Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 227 / Friday, November 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70489

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and

732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed

State regulatory programs and program

amendments submitted by the States

must be based solely on a determination

of whether the submittal is consistent

with SMCRA and its implementing

Federal regulations and whether the

other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed State regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

Federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, federal, state, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the State submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart Federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the Federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 8, 2000.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent

Regional Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Part 943 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 943—TEXAS

1. The authority citation for Part 943

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 943.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of final

publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory

program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment

submission date Date of final publication Citation/description

*******

August 24, 2000 .......... November 24, 2000 ..... TAC § 12.80(a)(1), (3)–(7); (b)(2)–(3); § 12.385(a); (e)–(e)(2)(D); § 12.552(a); (e)–(e)(2)(D);

and § 12.651(13).

[FR Doc. 00–29969 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark

Office

37 CFR Part 1

RIN 0651–AB15

Simplification of Certain Requirements

in Patent Interference Practice

AGENCY: United States Patent and

Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and

Trademark Office amends its rules of

practice in patent interferences to

simplify certain requirements relating to

the declaration of interferences and the

presentation of evidence.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

McKelvey or Richard Torczon at 703–

308–9797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

An interim final version of this

rulemaking was published at 65 FR

56792, Sept. 20, 2000, and also at U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office, 1239 Off.

Gaz. 125 (Oct. 17, 2000). The rationale

for the rulemaking appears with the

interim rule.

Comments

The interim rule elicited two

comments. One comment notes a

reference in 37 CFR 1.671(e) to a rule

that was deleted. That reference is

eliminated in this final rule. Any other

references to deleted rules in subpart E

of this title should be considered

obsolete. They will be eliminated in a

future rulemaking.

70490 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 227 / Friday, November 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

A second comment raised a concern

as to whether exhibits should be

numbered, noting that there is no patent

interference rule requiring that exhibits

be numbered. Each exhibit needs to be

identified in some unique manner. All

interferences declared by the Board of

Patent Appeals and Interferences

(Board) at this time are subject to a

‘‘Standing Order’’ that requires that

exhibits be numbered.

The same comment noted that former

37 CFR 1.682 authorized placing a

publication in evidence without the

need for an affidavit. According to the

comment, affidavits will now be

necessary. Publications generally may

be placed in evidence in interference

cases without an affidavit. If an

objection is made by an opponent, e.g.,

for lack of authenticity, then under the

Board’s practice the party has a period

of time within which to supplement its

evidence by properly authenticating the

publication. The Board expects few, if

any, problems with the admissibility of

most printed publications given that

most parties will have no reason to

question the authenticity of most

printed publications.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rulemaking is procedural and is

not subject to the requirements of 5

U.S.C. 553 so no initial regulatory

flexibility analysis is required under 5

U.S.C. 603.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Assessment

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 interim rule creates no

information collection requirements

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Inventions and patents.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the United States Patent and

Trademark Office amends 37 CFR Part

1 as follows:

PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN

PATENT CASES

1. Amend the authority citation for 37

CFR Part 1 to read as follows:

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

otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 1.601(f) to revise

paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 1.601 Scope of rules, definitions.

* * * * *

(f) A count defines the interfering

subject matter between two or more

applications or between one or more

applications and one or more patents.

When there is more than one count,

each count shall define a separate

patentable invention. Any claim of an

application or patent that is designated

to correspond to a count is a claim

involved in the interference within the

meaning of 35 U.S.C. 135(a). A claim of

a patent or application that is

designated to correspond to a count and

is identical to the count is said to

correspond exactly to the count. A claim

of a patent or application that is

designated to correspond to a count but

is not identical to the count is said to

correspond substantially to the count.

When a count is broader in scope than

all claims which correspond to the

count, the count is a phantom count.

* * * * *

3. Revise § 1.606 to read as follows:

§ 1.606 Interference between an

application and a patent; subject matter of

the interference.

Before an interference is declared

between an application and an

unexpired patent, an examiner must

determine that there is interfering

subject matter claimed in the

application and the patent which is

patentable to the applicant subject to a

judgment in the interference. The

interfering subject matter will be

defined by one or more counts. The

application must contain, or be

amended to contain, at least one claim

that is patentable over the prior art and

corresponds to each count. The claim in

the application need not be, and most

often will not be, identical to a claim in

the patent. All claims in the application

and patent which define the same

patentable invention as a count shall be

designated to correspond to the count.

4. Amend § 1.671 to revise paragraphs

(a) and (e) to read as follows:

§ 1.671 Evidence must comply with rules.

(a) Evidence consists of affidavits,

transcripts of depositions, documents

and things.

* * * * *

(e) A party may not rely on an

affidavit (including exhibits), patent, or

printed publication previously

submitted by the party under § 1.639(b)

unless a copy of the affidavit, patent, or

printed publication has been served and

a written notice is filed prior to the

close of the party’s relevant testimony

period stating that the party intends to

rely on the affidavit, patent, or printed

publication. When proper notice is

given under this paragraph, the

affidavit, patent, or printed publication

shall be deemed as filed under

§ 1.640(b), § 1.640(e)(3), or § 1.672, as

appropriate.

* * * * *

Dated: November 9, 2000.

Q. Todd Dickinson,

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual

Property and Director of the United States

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 00–30015 Filed 11–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MI75–7284a; FRL–6907–1]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is adjusting the applicability date for

reinstating the 1-hour ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

in Allegan County, Michigan and is

determining that the area has attained

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This

determination is based on 3 consecutive

years of complete, quality-assured,

ambient air monitoring data for the

1997–1999 ozone seasons that

demonstrate the area has attained the

ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this

determination, EPA is also determining

that certain attainment demonstration

requirements, and certain related

requirements of part D of subchapter I

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), do not

apply to the Allegan area.

EPA is also approving the State of

Michigan’s request to redesignate

Allegan County to attainment for the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. Michigan

submitted the redesignation request for

the Allegan area in two submittals dated

September 1, 2000 and October 13,

2000. In approving this redesignation

request, EPA is also approving the