Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 41267 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA–2022–0817; 

Project Identifier MCAI–2022–00369–T. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) by August 26, 

2022. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model 

A350–941 and A350–1041 airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a determination 

that, in the event of rapid decompression at 

a specific location of the airplane, possible 

deflections of the passenger floor crossbeams 

may result in wiring damages, leading to 

potential system losses. The FAA is issuing 

this AD to address this unsafe condition, 

which could lead to an increase of the 

landing distance, exceeding the value 

provided in the current in-flight failure data 

file for landing, and potentially resulting in 

a runway excursion. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Requirements 

Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this 

AD: Comply with all required actions and 

compliance times specified in, and in 

accordance with, European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022–0054, dated 

March 23, 2022 (EASA AD 2022–0054). 

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022–0054 

(1) Where EASA AD 2022–0054 refers to 

March 30, 2022 (the effective date of EASA 

AD 2022–0045, dated March 16, 2022), this 

AD requires using the effective date of this 

AD. 

(2) Where EASA AD 2022–0054 specifies 

to ‘‘inform all flight crews, and thereafter, 

operate the aeroplane accordingly’’ this AD 

does not require those actions as those 

actions are already required by existing FAA 

operating regulations. 

(3) Where the ‘‘AFM Amendment’’ 

paragraph of EASA AD 2022–0054 specifies 

implementing an AFM [airplane flight 

manual] revision, for this AD, replace the text 

’’implement the AFM revision, as defined in 

this [EASA] AD’’ with ‘‘revise the existing 

AFM to incorporate the aircraft performance 

database specified in the AFM revision, as 

defined in this [EASA] AD.’’ 

(4) The ‘‘Remarks’’ section of EASA AD 

2022–0054 does not apply to this AD. 

(i) Additional AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Large Aircraft 

Section, International Validation Branch, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 

14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your 

principal inspector or responsible Flight 

Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending 

information directly to the Large Aircraft 

Section, International Validation Branch, 

send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR730-AMOC@faa.gov. Before using any 

approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the responsible 

Flight Standards Office. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain instructions 

from a manufacturer, the instructions must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, 

International Validation Branch, FAA; or 

EASA; or Airbus SAS’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except 

as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if 

any service information contains procedures 

or tests that are identified as RC, those 

procedures and tests must be done to comply 

with this AD; any procedures or tests that are 

not identified as RC are recommended. Those 

procedures and tests that are not identified 

as RC may be deviated from using accepted 

methods in accordance with the operator’s 

maintenance or inspection program without 

obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided 

the procedures and tests identified as RC can 

be done and the airplane can be put back in 

an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or 

changes to procedures or tests identified as 

RC require approval of an AMOC. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For EASA AD 2022–0054, contact 

EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 

000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; internet 

www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this 

EASA AD on the EASA website at https://

ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this 

material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products 

Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. This 

material may be found in the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2022–0817. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

Large Aircraft Section, International 

Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th 

Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 

206–231–3225; email dan.rodina@faa.gov. 

Issued on July 5, 2022. 

Christina Underwood, 

Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14691 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2022–0008] 

RIN 0651–AD60 

Standardization of the Patent Term 

Adjustment Statement Regarding 

Information Disclosure Statements 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) 

proposes to revise the rules of practice 

pertaining to patent term adjustment to 

require that the patent term adjustment 

statement regarding information 

disclosure statements be submitted on 

an Office form. Use of the Office form 

will streamline certain aspects of 

prosecution by more accurately 

capturing and accounting for the patent 

term adjustment without unnecessary 

back-and-forth between the USPTO and 

applicant. It will also save resources by 

eliminating the need for a manual 

review of the patent term adjustment 

statement. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 12, 2022 to ensure 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government 

efficiency, comments must be submitted 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the portal, enter docket 

number PTO–P–2022–0008 on the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
41268 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

homepage and click ‘‘Search.’’ The site 

will provide a search results page listing 

all documents associated with this 

docket. Find a reference to this 

document and click on the ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ icon, complete the required 

fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Adobe®

portable document format or Microsoft 

Word® format. Because comments will 

be made available for public inspection, 

information that the submitter does not 

desire to make public, such as an 

address or phone number, should not be 

included in the comments. 

Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

for additional instructions on providing 

comments via the portal. If electronic 

submission of comments is not feasible 

due to a lack of access to a computer 

and/or the internet, please contact the 

USPTO using the contact information 

below (at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) for special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kery 

Fries, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of 

Patent Legal Administration, at 571– 

272–7757. You can also send inquiries 

by email to patentpractice@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

rulemaking pertains to the patent term 

adjustment regulations establishing the 

circumstances that will, or will not, be 

considered a failure of an applicant to 

engage in reasonable efforts to conclude 

prosecution (processing or examination) 

of an application and any resulting 

reduction of patent term adjustment (37 

CFR 1.704). 

Regulations establishing the 

circumstances that constitute a failure of 

an applicant to engage in reasonable 

efforts to conclude processing or 

examination of an application and the 

resulting reduction of any patent term 

adjustment are set forth in 37 CFR 

1.704(c)(1) through (14). 

Additionally, 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) 

provides a safe harbor by setting forth 

the circumstances that will not be 

considered a failure to engage in 

reasonable efforts to conclude 

processing or examination of the 

application. Specifically, 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(1) provides that a paper 

containing only an information 

disclosure statement in compliance with 

§§ 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered 

a failure to engage in reasonable efforts 

to conclude prosecution (processing or 

examination) of the application under 

37 CFR 1.704(c)(6), (8), (9), or (10) if it 

is accompanied by the required 

statement. The provision at 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(1) also provides that a request 

for continued examination in 

compliance with § 1.114 with no 

submission other than an information 

disclosure statement in compliance with 

§§ 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered 

a failure to engage in reasonable efforts 

to conclude prosecution (processing or 

examination) of the application under 

37 CFR 1.704(c)(12) if it is accompanied 

by the required statement. The 

statement required to accompany the 

paper or request for continued 

examination must state that each item of 

information contained in the 

information disclosure statement (1) 

was first cited in any communication 

from a patent office in a counterpart 

foreign or international application or 

from the Office, and this 

communication was not received by any 

individual designated in § 1.56(c) more 

than thirty days prior to the filing of the 

information disclosure statement; or (2) 

is a communication that was issued by 

a patent office in a counterpart foreign 

or international application or by the 

Office, and this communication was not 

received by any individual designated 

in § 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior 

to the filing of the information 

disclosure statement. 

This rulemaking proposes amending 

37 CFR 1.704(d) to include new 

paragraph (d)(3) requiring that filers 

submit the patent term adjustment 

statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) on 

the Office form (PTO/SB/133) to derive 

benefit under 37 CFR 1.704(d). The 

changes proposed in this rulemaking 

facilitate the current patent term 

adjustment statement requirement 

through the use of an existing Office 

form. 

Form PTO/SB/133 includes the patent 

term adjustment statement required by 

37 CFR 1.704(d)(1). Specifically, the 

form includes the statement that ‘‘[e]ach 

item of information contained in the 

information disclosure statement was 

first cited in any communication from a 

patent office in a counterpart foreign or 

international application or from the 

Office, and this communication was not 

received by any individual designated 

in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than thirty days 

prior to the filing of the information 

disclosure statement.’’ The form also 

includes the alternative statement that 

‘‘[e]ach item of information contained in 

the information disclosure statement is 

a communication that was issued by a 

patent office in a counterpart foreign or 

international application or by the 

Office, and this communication was not 

received by any individual designated 

in 37 CFR 1.56(c) more than thirty days 

prior to the filing of the information 

disclosure statement.’’ The filer of the 

form could select one or both of these 

statements. 

Use of form PTO/SB/133 aims to: (1) 

ensure the accurate capture of the 

presence of a patent term adjustment 

statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) by 

the USPTO’s IT system, and (2) 

eliminate the need to manually review 

an applicant’s patent term adjustment 

statement to determine whether it is 

proper under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1). 

Furthermore, as a result of using the 

form, the USPTO’s automated process 

for calculating patent term adjustment 

will be more likely to account for the 

patent term adjustment statement, 

thereby eliminating the need to file a 

request for reconsideration of patent 

term adjustment under 37 CFR 1.705(b). 

Form PTO/SB/133 is available at 

www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ 

documents/sb0133.pdf. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

determined that, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h), 

form PTO/SB/133 does not collect 

‘‘information’’ within the meaning of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Filers who submit a 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(1) patent term adjustment 

statement without using Office form 

PTO/SB/133 and filers who submit 

Office form PTO/SB/133 with any 

modification to the patent term 

adjustment statement (that is, 

modifications to either or both of the 

statements indicated on the form) will 

not receive the benefit of the safe harbor 

under 37 CFR 1.704(d). Under such 

circumstances, the concurrently filed 

paper containing only an information 

disclosure statement, in compliance 

with §§ 1.97 and 1.98, or the 

concurrently filed paper containing a 

request for continued examination, in 

compliance with § 1.114, with no 

submission other than an information 

disclosure statement, in compliance 

with §§ 1.97 and 1.98, will be treated as 

not accompanied by a patent term 

adjustment statement under 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(1). 

Additionally, the USPTO’s patent 

term adjustment algorithm is being 

modified to detect when a patent term 

adjustment statement under 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(1) is filed using the Office 

form. The Office has created a particular 

document code for the filing of this 

patent term adjustment statement form 

under 37 CFR 1.704(d). Once modified, 

the patent term adjustment algorithm 

will recognize that the Office form 

(PTO/SB/133) has been filed 

concurrently with (i.e., on the same date 

as) the information disclosure statement 

and, accordingly, will not assess a 

reduction in patent term adjustment 

under the applicable applicant delay 

sections of 37 CFR 1.704(c) for the 

patent. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 41269 

The Office reviewed a sampling of 

patent term adjustment statements that 

were independently submitted without 

the use of Office form PTO/SB/133 and 

found that a portion of those statements 

were deficient by failing to meet the 

required language of 37 CFR 1.704(d). 

Requiring the use of the form will 

eliminate these types of deficiencies, 

and use of Office form PTO/SB/133 will 

thus ensure legal compliance, so long as 

the patent term adjustment statement is 

not modified. Because the USPTO’s 

patent term adjustment algorithm will 

now automatically determine that a 

reduction in patent term should not be 

assessed in view of a submitted form 

PTO/SB/133, the Office will also not 

need to expend resources to manually 

review the provided patent term 

adjustment statement under 37 CFR 

1.704(d). The Office will rely on the 

presentation to the Office (whether by 

signing, filing, submitting, or later 

advocating) of this form, whether by a 

practitioner or non-practitioner, as a 

certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b) that 

the existing text and any certification 

statements on the form have not been 

altered. 

The submission of a patent term 

adjustment statement under 37 CFR 

1.704(d) does not require a fee. 

However, in certain cases, a fee is 

required. Specifically, the Office has 

provided a procedure for applicants to 

seek a waiver under 37 CFR 1.183 to 

allow for a late-filed patent term 

adjustment statement under 37 CFR 

1.704(d). Section 1.183 provides for an 

applicant to petition for suspension of 

rules and requires the fee under 37 CFR 

1.17(f). If accompanied by a petition 

under 37 CFR 1.183, an applicant may 

submit the patent term adjustment 

statement under 37 CFR 1.704(d) after 

the timely filing of the information 

disclosure statement. Applicants have 

additionally submitted such a patent 

term adjustment statement under 37 

CFR 1.704(d) accompanied by a petition 

under 37 CFR 1.183 along with the 

filing of a request for reconsideration of 

the patent term adjustment indicated on 

the patent (37 CFR 1.705(b)) in order to 

receive the benefit of the safe harbor 

under 37 CFR 1.704(d). The Office has 

generally granted such 37 CFR 1.183 

petitions. 

Once the USPTO’s patent term 

adjustment algorithm is modified to 

automatically detect when a patent term 

adjustment statement form under 37 

CFR 1.704(d) is filed, the Office may 

consider eliminating the procedure of 

generally granting such 37 CFR 1.183 

petitions. Additionally, applicants 

should keep in mind that a petition 

under 37 CFR 1.183 may only be used 

to request acceptance of the late-filed 

patent term adjustment statement under 

37 CFR 1.704(d)(1). Under no 

circumstances may the information 

disclosure statement be filed more than 

30 days from the applicable 

communication under 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(1)(i) or (ii), the 30-day period 

being non-extendable per 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(2). 

Discussion of Specific Rules 

The following is a discussion of the 

proposed amendments to 37 CFR part 1. 

Section 1.704: Section 1.704(d) is 

proposed to be amended to include new 

paragraph (d)(3) requiring that the 

statement under paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section be submitted on a form provided 

by the Office (PTO/SB/133). Absent the 

patent term adjustment statement under 

37 CFR 1.704(d) provided on the Office 

form, submitted concurrently with the 

information disclosure statement, an 

applicant will be assessed a reduction of 

the period of patent term adjustment 

under the appropriate provision in 

§ 1.704. Newly proposed § 1.704(d)(3) 

also includes language, mirroring that in 

existing § 1.4(d)(5), regarding the 

prohibition of changing an existing 

form’s text and patent term adjustment 

statements. 

Rulemaking Considerations 

A. Administrative Procedure Act: The 

changes proposed by 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 

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.). Specifically, this rulemaking 

proposes to revise Office rules to require 

the use of the provided Office form for 

filing statements under 37 CFR 1.704(d). 

The proposed revision creates 

paragraph 37 CFR 1.704(d)(3) requiring 

that the ‘‘statement under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section must be submitted 

on the Office form (PTO/SB/133) 

provided for such a patent term 

adjustment statement.’’ 

Accordingly, prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment for the 

changes proposed by this rulemaking 

are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(b) or (c), or any other law. See 

Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (Notice-andcomment 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 noticeand-comment 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, 

the Office has chosen to seek public 

comment before implementing the rule 

to benefit from the public’s input. 

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 proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. See 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

This rulemaking does not propose to 

impose any additional fees on 

applicants. This rulemaking specifically 

proposes to revise Office rules to require 

the use of an Office form for statements 

under 37 CFR 1.704(d)(1) through the 

creation of paragraph 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(3). This new requirement only 

seeks to facilitate the current statement 

requirement, pursuant to 37 CFR 

1.704(d)(1) and set forth in the Manual 

of Patent Examining Procedure 2732, 

through the use of an existing Office 

form containing the required statement 

language. 

For the foregoing reasons, the changes 

in this proposed rule 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 (Sept. 30, 1993). 

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review): The 

Office has complied with Executive 

Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). 

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 proposed rule to impose the least 

burden on society consistent with 

obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) 

selected a regulatory approach that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
41270 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 801–808), the USPTO 

will submit a report containing any final 

rule resulting from this rulemaking and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. 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 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. The 

rules of practice pertaining to patent 

term adjustment and extension have 

been reviewed and approved by the 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

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

under OMB control number 0651–0020. 

Although this action proposes a 

requirement to use Office form PTO/SB/ 

133 when making a statement under 37 

CFR 1.704(d), OMB has determined that, 

under 5 CFR 1320.3(h), form PTO/SB/ 

133 does not collect ‘‘information’’ 

within the meaning of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. Because the 

changes proposed in this rulemaking 

would not affect the information 

collection requirements or fees 

associated with the information 

collections approved under OMB 

control number 0651–0020 or any other 

information collection, the Office is not 

resubmitting an information collection 

package to OMB for its review and 

approval. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any 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. 

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 

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 record keeping 

requirements, Small businesses. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, USPTO proposes to amend 37 

CFR part 1 as follows: 

PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

PATENT CASES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR 

part 1 continues to read as follows: 

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

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 1.704 is amended by adding 

new paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1.704 Reduction of period of adjustment 

of patent term. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) The statement under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section must be submitted 

on the Office form (PTO/SB/133) 

provided for such a patent term 

adjustment statement. Otherwise, the 

paper or request for continued 

examination will be treated as not 

accompanied by a statement under 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. No 

changes to statements on this Office 

form may be made. The presentation to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 41271 

the Office (whether by signing, filing, 

submitting, or later advocating) of this 

form, whether by a practitioner or nonpractitioner, constitutes a certification 

under § 11.18(b) of this chapter that the 

existing text and any certification 

statements on this form have not been 

altered. 

* * * * * 

Katherine K. Vidal, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14668 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 226 

[Docket No. 220706–0150] 

RTID 0648–XR123 

Listing Endangered or Threatened 

Species; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 

To Revise the Critical Habitat 

Designation for the North Pacific Right 

Whale 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request 

for information 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition to revise the 

critical habitat designation for the North 

Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). In April 2008, we issued a final 

rule designating approximately 3,050 

square kilometers (∼1,175 square miles) 

and approximately 91,850 square 

kilometers (∼35,460 square miles) of 

critical habitat for North Pacific right 

whales in the Gulf of Alaska and the 

Southeast Bering Sea, respectively. The 

petition requests we revise this critical 

habitat. 

We find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific information 

indicating the petitioned action may be 

warranted. We are hereby initiating a 

review of the currently designated 

critical habitat to determine whether 

revision is warranted. To ensure a 

comprehensive review, we are soliciting 

scientific and commercial information 

pertaining to this action. 

DATES: Scientific and commercial 

information pertinent to the petitioned 

action must be received by September 

12, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

information, or data on this document 

identified by docket number NOAA– 

NMFS–2022–0050, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the above docket number for this 

notice. Then, click on the Search icon. 

On the resulting web page, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written information to 

Jon Kurland, Regional Administrator for 

Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Records 

Office. Mail comments to P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments or other information if sent 

by any other method, to any other 

address or individual, or received after 

the comment period ends. All 

comments and information received are 

a part of the public record and NMFS 

will post the comments for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender is 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Electronic copies of the petition 

prepared for this action are available 

from http://www.regulations.gov or from 

the NMFS website (see https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northpacific-right-whale#conservationmanagement). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenna Malek, NMFS Alaska Region, 

jenna.malek@noaa.gov, (907) 271–1332. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 10, 2022, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity and Save the North Pacific 

Right Whale requesting revision to the 

critical habitat designation for the North 

Pacific right whale. Currently, North 

Pacific right whale critical habitat 

consists of two areas of approximately 

3,050 square kilometers (∼1,175 square 

miles) and approximately 91,850 square 

kilometers (∼35,460 square miles) in the 

Gulf of Alaska and the Southeast Bering 

Sea, respectively (73 FR 19000, April 8, 

2008). The petition requests we revise 

this critical habitat to connect the two 

existing critical habitat areas by 

extending the Southeast Bering Sea 

boundary west and south to the Fox 

Islands, through Unimak Pass to the 

edge of the continental slope, and east 

to the Gulf of Alaska critical habitat area 

off the coast of Kodiak Island. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) defines critical habitat as: (i) The 

specific areas within the geographical 

area currently occupied by the species, 

at the time it is listed . . . on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed . . . upon a determination by 

the Secretary that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). Joint 

NMFS-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

regulations for designating critical 

habitat at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(1)(ii) state 

that the agencies will identify physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species at an 

appropriate level of specificity using the 

best available scientific data. A physical 

and biological feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of characteristics, may 

include characteristics that support 

ephemeral or dynamic habitat 

conditions, and may also be expressed 

in terms relating to principles of 

conservation biology, such as patch size, 

distribution distances, and connectivity 

(50 CFR 424.02). ‘‘Special management 

considerations or protection’’ means any 

method or procedure useful in 

protecting physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species (50 CFR 424.02). 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us 

to designate, and make revisions to, 

critical habitat for listed species based 

on the best scientific data available and 

after taking into consideration the 

economic impact, the impact on 

national security, and any other relevant 

impact, of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. The Secretary of 

Commerce may exclude any particular 

area from critical habitat if she 

determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless she determines, 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, that the 

failure to designate such area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species concerned. 

Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA 

requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to revise a critical 

habitat designation, the Secretary of 

Commerce make a finding on whether 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1