79118 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

during times of use. The airway segment 

between the Franklin, PA, VOR 176° 

and Clarion, PA, VOR/DME 222° radials 

(GRACE fix) and the Philipsburg, PA, 

VORTAC is removed. Additionally, the 

restricted area exclusion language is 

removed also. The unaffected portions 

of the existing airway remain as charted. 

V–119: V–119 extends between the 

Henderson, WV, VORTAC and the 

Clarion, PA, VOR/DME. The airway 

segment overlying the Clarion, PA, 

VOR/DME between the Indian Head, 

PA, VORTAC and the Clarion, PA, VOR/ 

DME is removed. The unaffected 

portions of the existing airway remain 

as charted. 

V–226: V–226 extends between the 

intersection of the Franklin, PA, VOR 

175° and Clarion, PA, VOR/DME 222° 

radials (GRACE fix) and the Stillwater, 

NJ, VOR/DME. The airway segment 

overlying the Clarion, PA, VOR/DME 

between the intersection of the Franklin, 

PA, VOR 175° and Clarion, PA, VOR/ 

DME 222° radials (GRACE fix) and the 

Keating, PA, VORTAC is removed. The 

unaffected portions of the existing 

airway remain as charted. 

The NAVAID radials in the VOR 

Federal airway descriptions below are 

unchanged and stated in True degrees. 

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action of amending VOR Federal 

airways V–6, V–30, V–58, V–119, and 

V–226, due to the planned 

decommissioning of the VOR portion of 

the Clarion, PA, VOR/DME NAVAID, 

qualifies for categorical exclusion under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

and its implementing regulations at 40 

CFR part 1500, and in accordance with 

FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures, 

paragraph 5–6.5a, which categorically 

excludes from further environmental 

impact review rulemaking actions that 

designate or modify classes of airspace 

areas, airways, routes, and reporting 

points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation 

of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace 

Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and 

Reporting Points). As such, this action 

is not expected to result in any 

potentially significant environmental 

impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 

1050.1F, paragraph 5–2 regarding 

Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA 

has reviewed this action for factors and 

circumstances in which a normally 

categorically excluded action may have 

a significant environmental impact 

requiring further analysis. The FAA has 

determined that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist that warrant 

preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

study. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated July 21, 2020, and 

effective September 15, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal 

Airways. 

* * * * * 

V–6 [Amended] 

From Oakland, CA; INT Oakland 039° and 

Sacramento, CA, 212° radials; Sacramento; 

Squaw Valley, CA; Mustang, NV; Lovelock, 

NV; Battle Mountain, NV; INT Battle 

Mountain 062° and Wells, NV, 256° radials; 

Wells; 5 miles, 40 miles, 98 MSL, 85 MSL, 

Lucin, UT; 43 miles, 85 MSL, Ogden, UT; 11 

miles, 50 miles, 105 MSL, Fort Bridger, WY; 

Rock Springs, WY; 20 miles, 39 miles, 95 

MSL, Cherokee, WY; 39 miles, 27 miles, 95 

MSL, Medicine Bow, WY; INT Medicine Bow 

106° and Sidney, NE, 291° radials; Sidney; 

North Platte, NE; Grand Island, NE; Omaha, 

IA; Des Moines, IA; Iowa City, IA; Davenport, 

IA; INT Davenport 087° and DuPage, IL, 255° 

radials; to DuPage. From INT Chicago 

Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° 

radials; Gipper; to INT Gipper 092° and 

Litchfield, MI, 196° radials. From 

Philipsburg, PA; Selinsgrove, PA; Allentown, 

PA; Solberg, NJ; INT Solberg 107° and 

Yardley, PA, 068° radials; INT Yardley 068° 

and La Guardia, NY, 213° radials; to La 

Guardia. 

* * * * * 

V–30 [Amended] 

From Badger, WI; INT Badger 102° and 

Pullman, MI, 303° radials; Pullman; to 

Litchfield, MI. From Philipsburg, PA; 

Selinsgrove, PA; East Texas, PA; INT East 

Texas 095° and Solberg, NJ, 264° radials; to 

Solberg. 

* * * * * 

V–58 [Amended] 

From Philipsburg, PA; to Williamsport, PA. 

From INT Sparta, NJ, 018° and Kingston, NY, 

270° radials; Kingston; INT Kingston 095° 

and Hartford, CT, 269° radials; Hartford; 

Groton, CT; Sandy Point, RI; to Nantucket, 

MA. 

* * * * * 

V–119 [Amended] 

From Henderson, WV; Parkersburg, WV; 

INT Parkersburg 067° and Indian Head, PA, 

254° radials; to Indian Head. 

* * * * * 

V–226 

From Keating, PA; Williamsport, PA; 

Wilkes-Barre, PA; to Stillwater, NJ. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 3, 

2020. 

George Gonzalez, 

Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26914 Filed 12–8–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 79 

[CIV Docket No.159] 

Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Act: Procedures for Claims Submitted 

at the Statutory Filing Deadline 

AGENCY: Civil Division, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notification of procedures. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(‘‘the Department’’) is publishing this 

document to inform the public of the 

Department’s procedures for filing 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79119 

claims under the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Act (‘‘RECA’’) at the 

statutory filing deadline. RECA requires 

that claims shall be barred unless filed 

within 22 years after the date of 

enactment of the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Act Amendments of 

2000. The Department is publishing this 

document to articulate its policy that 

RECA claims that bear a date of July 11, 

2022 on the postmark or stamp by 

another commercial carrier shall be 

deemed timely filed upon receipt by the 

Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Program. The Department will return 

untimely claims and will not accept 

electronic submissions. Consistent with 

the statutory requirement that the 

Department make a determination 

within 12 months of filing for timely 

filed claims, documentation to establish 

the eligibility of any potential 

beneficiary of an awarded claim must be 

provided by July 12, 2023, or the award 

shall be deemed rejected. 

DATES: This document is effective on 

December 9, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerard W. Fischer (Assistant Director), 

202–616–4090, Constitutional and 

Specialized Tort Litigation Section, 

Torts Branch, Civil Division, 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Codified at 42 U.S.C. 2210 note, the 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 

(‘‘RECA’’) offers an apology and 

monetary compensation to individuals 

(or their survivors) who have contracted 

certain cancers and other serious 

diseases following exposure to radiation 

released during above-ground 

atmospheric nuclear weapons tests or 

following their employment in the 

uranium production industry during 

specified periods. This unique program 

was designed by Congress as an 

alternative to litigation in that the 

statutory criteria do not require 

claimants to establish causation. Rather, 

if the claimant can satisfy the 

requirements outlined in the statute, 

which include demonstrating that he or 

she contracted a compensable disease 

after working or residing in a designated 

location for a specific period of time, he 

or she qualifies for compensation. 

Congress charged the Attorney 

General with authority to establish filing 

procedures and responsibility for 

adjudicating claims under the Act. The 

Attorney General delegated this 

function to the Constitutional and 

Specialized Tort Litigation Section of 

the Torts Branch of the Civil Division of 

the United States Department of Justice. 

Statutory Deadline for RECA Claims 

RECA was enacted on October 15, 

1990, by Public Law 101–426. The 

statute of limitations under Public Law 

101–426 set a 20 year period from the 

date of its enactment for parties to file 

claims with the Department of Justice. 

On July 10, 2000, the RECA 

Amendments of 2000 were enacted as 

Public Law 106–245. The RECA 

Amendments of 2000 provided 

expanded coverage and extended the 

filing period for claims 22 years from its 

date of enactment. 

As codified at 42 U.S.C. 2210 note 

(2018), the deadline for claims under 

RECA is as follows: 

Under section 8, Limitations on 

Claims: 

• In general—A claim to which this 

Act applies shall be barred unless the 

claim is filed within 22 years after the 

date of the enactment of the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act 

Amendments of 2000 [July 10, 2000]. 

• Resubmittal of claims—After the 

date of the enactment of the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act 

Amendments of 2000 [July 10, 2000], 

any claimant who has been denied 

compensation under this Act may 

resubmit a claim for consideration by 

the Attorney General in accordance with 

this Act not more than three times. Any 

resubmittal made before the date of the 

enactment of the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 

shall not be applied to the limitation 

under the preceding sentence. 

RECA delegates authority to the 

Department to establish procedures 

whereby individuals may submit claims 

for payments under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 

2210 note (2018), Sec. 6(a). For timely 

filed claims, RECA requires the 

Department to complete the 

determination on each claim filed not 

later than twelve months after the claim 

is filed. 42 U.S.C. 2210 note (2018), sec. 

6(d)(1). 

On March 23, 2004, the Department 

published a final rulemaking to 

implement the RECA Amendments of 

2000. See 69 FR 13628; 28 CFR part 79. 

The regulation at § 79.71(a) sets forth 

procedures for filing of claims, and 

requires them to be submitted in writing 

on a standard claim form and mailed 

with supporting documentation to the 

Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Program, P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin 

Station, Washington DC 20044–0146. 

The regulation at § 79.71(b) sets forth 

that ‘‘[t]he Assistant Director will file a 

claim after receipt of the standard form 

with supporting documentation and 

examination for substantial compliance 

with this part.’’ The final rulemaking 

did not address filing procedures on the 

statutory deadline for filing claims. 

Statement of Policy 

As the deadline for filing claims 

approaches, several stakeholders have 

requested clarification with respect to 

the date of the last day for filing claims 

and the procedures for determining 

when a claim is filed. RECA does not set 

forth a method for calculating time. In 

addition, the apparent statutory filing 

deadline, July 10, 2022, is a Sunday. 

Finally, the Department’s implementing 

regulations do not clearly state filing 

procedures on the last day. 

The Department is publishing this 

document to articulate its policy that 

RECA claims that bear a date of July 11, 

2022 on the postmark or stamp by 

another commercial carrier shall be 

deemed timely filed upon receipt by the 

Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Program. 

A Monday, July 11, 2022 deadline is 

consistent with methods for computing 

time set forth at Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 6(a), and with standard 

agency practice in the event a deadline 

falls on a weekend or holiday 

establishing the next business day as the 

deadline for submissions. The postmark 

requirement is consistent with the 

Department’s existing procedures for 

submitting claims at § 79.71(a) and (b), 

requiring a claim to be submitted in 

writing on a standard claim form and 

mailed to the address of the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Program. In 

addition, this policy allows claimants to 

affirmatively establish the timely filing 

of their claim by obtaining a postmark 

or other mailing date stamp consistent 

with the filing deadline. 

The regulation at § 79.71(a) requires 

that claims be mailed to the Department. 

Accordingly, the Department will not 

accept electronically submitted claims. 

Claims bearing a date on and after 

July 12, 2022, as indicated by the 

postmark or stamp by another 

commercial carrier, shall be returned to 

the submitting party due to untimely 

filing. Claims returned due to untimely 

filing will include a letter from the 

Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Program indicating the Department is 

barred by statute from reviewing the 

claim or awarding compensation. 

This policy applies to all claims 

received at the filing deadline, 

including the resubmission of a 

previously denied claim under Sec. 8(b) 

of RECA. Resubmissions of previously 

denied claims bearing a postmark or 

stamp by another commercial carrier 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
79120 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 9, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

1The transitional covered business method patent 

review program expired on September 16, 2020, in 

accordance with AIA 18(a)(3). Although the 

program has sunset, existing CBM proceedings, 

based on petitions filed before September 16, 2020, 

are still pending. 

dated July 12, 2022 or later shall be 

returned due to untimely filing. 

For timely filed claims in which a 

share of the compensation award is held 

in trust pending documentation to 

establish the eligibility of a potential 

beneficiary, such shares of 

compensation shall be deemed rejected 

consistent with 28 CFR 79.75(b) if 

sufficient documentation to establish 

the eligibility of the potential 

beneficiary is not received within the 12 

month determination period provided 

by the Act, or by July 12, 2023, 

whichever date falls earlier. 

This document is intended to inform 

the public of the Department’s policy 

regarding procedures for filing claims at 

the statutory deadline. The Department 

will post this document to its RECA 

website at www.justice.gov/civil/ 

common/reca, and continue to 

announce this policy at outreach events 

and in communications with claimants, 

counsel, and support groups. 

Dated: December 1, 2020. 

Gerard W. Fischer, 

Assistant Director, Torts Branch, Civil 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26869 Filed 12–8–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 42 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2019–0024] 

RIN 0651–AD40 

PTAB Rules of Practice for Instituting 

on All Challenged Patent Claims and 

All Grounds and Eliminating the 

Presumption at Institution Favoring 

Petitioner as to Testimonial Evidence 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) 

revises the rules of practice for 

instituting review on all challenged 

claims or none in inter partes review 

(IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and the 

transitional program for covered 

business method patents (CBM) 

proceedings before the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) in 

accordance with the U.S. Supreme 

Court decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. 

Iancu (SAS). Consistent with SAS, the 

Office also revises the rules of practice 

for instituting a review, if at all, on all 

grounds of unpatentability for the 

challenged claims that are asserted in a 

petition. Additionally, the Office revises 

the rules to conform to the current 

standard practice of providing surreplies to principal briefs and providing 

that a reply and a patent owner response 

may respond to a decision on 

institution. The Office further revises 

the rules to eliminate the presumption 

that a genuine issue of material fact 

created by the patent owner’s 

testimonial evidence filed with a 

preliminary response will be viewed in 

the light most favorable to the petitioner 

for purposes of deciding whether to 

institute a review. 

DATES: Effective date: The changes in 

this final rule are effective January 8, 

2021. 

Applicability date: This final rule 

applies to all IPR and PGR petitions 

filed on or after January 8, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Tierney, Vice Chief 

Administrative Patent Judge, by 

telephone at 571–272–9797. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose: The final rule revises the 

rules of practice for IPR, PGR, and CBM 

proceedings that implemented 

provisions of the Leahy-Smith America 

Invents Act (AIA) providing for trials 

before the Office. 

The U.S. Supreme Court held in SAS 

that a decision to institute an IPR under 

35 U.S.C. 314 may not institute on fewer 

than all claims challenged in a petition. 

See SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. 

Ct. 1348 (2018). The Court held that the 

Office has the discretion to institute on 

either all of the claims challenged in the 

petition or to deny the petition. 

Previously, the Board exercised 

discretion to institute an IPR, PGR, or 

CBM on all or some of the challenged 

claims and on all or some of the grounds 

of unpatentability asserted in a petition. 

For example, the Board exercised 

discretion to authorize a review to 

proceed on only those claims and 

grounds for which the required 

threshold had been met, thus narrowing 

the issues for efficiency in conducting a 

proceeding. 

In light of SAS, the Office provided 

guidance that, if the Board institutes a 

trial under 35 U.S.C. 314 or 324, the 

Board will institute on all claims and all 

grounds included in a petition of an 

IPR, PGR, or CBM. To implement this 

practice in the regulation, this final rule 

revises the rules of practice for 

instituting an IPR, PGR, or CBM to 

require institution on either all 

challenged claims (and all of the 

grounds) presented in a petition or 

none. Under the amended rule, 

therefore, in all pending IPR, PGR, and 

CBM proceedings before the Office, the 

Board will either institute review on all 

of the challenged claims and grounds of 

unpatentability presented in the petition 

or deny the petition. 

The second change is conforming the 

rules to certain standard practices before 

the PTAB in IPR, PGR, and CBM 

proceedings. Specifically, this final rule 

amends the rules to set forth the briefing 

requirements of sur-replies to principal 

briefs and to provide that a reply and a 

patent owner response may respond to 

a decision on institution. 

Finally, this final rule amends the 

rules to eliminate, when deciding 

whether to institute an IPR, PGR, or 

CBM review, the presumption in favor 

of the petitioner for a genuine issue of 

material fact created by testimonial 

evidence submitted with a patent 

owner’s preliminary response. As with 

all other evidentiary questions at the 

institution phase, the Board will 

consider all evidence to determine 

whether the petitioner has met the 

applicable standard for institution of the 

proceeding. 

Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is 

not economically significant under 

Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). 

Background 

On September 16, 2011, the AIA was 

enacted into law (Pub. L. 112–29, 125 

Stat. 284 (2011)), and within one year, 

the Office implemented rules to govern 

Office practice for AIA trials, including 

IPR, PGR, CBM,1 and derivation 

proceedings pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135, 

316, and 326 and AIA 18(d)(2). See 

Rules of Practice for Trials Before the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board and 

Judicial Review of Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board Decisions, 77 FR 48612 

(Aug. 14, 2012); Changes to Implement 

Inter Partes Review Proceedings, PostGrant Review Proceedings, and 

Transitional Program for Covered 

Business Method Patents, 77 FR 48680 

(Aug. 14, 2012); and Transitional 

Program for Covered Business Method 

Patents—Definitions of Covered 

Business Method Patent and 

Technological Invention, 77 FR 48734 

(Aug. 14, 2012). Additionally, the Office 

published a Patent Trial Practice Guide 

to advise the public on the general 

framework of the regulations, including 

the structure and times for taking action 

in each of the new proceedings. See 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES