prior to issuing any final rule, the USPTO will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this rulemaking are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to result in a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 8042.
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million as adjusted or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of $100 million as adjusted or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
M. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995: The requirements of section 12d of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 15 U.S.C.
272 note are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of technical standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. requires that the Office consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection
E:FRFM24SER1.SGM

24SER1