35226 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

procedures, they were published, at that 

time, in the Federal Register to aid 

public accessibility. 

The solicitation of public comment 

for this removal is unnecessary as the 

removed sections in this part are out-ofdate, duplicative of existing regulations, 

and otherwise cover internal agency 

operations that have no public 

compliance component or adverse 

public impact. Sections 210.1, 210.2, 

and 210.3 are duplicative with and/or 

have been updated by the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subparts 

5, 11, 14, and 15 which provide 

procedures for advance notice, notice of 

award, commencement, and completion 

of work. Sections 210.4 and 210.5 no 

longer apply. In addition, the Engineer 

Board was absorbed by the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in 

July 2000. 

This removal is being conducted to 

provide clarity and reduce confusion for 

the public as well as for the Corps 

regarding the current policy which 

governs the Corps’ internal procurement 

activities. The removal of the regulation 

will ensure the Corps’ policy complies 

with the existing FAR which can be 

found at the source provided in this 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

The regulation does not place a burden 

on the public; therefore, its removal 

does not provide a reduction in public 

burden or costs. This rule is not 

significant under Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 210 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Government procurement. 

PART 210—[REMOVED] 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble and under the authority of 

5 U.S.C. 301, the Corps removes 33 CFR 

part 210. 

Dated: June 29, 2021. 

Jaime A. Pinkham, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works). 

[FR Doc. 2021–14244 Filed 7–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 214 

RIN 0710–AB38 

Emergency Supplies of Drinking Water 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule removes the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ part 

titled, ‘‘Emergency Supplies of Drinking 

Water.’’ This part is mostly duplicative 

of an equivalent part in the agency’s 

regulations. Where it is not duplicative 

this part could be misleading, as its 

provisions have been superseded by 

those in the equivalent part related to 

emergency water supplies due to 

contaminated water sources. Therefore, 

this part can be removed from the Code 

of Federal regulations (CFR). 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 2, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Department of the Army, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: 

CECW–HS (Mr. Mark Roupas), 441 G 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20314– 

1000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Willem Helms at (202) 761–5909 or by 

email at willem.h.helms@

usace.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule removes from the CFR part 214 of 

title 33, ‘‘Emergency Supplies of 

Drinking Water.’’ The regulation was 

initially promulgated on February 19, 

1976 (41 FR 7506), solely in order to 

implement the 1974 amendment to 

Public Law 84–99 in Section 82(2) of 

Public Law 93–251, authorizing the 

Chief of Engineers to provide emergency 

supplies of clean drinking water to any 

locality with contaminated drinking 

water causing or likely to cause a 

substantial threat to the public health 

and welfare. The removed part is mostly 

duplicative of the equivalent section of 

33 CFR part 203 at § 203.61, Emergency 

water supplies due to contaminated 

water source. The Corps’ current 

emergency management regulation in 33 

CFR part 203 includes coverage of the 

contaminated water authority among the 

other aspects of the Corps’ emergency 

management program. Where it is not 

duplicative part 214 could be 

misleading, as its provisions have been 

superseded by those in 33 CFR part 203 

related to emergency water supplies due 

to contaminated water sources. While 

the rule applies only to Corps internal 

agency guidance regarding responses to 

provide emergency supplies of drinking 

water, it was published, at that time, in 

the Federal Register to aid public 

accessibility. 

The solicitation of public comment is 

unnecessary as this part is redundant or 

otherwise out-of-date. This removal is 

being conducted to provide clarity and 

reduce confusion for the public as well 

as for the Corps regarding the current 

policy which governs the Corps’ 

provision of emergency supplies of 

clean drinking water. Because the 

regulation does not place a burden on 

the public, its removal does not provide 

a reduction in public burden or costs. 

This rule is not significant under 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review.’’ 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 214 

Disaster assistance, Intergovernmental 

relations, Water supply. 

PART 214—[REMOVED] 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble and under the authority of 

5 U.S.C. 301, the Corps removes 33 CFR 

part 214. 

Dated: June 29, 2021. 

Jaime A. Pinkham, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works). 

[FR Doc. 2021–14247 Filed 7–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No.: PTO–C–2017–0033] 

RIN 0651–AD24 

Removal of Certain Rules of Patent 

Practice 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) 

revises the rules of practice in patent 

cases to eliminate the requirement for 

original handwritten signatures on 

certain correspondence with the Office 

of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) and 

certain payments made to the USPTO by 

credit card. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 2, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on this rule, please contact 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 35227 

Howie Reitz, Staff Attorney, Office of 

Enrollment and Discipline, USPTO, at 

571–272–4097. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

To support regulatory reform efforts, 

the USPTO assembled a Working Group 

on Regulatory Reform (Working 

Group)—consisting of subject-matter 

experts from each of the business units 

that implement the USPTO’s 

regulations—to consider, review, and 

recommend ways that the regulations 

could be improved, revised, and 

streamlined. The Working Group 

reviewed existing regulations, both 

discretionary and required by statute or 

judicial order. The USPTO also solicited 

comments from stakeholders through a 

web page established to provide 

information on the USPTO’s regulatory 

reform efforts, and through the 

Department of Commerce’s Federal 

Register Notice titled ‘‘Impact of Federal 

Regulations on Domestic 

Manufacturing’’ (82 FR 12786, Mar. 7, 

2017), which addressed the impact of 

regulatory burdens on domestic 

manufacturing. These efforts led to the 

selection of certain regulations related 

to the requirement for an original 

handwritten signature for certain 

correspondence with the Office of 

Enrollment and Discipline (OED) for 

removal based on the USPTO’s 

assessment that they were not needed 

and/or that elimination could improve 

the USPTO’s body of regulations. 

In addition, as part of the USPTO’s 

COVID–19 relief efforts, the USPTO 

waived the requirement for an original 

handwritten signature for certain 

correspondence with OED and certain 

payments by credit card in an 

announcement made on March 19, 

2020, and in a notice published in the 

Federal Register on March 30, 2020 (85 

FR 17502). In that announcement, the 

USPTO determined that the effects of 

COVID–19 were an ‘‘extraordinary 

situation’’ within the meaning of 37 CFR 

1.183 and 2.146(a)(5) for affected 

persons doing business before the Office 

that warranted a waiver of the original 

handwritten signature requirements of 

§ 1.4(e). 

II. Regulations for Removal 

In this final rule, the USPTO finalizes 

those provisions in its proposed rule 

published on November 25, 2019 (84 FR 

64800) related to the removal of the 

requirement for original handwritten 

signatures in dark ink on 

correspondence relating to registration 

to practice before the Office and other 

matters within the purview of the OED, 

which achieves the objective of making 

the USPTO’s regulations more effective, 

while enabling the USPTO to fulfill its 

mission-related goals. 

Although the Office proposed to 

remove only the original handwritten 

signature requirement found in 37 CFR 

1.4(e)(1), relating to correspondence 

with the OED, in this final rule, the 

Office also eliminates the original 

handwritten signature requirement 

found in § 1.4(e)(2), related to payments 

by credit card when the payment is not 

being made via the Office’s electronic 

filing systems. The removal of § 1.4(e)(2) 

makes permanent the USPTO’s waiver 

of the original handwritten signature 

requirement in payments by credit card 

announced on March 19, 2020, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 30, 2020 (85 FR 17502). 

Elimination of the entirety of § 1.4(e) 

allows, for example, the use of facsimile 

transmissions and S-signatures in 

enrollment and disciplinary matters 

before the OED, in addition to the use 

of facsimile transmissions and Ssignatures in payments by credit card. 

Elimination of this section also 

facilitates the implementation of an 

electronic filing system within the OED. 

As a conforming change, this final rule 

also removes § 1.6(d)(1) to eliminate an 

obsolete cross reference to § 1.4(e). 

The USPTO intends to address its 

proposed revisions to its regulations 

governing requests for Presidential 

Proclamations under the Semiconductor 

Chip Protection Act (SCPA), as 

published in its proposed rule on 

November 25, 2019 (84 FR 64800), in a 

separate notice. 

III. Proposed Rule: Comments and 

Responses 

The USPTO published a proposed 

rule on November 25, 2019 (84 FR 

64800), soliciting comments on the 

proposed amendments. The USPTO 

received no comments in response to 

the proposed rule. 

IV. Discussion of Rule Changes 

This final rule removes and reserves 

37 CFR 1.4(e), which sets forth certain 

correspondence and signature 

requirements. As a corresponding 

change, this final rule removes and 

reserves § 1.6(d)(1) to eliminate an 

obsolete cross reference to § 1.4(e). 

Rulemaking Considerations: 

A. Administrative Procedure Act: The 

changes in this rulemaking involve rules 

of agency practice and procedure, and/ 

or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. 

Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 

(2015) (Interpretive rules ‘‘advise the 

public of the agency’s construction of 

the statutes and rules which it 

administers.’’ (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)); Nat’l Org. of 

Veterans’ Advocates v. Sec’y of Veterans 

Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 

2001) (rule that clarifies that the 

interpretation of a statute is 

interpretive); Bachow Commc’ns Inc. v. 

FCC, 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 for the 

changes in this rulemaking were not 

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

(c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. 

Ct. at 1206 (Notice-and-comment 

procedures are required neither when 

an agency ‘‘issue[s] an initial 

interpretive rule’’ nor ‘‘when it amends 

or repeals that interpretive rule.’’); 

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-andcomment rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative 

rules, general statements of policy, or 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice’’ (quoting 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A))). However, to benefit from 

the public’s input, the Office chose to 

seek public comment on the removal of 

its regulations governing requests for 

Presidential Proclamations under the 

SCPA and on the elimination of the 

requirement for original handwritten 

signatures on certain correspondence 

with the OED before implementing the 

rule. 

In addition, the Office, pursuant to 

the authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), finds 

good cause to remove regulations 

requiring that certain payments be made 

to the USPTO by credit card, found in 

37 CFR 1.4(e)(2) and § 1.6(d)(1), without 

prior notice and an opportunity for 

public comment, as such procedures 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

The public does not require additional 

time to conform its conduct, as the 

changes in this final rule do not add any 

new requirements, and the elimination 

of the provisions in this final rule 

provides a modest benefit to impacted 

parties by making permanent the use of 

alternative signature methods in certain 

payments by credit card. 

Furthermore, the Office finds good 

cause to waive the 30-day delayed 

effectiveness period for this final rule, 

as provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

because such delay would be contrary to 

the public interest, as this final rule 

provides a modest benefit to impacted 

parties by making permanent the use of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
35228 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

alternative signature methods in certain 

payments by credit card. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the 

reasons set forth herein, the Senior 

Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative 

Affairs, Office of General Law, of the 

USPTO has certified to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration that changes in 

this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). 

This final rule removes 37 CFR 1.4(e), 

which required original handwritten 

signatures in dark ink on 

correspondence relating to registration 

to practice before the Office and other 

matters in the purview of the OED, and 

in payments by credit card where the 

payment is not being made via the 

Office’s electronic filing systems. 

Elimination of this section allows for 

the use of facsimile transmissions and 

S-signatures in enrollment and 

disciplinary matters before the OED and 

in the payment of fees by credit card, 

thereby providing a modest benefit to 

impacted parties. As a conforming 

change, this final rule also removes 

§ 1.6(d)(1) to eliminate an obsolete cross 

reference to § 1.4(e). For these reasons, 

this rulemaking will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review): This rulemaking 

has been determined to be not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review): The 

Office has complied with Executive 

Order 13563. Specifically, the Office 

has, to the extent feasible and 

applicable: (1) Made a reasoned 

determination that the benefits justify 

the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule 

to impose the least burden on society 

consistent with obtaining the regulatory 

objectives; (3) selected a regulatory 

approach that maximizes net benefits; 

(4) specified performance objectives; (5) 

identified and assessed available 

alternatives; (6) involved the public in 

an open exchange of information and 

perspectives among experts in relevant 

disciplines, affected stakeholders in the 

private sector, and the public as a 

whole, and provided online access to 

the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to 

promote coordination, simplification, 

and harmonization across government 

agencies and identified goals designed 

to promote innovation; (8) considered 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public; and (9) ensured 

the objectivity of scientific and 

technological information and 

processes. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism): This rulemaking does not 

contain policies with federalism 

implications sufficient to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 

1999). 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation): This rulemaking will not: 

(1) Have substantial direct effects on one 

or more Indian tribes, (2) impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, or (3) 

preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required under Executive Order 13175 

(Nov. 6, 2000). 

G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Effects): This rulemaking is not a 

significant energy action under 

Executive Order 13211 because this 

rulemaking is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required under Executive Order 13211 

(May 18, 2001). 

H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets 

applicable standards to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden, as set forth in sections 

3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 

12988 (Feb. 5, 1996). 

I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection 

of Children): This rulemaking does not 

concern an environmental risk to health 

or safety that may disproportionately 

affect children under Executive Order 

13045 (Apr. 21, 1997). 

J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property): This rulemaking will 

not effect a taking of private property or 

otherwise have taking implications 

under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 

1988). 

K. Congressional Review Act: Under 

the Congressional Review Act 

provisions of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to 

issuing any final rule, the USPTO will 

submit a report containing the final rule 

and other required information to the 

United States Senate, the United States 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the Government 

Accountability Office. The changes in 

this rulemaking are not expected to 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises 

in domestic and export markets. 

Therefore, this rulemaking is not 

expected to result in a ‘‘major rule,’’ as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995: The changes set forth in this 

rulemaking do not involve a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate that will 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in 

any one year, or a Federal private sector 

mandate that will result in the 

expenditure by the private sector of 

$100 million (as adjusted) or more in 

any one year, and will not significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions are necessary 

under the provisions of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

M. National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969: This rulemaking will not have 

any effect on the quality of the 

environment and is thus categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

N. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995: The 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) are not applicable because this 

rulemaking does not contain provisions 

that involve the use of technical 

standards. 

O. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the 

Office consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. This 

rulemaking involves information 

collections that are subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3549). 

Removal of the requirement for original 

handwritten signatures in dark ink does 

not impact the current OMB approval of 

OMB control numbers 0651–0012, 

0651–0017, and 0651–0043. 

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 has a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

P. E-Government Act Compliance: 

The USPTO is committed to compliance 

with the E-Government Act to promote 

the use of the internet and other 

information technologies, to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 35229 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom 

of information, Inventions and patents, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Small businesses. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the USPTO amends chapter 1 

of title 37 as follows: 

PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

PATENT CASES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

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

otherwise noted. 

§ 1.4 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 1.4 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (e). 

§ 1.6 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 1.6 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(1). 

Andrew Hirshfeld, 

Commissioner for Patents, Performing the 

Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14036 Filed 7–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Parts 1 and 2 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2020–0063] 

RIN 0651–AD52 

Mailing Address Changes Related to 

USPTO Deposit Accounts and Patent 

Maintenance Fees 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is 

revising the Rules of Practice to update 

the addresses for payments of patent 

maintenance fees that are not submitted 

electronically, correspondence related 

to maintenance fees, and the 

replenishment of a USPTO deposit 

account by mail. From December 15, 

2020, through December 14, 2021, 

maintenance fee payments, maintenance 

fee-related correspondence, and USPTO 

deposit account replenishments sent to 

the old addresses will be forwarded to 

the new addresses. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

2, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Inquiries related to maintenance fees 

and USPTO deposit accounts may be 

made by calling 571–272–6500. 

Inquiries related to this final rule should 

be directed to Matthew Lee, Office of 

Finance, USPTO, at matthew.lee@

uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To 

improve operational efficiencies and 

consolidate space, the USPTO’s Office 

of Finance, which includes the 

Maintenance Fee and Deposit Account 

Branches, was relocated as of December 

15, 2020, from 2051 Jamieson Avenue, 

Suite 300, in Alexandria, Virginia, to the 

main USPTO campus in Alexandria, 

Virginia. Accordingly, this final rule 

updates the Rules of Practice in Patent 

Cases and the Rules of Practice in 

Trademark Cases with both the new 

mailing address for patent maintenance 

fees and maintenance fee-related 

correspondence and the new mailing 

address for USPTO deposit account 

replenishments. As of December 15, 

2020, correspondence sent by U.S. 

Postal Service (USPS) first-class mail to 

pay a USPTO patent maintenance fee, as 

well as other maintenance fee-related 

correspondence, should be mailed to: 

Mail Stop Maintenance Fee, Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22313–1450. 

Also as of December 15, 2020, checks 

and money orders that are sent by USPS 

first-class mail to replenish a USPTO 

deposit account should be mailed to: 

Mail Stop Deposit Accounts, Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22313–1450. 

From December 15, 2020, through 

December 14, 2021, maintenance fee 

payments, maintenance fee-related 

correspondence, and USPTO deposit 

account replenishments sent to the 

Jamieson Avenue addresses will be 

forwarded to the new addresses. After 

December 14, 2021, such mailings may 

be returned to the sender by the USPS. 

The appropriate sections of the 

Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 

and the Trademark Manual of 

Examining Procedure will be revised in 

due course to reflect these mailing 

address changes. 

Maintenance fee payments and 

USPTO deposit account replenishments 

submitted electronically on the USPTO 

website at www.uspto.gov are not 

affected by these mailing address 

changes. 

Discussion of Specific Rules 

The following is a discussion of the 

amendments to 37 CFR part 1. 

Section 1.1: Section 1.1(a) is amended 

to remove the reference to paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section from the listed 

exceptions. 

Section 1.1(d) is amended to add the 

paragraph heading ‘‘Payments of patent 

maintenance fees’’ and to change the 

address for payments of patent 

maintenance fees that are not submitted 

electronically and correspondence 

related to maintenance fees to ‘‘Mail 

Stop Maintenance Fee, Director of the 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22313–1450.’’ 

Section 1.25: Section 1.25(c) is 

amended to remove the reference to 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section, as the 

paragraph was previously removed. 

Section 1.25(c)(3) is amended to 

change the address for payments to 

replenish a USPTO deposit account to 

‘‘Mail Stop Deposit Accounts, Director 

of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450.’’ 

The following is a discussion of the 

amendment to 37 CFR part 2. 

Section 2.208: Section 2.208(c)(3) is 

amended to change the address for 

payments to replenish a USPTO deposit 

account to ‘‘Mail Stop Deposit 

Accounts, Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 

1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313– 

1450.’’ 

Rulemaking Considerations 

A. Administrative Procedure Act: 

Since this final rule is directed to 

changing an Office address, this final 

rule merely involves rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice 

within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A) and is a non-substantive 

change to the regulations. Accordingly, 

this final rule may be adopted without 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). 

Furthermore, the Office finds good 

cause to waive the 30-day delayed 

effectiveness period, as provided by 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3), because such delay 

would be contrary to the public interest 

in providing accurate contact 

information for the Office. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1