33452 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(c) Regulations. (1) The general

regulations contained in § 165.23 and

§ 165.20 of this part apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or

designated personnel. U.S. Coast Guard

representatives of the Captain of the

Port include commissioned, warrant

and petty officers of the Coast Guard.

Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard

personnel or an U.S. Coast Guard vessel,

via siren, radio, flashing light, or other

means, those hailed shall proceed as

directed.

(3) Entry or movement within this

zone is prohibited unless authorized by

the Captain of the Port, Portland, ME.

Dated: May 15, 2000.

R.A. Nash

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port.

[FR Doc. 00–13042 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Part 1

[Docket No.: 99100008272–0123–02]

RIN 0651–AB07

Changes to Permit Payment of Patent

and Trademark Fees by Credit Card

AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office,

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and

Trademark Office (Office) is amending

the rules of practice to provide for the

payment of any patent process or

trademark process fee by credit card.

The Office previously limited payment

by credit card to the fees required for

information products or for an

electronic submission of or in a

trademark application. The Office will

now accept payment of any patent

process fee, trademark process fee, or

information product fee by credit card.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The amendment to

§ 1.21 is effective July 24, 2000. Section

1.23 is effective June 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning this final rule: Robert W.

Bahr, by telephone at (703) 308–6906, or

by facsimile to (703) 308–6916 marked

to the attention of Robert W. Bahr.

Concerning the payment of fees (by

credit card or otherwise) in general:

Matthew Lee, by telephone at (703) 305–

8051, by e-mail at

matthew.lee@uspto.gov, or by facsimile

at (703) 305–8007 marked to the

attention of Matthew Lee.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has been

the practice of the United States Patent

and Trademark Office (Office) to accept

payment of fees for information

products by credit card, but not to

accept patent process fees or trademark

process fees by credit card. The Office

recently revised 37 CFR 1.23 to

expressly permit payment of fees by

credit card ‘‘in an electronically filed

trademark application or electronic

submission in a trademark application.’’

See Trademark Law Treaty

Implementation Act Changes, Final

Rule, 64 FR 48989, 48917 (September 8,

1999), 1226 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 103,

120 (September 23, 1999) (TLTIA Final

Rule). As explained in the TLTIA Final

Rule:

Section 1.23 is also amended to add a

paragraph (b), providing that payments of

money for fees in electronically filed

trademark applications, or electronic

submissions in trademark applications, may

also be made by credit card. The Office

previously limited fee payment by credit card

to the fees required for information products,

and will continue to accept payment of

information product fees by credit card.

Section 1.23(b) will also provide that

payment of a fee by credit card must specify

the amount to be charged and such other

information as is necessary to process the

charge, and is subject to collection of the fee.

Section 1.23(b) will further provide that

the Office will not accept a general

authorization to charge fees to a credit card.

The Office cannot accept an authorization to

charge ‘‘all required fees’’ or ‘‘the filing fee’’

to a credit card, because the Office cannot

determine with certainty the amount of an

unspecified fee (the amount of the ‘‘required

fee’’ or the applicable ‘‘filing fee’’) within the

time frame for reporting a charge to the credit

card company. Also, the Office cannot accept

charges to credit cards that require the use of

a personal identification number (PIN) (e.g.,

certain debit cards or check cards).

Section 1.23(b) also contains a warning

that if credit card information is provided on

a form or document other than a form

provided by the Office for the payment of

fees by credit card, the Office will not be

liable if the credit card number is made

public. The Office currently provides an

electronic form for use when paying a fee in

an electronically filed trademark application

or electronic submission in a trademark

application. This form will not be included

in the records open to public inspection in

the file of a trademark matter. However, the

inclusion of credit card information on forms

or documents other than the electronic form

provided by the Office may result in the

release of credit card information.

See Trademark Law Treaty

Implementation Act Changes, 64 FR at

48906–07 (September 8, 1999), 1226 Off.

Gaz. Pat. Office at 110.

The Office is now amending the rules

of practice to permit payment of any

patent process fee, trademark process

fee, or information product fee by credit

card, subject to actual collection of the

fee. The Office will provide a Credit

Card Payment Form (PTO–2038) for use

when paying a patent process or

trademark process fee (or the fee for an

information product) by credit card. The

Office will not require customers to use

this form when paying a patent process

or trademark process fee by credit card.

If, however, a customer provides a

credit card charge authorization in

another form or document (e.g., a

communication relating to the patent or

trademark), the credit card information

may become part of the record of an

Office file that is open to public

inspection. Information concerning fees

in general is posted on the Office’s Web

site at http://www.uspto.gov, and

information on completing the Credit

Card Payment Form will be posted on

the Office’s Web site.

The Office will not include the Credit

Card Payment Form (PTO–2038) among

the records open to public inspection in

the file of a patent, trademark

registration, or other proceeding. The

Credit Card Payment Form (PTO–2038)

is the only form the Office uses to

collect credit card information during a

patent, trademark, or other proceeding.

The Credit Card Payment Form (PTO–

2038) is the only form the Office will

not make available to the public as part

of the file of a patent, trademark, or

other proceeding. As discussed above,

failure to use the Credit Card Payment

Form (PTO–2038) when submitting a

credit card payment may result in your

credit card information becoming part of

the record of an Office file that is open

to public inspection. If the cardholder

includes a credit card number on any

form or document other than the Credit

Card Payment Form, the Office will not

be liable in the event that the credit card

number becomes public knowledge.

35 U.S.C. 42(d) and § 1.26 (which

concern refund of patent and trademark

fees) also apply to requests for refund of

fees paid by credit card. Any refund of

a fee paid by credit card will be by a

credit to the credit card account to

which the fee was charged. The Office

will not refund a fee paid by credit card

by Treasury check, electronic funds

transfer, or credit to a deposit account

(§ 1.25).

Finally, any payment of a patent

process or trademark process fee by

credit card must be in writing (see

§ 1.2), preferably on the Credit Card

Payment Form (PTO–2038). If a Credit

Card Payment Form or other document

authorizing the Office to charge a patent

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33453

process or trademark process fee to a

credit card does not contain the

information necessary to charge the fee

to the credit card, the customer must

submit a revised Credit Card Payment

Form or document containing the

necessary information. Office employees

will not accept oral (telephonic)

instructions to complete the Credit Card

Payment Form or otherwise charge a

patent process or trademark process fee

(as opposed to information product or

service fees) to a credit card.

Discussion of Specific Rules

Title 37 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Part 1, is amended as

follows:

Section 1.21: Section 1.21(m) is

amended to make the $50.00 fee for

processing a check returned ‘‘unpaid’’

by a bank applicable to any payment

refused or charged back by a financial

institution. The burden of processing

any payment refused or credit card

transaction charged back by a financial

institution is the same as the burden of

processing a check returned ‘‘unpaid’’

by a bank. The phrase ‘‘payment refused

* * * by a financial institution’’ includes

a check returned ‘‘unpaid’’ by a bank

but also applies to the refusal by a

financial institution of a payment by

other means.

Section 1.23: Section 1.23(a) is

amended to add the phrase ‘‘national

bank notes’’ in the first sentence. This

phrase was inadvertently deleted in the

TLTIA Final Rule.

Section 1.23(b) is amended by

revising the first sentence to eliminate

the restriction that the payment of

money required for United States Patent

and Trademark Office fees by credit

card be limited to fees ‘‘in an

electronically filed trademark

application or electronic submission in

a trademark application.’’

Response to Comments

The Office published a notice (Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking) proposing

changes to the rules of practice to

implement payment of patent and

trademark fees by credit card. See

Changes to Permit Payment of Patent

and Trademark Office Fees by Credit

Card, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

64 FR 59701 (November 3, 1999), 1228

Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 163 (November 23,

1999). The Office received fifteen

written comments in response to the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Most of

the comments supported changing the

rules of practice to permit payment of

all patent and trademark fees by credit

card. Other comments and the Office’s

responses to the comments follow.

Comment (1): One comment suggested

that the Office revise § 1.23 to permit

customers to designate their deposit

account as overdraft protection for

check and credit card payments. The

comment further suggested that the

charge in § 1.21(m) should be less for

those customers designating their

deposit account as overdraft protection

for check and credit card payments.

Response: Section 1.25 currently

permits customers to provide a general

authorization to charge fees to a deposit

account. Therefore, no change to § 1.23

is necessary to permit customers to

authorize the charging of any fee

deficiency (e.g., due to a returned check

or refused charge) to a deposit account.

Since the Office’s cost of processing the

returned check (or refused charge) is not

decreased because a customer has

authorized the charging of the fee

deficiency resulting from the returned

check or refused charge to a deposit

account, the Office is not providing a

lower fee for processing a returned

check or refused charge in such a

situation. Nevertheless, customers may

still wish to provide an authorization to

charge fee deficiencies (e.g., due to a

returned check or refused charge) to a

deposit account to avoid the adverse

results of non-payment of a fee (e.g., loss

of a filing date in a trademark

application or abandonment of a patent

or trademark application).

Comment (2): One comment suggested

that the Office permit use of direct bank

debit cards.

Response: The Office currently does

not accept payment by bank debit cards,

since these cards usually require the use

of a personal identification number (or

PIN). The Office will add other methods

of payment (including bank debit cards)

as soon as the systems and procedures

for implementing them have been

developed.

Comment (3): Another comment

suggested that the Office permit the use

of a ‘‘re-chargeable’’ credit card (i.e., a

card having a pre-applied balance

against which charges may be made).

Response: A ‘‘re-chargeable’’ credit

card program would operate in a

manner similar to the existing deposit

account program. Thus, a ‘‘rechargeable’’ credit card program in

addition to the current deposit account

program does not have sufficient benefit

to justify the administrative burden of

maintaining these two duplicative

programs.

Comment (4): Several comments

suggested that the Office permit use of

an AMERICAN EXPRESS card because

it has no upper limit. Another comment

suggested that the Office permit use of

all major credit cards, including

AMERICAN EXPRESS cards and

DINER’S CLUB cards. Another

comment suggested that if the Office

intends to accept AMERICAN

EXPRESS cards, the language of § 1.23

must be changed since AMERICAN

EXPRESS does not consider its card to

be a credit card.

Response: The Office desires to

maximize convenience to its customers

and is committed to adding additional

credit cards and other methods of

payments as soon as the systems and

procedures for implementing them have

been developed. In the meantime, the

Office currently accepts charges to the

following credit cards: AMERICAN

EXPRESS, DISCOVER, MASTER

CARD, and VISA. The Office

considers each of these cards to be a

‘‘credit card’’ within the meaning of

§ 1.23.

Comment (5): One comment suggested

that the Office should retain the Credit

Card Form (PTO–2038) in the file of the

patent or trademark proceeding (simply

redacting the credit card number) so

that third parties may determine

whether the proper fee was actually

authorized and paid.

Response: The Office file of a patent

or trademark proceeding in which a fee

was paid by credit card will contain a

printout from the Office’s Revenue

Accounting and Management (RAM)

system of the fee authorized and paid.

When a fee is paid by check in a patent

or trademark proceeding, the Office file

includes only a printout from the RAM

system of the fee paid and an indication

that it was paid by check. A copy of the

check used to pay the fee is not retained

in the file for review by third parties.

There is no need to have a different

practice for credit card payments.

Comment (6): One comment suggested

that the proposed change to permit

patent and trademark payments by

credit card is an excellent idea,

especially if the Office permits the

Credit Card Form (PTO–2038) to be

submitted by facsimile.

Response: Credit card payments by

facsimile will be permitted except in

situations in which facsimile

submission of correspondence is not

permitted in § 1.6(d). Customers will be

responsible for transmitting the credit

card form to the correct organization

within the Office by use of the correct

facsimile number.

Comment (7): One comment suggested

that the Office should permit a general

authorization to charge fees to a credit

card, rather than requiring customers to

specify an exact amount. Another

comment suggested that the Office

permit customers to specify a charge

33454 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

amount of ‘‘up to and including XX’’

(the top estimated fee due).

Response: The Office currently does

not have systems and procedures in

place to accept authorization to charge

an unspecified amount to a credit card.

However, the Office desires to maximize

convenience to its customers and is

looking into ways for customers to pay

by credit card without specifying the

exact dollar amount.

Comment (8): One comment suggested

that if a customer uses his or her own

form containing the same information as

the Credit Card Form (PTO–2038), the

Office should accept and treat such

information with the same liability as

with the Credit Card Form (PTO–2038).

Response: When a customer uses his

or her own form containing the same

information as the Credit Card Form

(PTO–2038) in a patent or trademark

proceeding, the Office will attempt to

redact the credit card number (except

for the last four digits) from the form

before it is placed in the file of the

patent or trademark proceeding.

Nevertheless, the Office strongly

encourages customers to use the Office’s

Credit Card Form (PTO–2038) when

paying fees by credit card. The Office

will not accept liability for release of

credit card information when a

customer chooses to use his or her own

form rather than the Office’s Credit Card

Form (PTO–2038).

Comment (9): One comment suggested

that the Office could avoid including

credit card information in a file open to

public inspection (as an alternative to

the Credit Card Form (PTO–2038)) by

assigning a number or other identifier to

a credit card and permitting the

customer/cardholder to charge fees to

that credit card by reference to the preassigned number or identifier.

Response: The Office currently does

not store credit card information within

any financial systems or databases for

access by fee-processing personnel. The

Office desires to maximize convenience

to its customers and is looking into

ways to assign and maintain numbers or

identifiers for each credit card number.

The Office will implement such a

practice as soon as the necessary

systems and procedures have been

developed.

Comment (10): One comment

suggested that the fees charged by credit

card institutions for use of a credit card

should be borne solely by customers

who pay fees by credit card. The

comment specifically suggested that the

Office impose a surcharge in excess of

the given patent or trademark fee on all

credit card payments.

Response: Merchant fees charged for

credit card transactions are paid by the

Department of the Treasury. Processing

credit card transactions results in lower

costs to the Federal Government when

compared to processing payments made

by checks. Therefore, there is no need

to impose a surcharge for credit card

transactions.

Comment (11): One comment

suggested that the Office does not

always properly expunge information

that should not be part of a record open

to public inspection, so the Office

should inform the public of its expected

compliance rate in another notice of

proposed rulemaking before adopting a

final rule change. Alternatively, the

comment suggests that the Office should

accept liability for any erroneous

disclosure of credit card information

included on the Credit Card Form

(PTO–2038).

Response: In view of the

overwhelming support for the proposed

change to permit payment of patent and

trademark fees by credit card (and for

the prompt adoption of such change),

the Office considers it to be contrary to

the public interest to delay the adoption

of this final rule. The incidental

situations in which confidential

information was inadvertently released

to the public do not warrant delay

particularly since use of a credit card is

optional.

Classification

Administrative Procedure Act

Pursuant to the authority at 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(1), the amendment to § 1.23 is

excepted from the thirty-day advance

publication requirement of 5 U.S.C.

553(d) because it relieves a restriction.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of

the Department of Commerce has

certified to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy, Small Business

Administration, that the changes in this

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b)). The Office did not

previously permit patent or trademark

fees (except in an electronically filed

trademark application or electronic

submission in a trademark application)

to be paid by credit card. The changes

in this final rule will permit small

entities as well as non-small entities the

option of paying any patent or

trademark fee by credit card. Small

entities as well as non-small entities

will continue to have the option of

paying any patent or trademark fee by

check, treasury note, national bank note,

money order, or charge to a deposit

account. Based upon the number of

small entities who pay fees to the Office

each year and the percentage of fee

payments that are by credit card (where

currently permitted), the Office expects

16,000 small entities to pay a patent or

trademark fee by credit card each year.

Thus, the changes in this final rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on any business.

Executive Order 13132

This rulemaking does not contain

policies with federalism implications

sufficient to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment under Executive

Order 13132 (August 4, 1999).

Executive Order 12866

This rulemaking has been determined

to be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866 (September 30,

1993).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule involves information

collection requirements which are

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Office has

submitted an information collection

package to OMB for its review and

approval. The title, description, and

respondent description for this

information collection is shown below

with an estimate of the annual reporting

burdens. Included in the estimate is the

time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information.

OMB Number: 0651–0043.

Title: United States Patent and

Trademark Office Fees.

Form Number: PTO–2038.

Type of Review: Approved through

January of 2003.

Affected Public: Individuals or

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

state, local or tribal governments, and

the Federal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

100,000 responses per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: 12

minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent

Burden Hours: 20,000 hours per year.

Needs and Uses: Persons submitting

fees to the Office need to provide

information concerning the purpose for

the fee so that the Office is able to: (1)

apply the fee to the particular

application, patent, trademark

registration, or other proceeding, service

or product; and (2) determine whether

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33455

the person has submitted the fee(s)

required by law or regulation. The

Credit Card Form provides the public

with a convenient manner of paying a

patent application or service fee,

trademark application or service fee, or

information product fee by credit card.

Interested persons are requested to

send comments regarding the burden

estimate or any other aspects of the

information requirements, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to

Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent

Legal Administration, United States

Patent and Trademark Office,

Washington, D.C. 20231, or to the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs of

OMB, New Executive Office Building,

725 17th Street, N.W., Room 10235,

Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:

Desk Officer for the United States Patent

and Trademark Office.

Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, no person is required to respond

to nor shall a person be subject to a

penalty for failure to comply with a

collection of information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act unless that collection of

information displays a currently valid

OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Courts, Freedom of

Information, Inventions and patents,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Small businesses.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 37 CFR Part 1 is amended as

follows:

PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN

PATENT CASES

1. The authority citation for 37 CFR

Part 1 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).

2. Section 1.21 is amended by revising

paragraph (m) to read as follows:

§ 1.21 Miscellaneous fees and charges.

* * * * *

(m) For processing each payment

refused (including a check returned

‘‘unpaid’’) or charged back by a

financial institution—$50.00.

* * * * *

3. Section 1.23 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1.23 Methods of payment.

(a) All payments of money required

for United States Patent and Trademark

Office fees, including fees for the

processing of international applications

(§ 1.445), shall be made in U.S. dollars

and in the form of a cashier’s or certified

check, Treasury note, national bank

notes, or United States Postal Service

money order. If sent in any other form,

the Office may delay or cancel the credit

until collection is made. Checks and

money orders must be made payable to

the Director of the United States Patent

and Trademark Office. (Checks made

payable to the Commissioner of Patents

and Trademarks will continue to be

accepted.) Payments from foreign

countries must be payable and

immediately negotiable in the United

States for the full amount of the fee

required. Money sent to the Office by

mail will be at the risk of the sender,

and letters containing money should be

registered with the United States Postal

Service.

(b) Payments of money required for

United States Patent and Trademark

Office fees may also be made by credit

card. Payment of a fee by credit card

must specify the amount to be charged

to the credit card and such other

information as is necessary to process

the charge, and is subject to collection

of the fee. The Office will not accept a

general authorization to charge fees to a

credit card. If credit card information is

provided on a form or document other

than a form provided by the Office for

the payment of fees by credit card, the

Office will not be liable if the credit

card number becomes public

knowledge.

Dated: May 15, 2000.

Q. Todd Dickinson,

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual

Property and Director of the United States

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 00–12992 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NM39–1–7462; FRL–6703–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of New

Mexico; Approval of Revised

Maintenance Plan and Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets; Albuquerque/

Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Carbon

Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving

revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo

County carbon monoxide (CO) State

Implementation Plan (SIP) under the

Federal Clean Air Act as Amended in

1990 (the Act). On February 4, 1999, the

Governor requested EPA approval of a

revision to the CO maintenance plan

and motor vehicle emissions budgets

covering 1996 to 2006, and the

establishment of a CO motor vehicle

emissions budget for the year 2010. The

EPA initiated the approval process in

two rule makings, the first for revisions

to the CO maintenance plan and motor

vehicle emissions budgets covering

1996 to 2006, and the second action to

establish a CO motor vehicle emissions

budget for the year 2010. This action is

a final approval of both actions;

revisions to the CO maintenance plan,

and the CO Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budget for 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006,

and 2010. These CO Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets are for transportation

conformity purposes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. Anyone wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733.

Albuquerque Environmental Health

Department, Air Pollution Control

Division, One Civic Plaza,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Matthew Witosky of the EPA Region 6

Air Planning Section, at (214) 665–7214,

or WITOSKY.MATTHEW@EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean

the EPA.

1. What Action Is EPA Taking?

The EPA is promulgating final

approval of revisions to the

Albuquerque CO maintenance plan. The

original plan was approved in 1996 (61

FR 29970). In a document published

December 20, 1999, the EPA published

a direct final approval of revisions to the

CO maintenance plan and related

conformity budgets (64 FR 71027), with

a companion proposed rule (64 FR

71086). The companion proposed rule

was published in the event we received

adverse comments, which we did. The

direct final rule was withdrawn on

February 14, 2000 (65 FR 7290). That

document indicated that final action

would be forthcoming.

The EPA also proposed approval of a

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget