1768 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

following control numbers: 0694–0088 

(Simplified Network Application 

Processing+ System (SNAP+) and the 

Multipurpose Export License 

Application), 0694–0122 (Licensing 

Responsibilities and Enforcement), and 

0694–0137 (License Exceptions and 

Exclusions). Collection 0694–0088 

includes, among other things, license 

applications, and carries a burden 

estimate of 42.5 minutes for a manual or 

electronic submission for a total burden 

estimate of 31,878 hours. 

This rule will not change public 

burden in a collection of information 

approved by OMB under control 

number 0694–0088. The restoration of 

license exceptions for listed persons on 

the Unverified List will result in 

decreased license applications being 

submitted to BIS by exporters. The 

removal of license exceptions for listed 

persons on the Unverified List will 

potentially result in increased license 

applications being submitted to BIS by 

exporters. Total burden hours associated 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act and 

OMB control number 0694–0088 are 

expected not to change, as the 

restoration of some license exceptions 

and the restriction of other license 

exceptions will only affect transactions 

involving persons removed from or 

added to the Unverified List and not all 

export transactions. Because license 

exception eligibility is restored for these 

entities removed from the UVL, this rule 

increases public burden in a collection 

of information approved by OMB under 

control number 0694–0137 minimally, 

as this will only affect specifically listed 

individual persons. The decreased 

burden under 0694–0088 is reciprocal to 

the increased burden under 0694–0137, 

and results in little or no change of 

burden to the public. This rule also 

decreases public burden in a collection 

of information under OMB control 

number 0694–0122, as a result of the 

exchange of UVL statements between 

private parties. The total change in 

burden hours associated with both of 

these collections is expected to be 

minimal, as it involves a limited 

number of persons listed on the UVL. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744 

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Terrorism. 

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (15 CFR 

parts 730 through 774) is amended as 

follows: 

PART 744—CONTROL POLICY: END– 

USER AND END–USE BASED 

■ 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 744 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801–4852; 50 U.S.C. 

4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 

3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 

et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 

20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 

12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 

608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 

Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 

CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 

45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 

13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 

783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 

Comp., p. 786; Notice of September 18, 2020, 

85 FR 59641 (September 22, 2020); Notice of 

November 12, 2020, 85 FR 72897 (November 

13, 2020). 

Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 

[Amended] 

■ 2. Supplement No. 6 to part 744 is 

amended in the table by: 

■ a. Removing the entries for ‘‘DMA 

Logistics GmbH’’ and ‘‘Halm Elektronik 

GmbH’’ under ‘‘Germany’’; and 

■ b. Removing the entry for ‘‘Mexico’’. 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27931 Filed 1–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals 

Board 

20 CFR Part 501 

RIN 1290–AA37 

Rules of Practice and Procedure 

AGENCY: Employees’ Compensation 

Appeals Board, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Direct Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL or Department) is issuing this 

Direct Final Rule (DFR) to seek public 

comments on a proposal to require 

electronic filing (e-filing) and electronic 

service (e-service) for attorneys and lay 

representatives representing parties in 

proceedings before the Employees’ 

Compensation Appeals Board (the 

Board). These regulations establish efiling and e-service rules of practice and 

procedure for the Board that would 

apply where a governing statute, 

regulation, or executive order does not 

establish contrary rules of practice or 

procedure. The rule mandates e-filing, 

makes e-service automatic of documents 

for parties represented by attorneys and 

duly authorized lay representatives 

unless good cause is shown justifying a 

different form of filing, and provides an 

option for pro se/self-represented 

parties to utilize these capabilities. It 

also allows the Board, in its discretion, 

to hold oral arguments by 

videoconference. 

DATES: This direct final rule will 

become effective February 25, 2021 

without further action unless the 

Department receives significant adverse 

comment to this rule by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time on February 10, 

2021. If the Department receives 

significant adverse comment, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) 1290–AA37, only by the 

following method: Electronic 

Comments. Submit comments through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://

www.regulations.gov. To locate the 

direct final rule, use docket number 

DOL–2020–0017 or key words such as 

‘‘Administrative practice and 

procedure’’ or ‘‘Workers’ 

compensation.’’ Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. All comments 

must be received by 11:59 p.m. on the 

date indicated for consideration in this 

rulemaking. Instructions: All 

submissions received must include the 

agency name and docket number or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

for this rulemaking. All comments 

received will generally be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. If you 

need assistance to review the comments 

or the direct final rule, the Department 

will consider providing the comments 

and the direct final rule in other formats 

upon request. For assistance to review 

the comments or obtain the direct final 

rule in an alternate format, contact Mr. 

Thomas Shepherd, Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards, at (202) 693–6319. 

Individuals with hearing or speech 

impairments may access the telephone 

number above by TTY by calling the 

toll-free Federal Information Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Shepherd, Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards, at 202–693–6319 or 

ECAB-Inquiries@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

preamble is divided into four sections: 

Section I explains the process of issuing 

a proposed rule concurrently with a 

companion direct final rule; Section II 

provides general background 

information on the development of the 

rulemaking; Section III is a section-bysection summary and discussion of the 

regulatory text; and Section IV covers 

the administrative requirements for this 

rulemaking. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 1769 

I. Proposed Rule Published 

Concurrently With Companion Direct 

Final Rule 

An agency typically uses direct final 

rulemaking when it anticipates the rule 

will be non-controversial. The 

Department has determined that this 

rule is suitable for direct final 

rulemaking. The revisions to the Board’s 

procedural regulations would require 

represented parties, unless exempted by 

the Board for good cause shown, to file 

documents via the Board’s new 

electronic case management system, 

which will also automatically serve 

these documents on registered system 

users. Some parties are already e-filing 

documents with the Board on a 

voluntary basis. Moreover, this new 

system is similar to those used by courts 

and other administrative agencies and 

will thus be familiar to the 

representatives. The rule also gives selfrepresented (pro se) parties the option to 

file and serve documents through the 

electronic case management system or 

via conventional methods. It also allows 

the Board to hear oral argument by 

videoconference under the same 

discretionary criteria outlined in its 

2008 proposal. These changes to the 

Board’s procedures and practices should 

not be controversial and are consistent 

with its statements in its 2008 proposal. 

73 FR 35103 (‘‘[T]he Board has 

anticipated that technological advances 

may, in the future, allow the filing, 

notice, service and presentation of 

documents and argument by electronic 

means.’’). The Department has 

determined that this rule is exempt from 

the notice and comment requirements 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) as a rule of agency 

practice and procedure. Nonetheless, 

the agency has decided to allow for 

public input by issuing a direct final 

rule and concurrent notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

The Department is publishing 

concurrently with this direct final rule 

an identical notice of proposed 

rulemaking elsewhere in this issue of 

the Federal Register. The companion 

proposed rule provides the procedural 

framework to finalize the rule in the 

event that any significant adverse 

comment is received. The comment 

period for this direct final rule runs 

concurrently with the comment period 

for the proposed rule. Any comments 

received in response to this direct final 

rule will also be considered as 

comments regarding the companion 

proposed rule. For purposes of this 

rulemaking, a significant adverse 

comment is one that explains (1) why 

the rule is inappropriate, including 

challenges to the rule’s underlying 

premise or approach; or (2) why the 

direct final rule will be ineffective or 

unacceptable without a change. In 

determining whether a significant 

adverse comment necessitates 

withdrawal of this direct final rule, the 

Department will consider whether the 

comment raises an issue serious enough 

to warrant a substantive response had it 

been submitted in a standard noticeand-comment process. A comment 

recommending an addition to the rule 

will not be considered significant and 

adverse unless the comment explains 

how this direct final rule would be 

ineffective without the addition. 

If the Department receives any 

significant adverse comments during the 

comment period, the Department will 

withdraw the direct final rule and 

proceed in developing a final rule using 

the usual notice-and-comment 

procedure. If the Department receives 

no significant adverse comments, the 

Department will publish a document 

withdrawing the proposed rule. The 

Department requests comments on all 

issues related to this rule, including 

economic or other regulatory impacts of 

this rule on the regulated community. 

All interested parties should comment 

at this time because the Department will 

not initiate an additional comment 

period on the proposed rule even if it 

withdraws the direct final rule. 

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 

regulatory action because this rule has 

been determined by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as 

not significant under E.O. 12866. 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated this rule as not a ‘major rule,’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

II. Background of This Rulemaking 

The Board is promulgating a rule that 

would make e-filing mandatory and eservice automatic for parties represented 

by attorneys and lay representatives. 

The Board’s long-term goal is to have 

entirely electronic case files (e-case 

files), which would significantly benefit 

both the Board and the participants in 

Board appeals. All parties and 

representatives, as well as appropriate 

Board employees, would have access to 

all of the Board’s case-related 

documents through the Board’s case 

management system at any time and 

place, as long as they have access to the 

internet. In addition, digitally filed and 

served documents would allow the 

Board to leverage its case management 

system to more efficiently process 

incoming documents and reduce the 

time it takes to adjudicate appeals. 

The Board’s case management system 

is a consolidated web-based case 

tracking system that was deployed in 

FY2011 to replace individual legacy 

applications and streamline business 

processes specific to each of the 

Department’s three Adjudicatory 

Boards: The Administrative Review 

Board (created in 1996) is the 

adjudicatory Board that issues final 

agency decisions for the Secretary of 

Labor in cases arising under a variety of 

worker protection laws; the Benefits 

Review Board (created in 1972) reviews 

appeals of administrative law judges’ 

decisions arising primarily under the 

Black Lung Benefits Act, the Longshore 

and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act 

and its extensions; and the Employees’ 

Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) 

(created in 1946) hears appeals taken 

from determinations and awards under 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act by the Department’s Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP) (whose predecessor agency was 

the Bureau of Federal Employees’ 

Compensation as described in 20 CFR 

1.6) with respect to claims of Federal 

employees injured in performance of 

duty. 

The case management system has 

provided a broad range of capabilities to 

the staff of the Boards for inputting, 

processing, tracking, managing, and 

reporting specific details on thousands 

of cases since the initial 

implementation. In FY2013, the system 

was enhanced to provide access to the 

general public. Specifically, users have 

the ability to check their case status, 

electronically file motions and briefs, 

and receive Board issuances 

electronically. Currently, over 1,400 

individuals are registered users of the 

system. 

At present, there are two methods for 

placing the parties’ pleadings into an 

electronic format for inclusion on the 

Board’s case management system: 

Pleadings can be filed in an electronic 

format; or pleadings can be digitally 

imaged after they have been filed in 

paper form. If e-filing and e-service 

remains optional, it is unlikely that the 

Board will achieve the goal of 

completely electronic case files. If, 

however, all pleadings submitted by 

attorneys and lay representatives are efiled, imaging the remaining paper 

pleadings from self-represented parties 

(pro se parties) would be more 

manageable and allow greater 

efficiencies in the processing of appeals. 

In addition, utilization of e-filing and eservice will reduce case processing 

times by eliminating, in most cases, the 

timeframes required to allow for the 

delivery of traditional mailings. These 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
1770 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

time savings will allow the Board to 

more efficiently process appeals without 

any sacrifice of the quality of work and 

will reduce mailing costs for the Board 

and private parties. 

Although the law requires Federal 

agencies to provide information and 

services via the internet, it also 

mandates that agencies consider the 

impact on persons without access to the 

internet and, to the extent practicable, 

ensure that the availability of 

government services has not been 

diminished for such persons. 44 U.S.C. 

3501. Accordingly, the Board will make 

e-filing and e-service optional for selfrepresented parties. There is no known 

legal restriction to a requirement that 

attorneys and lay representatives use efiling and make e-service automatic, nor 

are there undue costs or difficulties 

imposed, particularly because a party 

may obtain an exemption for good cause 

shown. The Board notes that in this 

regard, e-filing is generally mandatory 

for attorneys in the Federal court 

system. See 76 FR 56107 (Sept. 12, 

2011) (Social Security Administration 

final rule announcing that it will require 

claimant representatives to use SSA’s 

electronic services as they become 

available on matters for which the 

representatives request direct fee 

payment); 76 FR 63537 (Oct. 13, 2011) 

(U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

pilot program requiring agencies and 

attorneys representing appellants to file 

pleadings electronically for appeals in 

the Washington Regional Office and 

Denver Field Office); 84 FR 14554 (Apr. 

10, 2019) (Occupational Safety and 

Health Review Commission final rule 

adopting mandatory electronic filing 

and service); 84 FR 37081 (July 31, 

2019) (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

final rule amending its Rules of Practice 

in Trademark Cases and Rules of 

Practice in Filings to mandate electronic 

filing of trademark applications and 

submissions associated with trademark 

applications and registrations). 

Individuals who are e-filing appeals to 

the Board need access to a computer 

with internet connectivity and an email 

account. 

III. Section-by Section Analysis of Rule 

Section 501.3 Notice of Appeal 

Current § 501.3(a) defines who may 

‘‘file for review’’ from a final decision of 

the Director. Revised § 501.3(a) changes 

the phrase ‘‘file for review’’ to ‘‘file an 

appeal’’ to reflect the terminology 

contained in this section. 

Current § 501.3(b) defines the ‘‘place 

of filing’’ as with the Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards at a specific mailing 

address. Revised § 501.3(b) defines 

‘‘how to file’’ appeals and all postappeal pleadings and motions, requiring 

e-filing by attorneys and lay 

representatives beginning 45 days after 

the effective date of the rule and 

allowing for e-filing by self-represented 

appellants. This requirement applies 

only to those documents filed 45 days 

after the effective date or later. This time 

period between the effective date, when 

litigants can be certain that the direct 

final rule will not be withdrawn, and 

the applicability date, on which e-filing 

becomes mandatory, allows those who 

were previously filing and serving 

documents by mail to adjust to 

electronic filing. 

Current § 501.3(c)(2) contains 

requirements for the content of an 

appeal to the Board regarding the name 

and contact information for an appellant 

or a deceased employee who is the 

subject of an appeal. In addition it 

requires a signed authorization 

identifying the name and contact 

information of his or her representative, 

if applicable. Revised § 501.3(c)(2) 

requires the identifying contact 

information to include an email address. 

Current § 501.3(c)(6) requires an 

appellant to sign the notice of appeal. 

Revised § 501.3(c)(6) allows for the use 

of an electronic signature when an 

appeal is electronically filed by a 

registered user. 

Current § 501.3(f) sets forth how the 

date of filing an appeal is determined by 

the Board for purposes of timeliness of 

an appeal. Revised § 501.3(f) changes 

the word ‘‘Clerk’’ to ‘‘Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards’’ to reflect the 

terminology contained in this section. 

Current § 501.3(f)(1) sets forth how 

timeliness of an appeal is determined 

and provides that a notice of appeal is 

deemed to be ‘‘received when received 

by the Clerk.’’ Revised § 501.3(f)(1) 

includes a provision for the timeliness 

of an appeal when e-filed. It also 

contains technical amendments to 

change the terminology ‘‘United States 

Mail’’ to ‘‘United States Postal Service’’; 

‘‘Clerk’’ to ‘‘Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards’’; and ‘‘received when received’’ 

to ‘‘filed when received.’’ Paragraph 

(f)(2) is renumbered to (f)(3), and new 

paragraph (f)(2) clarifies that e-filed 

documents are deemed filed as of the 

date and time the Board’s electronic 

case management system records its 

receipt and must be filed by 11:59:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

Current § 501.3(h) describes when a 

notice of appeal will be considered 

incomplete. Revised § 501.3(h) changes 

the terminology from ‘‘Clerk’’ to ‘‘Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards.’’ 

Section 501.4 Case record; inspection; 

submission of pleadings and motions. 

Current § 501.4(e) requires all filings 

with the Board to include an original 

and two copies. This rule removes that 

paragraph because paper copies are not 

necessary when e-filing, and the Board 

no longer needs multiple paper copies 

from self-represented parties or those 

who are granted an exemption from efiling. 

Section 501.5 Oral Argument 

Current § 501.5 provides that oral 

argument is held only in Washington, 

DC. The revised section allows the 

Board, in its discretion, to hold oral 

argument by videoconference. It also 

provides that the notice to the parties 

will specify whether the oral argument 

is to be held in person or by 

videoconference. This provides the 

Board with greater flexibility and 

efficiency. Oral arguments (including 

those conducted by videoconference) 

will not be recorded because ECAB 

decisions are not subject to further 

review by OWCP or the courts. 

IV. Administrative Requirements of the 

Rulemaking 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required for this rule 

under section 553(b) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, the 

regulatory flexibility requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

do not apply to this rule. See 5 U.S.C. 

601(2). 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The Department has determined that 

this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

(PRA), as this rulemaking involves 

administrative actions to which the 

Federal government is a party or that 

occur after an administrative case file 

has been opened regarding a particular 

individual. See 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), (c). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

and Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The Department has reviewed this 

rule in accordance with the 

requirements of Executive Order 13132 

and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and has 

found no potential or substantial direct 

effects 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. As there 

is no Federal mandate contained herein 

that could result in increased 

expenditures by State, local, and tribal 

governments, or by the private sector, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 1771 

the Department has not prepared a 

budgetary impact statement. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Department has reviewed this 

rule in accordance with Executive Order 

13175 and has determined that it does 

not have ‘‘tribal implications.’’ The rule 

does not ‘‘have substantial direct effects 

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.’’ 

Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The Department has reviewed this 

rule and has determined that the 

provisions of Executive Order 13211 are 

not applicable as this is not a significant 

regulatory action and there are no direct 

or implied effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use. 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 501 

Administrative practice and 

procedure; Claims; Government 

employees; Worker’s compensation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Labor 

amends 20 CFR part 501, as follows: 

PART 501 [AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 501 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101, et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 501.3 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(2) and (6), (f), and 

(h) to read as follows: 

§ 501.3 Notice of Appeal. 

(a) Who may file. Any person 

adversely affected by a final decision of 

the Director, or his or her authorized 

Representative, may file an appeal of 

such decision to the Board. 

(b) How to file. (1) Beginning on April 

12, 2021, attorneys and lay 

representatives must file appeals with 

the Board electronically through the 

Board’s case management system, along 

with all post-appeal pleadings and 

motions as set forth in paragraphs (d) 

and (h) of this section and §§ 501.4(b) 

through (d), 501.5(b) and (g); 501.7 (a), 

(e), and (f), and 501.9(b), (c), and (e). 

(2) Attorneys and lay representatives 

may request an exemption (pursuant to 

§ 501.4(d)) for good cause shown. Such 

a request must include a detailed 

explanation why e-filing or acceptance 

of e-service should not be required. 

(3) Self-represented parties may either 

file appeals electronically through the 

Board’s case management system or file 

appeals by mail or other method of 

delivery to the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards at 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20210. 

(c) * * * 

(2) Full name, address, email address, 

and telephone number of the Appellant 

and the full name of any deceased 

employee on whose behalf an appeal is 

taken. In addition, the Appellant must 

provide a signed authorization 

identifying the full name, address, email 

address, and telephone number of his or 

her representative, if applicable. 

* * * * * 

(6) Signature: An Appellant must sign 

the notice of appeal. A filing made 

electronically through the Board’s case 

management system by a registered user 

containing the Appellant’s name in an 

appropriate signature block constitutes 

the Appellant’s signature. 

* * * * * 

(f) Date of filing. A notice of appeal 

complying with this paragraph (c) is 

considered to have been filed only if 

received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards within the period specified 

under paragraph (e) of this section, 

except as otherwise provided in this 

subsection: 

(1) If the notice of appeal is sent via 

the U.S. Postal Service or commercial 

carrier and use of the date of delivery 

as the date of filing would result in a 

loss of appeal rights, the appeal will be 

considered to have been filed as of the 

date of the postmark or other carriers’ 

date markings. The date appearing on 

the U.S. Postal Service postmark or 

other carriers’ date markings (when 

available and legible) shall be prima 

facie evidence of the date of mailing. If 

there is no such postmark or date 

marking, or it is illegible, then other 

evidence including, but not limited to, 

certified mail receipts, certificate of 

service, and affidavits, may be used to 

establish the mailing date. If a notice of 

appeal is delivered or sent by means 

other than the U.S. Postal Service or 

commercial carrier, including e-filing, 

personal delivery, or fax, the notice is 

deemed to be filed when received by the 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards. 

(2) For electronic filings made 

through the Board’s case management 

system, a document is deemed filed as 

of the date and time the Board’s 

electronic case management system 

records its receipt, even if transmitted 

after the close of business. To be 

considered timely, an e-filed document 

or pleading must be filed by 11:59:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

(3) In computing the date of filing, the 

180-day time period for filing an appeal 

begins to run on the day following the 

date of the OWCP decision. The last day 

of the period so computed shall be 

included, unless it is a Saturday, 

Sunday or Federal holiday, in which 

event the period runs to the close of the 

next business day. 

* * * * * 

(h) Incomplete notice of appeal. Any 

timely notice of appeal that does not 

contain the information specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section will be 

considered incomplete. On receipt by 

the Board, the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards will inform Appellant of the 

deficiencies in the notice of appeal and 

specify a reasonable time to submit the 

requisite information. Such appeal will 

be dismissed unless Appellant provides 

the requisite information in the 

specified time. 

§ 501.4 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 501.4 by removing 

paragraph (e). 

■ 4. Amend § 501.5 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 501.5 Oral argument. 

* * * * * 

(c) Notice of argument. If a request for 

oral argument is granted, the Clerk will 

notify the Appellant and the Director at 

least 30 days prior to the date set for 

argument. The notice of oral argument 

will state the issues that the Board has 

determined will be heard and whether 

the oral argument will take place in 

person in Washington, DC or by 

videoconference. 

* * * * * 

(f) Location. Oral argument in person 

is heard before the Board only in 

Washington, DC. The Board may, in its 

discretion, hear oral argument by 

videoconference. The Board does not 

reimburse costs associated with an oral 

argument. 

* * * * * 

Signed on this 14th day of December 2020, 

in Washington, DC. 

Eugene Scalia, 

Secretary of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28059 Filed 1–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–31–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES