Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3035 

submitted for approval in accordance 

with paragraph (d) of this section. A 

complainant may not withdraw the 

complaint after the filing of objections 

to the Assistant Secretary’s findings 

and/or preliminary order. 

(b) The Assistant Secretary may 

withdraw the findings and/or 

preliminary order at any time before the 

expiration of the 30-day objection 

period described in § 1992.106, 

provided that no objection has been 

filed yet, and substitute new findings 

and/or a new preliminary order. The 

date of the receipt of the substituted 

findings or order will begin a new 30- 

day objection period. 

(c) At any time before the Assistant 

Secretary’s findings and/or order 

become final, a party may withdraw 

objections to the Assistant Secretary’s 

findings and/or order by filing a written 

withdrawal with the ALJ. If the case is 

on review with the ARB, a party may 

withdraw a petition for review of an 

ALJ’s decision at any time before that 

decision becomes final by filing a 

written withdrawal with the ARB. The 

ALJ or the ARB, as the case may be, will 

determine whether to approve the 

withdrawal of the objections or the 

petition for review. If the ALJ approves 

a request to withdraw objections to the 

Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or 

order, and there are no other pending 

objections, the Assistant Secretary’s 

findings and/or order will become the 

final order of the Secretary. If the ARB 

approves a request to withdraw a 

petition for review of an ALJ decision, 

and there are no other pending petitions 

for review of that decision, the ALJ’s 

decision will become the final order of 

the Secretary. If objections or a petition 

for review are withdrawn because of 

settlement, the settlement must be 

submitted for approval in accordance 

with paragraph (d) of this section. 

(d)(1) Investigative settlements. At any 

time after the filing of a complaint, but 

before the findings and/or order are 

objected to or become a final order by 

operation of law, the case may be settled 

if OSHA, the complainant, and the 

respondent agree to a settlement. 

OSHA’s approval of a settlement 

reached by the respondent and the 

complainant demonstrates OSHA’s 

consent and achieves the consent of all 

three parties. 

(2) Adjudicatory settlements. At any 

time after the filing of objections to the 

Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or 

order, the case may be settled if the 

participating parties agree to a 

settlement and the settlement is 

approved by the ALJ if the case is before 

the ALJ, or by the ARB if the ARB has 

accepted the case for review. If the 

Secretary has accepted the case for 

discretionary review, or directed that 

the case be referred for discretionary 

review, the settlement must be filed 

with the ARB for approval by the 

Secretary. A copy of the settlement will 

be filed with the ALJ or the ARB, as 

appropriate. 

(e) Any settlement approved by 

OSHA, the ALJ, the ARB or the 

Secretary will constitute the final order 

of the Secretary and may be enforced in 

United States district court pursuant to 

§ 1992.113. 

§ 1992.112 Judicial review. 

(a) Within 60 days after the issuance 

of a final order for which judicial review 

is available (including a decision issued 

by the Secretary upon discretionary 

review), any person adversely affected 

or aggrieved by the order may file a 

petition for review of the order in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

circuit in which the violation allegedly 

occurred or the circuit in which the 

complainant resided on the date of the 

violation. 

(b) A final order is not subject to 

judicial review in any criminal or other 

civil proceeding. 

(c) If a timely petition for review is 

filed, the record of the case, including 

the record of proceedings before the 

ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB or 

the ALJ, as the case may be, to the 

appropriate court pursuant to the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

and the local rules of such court. 

§ 1992.113 Judicial enforcement. 

Whenever any person has failed to 

comply with a preliminary order of 

reinstatement or a final order issued 

under AMLA, including one approving 

a settlement agreement, the Secretary 

may file a civil action seeking 

enforcement of the order in the United 

States district court for the district in 

which the violation was found to have 

occurred. Whenever any person has 

failed to comply with a preliminary 

order of reinstatement or a final order 

issued under AMLA, including one 

approving a settlement agreement, a 

person on whose behalf the order was 

issued may file a civil action seeking 

enforcement of the order in the 

appropriate United States district court. 

§ 1992.114 District court jurisdiction of 

retaliation complaints. 

(a) If the Secretary has not issued a 

final decision within 180 days of the 

filing of the complaint, and there is no 

showing that there has been delay due 

to the bad faith of the complainant, the 

complainant may bring an action at law 

or equity for de novo review in the 

appropriate district court of the United 

States, which will have jurisdiction over 

such an action without regard to the 

amount in controversy. Either party 

shall be entitled to a trial by jury. 

(b) Within seven days after filing a 

complaint in Federal court, a 

complainant must file with OSHA, the 

ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where 

the proceeding is pending, a copy of the 

file-stamped complaint. A copy of the 

complaint also must be served on the 

OSHA official who issued the findings 

and/or preliminary order, the Assistant 

Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, 

Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

§ 1992.115 Special circumstances; waiver 

of rules. 

In special circumstances not 

contemplated by the provisions of this 

part, or for good cause shown, the ALJ 

or the ARB on review may, upon 

application, and after three days’ notice 

to all parties, waive any rule or issue 

such orders that justice or the 

administration of AMLA requires. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00539 Filed 1–13–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 234 

[Docket ID: COE–2023–0005] 

RIN 0710–AB41 

Corps of Engineers Agency Specific 

Procedures To Implement the 

Principles, Requirements, and 

Guidelines for Federal Investments in 

Water Resources; Correction 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Army, Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) ACF is correcting a 

final rule (FR) that was published in the 

Federal Register on December 19, 2024, 

with an effective date of January 17, 

2025. This rule establishes Agency 

Specific Procedures (ASPs) for the 

Corps to implement the Principles, 

Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) 

for Federal water resources investments. 

It provides a framework to govern how 

the Corps would evaluate proposed 

water resources investments, subject to 

the PR&G. The rule incorporates 

recommendations from interested 

parties. This correction ensures that this 

final rule will be effective 30 days after 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
3036 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

its publication on December 19, 2024, 

which is January 18, 2025. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

January 17, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Milton Boyd, Acting Director for Policy 

and Legislation, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 108 

Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20310–0108, at (202) 761–8546 or 

milton.w.boyd.civ@army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rule published December 19, 2024, 

there was one technical error that is 

now identified and corrected in this 

document. The provisions in this 

correction document are effective as if 

they had been included in the document 

published December 19, 2024. 

Accordingly, the following corrections 

are effective January 18, 2025. 

Corrections to Regulations 

In FR Doc. 2024–29652, appearing on 

page 103992 in the Federal Register of 

Thursday, December 19, 2024, the 

following correction is made: 

1. On page 103992, in the first 

column, correct the DATES section to 

read as follows: 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

18, 2025. 

Jaime A. Pinkham, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil 

Works. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00617 Filed 1–13–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Parts 1, 41, and 42 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2022–0033] 

RIN 0651–AD64 

Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees 

During Fiscal Year 2025 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) is correcting 

several minor typographical and other 

nonsubstantive inadvertent errors in the 

preamble and amendatory instructions 

to a final rule that appeared in the 

Federal Register on November 20, 2024. 

That final rule set or adjusted patent 

fees as authorized by the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act (AIA), as amended 

by the Study of Underrepresented 

Classes Chasing Engineering and 

Science Success Act of 2018 (SUCCESS 

Act). These corrections do not result in 

any substantive changes to the final 

rule. 

DATES: The final rule correction is 

effective January 19, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. 

Brett Lockard, Director, Forecasting and 

Analysis Division, at 571–272–0928 or 

Christopher.Lockard@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 20, 2024, the USPTO 

published a final rule setting or 

adjusting patent fees as authorized by 

the AIA, as amended by the SUCCESS 

Act. See 89 FR 91898. Subsequent to the 

publication of that final rule, it was 

discovered that the preamble discussion 

and several amendatory instructions 

contained inadvertent errors requiring 

correction. For example, in the 

preamble, example 10, which provides 

guidance for ‘‘Adding timely benefit 

claims under 35 U.S.C. 120 after filing; 

multiple fees due,’’ contained an 

incorrect internal cross-reference to the 

subject application. The subject 

application in the example should be 

‘‘J’’ and not ‘‘I.’’ Also, in table 20, in the 

entry for § 1.17(m)(2), for a ‘‘Petition to 

excuse applicant’s failure to act within 

prescribed time limits in an 

international design application, delay 

less than or equal to two years,’’ the 

table reflected that the final rule fee 

applicable to a micro entity for this 

action was ‘‘$54,’’ which is incorrect. 

The correct fee should be ‘‘$452.’’ In 

addition, in the regulatory text at 

§ 42.15(e), the description of the fee did 

not reflect changes made by an 

intervening final rule published on 

October 10, 2024, entitled ‘‘Expanding 

Opportunities To Appear Before the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board’’ (89 FR 

82172), which revised the terminology 

used to reference counsel recognized 

pro hac vice before the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board. This correction updates 

the description of the fee in paragraph 

(e) to reflect the revision made by the 

October 10, 2024 final rule. No changes 

are being made to the fee amount that 

was published in the November 20, 

2024, final rule. This final rule corrects 

these errors, as well as other minor 

typographical errors in the amendatory 

instructions. These changes are 

administrative in nature and are 

intended to provide clarification to 

impacted entities to avoid any potential 

confusion. 

Rulemaking Considerations 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This final rule corrects typographical 

and format errors in a rulemaking 

setting and adjusting patent fees. The 

changes in this final rule involve rules 

of agency practice and procedure and/ 

or interpretive rules and do not require 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. See 

Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S.Ct. 

1199, 1204 (2015) (explaining that 

interpretive rules ‘‘advise the public of 

the agency’s construction of the statutes 

and rules which it administers’’ and do 

not require notice-and-comment 

rulemaking when issued or amended); 

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’’); and JEM Broadcasting Co. 

v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 328 (D.C. Cir. 

1994) (explaining that rules are not 

legislative because they do not 

‘‘foreclose effective opportunity to make 

one’s case on the merits’’). 

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 changes 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 unnecessary, impracticable, and 

contrary to the public interest. As 

discussed above, the changes in this 

rulemaking involve correcting minor 

typographical and other nonsubstantive 

errors in the final rule published on 

November 20, 2024, which itself 

underwent notice and comment and a 

delay in effective date. These changes 

are administrative in nature and are 

intended to provide clarification to 

impacted entities to avoid any potential 

confusion that could result if these 

errors are not corrected prior to the 

effective date of the November 20, 2024, 

final rule. Therefore, good cause exists 

to dispense with the requirement for 

prior notice and an opportunity for 

public comment and a 30-day delay in 

effectiveness. 

Correction 

In FR Doc. 2024–26821 appearing on 

page 91898 in the Federal Register of 

Wednesday, November 20, 2024, the 

following corrections are made: 

■ 1. On page 91913, in the first column, 

Example 10: Adding timely benefit 

claims under 35 U.S.C. 120 after filing; 

multiple fees due is corrected to read as 

follows: 

Example 10: Adding timely benefit 

claims under 35 U.S.C. 120 after filing; 

multiple fees due. Application J is a 

nonprovisional application filed on July 

5, 2029. The ADS present upon J’s filing 

contains a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES