Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79129 

§ 42.24 Type-volume or page limits for 

petitions, motions, oppositions, replies, and 

sur-replies. 

* * * * * 

(c) Replies and sur-replies. The 

following word counts or page limits for 

replies and sur-replies apply and 

include any statement of facts in 

support of the reply. The word counts 

or page limits do not include a table of 

contents; a table of authorities; a listing 

of facts that are admitted, denied, or 

cannot be admitted or denied; a 

certificate of service or word count; or 

an appendix of exhibits. 

* * * * * 

(4) Sur-replies to replies to patent 

owner responses to petitions: 5,600 

words. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 42.71 by revising the third 

sentence of paragraph (d) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 42.71 Decision on petitions or motions. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * The request must 

specifically identify all matters the party 

believes the Board misapprehended or 

overlooked, and the place where each 

matter was previously addressed in a 

motion, an opposition, a reply, or a surreply. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise § 42.108 to read as follows: 

§ 42.108 Institution of inter partes review. 

(a) When instituting inter partes 

review, the Board will authorize the 

review to proceed on all of the 

challenged claims and on all grounds of 

unpatentability asserted for each claim. 

(b) At any time prior to a decision on 

institution of inter partes review, the 

Board may deny all grounds for 

unpatentability for all of the challenged 

claims. Denial of all grounds is a Board 

decision not to institute inter partes 

review. 

(c) Inter partes review shall not be 

instituted unless the Board decides that 

the information presented in the 

petition demonstrates that there is a 

reasonable likelihood that at least one of 

the claims challenged in the petition is 

unpatentable. The Board’s decision will 

take into account a patent owner 

preliminary response where such a 

response is filed, including any 

testimonial evidence. A petitioner may 

seek leave to file a reply to the 

preliminary response in accordance 

with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such 

request must make a showing of good 

cause. 

■ 6. Amend § 42.120 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 42.120 Patent owner response. 

(a) Scope. A patent owner may file a 

single response to the petition and/or 

decision on institution. A patent owner 

response is filed as an opposition and is 

subject to the page limits provided in 

§ 42.24. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 42.208 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 42.208 Institution of post-grant review. 

(a) When instituting post-grant 

review, the Board will authorize the 

review to proceed on all of the 

challenged claims and on all grounds of 

unpatentability asserted for each claim. 

(b) At any time prior to institution of 

post-grant review, the Board may deny 

all grounds for unpatentability for all of 

the challenged claims. Denial of all 

grounds is a Board decision not to 

institute post-grant review. 

(c) Post-grant review shall not be 

instituted unless the Board decides that 

the information presented in the 

petition demonstrates that it is more 

likely than not that at least one of the 

claims challenged in the petition is 

unpatentable. The Board’s decision will 

take into account a patent owner 

preliminary response where such a 

response is filed, including any 

testimonial evidence. A petitioner may 

seek leave to file a reply to the 

preliminary response in accordance 

with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such 

request must make a showing of good 

cause. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 42.220 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 42.220 Patent owner response. 

(a) Scope. A patent owner may file a 

single response to the petition and/or 

decision on institution. A patent owner 

response is filed as an opposition and is 

subject to the page limits provided in 

§ 42.24. 

* * * * * 

Andrei Iancu, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27048 Filed 12–8–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0611; FRL–10017–82– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU54 

Implementation of the Revoked 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards; Updates to 40 CFR 

Part 52 for Areas That Attained by the 

Attainment Date; Withdrawal of Direct 

Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of adverse 

comment, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the 

October 9, 2020, direct final rule to 

update the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) to codify its findings that nine 

areas in four states attained the revoked 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment dates. The EPA 

will address all comments received in a 

subsequent final rule for which the EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period. 

DATES: The direct final rule published 

on October 9, 2020 (85 FR 64046) is 

withdrawn effective December 9, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Virginia Raps, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code: C539–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone (919) 541–4383; fax number: 

(919) 541–5315; email address: 

raps.virginia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 9, 2020, the EPA published a 

direct final rule (85 FR 64046) to codify 

its findings that nine areas in four states 

attained the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

dates. In the proposal for the direct final 

rule published on the same day (85 FR 

64089), the EPA stated that written 

comments must be received on or before 

November 9, 2020. The EPA stated that 

if any relevant adverse comments are 

received on the proposal, the EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register. 

On November 2, 2020, an anonymous 

comment was posted in the docket that 

the EPA interprets as relevant and 

adverse. Therefore, the EPA is 

withdrawing the direct final rule and 

will publish a subsequent final rule 

wherein the EPA will address all 

comments received. The EPA will not 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
79130 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

1This estimate was based on projections using 

data from 2006–2018, as described in the NPRM. 

institute a second comment period on 

the subsequent final rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Designations and 

classifications, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Andrew Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ Accordingly, the rule amending 40 

CFR 52.282, 52.350, 52.1683, and 

52.2585 published in the Federal 

Register on October 9, 2020 (85 FR 

64046) is withdrawn effective December 

9, 2020. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26960 Filed 12–8–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 225 

[Docket No. FRA–2014–0099, Notice No. 2] 

RIN 2130–AC49 

Revision of Method for Calculating 

Monetary Threshold for Reporting Rail 

Equipment Accidents/Incidents 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FRA’s accident/incident 

reporting regulation requires railroads to 

report to FRA all rail equipment 

accidents/incidents above the monetary 

reporting threshold (reporting 

threshold) applicable to that calendar 

year. In this final rule, FRA amends this 

regulation to modify the way it 

calculates periodic adjustments to the 

reporting threshold and the way it 

communicates each calendar year’s 

threshold to railroads. This final rule 

will improve the accuracy of accident/ 

incident data gathered from the 

railroads. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the 

docket to read background documents 

or comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Prabhdeep S. Chawla, Industry 

Economist, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Safety 

Analysis, RRS–21, W33–321, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6298); or Senya 

Waas, Attorney Adviser, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Railroad Administration, Office of Chief 

Counsel, RCC–10, W31–223, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–0665). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

III. Discussion of Specific Comments and 

Conclusions 

IV. Regulatory Review and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866, 13771, and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272: Certification of No 

Significant Economic Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities 

C. Other Specialized Analyses (Paperwork 

Reduction Act, Federalism, 

Environmental Impact, Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Energy 

Impact) 

D. Privacy Act 

E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

I. Executive Summary 

On May 17, 2019, FRA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

proposing two technical revisions to the 

formula for calculating its accident/ 

incident reporting threshold and an 

administrative change to the way FRA 

communicates the reporting threshold 

applicable to the upcoming year. See 84 

FR 22410. This final rule substantially 

adopts all of the proposals in the NPRM. 

First, FRA revises the percentage term 

used to determine a change in 

equipment costs, so it is consistent with 

the percentage term used to determine 

a change in labor costs. Second, to 

reflect overall economic data trends 

better, this final rule revises the formula 

to use full-year data instead of only 

second-quarter data to calculate the 

reporting threshold. Third, FRA is 

revising 49 CFR 225.19(e) to indicate 

that it will publish an annual notice on 

its website stating the reporting 

threshold for the upcoming calendar 

year (CY). FRA will publish this annual 

notice on its website no later than 

November 30th of each year, providing 

at least one month advance notice to 

stakeholders of the new threshold before 

it becomes effective. Issuing a notice 

each year, as opposed to a final rule, 

will simplify and expedite the 

communication of the reporting 

threshold, and will be more practical 

and efficient than FRA annually 

publishing a final rule incorporating the 

reporting threshold amount in the rule 

text in 49 CFR 225.19(c) and (e). 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed no 

revisions to 49 CFR 225.19(c) regarding 

rail equipment accidents. However, 

because that section currently lists the 

reporting threshold for each calendar 

year since 2002, FRA is revising that 

section to remove those specific 

references consistent with the revisions 

to § 225.19(e) discussed above. 

Specifically, FRA will no longer publish 

each year’s reporting threshold in the 

rule text of part 225. Instead, each year, 

FRA will issue a notice announcing the 

reporting threshold for the upcoming 

year. 

FRA analyzed the economic impacts 

of this final rule against a ‘‘no action’’ 

baseline reflecting what would happen 

in the absence of this final rule. That is, 

what would happen if the reporting 

threshold continued to be calculated 

according to the current, technicallyflawed formula. FRA estimated that, 

going forward, the technical revisions to 

the reporting threshold formula adopted 

in this final rule will yield slightly 

lower reporting thresholds than the 

existing formula would produce. This 

lower threshold will likely result in 

railroads being required to report more 

rail equipment accidents/incidents 

under this final rule. As noted in the 

NPRM, FRA estimated this rule would 

cause the railroads to report an average 

of 140 more rail equipment accidents/ 

incidents annually over the 10-year 

period from 2019 to 2028.1 The present 

value of the costs to report these 

accidents/incidents to FRA totals 

$138,913 using a 7 percent discount 

rate, and $170,744 using a 3 percent 

discount rate. The annualized costs are 

$19,778 using a 7 percent discount rate, 

and $20,016 using a 3 percent discount 

rate. To place the estimated marginal 

increase in reported rail equipment 

accidents/incidents in perspective, the 

expected increase represents about 7.5 

percent of the 1,850 total reported rail 

equipment accidents/incidents every 

year (an average over the years 2014 to 

2018)—and an even smaller percentage 

of the approximately 12,000 total 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES