Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81123 

Because no general notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required for this 

amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 

601(2). 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4044 

Employee benefit plans, Pension 

insurance, Pensions. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 

CFR part 4044 is amended as follows: 

PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF 

ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4044 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 

1341, 1344, 1362. 

■ 2. In appendix B to part 4044, add an 

entry for ‘‘January–March 2021’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest 

Rates Used to Value Benefits 

* * * * * 

For valuation dates occurring in the month— 

The values of it are: 

it for t = it for t = it for t = 

*******

January–March 2021 ........................................................ 0.0169 1–20 0.0166 >20 N/A N/A 

Issued in Washington, DC, by: 

Hilary Duke, 

Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory 

Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27377 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. PTO–T–2019–0027] 

RIN 0651–AD42 

Trademark Fee Adjustment 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date. 

SUMMARY: On November 17, 2020, the 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (USPTO) published in the 

Federal Register a final rule on setting 

and adjusting trademark fees that is 

scheduled to go into effect on January 2, 

2021. This final rule changes the 

effective date of one fee paid by 

international applicants under the 

Madrid Protocol from January 2, 2021, 

to February 18, 2021. 

DATES: The effective date of 37 CFR 

2.6(a)(1)(ii), amended at 85 FR 73197, 

November 17, 2020, is delayed from 

January 2, 2021, to February 18, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Trademark 

Examination Policy, at 571–272–8946, 

or by email at TMPolicy@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

USPTO published a final rule (85 FR 

73197, Nov. 17, 2020) that set or 

adjusted certain trademark fees, as 

authorized by the Leahy-Smith America 

Invents Act, as amended by the Study 

of Underrepresented Classes Chasing 

Engineering and Science Success Act of 

2018. Those fee changes allow the 

USPTO to continue to recover the 

prospective aggregate costs of strategic 

and operational trademark and 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 

goals (based on workload projections 

included in the USPTO fiscal year 2021 

Congressional Justification), including 

associated administrative costs, and to 

further USPTO strategic objectives by 

better aligning fees with costs, 

protecting the integrity of the trademark 

register, improving the efficiency of 

agency processes, and ensuring 

financial sustainability to facilitate 

effective trademark operations. 

Among the changes in the November 

17, 2020 final rule, the USPTO amended 

the fee at 37 CFR 2.6(a)(1)(ii) addressing 

applications under section 66(a) of the 

Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1141f. This 

fee, paid by international applicants 

designating the United States under the 

World Intellectual Property 

Organization’s (WIPO) Protocol Relating 

to the Madrid Agreement Concerning 

the International Registration of Marks 

(Madrid Protocol), is set to increase 

from $400 to $500. 

This final rule delays the effective 

date of the change to § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) 

because the treaty requires three months 

advance notice to WIPO, which then 

alerts international applicants, before an 

increase in the amount of the 

international application/subsequent 

designation fee can enter into force. On 

November 18, 2020, the USPTO 

provided WIPO with the required notice 

of the change to § 2.6(a)(1)(ii). Thus, the 

effective date of § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) is delayed 

from January 2, 2021, to February 18, 

2021, three months following the 

notification. 

Rulemaking Requirements 

A. Administrative Procedure Act: This 

final rule revises the effective date of 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(ii). This action relates to the 

setting or adjusting of trademark fees 

and is a rule of agency practice and 

procedure and/or an interpretive rule 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). See JEM 

Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 32 (D.C. 

Cir. 1994) (‘‘[T]he ‘critical feature’ of the 

procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A)] ‘is that it covers agency 

actions that do not themselves alter the 

rights or interests of parties, although 

[they] may alter the manner in which 

the parties present themselves or their 

viewpoints to the agency.’ ’’ (quoting 

Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 

(D.C. Cir. 1980))); see also Bachow 

Commc’ns Inc. v. F.C.C., 237 F.3d 683, 

690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an 

application process are procedural 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 

244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules 

for handling appeals were procedural 

where they did not change the 

substantive standard for reviewing 

claims). Accordingly, prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment are not 

required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or 

(c) (or any other law). See Cooper Techs. 

Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–37 

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 

553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do 

not require notice and comment 

rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative rules, 

general statements of policy, or rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice’’ (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). 

Moreover, the Director of the USPTO, 

pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B) and (d)(1), finds good cause to 

adopt the change in this final rule 

without prior notice and an opportunity 

for public comment or a 30-day delay in 

effectiveness, as such procedures would 

be impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest. Immediate 

implementation of the change to the 

81124 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

1Public Law 109–435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006). 

2Order on the Findings and Determination of the 

39 U.S.C. 3622 Review, December 1, 2017 (Order 

No. 4257). 

3Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the System 

for Regulating Rates and Classes for Market 

Dominant Products, December 1, 2017 (Order No. 

4258), 82 FR 58280 (December 11, 2017). 

4Revised Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

December 5, 2019 (Order No. 5337), 84 FR 67685 

(December 11, 2019). 

effective date of § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) is in the 

public interest because it will allow the 

USPTO to meet its obligation under the 

Madrid Protocol to provide three 

months advance notice to WIPO and to 

international applicants of any changes 

to international application/subsequent 

designation fees. A delay of this final 

rule to provide prior notice and 

comment procedures and a delay in 

effectiveness are impracticable because 

they would allow the change to 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(ii) to go into effect before the 

agency has provided WIPO with the 

required three-month advance notice, 

thereby defeating the purpose of this 

rulemaking. Therefore, the Director 

finds there is good cause to waive notice 

and comment procedures and the 30- 

day delay in effectiveness for this 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 Act analysis nor a 

certification under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is 

required and none have been prepared. 

See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

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 13771 (Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs): This rule is not an Executive 

Order 13771 regulatory action because 

this rule is not significant under 

Executive Order 12866 (Jan. 30, 2017). 

Andrei Iancu, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27564 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Parts 3030, 3040, 3045, 3050, 

and 3055 

[Docket No. RM2017–3; Order No. 5763] 

System for Regulating Market 

Dominant Rates and Classifications 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting 

final rules modifying the system for 

regulating rates and classifications for 

Market Dominant products. The revised 

rules incorporate feedback from 

comments received from the 

Commission’s prior proposed 

rulemaking. The rules as adopted are 

intended to enable the Market Dominant 

rate making system to achieve certain 

statutory objectives. 

DATES: Effective: January 14, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: For additional information, 

Order No. 5763 can be accessed 

electronically through the Commission’s 

website at https://www.prc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Relevant Statutory Requirements 

II. Background 

III. Basis and Purpose of Final Rules 

I. Relevant Statutory Requirements 

The Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA),1 directed the 

Commission to promulgate rules 

establishing a ratemaking system for 

Market Dominant products within 18 

months after the law’s enactment, which 

the Commission did in 2007. See 39 

U.S.C. 3622(a); Docket No. RM2007–1. 

Section 3622(d)(3) of title 39 of the 

United States Code requires the 

Commission to review the ratemaking 

system 10 years after the PAEA’s 

enactment to determine if the system 

has achieved the 9 statutory objectives 

as specified by the PAEA, taking into 

account the 14 statutory factors. 39 

U.S.C. 3622(b), (c), and (d)(3). After 

making its determination that the 

ratemaking system did not achieve the 

statutory objectives, taking into account 

the statutory factors, the Commission 

began a public rulemaking process to 

make modifications to the ratemaking 

system for Market Dominant products as 

necessary to achieve the objectives 

pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3). 

II. Background 

Pursuant to section 3622(d)(3), the 

Commission initiated Docket No. 

RM2017–3 for the purpose of 

conducting its 10-year review of the 

Market Dominant ratemaking system. In 

Order No. 4257,2 the Commission found 

that in the decade following the PAEA’s 

enactment, the ratemaking system had 

not achieved the statutory objectives, 

taking into account the statutory factors. 

Order No. 4257 at 275. On the same day 

that it released its findings, the 

Commission issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR), setting forth a 

number of proposed regulatory 

modifications intended to enable the 

ratemaking system to achieve the 

statutory objectives and seeking public 

input.3 In response to comments 

received, the Commission issued a 

revised notice of proposed rulemaking 

(Revised NPR) again seeking public 

comment on the Commission’s revised 

proposals.4 The Commission’s further 

modifications and responses to public 

comments received from the Revised 

NPR are addressed in its final rules. 

III. Basis and Purpose of Final Rules 

Order No. 4257 concluded that while 

the ratemaking system had fulfilled 

some of the PAEA’s goals, the overall 

system had not achieved the statutory 

objectives, taking into account the 

statutory factors. Order No. 4257 at 

3–4. For ease of organization, the 

Commission’s analysis grouped the 

PAEA’s nine statutory objectives into 

three principal areas: (1) The structure 

of the ratemaking system; (2) the 

financial health of the Postal Service; 

and (3) service. 

For the first principal area, the 

Commission found that the ratemaking 

system had resulted in predictable and 

stable rates, in terms of timing and 

magnitude (Objective 2); that it had 

reduced administrative burden and 

increased transparency (Objective 6); 

that it had provided the Postal Service 

with pricing flexibility (Objective 4); 

and that it had, on balance, maintained 

just prices (Objective 8). Id. at 142–145. 

However, the Commission found that 

the ratemaking system had not 

increased pricing efficiency (Objective 

1). Id. at 146. For the second principal 

area—the financial health of the Postal 

Service—the Commission found that 

while the ratemaking system had been 

sufficient to provide for mail security 

and terrorism deterrence (Objective 7); 

had provided a sufficient mechanism to 

allocate institutional costs between 

Market Dominant products and 

Competitive products (Objective 9); and 

had generally enabled the Postal Service 

to achieve short-term financial stability, 

medium- and long-term financial 

stability had not been achieved 

(Objective 5). Id. at 247–249. The 

Commission also found that cost 

reductions and operational efficiency 

improvements were not sufficient to 

achieve overall financial stability and 

therefore not maximized (Objective 1). 

Id. at 184–194, 221–226. Likewise due 

to loss-making products and classes, the 

Commission found the system did not