Federal Registry Notice

26664

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules

of their assigned duties. Commercial
vessels will have right-of-way over
event participants and event safety craft.
The races will stop for oncoming
freighter or commercial traffic and will
resume after the vessel has completed
its passage through the regulated area.
The Patrol Commander may direct the
anchoring, mooring, or movement of
any boat or vessel within the regatta
area. A succession of sharp, short
signals by whistle or horn from vessels
patrolling the area under the direction
of the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol
Commander shall serve as a signal to
stop. Vessels so signaled must stop and
comply with the orders of the Patrol
Commander. Failure to do so may result
in expulsion from the area, citation for
failure to comply, or both. The Patrol
Commander may establish vessel size
and speed limitations and operating
conditions and may restrict vessel
operation within the regatta area to
vessels having particular operating
characteristics. The Patrol Commander
may terminate the marine event or the
operation of any vessel at any time it is
deemed necessary for the protection of
life and property.
(2) Patrol Commander means a Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer who has been designated by the
Captain of the Port to monitor a regatta
area, permit entry into the regatta area,
give legally enforceable orders to
persons or vessels within the regatta
area, and take other actions authorized
by the Captain of the Port. The Patrol
Commander will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel. The Patrol Commander may be
contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ)
by the call sign ‘‘Coast Guard Patrol
Commander.’’
■ 3. Add § 100.928 to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

§ 100.928 Special Local Regulations,
Frogtown Race Regatta, Toledo, OH.

(a) Regulated Area. The regulated area
includes all U.S. navigable waters of the
Maumee River, Toledo, OH, from the
Norfolk and Southern Railway Bridge at
River Mile 1.80 to the Anthony Wayne
Bridge at River Mile 5.16.
(b) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced annually on the third
or fourth Saturday of September. The
exact dates and times would be issued
annually via a Notice of Enforcement.
(c) Special Local Regulations. (1) The
Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area
under the direction of a designated
Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessels
desiring to transit the regulated area
may do so only with prior approval of
the Patrol Commander and when so
directed by that officer. Vessels will be
operated at a no wake speed to reduce

VerDate Mar<15>2010

13:42 May 08, 2014

Jkt 232001

the wake to a minimum, in a manner
which will not endanger participants in
the event or any other craft and remain
vigilant for event participants and safety
craft. Additionally, vessels must yield
right-of-way for event participants and
event safety craft and must follow
directions given by the Coast Guard’s
Patrol Commander. The rules contained
in the above two sentences do not apply
to participants in the event or vessels of
the patrol operating in the performance
of their assigned duties. Commercial
vessels will have right-of-way over
event participants and event safety craft.
The races will stop for oncoming
freighter or commercial traffic and will
resume after the vessel has completed
its passage through the regulated area.
The Patrol Commander may direct the
anchoring, mooring, or movement of
any boat or vessel within the regatta
area. A succession of sharp, short
signals by whistle or horn from vessels
patrolling the area under the direction
of the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol
Commander shall serve as a signal to
stop. Vessels so signaled must stop and
comply with the orders of the Patrol
Commander. Failure to do so may result
in expulsion from the area, citation for
failure to comply, or both. The Patrol
Commander may establish vessel size
and speed limitations and operating
conditions and may restrict vessel
operation within the regatta area to
vessels having particular operating
characteristics. The Patrol Commander
may terminate the marine event or the
operation of any vessel at any time it is
deemed necessary for the protection of
life and property.
(2) Patrol Commander means a Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer who has been designated by the
Captain of the Port to monitor a regatta
area, permit entry into the regatta area,
give legally enforceable orders to
persons or vessels within the regatta
area, and take other actions authorized
by the Captain of the Port. The Patrol
Commander will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel. The Patrol Commander may be
contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ)
by the call sign ‘‘Coast Guard Patrol
Commander.’’
Dated: April 28, 2014.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2014–10625 Filed 5–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. PTO–T–2014–0011]
RIN 0651–AC94

Reduction of Fees for Trademark
Applications and Renewals
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (‘‘Office’’ or
‘‘USPTO’’) proposes reducing certain
trademark fees, as authorized by the
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
(‘‘AIA’’ or ‘‘Act’’). The proposed
reductions will reduce total trademark
fee collections and promote efficiency
for the USPTO and customers. The
proposals also will further USPTO
strategic objectives to increase the endto-end electronic processing of
trademark applications by offering
additional electronic application
processing options and promoting
online filing, electronic file
management, and workflow.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 23, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The USPTO prefers that
comments be submitted via electronic
mail message to TMFRNotices@
uspto.gov. Written comments also may
be submitted by mail to Commissioner
for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451,
Alexandria, VA 22313–1451, attention
Cynthia C. Lynch; by hand delivery to
the Trademark Assistance Center,
Concourse Level, James Madison
Building—East Wing, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, attention
Cynthia C. Lynch; or by electronic mail
message via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking
Portal Web site (http://
www.regulations.gov) for additional
instructions on providing comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All
comments submitted directly to the
USPTO or provided on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal should include the
docket number (PTO–T–2014–0011).
The comments will be available for
public inspection on the USPTO’s Web
site at http://www.uspto.gov, on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, and also
will be available at the Office of the
Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison
East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Because
comments will be made available for
public inspection, information that is
not desired to be made public, such as
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM

09MYP1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules
an address or phone number, should not
be included.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Trademark
Examination Policy, by email at
[email protected], or by telephone at
(571) 272–8742.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary: Purpose: Section
10 of the AIA authorizes the Director of
the USPTO (‘‘Director’’) to set or adjust
by rule any fee established, authorized,
or charged under the Trademark Act of
1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) for any
services performed by, or materials
furnished by, the Office. See Section 10
of the AIA, Public Law 112–29, 125 Stat.
at 316–17.
Section 10(c) of the AIA authorizes
the Director to consult with the
Trademark Public Advisory Committee
(‘‘TPAC’’) on the advisability of
reducing trademark fees and, following
the required consultation, to reduce
such fees. See Section 10(c) of the AIA,
Public Law 112–29, 125 Stat. at 317.
The Director has consulted with TPAC
and thereafter determined that it is
advisable to propose such reductions in
order to both improve the alignment of
Office costs with revenues and
incentivize electronic communications,
thereby increasing efficiency. Therefore,
the USPTO proposes to reduce the filing
fees for trademark, certification mark,
collective membership mark, and
collective trademark applications for
registration on the Principal or
Supplemental Register that are filed
using the Trademark Electronic
Application System (‘‘TEAS’’) if
applicants authorize email
communication and file electronically
throughout the application process. The
USPTO also proposes to reduce the
filing fees for TEAS Plus applications
for registration and TEAS applications
for renewal of a registration.
The per-class fees for filing an
application for registration of a
trademark are currently set at $375 for
filing a paper application, $325 for filing
electronically using TEAS, and $275 for
filing electronically using TEAS Plus,
which involves additional requirements.
37 CFR 2.6(a)(1). The per-class fee for
renewal of a registration is currently
$400. 37 CFR 2.6(a)(5).
Prior to consulting with TPAC, the
USPTO also published a notice of
inquiry to provide the public, including
user groups, with an opportunity to
comment on possible adjustments to
trademark application fees (77 FR
49,426 (Aug. 16, 2012)). The public
comments overwhelmingly favored a fee
reduction, and many expressed a desire

VerDate Mar<15>2010

13:42 May 08, 2014

Jkt 232001

for a lower-cost electronic filing option
without any restrictions on the nature of
the identification of goods and services,
as is required under TEAS Plus.
The proposed fees will help the
USPTO to: (1) Continue with an
appropriate and sustainable funding
model; (2) support strategic objectives
relating to online filing, electronic file
management, and workflow; and (3)
improve efficiency for USPTO
operations and customers. The
proposals will benefit the public by
providing lower costs to seek federal
registration, including advantages to
individual and pro se filers, who make
greater use of lower-cost filing options.
In addition, the proposals offer
additional options for meeting
applicants’ needs and preferences.
Summary of Major Provisions: After
reviewing the comments received in
response to the notice of inquiry, the
USPTO proposes to reduce by $50 the
fee for an application filed using the
regular TEAS application form from
$325 to $275 per class if the applicant
authorizes email communication and
agrees to file all responses and other
documents electronically during the
prosecution of the application. This
option will be known as a TEAS
Reduced Fee (‘‘TEAS RF’’) application.
The USPTO also proposes to reduce by
$50 the fee for a TEAS Plus application
from $275 to $225 per class and reduce
by $100 the fee for a TEAS application
for renewal of a registration from $400
to $300 per class. As has been the case
since the inception of TEAS Plus, TEAS
Plus applicants who fail to fulfill the
filing and examination requirements set
out in the rules will be subject to a
processing fee of $50 per class, and
similarly, TEAS RF applicants who fail
to fulfill the requirements under the
proposed rules will be subject to the
existing processing fee of $50 per class.
The filing fee of $375 per class for
applications for registration filed on
paper will not be changed. The filing fee
of $400 per class for renewal of a
registration filed on paper will not
change.
Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is
not economically significant under
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
References below to ‘‘the Act,’’ ‘‘the
Trademark Act,’’ or ‘‘the statute’’ refer to
the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.
1051 et seq., as amended. References to
‘‘TMEP’’ or ‘‘Trademark Manual of
Examining Procedure’’ refer to the
October 2013 edition.
Discussion of Proposed Rules Changes
The USPTO proposes to amend §§ 2.6,
2.22, and 2.23.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

26665

The USPTO proposes to revise
§ 2.6(a)(1) to enumerate the revised
application filing fee options. The
proposed § 2.6(a)(1)(iii) sets out the
new, reduced fee of $275 for filing a
TEAS Reduced Fee (i.e., TEAS RF)
application under proposed § 2.23. The
proposed § 2.6(a)(i)(iv) for TEAS Plus is
the same as the existing § 2.6(a)(1)(iii)
except that the TEAS Plus fee is reduced
from $275 to $225 per class and there
is minor rewording for consistency with
existing § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) and proposed
§ 2.6(a)(1)(iii). The proposed
§ 2.6(a)(1)(v) processing fee is the same
as the existing § 2.6(a)(1)(iv) except for
amended citations to proposed
§§ 2.22(c) and 2.23(c). The USPTO
proposes to revise § 2.6(a)(5) to
enumerate the revised fees for renewal
of a registration. The proposed
§ 2.6(a)(5)(i) sets out the current fee of
$400 as the fee for an application for
renewal of a registration filed on paper.
The proposed § 2.6(a)(5)(ii) sets out the
reduced fee of $300 per class for a TEAS
renewal of a registration.
The USPTO proposes to make the
following format revisions to § 2.22
concerning TEAS Plus applications:
Revise the rule title; in § 2.22(a), cite to
§ 2.6(a)(1)(iv) instead of § 2.6(a)(1)(iii);
in § 2.22(b), set forth the additional
examination requirements for a TEAS
Plus application that are currently set
forth in existing § 2.23(a); in § 2.22(c),
set forth the current text in existing
§§ 2.22(b) and 2.23(b), and cite to
§ 2.6(a)(1)(v) instead of to § 2.6(a)(1)(iv);
and, in § 2.22(d), set forth the text
currently in existing § 2.22(c).
The USPTO proposes to revise current
§ 2.23 to create a TEAS RF option in the
amount of $275. Existing § 2.23
currently lists the additional
examination requirements for a TEAS
Plus application. As noted above, the
provisions in existing § 2.23 would be
consolidated into revised § 2.22. Filers
using either the TEAS Plus or the new
TEAS RF option are required to
authorize email communication from
the USPTO and submit documents
electronically using TEAS during the
prosecution of the application.
However, filers using the new TEAS RF
option are not required to comply with
the additional TEAS Plus requirements
for submitting the initial application.
Rulemaking Considerations
Administrative Procedure Act: This
rulemaking proposes to reduce fees
under Section 10(c) of the AIA. See also
15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35
U.S.C. 2. The other changes proposed in
this rulemaking establish procedures for
applicants seeking these reduced fees.
The procedural changes proposed in

E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM

09MYP1

26666

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules

this rulemaking involve rules of agency
practice and procedure, and/or
interpretive rules. See Nat’l Org. of
Veterans’ Advocates v. Sec’y of Veterans
Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (stating that a rule that clarifies
interpretation of a statute is
interpretive); Bachow Commc’ns Inc. v.
FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
(stating that 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)
(stating that 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
procedural changes are not required
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any
other law). See 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), does not
require notice and comment rulemaking
for ‘‘interpretative rules, general
statements of policy, or rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice’’
(quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A))). The
Office, however, is publishing these
proposed changes for comment as it
seeks the benefit of the public’s views
on the Office’s proposed reduced fees
along with accompanying related
requirements.

for the USPTO and customers through
electronic communication. Filing
through TEAS and authorizing email
communication expedites processing,
shortens pendency, minimizes manual
processing and the potential for data
entry errors, and is more efficient for
both the filer and the USPTO. TEASfiled documents are automatically
uploaded into the USPTO database.
They require no manual scanning or
creation of a paper file wrapper, and
they reduce or eliminate the need for
manual data entry of amendments to the
filings. Authorizing email
communication provides similar
benefits, by reducing the need for
mailing and the creation of, or addition
to, a file wrapper. Paper filings, on the
other hand, necessitate: (1) Manual
scanning and uploading of the
documents into the USPTO database; (2)
manual data entry of information; and
(3) the creation of paper file wrappers in
which to store the originals of the paper
filings. Thus, the proposed rules
facilitate efficiency in numerous ways.
As to the legal basis for the proposed
rules, Section 10(c) of the AIA provides
the authority for the Director to reduce
trademark fees after consultation with
TPAC. See also Section 31 of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1113. Both 15
U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2 provide the
authority for the Director to establish
regulations for the conduct of trademark
proceedings at the USPTO.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

3. Description of and, Where Feasible,
Estimate of the Number of Affected
Small Entities
The USPTO does not collect or
maintain statistics in trademark cases on
small- versus large-entity applicants,
and this information would be required
in order to determine the number of
small entities that would be affected by
the proposed rules. However, the
USPTO will provide projected estimates
of each type of filing affected by the
proposed rules. The USPTO believes
that the overall impact of the proposed
lower fees on applicants and registrants
will be overwhelmingly positive, as they
will be afforded the opportunity to
obtain a trademark registration for a
reduced fee.
The proposed rules could apply to
any entity filing a trademark
application, except those filing under
Section 66(a), 15 U.S.C. 1141f(a). The
USPTO estimates that during the first
year under the rules as proposed, the
USPTO would receive 204,682 classes
of TEAS Plus applications and 103,633
classes of TEAS RF applications that,
absent the rule change, would be filed
as regular TEAS applications. Thus, the
estimated financial impact of the

1. Description of the Reasons That
Action by the USPTO Is Being
Considered

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

The USPTO proposes reducing certain
trademark fees as authorized by Section
10(c) of the AIA. The proposed
reductions will reduce total trademark
fee collections and promote efficiency
for the USPTO and customers through
increased electronic communication.
Specifically, the USPTO proposes to
amend its rules to reduce application
filing fees for certain applications for
registration on the Principal or
Supplemental Register under section 1
and/or section 44 of the Trademark Act
that are filed through TEAS, and to
reduce the fee for renewal of a
trademark registration that is filed
through TEAS.
2. Succinct Statement of the Objectives
of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
The objectives of the proposed rules
are to reduce total trademark filing and
renewal fees and fee collections,
improve the alignment of Office costs
with revenues, and promote efficiency

VerDate Mar<15>2010

13:42 May 08, 2014

Jkt 232001

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

proposed reduced fees will be: (1) A
$10,234,100 reduction in fees for TEAS
Plus applicants; and (2) a $5,181,650
reduction in fees for TEAS RF
applicants, or $5,065,100, when the
estimated 2,331 classes of TEAS RF
applicants who must pay the $50
processing fee are taken into
consideration. Turning to the renewal
fee, the USPTO estimates that during
the first year under the rules as
proposed, the USPTO would receive
62,315 classes of renewals, 61,193 filed
through TEAS, such that the financial
impact will be a $6,119,300 reduction in
fees for trademark owners. The USPTO
does not collect or maintain statistics in
trademark cases on small versus largeentity applicants to determine what
subset of applicants would be those
small entities impacted by the proposed
rules.
4. Description of the Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Proposed Rule,
Including an Estimate of the Classes of
Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to
the Requirement and the Type of
Professional Skills Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
The proposed rules impose no new
reporting or recordkeeping
requirements.
The proposed rules reduce fees for
applications for and renewals of
trademark registrations. The USPTO
does not anticipate that the proposed
rules would have a disproportionate
impact upon any particular class of
small or large entities. Any entity that
applies for or renews a registered
trademark could in fact benefit from the
proposed rules. The proposed rules
merely offer lower fees based on
electronic filing of the renewal or
application and other documents, and
authorization for email communication
from the USPTO. Because the fees for
filing a paper application, a regular
TEAS application, and a paper
application for renewal of a registration
remain unchanged under the proposed
rules, and applicants may continue to
file on paper or via the regular TEAS
application form, following the
requirements for the reduced fee options
in the proposed rules will be the choice
of the filer. Procedures for TEAS Plus
filers remain the same, as the proposed
rules merely reduce fees, and
consolidate the TEAS Plus procedures
within one rule, without imposing any
change in practice. Filers using the new
TEAS RF option will submit documents
electronically using TEAS during the
prosecution of the application and will
authorize email communication from
the USPTO.

E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM

09MYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules
The USPTO estimates that filing
electronically will not take any more
time than filing the same type of
document on paper and is likely to take
less time. The USPTO further estimates
that communicating by email will not
take any more time than receiving and
reviewing a USPTO communication
sent by regular mail and is likely to take
less time.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5. Description of Any Significant
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
Which Accomplish the Stated
Objectives of Applicable Statutes and
Which Minimize Any Significant
Economic Impact of the Rule on Small
Entities
The USPTO has considered whether
and how it is appropriate to reduce any
burden on small businesses through
increased flexibility. The following
options have been considered, but
rejected, by the USPTO, since they are
less protective of small businesses.
The alternative of not offering these
reduced fees, or not offering them to
small entities, would retain the status
quo for small entities and therefore
produce no economic impact on them,
but that alternative has been rejected
because the economic effect of the
proposed rules will be favorable to
small businesses, rather than
burdensome. In addition, the alternative
of not reducing fees would fail to
accomplish the stated objectives of
reducing overall trademark fee
collections and increasing efficiency for
the USPTO and filers.
The proposed rules provide
streamlined and simplified procedures
for all small entities, given the ease of
filing electronically through TEAS and
communicating by email. Thus,
compliance will be streamlined and
simplified for all affected entities. The
proposed fee reductions promote greater
efficiency from electronic filing and
communication, as the procedures are
simpler and not burdensome.
Use of performance rather than design
standards is not applicable to the
proposed rulemaking because the
USPTO is not issuing any sort of
standard. Rather, the proposed rules
will offer reduced fees to applicants and
registrants who file and communicate
electronically with the USPTO.
6. Identification, to the Extent
Practicable, of all Relevant Federal
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or
Conflict With the Proposed Rule
The proposed rules would not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
other Federal rules.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review): This rule has

VerDate Mar<15>2010

13:42 May 08, 2014

Jkt 232001

been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866
(Sept. 30, 1993).
Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review): The
USPTO has complied with Executive
Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011).
Specifically, the USPTO 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)
provided the public with a meaningful
opportunity to participate in the
regulatory process, including soliciting
the views of those likely affected prior
to issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking, 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, to the extent applicable.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):
This rule does not contain policies with
federalism implications sufficient to
warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment under Executive Order
13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
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 notice are not expected to result in
an annual effect on the economy of 100
million dollars 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 foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets. Therefore, this notice is
not expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995: The changes set forth in this
rulemaking do not involve a Federal
intergovernmental mandate that will

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

26667

result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
of 100 million dollars (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 dollars (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.
Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule
involves information collection
requirements which are subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The collection of information
involved in this rule has been reviewed
and previously approved by OMB under
control numbers 0651–0009 and 0651–
0055.
I. Summary
The USPTO proposes reducing certain
trademark fees, as authorized by the
AIA. The proposed reductions will
reduce total trademark fee collections
and promote efficiency for the USPTO
and customers through electronic
communication. The proposals will
further the USPTO strategic objective to
increase the end-to-end electronic
processing of trademark applications
including online filing, electronic file
management, and workflow.
Specifically, the USPTO proposes to
amend its rules to permit a trademark
applicant using the regular TEAS
application form to file an application
for registration on the Principal or
Supplemental Register under section 1
and/or section 44 of the Trademark Act
to pay a reduced fee under certain
circumstances. The reduced fee would
be offered to a TEAS applicant if the
applicant agrees to receive
communications concerning the
application by email and to file all
responses and other documents through
TEAS during the prosecution of the
application. The reduced fee option will
not apply to applications filed pursuant
to section 66(a) of the Act because they
cannot be filed through TEAS. The
USPTO also proposes to amend its rules
to reduce the filing fees for an
application filed using the TEAS Plus
form and a TEAS application for
renewal of a registration.
II. Data
Needs and Uses: The public uses the
various applications to apply for the
registration of trademarks/service
marks, collective trademarks/service
marks, collective membership marks,

E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM

09MYP1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

26668

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules

and certification marks that identify
goods and/or services classified in
single or multiple classes. The public
also uses applications under section 44
to apply for a priority filing date and/
or for registration based upon foreign
registration of a mark. The USPTO uses
information from the public to receive
and process applications for registration
of trademarks/service marks, collective
trademarks/service marks, collective
membership marks, and certification
marks. The USPTO uses information
from the public in response to section
44 applications to process applications
for registration of a mark based upon
earlier-filed foreign applications or a
foreign registration. In addition, the
USPTO also uses the application
information to determine whether the
marks may be registered. The public
uses the application for renewal to
apply for the renewal of a registration.
The USPTO uses information from the
public to receive and process
applications for renewal of a
registration.
Title of Collection: Applications for
Trademark Registration.
OMB Control Number: 0651–0009.
Form Number(s): PTO Forms 1478,
1480, 1481, 1482.
Type of Review: Revised Collection.
Method of Collection: By mail,
facsimile, hand delivery, or
electronically to the Office.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Responses:
359,560.
Estimated Time per Response: The
Office estimates that the responses in
this collection will take the public
approximately 18 to 30 minutes (0.3 to
0.5 hours).
Estimated Total Annual Respondent
Burden Hours: 125,373 hours per year.
Estimated Total Annual Respondent
Cost Burden: $48,770,097 per year.
Estimated Total Annual Non-hour
Respondent Cost Burden: $97,548,226
per year.
Title of Collection: Post Registration
(Trademark Processing).
OMB Control Number: 0651–0055.
Form Number(s): PTO Form 1963.
Type of Review: Revised Collection.
Method of Collection: By mail,
facsimile, hand delivery, or
electronically to the Office.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Responses:
51,929.
Estimated Time per Response: The
Office estimates that the responses in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

13:42 May 08, 2014

Jkt 232001

this collection will take the public
approximately 12 to 14 minutes (0.20 to
0.23 hours).
Estimated Total Annual Respondent
Burden Hours: 10,414 hours per year.
Estimated Total Annual Respondent
Cost Burden: $4,050,988 per year.
Estimated Total Annual Non-hour
Respondent Cost Burden: $20,865,550
per year.
III. Solicitation
The agency is soliciting comments to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
information requirement is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden; (3) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
minimize the burden of collecting the
information on those who are to
respond, including by using appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Interested persons are requested to
send comments regarding this
information collection by June 23, 2014
to: (1) The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Room 10202,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Nicholas A. Fraser,
the Desk Officer for the United States
Patent and Trademark Office; and (2)
The Commissioner for Trademarks, by
mail to P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA
22313–1451, attention Cynthia C.
Lynch; by hand delivery to the
Trademark Assistance Center,
Concourse Level, James Madison
Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, attention
Cynthia C. Lynch; or by electronic mail
message via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. All comments submitted directly
to the USPTO or provided on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal should
include the docket number (PTO–T–
2014–0011).
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 displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and
procedure, Trademarks.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

For the reasons stated in the preamble
and under the authority contained in
Section 10(c) of the AIA, 15 U.S.C. 1113,
15 U.S.C. 1123, and 35 U.S.C. 2, as
amended, the USPTO proposes to
amend part 2 of title 37 as follows:
PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
TRADEMARK CASES
1. The authority citation for part 2
reads as follows:

■

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123,
35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10(c) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act (Pub. L. 112–29), unless
otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 2.6 by revising paragraphs
(a)(1)(iii) and (iv), adding paragraph
(a)(1)(v), and revising paragraph (a)(5) to
read as follows:

■

§ 2.6

Trademark fees.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For filing a TEAS Reduced Fee
(RF) application through TEAS under
§ 2.23, per class—$275.
(iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application
through TEAS under § 2.22, per class—
$225.00.
(v) Additional processing fee under
§ 2.22(c) or § 2.23(c), per class—$50.00.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Application for renewal of a
registration fees.
(i) For filing an application for
renewal of a registration on paper, per
class—$400.00.
(ii) For filing an application for
renewal of a registration through TEAS,
per class—$300.00.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 2.22 by revising the
section heading, paragraph (a)
introductory text, and paragraphs (b)
and (c) and adding paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
§ 2.22 Requirements for a TEAS Plus
application.

(a) A trademark/service mark
application for registration on the
Principal Register under section 1 and/
or section 44 of the Act will be entitled
to a reduced filing fee under
§ 2.6(a)(1)(iv) if it is filed through TEAS
and includes:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) In addition to the filing
requirements under paragraph (a), the
applicant must:
(1) File the following communications
through TEAS:
(i) Responses to Office actions (except
notices of appeal under section 20 of the
Trademark Act);
(ii) Requests to change the
correspondence address and owner’s
address;

E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM

09MYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(iii) Appointments and/or revocations
of power of attorney;
(iv) Appointments and/or revocations
of domestic representative;
(v) Voluntary amendments;
(vi) Amendments to allege use under
section 1(c) of the Act or statements of
use under section 1(d) of the Act;
(vii) Requests for extensions of time to
file a statement of use under section 1(d)
of the Act; and
(viii) Requests to delete a section 1(b)
basis.
(2) Maintain a valid email
correspondence address and continue to
receive communications from the Office
by email.
(c) If an application does not fulfill
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section, the applicant must
pay the processing fee required by
§ 2.6(a)(1)(v). The application will retain
its original filing date, provided that
when filed, the application met the
filing date requirements of § 2.21.
(d) The following types of
applications cannot be filed as TEAS
Plus applications:
(1) Applications for certification
marks (see § 2.45);
(2) Applications for collective
trademarks and service marks (see
§ 2.44);
(3) Applications for collective
membership marks (see § 2.44); and
(4) Applications for registration on the
Supplemental Register (see § 2.47).
■ 4. Revise § 2.23 to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

§ 2.23 Requirements for a TEAS RF
application.

(a) A trademark, service mark,
certification mark, collective
membership mark, or collective
trademark application for registration on
the Principal or Supplemental Register
under section 1 and/or section 44 of the
Act will be entitled to a reduced filing
fee under § 2.6(a)(1)(iii) if it is filed
through TEAS and includes:
(1) an email address for
correspondence; and
(2) an authorization for the Office to
send correspondence concerning the
application to the applicant or
applicant’s attorney by email.
(b) In addition to the filing
requirements under paragraph (a), the
applicant must:
(1) File the following communications
through TEAS:
(i) Responses to Office actions (except
notices of appeal under section 20 of the
Trademark Act);
(ii) Requests to change the
correspondence address and owner’s
address;
(iii) Appointments and/or revocations
of power of attorney;

VerDate Mar<15>2010

13:42 May 08, 2014

Jkt 232001

(iv) Appointments and/or revocations
of domestic representative;
(v) Voluntary amendments;
(vi) Amendments to allege use under
section 1(c) of the Act or statements of
use under section 1(d) of the Act;
(vii) Requests for extensions of time to
file a statement of use under section 1(d)
of the Act; and
(viii) Requests to delete a section 1(b)
basis.
(2) Maintain a valid email
correspondence address, and continue
to receive communications from the
Office by email.
(c) If an application does not meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, the applicant must pay the
processing fee required by § 2.6(a)(1)(v).
The application will retain its original
filing date, provided that when filed, the
application met the filing date
requirements of § 2.21.
Dated: May 6, 2014.
Michelle K. Lee,
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Deputy Director,
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2014–10730 Filed 5–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 62
RIN 2900–AO50

Supportive Services for Veteran
Families Program
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its
regulations concerning the Supportive
Services for Veteran Families Program
(SSVF). The proposed changes would
clarify, consistent with existing
regulations, that grantees must focus on
providing permanent housing to eligible
veteran families who, without SSVF
assistance, would likely become
homeless. The proposed clarifications
are intended to emphasize the intended
goals of SSVF. The proposed rule would
expand grantees’ authority to provide
certain services to all very low-income
veteran families, and specifically to
those veteran families with significantly
lower economic resources, which we
would identify as extremely low-income
veteran families. The purpose of this
expanded authority is to address
identified needs based on the
administration of SSVF since its
inception, and to provide greater

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

26669

incentive to grantees to assist these
particularly vulnerable veteran families.
Finally, the proposed rule would clarify
that certain services are not permissible
uses of SSVF funds.
DATES: Comments must be received by
VA on or before June 23, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through http://
www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand
delivery to the Director, Regulation
Policy and Management (02REG),
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068,
Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to
(202) 273–9026. Comments should
indicate that they are submitted in
response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AO50—
Supportive Services for Veteran
Families Program.’’ Copies of comments
received will be available for public
inspection in the Office of Regulation
Policy and Management, Room 1068,
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday (except
holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for
an appointment. (This is not a toll-free
number.) In addition, during the
comment period, comments may be
viewed online at www.Regulations.gov
through the Federal Docket Management
Systems (FDMS).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Kuhn, National Center for Homelessness
Among Veterans, Supportive Services
for Veteran Families Program Office,
4100 Chester Avenue, Suite 200,
Philadelphia, PA 19104, (877) 737–
0111. (This is a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 10, 2010, VA published a
final rule promulgating 38 CFR part 62,
regulations implementing 38 U.S.C.
2044 by establishing an SSVF Program.
75 FR 68979. Through this program, VA
has offered grants to eligible entities,
identified in the regulations, that
provide supportive services to very lowincome veterans and families who are at
risk for becoming homeless or who, in
some cases, have recently become
homeless. The program has been a
tremendous success, providing services
to over 62,000 participants in fiscal year
(FY) 2013 (the program was projected to
serve 42,000 for the entire fiscal year).
To date, over 80 percent of those
discharged from SSVF have been placed
in or saved their permanent housing.
In order to ensure its continued
success and to address minor issues that
have arisen through the course of the
administration of SSVF, we are
proposing to revise the regulations. In
particular, these revisions would
establish a class of very low-income
veteran families who are most in need
(identified in this proposed rule as

E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM

09MYP1