Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61235

(ii) Rifles:

(A) BARS–4 Bolt Action Carbine.

(B) Biathlon Target Rifle, .22LR

caliber.

(C) British Enfield Rifle.

(D) CM2, .22 caliber Target Rifle (also

known as SM2, 22 caliber).

(E) German Model 98K Rifle.

(F) German Model G41 Rifle.

(G) German Model G43 Rifle.

(H) IZH–94.

(I) LOS–7 Bolt Action Rifle.

(J) MC–7–07.

(K) MC–18–3.

(L) MC–19–07.

(M) MC–105–01.

(N) MC–112–02.

(O) MC–113–02.

(P) MC–115–1.

(Q) MC–125/127.

(R) MC–126.

(S) MC–128.

(T) Saiga Rifle.

(U) Soviet Model 38 Carbine.

(V) Soviet Model 44 Carbine.

(W) Soviet Model 91/30 Rifle.

(X) TOZ 18, .22 caliber Bolt Action

Rifle.

(Y) TOZ 55.

(Z) TOZ 78.

(AA) Ural Target Rifle, .22LR caliber.

(BB) VEPR Rifle.

(CC) Winchester Model 1895, Russian

Model Rifle;

(2) Ammunition located or

manufactured in Georgia, Kazakstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian

Federation, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, or

Uzbekistan, and ammunition previously

manufactured in the Soviet Union, that

is 7.62X25mm caliber (also known as

7.63X25mm caliber or .30 Mauser); or

(3) A type of firearm the manufacture

of which began after February 9, 1996.

(c) The provisions of paragraph (b) of

this section shall not affect the

fulfillment of contracts with respect to

firearms or ammunition entered or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption in the United States on or

before February 9, 1996.

* * * * *

Par. 3. Section 47.57(c) is amended by

removing the last sentence.

Signed: August 22, 1997.

John W. Magaw,

Director.

Approved: August 29, 1997.

Dennis M. O’Connell,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,

(Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 97–29595 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Part 1

RIN 0651–AA80

Changes to Patent Practice and

Procedure; Correction

AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office,

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Patent and Trademark

Office (PTO) published a notice of final

rulemaking entitled ‘‘Changes to Patent

Practice and Procedure’’ in the Federal

Register of October 10, 1997 (62 FR

53131). This document clarifies some of

the comments, corrects a typographical

error, and removes an incorrect

paragraph.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hiram H. Bernstein or Robert W. Bahr,

Senior Legal Advisors, by telephone at

(703) 305–9285; or by mail addressed to:

Box Comments—Patents, Assistant

Commissioner for Patents, Washington,

DC 20231 marked to the attention of Mr.

Bernstein; or by facsimile to (703) 308–

6916.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PTO

published a notice of final rulemaking

entitled ‘‘Changes to Patent Practice and

Procedure’’ in the Federal Register of

October 10, 1997 (62 FR 53131). The

comments on the changes to 37 CFR

1.16, 1.121, and 1.193 contained errors.

In addition, the amendment to 37 CFR

1.17(q) contained a typographical error

and the amendment to 37 CFR

1.121(a)(4) should have been

withdrawn. This document clarifies the

comments, corrects the typographical

error, and removes an incorrect

paragraph.

In the Changes to Patent Practice and

Procedure notice of final rulemaking

that was published in the Federal

Register of October 10, 1997 (62 FR

53131), make the following changes:

1. On page 53134, second column,

lines 7–10, delete the following

sentence:

Section 1.16 is amended to add new

paragraphs (m) and (n) including the

unassociated text following paragraphs

(d) and (l).

2. On page 53154, first column, lines

6–10, change the sentence—

The ability to provide directions to

the Office for the handwritten deletion

of five words or less for each claim does

not encompass deletion of equations,

charts or other non-word material.

to—

An equation, chart or other non-word

material should not be amended by an

instruction to delete (or add) only a part

of the equation, chart, or non-word

material. Rather, it should be amended

by an instruction to delete the entire

equation, chart, or non-word material

and to add in its place the equation,

chart or other non-word material to be

substituted for the material that was

deleted.

3. On page 53154, first column, lines

29–36, delete the following paragraph:

Paragraph (a)(4) of § 1.121 requires

that any amendment presented in a

substitute specification must be

presented under the provision of this

section either prior to or concurrent

with the submission of the substitute

specification. The paragraph contains

material from canceled § 1.115.

4. On page 53168, second column,

lines 8–12, change the sentences—

Thus, the Office does not consider

such a rejection to constitute a ‘‘new

ground of rejection’’ within the meaning

of § 1.193(b). Nevertheless, § 1.193(b)(2)

* * *.

to—

Thus, the Office does not consider

such a rejection to constitute a ‘‘new

ground of rejection’’ within the meaning

of § 1.193(a). Nevertheless, § 1.193(a)(2)

* * *.

§ 1.17 [Corrected]

5. Section 1.17 on page 53183, first

column, correct paragraph (q) to read as

follows:

§ 1.17 Patent application processing fees.

* * * * *

(q) For filing a petition to the

Commissioner under a section listed

below which refers to this paragraph—

50.00.

§ 1.41—to supply the name or names

of the inventor or inventors after the

filing date without a cover sheet as

prescribed by § 1.51(c)(1) in a

provisional application.

§ 1.48—for correction of inventorship

in a provisional application.

§ 1.53—to accord a provisional

application a filing date or to convert a

nonprovisional application filed under

§ 1.53(b) to a provisional application

under § 1.53(c).

* * * * *

6. Section 1.121 on page 53193, first

column, correct paragraph (a)(4) to read

as follows:

§ 1.121 Manner of making amendments.

(a) * * *

(4) [Reserved]

* * * * *
61236 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Date: November 6, 1997.

Bruce A. Lehman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce and

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.

[FR Doc. 97–30118 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AL–036–1 9715; FRL–5922–4]

Revocation of the Section 182(f)

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Exemption

Granted to the Birmingham Ozone

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; informational notice.

SUMMARY: The EPA has rescinded its

previous approval of the State of

Alabama’s exemption from NOX

provisions for the Birmingham marginal

nonattainment area. The exemption was

originally approved by EPA in 1993. It

is now rescinded because the conditions

which formed the basis of the original

approval no longer exist; and there is no

other showing from the State of

Alabama that reductions of NOX would

not contribute to attainment of the

ozone standard for the area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action was

effective September 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Kimberly Bingham at the EPA Region 4

address listed below. Copies of the

material submitted by the Alabama

Department of Environmental

Management (ADEM) may be examined

during normal business hours at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303–3104.

Alabama Department of Environmental

Management, 1751 Congressman W.

L. Dickinson Drive, Montgomery,

Alabama 36109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly Bingham, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, Region 4, Environmental

Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street,

SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The

telephone number is (404) 562–9038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 182(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) provides for an exemption

from New Source Review (NSR) offsets

for NOX emissions in ozone

nonattainment areas where a state

shows and EPA agrees that additional

NOX reductions would not contribute to

attainment of the ozone standard in that

area. At the time of the request

submitted by the State of Alabama

through the Alabama Department of

Environmental Management (ADEM),

the Birmingham area was required to

attain the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for ozone by

November 15, 1993. Given this

deadline, offsets from new sources of

NOX emissions applying for a permit to

locate in the Birmingham area after

November 15, 1992, would not in

practice have been achieved prior to the

expected ozone attainment date. Based

on this information, the EPA

determined that the application of the

NOX provisions would not have

contributed to the timely attainment of

the ozone standard and, therefore,

approved the NOX exemption for the

Birmingham area. (58 FR 45439).

Moreover, the area had ambient air

quality data that demonstrated

attainment of the ozone NAAQS on

November 15, 1993.

Accordingly, on August 30, 1993, the

EPA announced in the Federal Register

(58 FR 45439) that it had determined,

pursuant to the State’s request according

to the provisions of section 182(f) of the

CAA, that additional reductions of NOX

would not contribute to attainment of

the NAAQS for ozone in the

Birmingham nonattainment area. In that

same notice, the EPA approved a

request from ADEM for an exemption

from the CAA requirements for NSR

offsets for NOX. In addition to

exempting the Birmingham ozone

nonattainment area from NOX NSR, this

action also exempted the Birmingham

ozone nonattainment area from

applicable transportation and general

conformity requirements for NOX in

accordance with 58 FR 62188 and 58 FR

63214. Because the EPA previously

issued an area wide exemption under

section 182(f) of the CAA, Region 4

acknowledged on November 21, 1994,

that additional exemptions from the

conformity requirements automatically

applied to the Birmingham area.

On March 16, 1995, ADEM submitted

a request for redesignation of the

Birmingham marginal ozone

nonattainment area to attainment status.

However, prior to the close of the

administrative record on the

redesignation request, the Birmingham

area registered a violation of the ozone

standard on August 18, 1995. EPA

proposed disapproval of the

redesignation request and the associated

maintenance plan on April 30, 1997. On

September 19, 1997, EPA published in

the Federal Register, a final rulemaking

which disapproved the ozone

redesignation request for the

Birmingham area (See 62 FR 49154). In

light of the fact that the Birmingham

area continued to violate the NAAQS for

ozone in 1996, the EPA could no longer

conclude that additional NOX

reductions would not contribute to

attainment of the ozone standard for this

area. For those reasons, the NOX

exemption for the Birmingham marginal

ozone nonattainment area has been

revoked.

This determination was made as of

the effective date of the redesignation

disapproval, September 19, 1997,

because the basis of the disapproval is

the violation of the ozone NAAQS. A

letter dated September 11, 1997,

provided ADEM official notification that

the waiver for Birmingham would be

revoked as of the aforementioned date.

As a result of the NOX waiver being

rescinded for the Birmingham marginal

ozone nonattainment area, the State will

be required to implement New Source

Review for major stationary sources of

NOX. Furthermore, the State will no

longer have a waiver for the

Birmingham ozone nonattainment area

which exempts the area from CAA

requirements to satisfy the general and

transportation conformity requirements

for NOX. Consequently, the Birmingham

Metropolitan Planning Organization and

the Alabama Department of

Transportation must demonstrate that

the future long-range transportation

plan (LRTP) and the transportation

improvement program (TIP) conformity

analyses satisfy the applicable VOC and

NOX requirements in section 93.109 of

the transportation conformity rule, as

amended on August 15, 1997. The

approved conformity determination for

the existing 2015 LRTP demonstrated

that the ‘‘Action’’ scenarios for 2005 and

2015 will have NOX emissions over the

respective ‘‘Baseline’’ scenarios.

Without an NOX waiver, any new LRTP

and/or TIP for the Birmingham area

which shows such increases would not

satisfy the emission reduction

requirements of section 93.119 of the

transportation conformity rule and

would not be in conformance with the

Alabama State Implementation Plan.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: October 31, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–30137 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P