Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76419 

Dated: September 12, 2024. 

Kate F. Higgins-Bloom, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Sector Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21157 Filed 9–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2024–0775] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: Chelsea Day Fireworks, 

Boston Inner Harbor, Mystic River, 

Chelsea MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of Boston Inner 

Harbor within a 300-yard radius of the 

fireworks barge in the vicinity of 

Admiral’s Hill, Mystic River, Chelsea, 

Massachusetts. This action is needed to 

protect the maritime public and event 

participants from potential hazards 

created by a fireworks event taking 

place in a heavily trafficked harbor 

scheduled for September 21, 2024, with 

a rain date of September 22, 2024. Entry 

of vessels or persons into this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Sector Boston, or a 

designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 

p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 21, 

2024, with a rain date effective from 

7:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 

22, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov type USCG–2024– 

0775 in the search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type 

column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Timothy W. Chase, Sector 

Boston, Waterways Management, phone 

(617) 447–1620, email 

Timothy.W.Chase@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port Sector Boston 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

MA Massachusetts 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule under authority in 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory 

provision authorizes an agency to issue 

a rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment when the 

agency for good cause finds that those 

procedures are ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ The Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because doing 

so would be impracticable. The Coast 

Guard was not made aware of the 

fireworks event with sufficient time to 

publish an NPRM, take public 

comments, consider those comments, 

and issue a final rule by the scheduled 

date of the event. It is impracticable to 

publish an NPRM because we must 

establish this safety zone by September 

21, 2024. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Delaying the effective date of 

this rule would be impracticable 

because prompt action is needed to 

respond to the potential safety hazards 

associated with a fireworks event taking 

place in a heavily trafficked harbor. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The 

Captain of the Port Sector Boston 

(COTP) has determined that potential 

hazards exist with a fireworks event 

occurring in a heavily trafficked harbor 

in the vicinity of Admiral’s Hill, Boston 

Inner Harbor, Mystic River, Chelsea, 

Massachusetts. This rule is needed to 

protect the maritime public and event 

participants from the hazards associated 

with the fireworks event. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

This rule establishes a safety zone 

from 7:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 

21, 2024, with a rain date of September 

22, 2024. The safety zone will cover all 

the navigable waters of a portion of 

Boston Inner Harbor in the vicinity of 

Admiral’s Hill, Mystic River, Chelsea, 

specifically within a 300-yard radius of 

the fireworks barge in approximate 

position 42°23′08′′ N, 071°3′03′′ W. The 

duration of the zone is intended to 

protect event participants, support 

personnel, vessels, and the marine 

environment in these navigable waters 

during the fireworks event. No vessel or 

person will be permitted to enter the 

safety zone without obtaining 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

Requests to enter the zone will be 

considered and reviewed on a case-bycase basis. The COTP may be contacted 

by telephone at (856) 416–3015 or can 

be reached by VHF–FM channel 16. 

Persons and vessels permitted to enter 

this safety zone must transit at their 

slowest safe speed to minimize wake 

and comply with all lawful directions 

issued by the COTP or the designated 

representative. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Accordingly, this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, duration, 

and time-of-year of the safety zone. 

Vessel traffic will be able to safely 

transit around this safety zone which 

will impact a small, designated area of 

Boston Inner Harbor in the vicinity of 

Admiral’s Hill, Mystic River, Chelsea, 

MA, in support of a fireworks event on 

September 21, 2024, with a rain date of 

September 22, 2024. Additionally, this 

safety zone will be of limited duration, 

two- and one-half hours, to minimize 

any adverse impacts to vessels who seek 

to transit the navigable waters. 

Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a 

Local Notice to Mariners well in 

advance of the event and a Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine 

channel 16 regarding the zone prior to 

commencement of the event, and the 

rule allows vessels to seek permission to 

enter the zone. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
76420 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the safety 

zone may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section V.A above, this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on any vessel owner 

or operator. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 121), we 

want to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule. If the rule will 

affect your small business, organization, 

or governmental jurisdiction and you 

have questions concerning its 

provisions or options for compliance, 

please call or email the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone lasting for a period of 2.5 hours 

that will prohibit entry within the 

designated safety zone during a 

fireworks event. It is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 1. A Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 70124; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T01–0775 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–0775 Safety Zone; Chelsea Day 

Fireworks Celebration, Boston Inner 

Harbor, Mystic River, Chelsea MA. 

(a) Regulated area. The following area 

is a safety zone: all navigable waters of 

a portion of Boston Inner Harbor in the 

vicinity of Admiral’s Hill, Mystic River, 

Chelsea, MA, specifically within a 300- 

yard radius of the fireworks barge in 

approximate position: 42°23′08′′ N, 

071°03′03′′ W. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section—Designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Boston (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the regulations in this 

section. 

Participant means all persons 

registered with the event sponsor as a 

participant in the event. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated via VHF–FM Marine 

Channel 16 or by contacting the Coast 

Guard Sector Boston Command Center 

at (857) 416–3015. Those in the safety 

zone must comply with all lawful orders 

or directions given to them by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. through 

10 p.m. on September 21, 2024, with a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 76421 

rain date scheduled on September 22, 

2024. 

J.J. Schock, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port Sector Boston. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21158 Filed 9–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 42 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2020–0060] 

RIN 0651–AD50 

Rules Governing Motion To Amend 

Practice and Procedures in Trial 

Proceedings Under the America 

Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board 

AGENCY: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) 

modifies its rules of practice governing 

amendment practice in trial proceedings 

under the Leahy-Smith America Invents 

Act (AIA) to make permanent certain 

provisions of the Office’s motion to 

amend pilot program (MTA pilot 

program) and to revise the rules that 

allocate burdens of persuasion in 

connection with motions to amend 

(MTAs). These rules provide a patent 

owner with the option of issuance of 

preliminary guidance in response to an 

MTA and the option of filing one 

additional revised MTA. Further, these 

rules clarify that a preponderance of 

evidence standard applies to any new 

ground of unpatentability raised by the 

Board, and that when exercising the 

discretion to grant or deny an MTA or 

to raise a new ground of unpatentability, 

the Board may consider all evidence of 

record in the proceeding. The rules 

further provide that the Board may 

consider information identified in 

response to a Board-initiated request for 

examination assistance, and that the 

results of that assistance will be added 

to the record. The rules better ensure the 

Office’s role of issuing robust and 

reliable patents, and the predictability 

and certainty of post-grant trial 

proceedings before the Board. These 

rules relate to the Office trial practice 

for inter partes review (IPR), post-grant 

review (PGR), and derivation 

proceedings that implemented 

provisions of the AIA providing for 

trials before the Office. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 18, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miriam L. Quinn, Acting Senior Lead 

Administrative Patent Judge; or Melissa 

Haapala, Vice Chief Administrative 

Patent Judge, at 571–272–9797, 

Miriam.Quinn@uspto.gov or 

Melissa.Haapala@uspto.gov, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Development of the Final Rule 

On September 16, 2011, the AIA was 

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

Stat. 284 (2011)), and in 2012, the Office 

implemented rules to govern Office trial 

practice for AIA trials, including IPR, 

PGR, covered business method (CBM), 

and derivation proceedings pursuant to 

35 U.S.C. 135, 316, and 326 and AIA 

18(d)(2). See 37 CFR part 42; 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 (August. 14, 

2012); Changes to Implement Inter 

Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant 

Review Proceedings, and Transitional 

Program for Covered Business Method 

Patents, 77 FR 48680 (August 14, 2012); 

Transitional Program for Covered 

Business Method Patents—Definitions 

of Covered Business Method Patent and 

Technological Invention, 77 FR 48734 

(August. 14, 2012). Additionally, the 

Office published a Patent Trial Practice 

Guide (Practice Guide) for the rules 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 84 

FR 64280 (November 21, 2019); https:// 

www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuide

Consolidated. The Practice Guide 

provides a helpful overview of the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or 

Board) process. See, e.g., Practice Guide 

at 5–8 (AIA trial process), 66–72 

(motions to amend). 

In 2019, the Office implemented a 

pilot program (MTA Pilot Program) for 

motions to amend filed in AIA 

proceedings before the PTAB. Notice 

Regarding a New Pilot Program 

Concerning MTA Practice and 

Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under 

the America Invents Act Before the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 84 FR 

9497 (March 15, 2019) (MTA pilot 

program notice). The MTA Pilot 

Program addressed public comments on 

a previously proposed procedure for 

MTAs, the Board’s MTA practice 

generally, and the allocation of burdens 

of persuasion after Aqua Products, Inc. 

v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 

(en banc) (Aqua Products)). See RFC on 

MTA Practice and Procedures in Trial 

Proceedings under the America Invents 

Act before the Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board, 83 FR 54319 (October 29, 2018) 

(2018 RFC). The MTA pilot program 

was extended through September 16, 

2024. Extension of the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board Motion to Amend Pilot 

Program, 87 FR 60134 (October 4, 2022). 

In 2020, the Office, through notice 

and comment rulemaking, published a 

final rule that allocated burdens of 

persuasion in relation to motions to 

amend and the patentability of 

substitute claims. See 37 CFR 42.121(d), 

42.221(d); Rules of Practice to Allocate 

the Burden of Persuasion on Motions to 

Amend in Trial Proceedings before the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 85 FR 

82936 (December 21, 2020) (‘‘the 

burden-allocation rules’’). These 

burden-allocation rules assign the 

burden of persuasion to the patent 

owner to show, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, that an MTA complies 

with certain statutory and regulatory 

requirements. 37 CFR 42.121(d)(1), 

42.221(d)(1). The burden-allocation 

rules also assign the burden of 

persuasion to the petitioner to show, by 

a preponderance of the evidence, that 

any proposed substitute claims are 

unpatentable. 37 CFR 42.121(d)(2), 

42.221(d)(2). 

Finally, the burden-allocation rules 

further specify that irrespective of those 

burdens, the Board may, in the 

‘‘interests of justice,’’ exercise its 

discretion to grant or deny an MTA, but 

‘‘only for reasons supported by readily 

identifiable and persuasive evidence of 

record.’’ 37 CFR 42.121(d)(3), 

42.221(d)(3); Hunting Titan, Inc. v. 

DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, 

IPR2018–00600 (PTAB July 6, 2020) 

(Paper 67) (Hunting Titan). Situations 

meeting the interests of justice standard 

were stated to include, for example, 

those in which ‘‘the petitioner has 

ceased to participate in the proceeding 

or chooses not to oppose the motion to 

amend, or those in which certain 

evidence regarding unpatentability has 

not been raised by either party but is so 

readily identifiable and persuasive that 

the Board should take it up in the 

interest of supporting the integrity of the 

patent system, notwithstanding the 

adversarial nature of the proceedings.’’ 

85 FR 82924, 82927 (citing Hunting 

Titan, Paper 67 at 12–13, 25–26). The 

burden-allocation rules further provide 

that in instances where the Board 

exercises its discretion in the interests 

of justice, the Board will provide the 

parties with an opportunity to respond 

before rendering a final decision on the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES