Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 8533 

budget if the Commission determines 

that, on balance, the proposed budget is 

consistent with and serves the goals of 

the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act 

in a prudent and cost-effective manner 

and that its anticipated revenues are 

sufficient to meet its anticipated 

expenditures. 

(d) Modification of line items. In its 

decision on the proposed budget, the 

Commission may modify the amount of 

any line item. 

§ 1.152 Deviation from approved budget. 

(a) When notice to the Commission is 

required. As to any line item, the 

Authority may deviate from the 

approved budget’s expenditure 

information in a year by up to 10 

percent in a year without providing 

prior notification to the Commission. If 

the Authority determines that it is likely 

to expend more than the approved 

expenditure for any line item by 10 

percent or more, or if it will exceed its 

approved total expenditure by any 

amount, it must notify the Commission 

immediately upon such a 

determination. 

(b) Line-item deviations of more than 

10 percent. If the Authority determines 

that it is likely to expend more than the 

approved expenditure for any line item 

by 10 percent or more, its notice to the 

Commission must indicate whether it 

intends to repurpose funds from one or 

more different line items to cover the 

increased expenditure. The Commission 

retains the discretion to disapprove 

such a proposed repurposing. The 

Commission must issue any decision to 

disapprove a proposed repurposing 

within 14 business days of receiving 

notice of the Authority’s proposal to 

repurpose funds from another line item. 

If the Commission takes no action, the 

Authority’s proposal takes effect as an 

amendment to its approved budget. 

(c) Total expenditure deviation. If the 

Authority determines that it is likely to 

expend more than the total approved 

expenditure, its notice to the 

Commission must indicate by what 

means it proposes to cover the 

difference. The Commission retains the 

discretion to disapprove the proposed 

means of covering the difference. The 

Commission must issue any decision to 

disapprove a proposed means of 

covering the difference within 14 

business days of receiving notice of the 

Authority’s proposal to cover the 

difference. If the Commission takes no 

action, the Authority’s proposal takes 

effect as an amendment to its approved 

budget. 

By direction of the Commission, 

Joel Christie, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02290 Filed 2–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

20 CFR Part 802 

RIN 1290–AA35 

Rules of Practice and Procedure 

Before the Benefits Review Board 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

Department of Labor’s (DOL or 

Department) proposal, published on 

January 11, 2021, to require electronic 

filing (e-filing) in proceedings before the 

Benefits Review Board (BRB). On 

January 11, 2021, the Department 

published a direct final rule (DFR) and 

companion proposed rule to require efiling and make acceptance of electronic 

service (e-service) automatic by 

attorneys and lay representatives 

representing parties in proceedings 

before the BRB, and to provide an 

option for self-represented parties to 

utilize these electronic capabilities. The 

rule provided an exception to the 

requirements for good cause shown. The 

Department invited written comments 

from the public for 30 days on the 

proposed rule. The Department received 

significant adverse public comments 

from stakeholders on the similar direct 

final rule for the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). As 

many of these stakeholders also practice 

before the BRB, the BRB withdrew the 

direct final rule on February 25, 2021. 

The Department has reviewed the 

comments received in response to the 

proposal and is now implementing the 

rule as described in the proposed rule 

of January 11, 2021, with appropriate 

exceptions for good cause shown and 

self-represented parties. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 11, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Thomas Shepherd, Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards, at 202–693–6319. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

preamble is divided into three sections: 

Section I provides an overview of this 

rulemaking and describes its procedural 

background; Section II provides a 

summary of the public comments 

received; and Section III covers the 

administrative requirements for this 

rulemaking. 

I. Background 

A. Overview 

This action is a final rule to finalize 

the corresponding notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) published in the 

January 11, 2021, issue of the Federal 

Register. The e-filing amendments are 

revising Part 802 in order to require efiling and allow for automatic e-service. 

A general overview of the legal 

framework, statements explaining the 

necessity of this e-filing and e-service 

rule, and further background on the 

rulemaking is available in the 

Department’s NPRM, as published in 

the Federal Register on January 11, 

2021, and will not be restated in full 

herein. 

In brief, this final rule requires 

persons represented by attorney and 

non-attorney representatives to use the 

Department’s system to file all papers 

electronically and to receive electronic 

service of documents unless another 

form of filing or service is allowed by 

the BRB for good cause; gives selfrepresented persons the option to use 

conventional means of filing, or to use 

the Department’s system to file all 

papers electronically and to receive 

electronic service of documents; and 

provides that a filing made through a 

person’s eFile/eServe system account 

and authorized by that person, together 

with that person’s name on a signature 

block, constitutes that person’s 

signature. 

B. Procedural History 

On January 11, 2021, the Department 

initially published the e-filing 

amendments as a DFR without a prior 

proposal because the Department 

viewed such amendments as 

noncontroversial at that time and 

anticipated no adverse comment. The 

Department also published a companion 

NPRM in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the January 11, 2021, issue to 

expedite notice-and-comment 

rulemaking in case significant adverse 

comments were received from 

stakeholders. A significant adverse 

comment for the purposes of these 

notices 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. The 

proposed and direct final rules were 

substantively identical, and their 

respective comment periods ran 

concurrently. The Department is 

treating comments received on the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
8534 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

companion direct final rule as 

comments regarding the proposed rule, 

and vice versa. 

On January 11, 2021, OALJ also 

published e-filing amendments as a 

DFR, as well as a companion NPRM. 

Like the BRB rule, the OALJ rule would 

require e-filing for represented persons 

unless good cause is shown that justifies 

an alternative form of filing, and selfrepresented persons would have the 

option to e-file or file papers 

conventionally. The OALJ rule would 

deem any person required to e-file, or 

who opts to e-file, as having consented 

to e-service through the eFile/eServe 

system. 

On February 25, 2021, the Department 

withdrew the January 11, 2021, DFR due 

to the receipt of significant adverse 

comment on a similar rulemaking by the 

OALJ. Accordingly, on March 17, 2021, 

the Department re-opened the comment 

period on the January 11, 2021, NPRM 

for 15 days in order to give the public 

an additional opportunity to voice 

concerns regarding the proposed e-filing 

rule. The Department also scheduled 

listening sessions in order to better 

understand and address concerns from 

practitioners and the regulated 

community. 

II. Public Comments Received 

The Department invited written 

comment in its January 11, 2021, DFR 

and concurrently published NPRM. The 

proposed and direct final rules were 

substantively identical, and their 

comment periods ran concurrently from 

January 11, 2021, to February 10, 2021. 

On March 17, 2021, the NPRM comment 

period was reopened for fifteen days. 

Comments were submitted 

electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov/ using docket 

number DOL–2020–0013. The 

Department requested comments on all 

issues related to the rule, including 

economic or other regulatory impacts of 

the rule on the regulated community. 

In issuing this final action, the 

Department considered comments 

received on the DFR and NPRM during 

both the initial and subsequent 

comment periods. The Department also 

considered comments received on the 

similar OALJ rulemaking because 

commenters noted that they also 

practiced before the BRB. Comments to 

the OALJ rulemaking were submitted 

electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov/ using docket 

number DOL–2020–0015. 

The Department received thirty-seven 

unique comments collectively on its 

BRB and OALJ e-filing rules. Of the 

thirty-seven comments received, twelve 

were determined to be out of scope 

because they were comments 

exclusively on the technical aspects of 

the Electronic Filing System and did not 

address the substance of the e-filing 

rule, addressed issues wholly unrelated 

to this rulemaking, or were general 

statements. Of the remaining twentyfive comments, one commenter—who 

commented on the BRB’s NPRM— 

supported the e-filing rule and twentyfour raised concerns that are discussed 

below. 

A. Comment Supporting the E-Filing 

Rule 

The BRB received one comment in 

support of the rule’s e-filing 

requirement and automation of eservice, and the rule’s extension of the 

e-filing and e-service options to selfrepresented parties. The commenter 

attested to the ‘‘overall greater 

convenience for both parties to use efiling and e-service, as well as the costs 

saved by going paperless.’’ They 

observed that ‘‘it is in the public interest 

for the DOL to create a streamlined 

procedure’’ because ‘‘[a] disarray of 

inconsistent filing methods is not only 

burdensome to those processing at DOL, 

but also to those who would like to 

track their submitted applications.’’ 

Additionally, the commenter cited to 

both Forbes and the New York City Bar 

Environmental Law Committee in 

addressing the range of significant 

environmental benefits that e-filing 

provides. 

This comment reflects the 

Department’s belief that e-filing will 

benefit all participants in BRB matters. 

The greater utilization of e-filing and eservice will reduce case processing 

times by eliminating the timeframes 

required to allow for the delivery of 

traditional mailings. These time savings 

will allow the BRB to more efficiently 

process appeals without any sacrifice to 

the quality of work. It also will greatly 

reduce mailing and copying costs for 

both the BRB and the parties. The 

Department agrees that the cost, 

convenience, and efficiency benefits 

merit this final rule. 

B. Comments Raising Concerns About 

the E-Filing Rule 

Nearly all commenters raising 

concerns about the rule identified 

themselves as practitioners before the 

BRB or OALJ. These commenters 

predominately objected to the rule’s efiling mandate, but many expressed 

support for the Department’s efforts to 

move to e-filing and e-service. Three 

opposing commenters addressed 

concerns with other rule provisions. 

1. Comments Regarding the Portion of 

the Rule That Makes E-Filing Mandatory 

Twenty-three commenters to the 

OALJ’s NPRM recommended that the 

rule’s e-filing mandate be delayed or 

abandoned. Several commenters 

expressed general support for the 

efficiency and modernization that efiling provides. However, commenters 

expressed frustration with the BRB and 

OALJ e-filing systems, which they found 

to be time-consuming, resource 

intensive, and difficult to navigate. 

Accordingly, commenters asked that the 

e-filing mandate be abandoned or 

delayed to allow for the eFile/eServe 

system’s redesign. 

Three of these commenters 

encouraged the continued use of paper 

filings to accommodate unreliable 

technology. One practitioner identified 

the particular technological barriers 

faced by black lung practitioners, who 

‘‘likely have some of the worst internet 

service in the United States’’ and 

‘‘[o]ften experience the loss of internet 

access.’’ Another noted, ‘‘[i]f internet 

service is disrupted, we currently have 

backup: ‘snail mail’, wherein dropping 

a document in the mail constitutes 

proper service.’’ Practitioners also 

expressed concern that self-represented 

applicants may be disadvantaged if they 

cannot use the e-filing system 

successfully. 

The Department has acknowledged 

the commenters’ concerns with the efiling system and has sought to improve 

the system’s user experience. All 

twenty-three comments requesting that 

the rule be delayed due to concerns 

about the eFile/eServe system were 

made on the OALJ’s NPRM during the 

initial comment period that closed on 

February 10, 2021. After receiving these 

comments, the Department held 

listening sessions for users to provide 

feedback on the e-filing system. The 

Department relied on the information 

obtained at these listening sessions to 

improve the eFile/eServe system. The 

Department is confident it has 

sufficiently addressed the issues 

identified and that the e-filing mandate 

should therefore be implemented 

without additional delay. 

Additionally, the final rule 

sufficiently responds to the 

commenters’ technology concerns. First, 

Section 802.222(d)(2) allows attorneys 

and lay representatives to request an 

exemption from the e-filing mandate for 

good cause. Individuals who anticipate 

technological barriers to e-filing may 

use this provision to request an 

exemption. Second, Section 

802.222(d)(3) allows self-represented 

parties to file in either electronic or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 8535 

nonelectronic format. Third, Section 

802.222(d)(5) provides remedies for 

parties who experience technical 

failures in the e-filing, e-service process. 

Overall, the BRB framework is largely 

consistent with Federal district court 

and U.S. Courts of Appeals practice, 

which generally mandates e-filings for 

attorneys unless an exemption is 

granted and provides self-represented 

parties the option of filing pleadings in 

paper form. 

2. Comments Regarding Portions of the 

Rule Addressing Filing Deadlines, 

Public Access, and Service 

One commenter asked that the rule’s 

computations of time be changed to 

allow e-filings to be considered timely 

if they are filed by 11:59 p.m. based on 

the time zone in which the filer is 

located. Section 802.221(c) requires that 

filing deadlines be computed using the 

Eastern Time zone. The Board chose the 

Eastern Time zone based on the fact that 

Washington, DC is located within it. 

This approach mirrors the approach of 

the Federal courts. See, e.g., Fed. R. 

App. P. 26(a)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P.6(a)(4). 

The Department has considered this 

request and finds that maintaining the 

rulemaking’s filing deadline 

computation better effectuates its goal of 

efficiently processing case appeals. 

Computing filing deadlines by the BRB’s 

time zone allows the BRB to 

expeditiously determine whether a 

filing is timely. In contrast, a filing 

deadline based on the filer’s location 

creates an administrative burden 

because it requires an individualized 

assessment of the filer’s location, which 

may not be readily apparent in firms 

with multiple office locations. 

One commenter asserted that 

requiring separate e-service was 

inefficient and requested that the eFile/ 

eServe system be changed to make 

service on all parties automatic. Section 

802.223(b)(2)(B) allows for e-service to 

be completed by sending a filing to a 

user registered with the Department’s 

eFile/eServe system. The eFile/eServe 

system is designed to function similarly 

to the Case Management/Electronic Case 

Files (CM/ECF) system used by the 

Federal courts. This approach allows for 

automatic e-service, with minimal 

exceptions for exempt individuals and 

documents containing sensitive 

information that must be served through 

an alternative, secure method. 

Accordingly, the Department has taken 

measures to establish automatic service 

through the eFile/eServe system. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that e-filing would impede public access 

to BRB and OALJ case files because the 

rule does not allow for general access by 

non-parties. The Department believes 

that public policy concerns merit the 

level of public access provided, which 

balances the public’s right to know 

about proceedings and the parties’ 

privacy interests. Here, broad public 

access is inappropriate because of the 

significant personal information 

contained within BRB and OALJ case 

files. Black lung and longshore claims 

also often contain extensive information 

of a private nature, where general public 

interest is limited. 

Restricting general access by nonparties is consistent with the approach 

of the Federal courts in similar cases. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c) limits remote 

public access to electronic files in Social 

Security and immigration cases due to 

the significant amount of personal 

information these files contain. Rule 

5.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure does not completely bar 

public access because it permits nonparties to obtain the full case file at the 

courthouse. Likewise, this rulemaking 

limits non-parties’ remote access to 

electronic files, while allowing access 

through an alternative means. The 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

governs public access to agency rules, 

opinions, orders, records, and 

proceedings. See 5 U.S.C. 552; 29 CFR 

70.1 through 70.54. Under FOIA, nonparties may submit a request to obtain 

BRB and OALJ case files subject to the 

applicable FOIA exceptions. 

Accordingly, this final rule’s restrictions 

on non-parties’ access to electronic 

records in agency proceedings are 

consistent with FOIA’s public access 

provisions, the Federal court process, 

and the policy considerations inherent 

in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c). 

C. Out of Scope Comments 

Twelve comments, seven of which 

were made on the BRB’s NPRM, were 

beyond the scope of this action. Five 

comments related only to specific 

concerns about using the Electronic 

Filing System, rather than the rule’s 

specific e-filing mandate or other 

procedural amendments. To the extent 

that these comments refer to the e-filing 

mandate, these comments do not alter 

the Department’s conclusion for the 

reasons noted above. One of these five 

comments was made on the BRB’s 

NPRM. The commenter noted having 

difficulty finding an appeal in the eFile/ 

eServe system because it failed to list 

cases by the claimant’s first or last 

name, and instead listed cases by the 

BRB case number. In response to this 

comment, the Department has improved 

the system to allow a user to search for 

a case by a claimant’s name, among 

other parameters. Another comment, 

also made on the BRB’s NPRM, appears 

to pose questions to employers about 

their ‘‘coronavirus response plan,’’ and 

is therefore out of scope. Finally, six 

comments—five of which were made on 

the BRB’s NPRM—made general and 

vague statements that did not address 

specific provisions of the proposed 

rules, or about e-filing or e-service, and 

were therefore also out of scope. 

D. Removal of Delayed Applicability 

Date 

This final rule will take effect 30 days 

after the date it is published in the 

Federal Register. Although this is a rule 

of agency procedure, the Department is 

using the minimum period provided 

under Section 553(d) of the APA for 

substantive rules that do not meet a 

statutory exception. See 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). The Department is removing 

the 45-day delayed applicability date 

included in the initial DFR and NPRM. 

See Rules of Practice and Procedure for 

the Benefits Review Board, 86 FR 1858, 

1861, 1862 (proposed Jan. 11, 2021). 

The 30-day period between publication 

and the effective date of this final rule 

is reasonable and practical because the 

eFile/eServe system is currently 

operational. Accordingly, the 

Department no longer needs additional 

time to update communications about efiling or to allow parties time to adjust 

to the e-filing system given the lengthy 

period since the public has been on 

notice of this proposed rule. The 

Department determines that both it and 

the public are prepared to adhere to the 

e-filing mandate within 30 days of this 

rule’s publication, obviating the need 

for a delayed applicability date. Thus, 

the rule clarifies that attorneys and lay 

representatives must be registered with 

the BRB’s eFile/eServe system—and file 

all pleadings, exhibits, and other 

documents through this system—by the 

effective date of the final rule. 

III. Administrative Requirements of the 

Rulemaking 

Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review; and 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

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 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
8536 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. 

This final rule has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, as amended by Executive 

Order 14094. The Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

determined that this final rule is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

because the rule will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $200 million 

or more; will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; and will not materially 

alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof. Furthermore, the rule 

does not raise legal or policy issues for 

which centralized review would 

meaningfully further the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

the Executive order. Accordingly, OMB 

has waived review. 

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 

The Department has determined that 

this final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

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

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) and 

(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, 

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 

direct final 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.’’ 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 802 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Black lung benefits, 

Longshore and harbor workers, Workers’ 

compensation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Labor 

amends 20 CFR part 802 as follows: 

PART 802—RULES OF PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 802 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 30 U.S.C. 901 et 

seq.; 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.; Reorganization 

Plan No. 6 of 1950, 15 FR 3174; Secretary of 

Labor’s Order 03–2006, 71 FR 4219, January 

25, 2006. 

§ 802.204 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 2. Remove and reserve § 802.204. 

§ 802.207 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve § 802.207. 

§ 802.216 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 4. Remove and reserve § 802.216. 

■ 5. In § 802.219, revise paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 802.219 Motions to the Board; orders. 

* * * * * 

(d) The rules governing the filing and 

service of documents in §§ 802.222 and 

802.223 apply to all motions. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Revise § 802.221 to read as follows: 

§ 802.221 Computation of time. 

(a) In computing any period of time 

prescribed or allowed by these rules, by 

direction of the Board, or by any 

applicable statute which does not 

provide otherwise, the day from which 

the designated period of time begins to 

run must not be included. The last day 

of the period so computed must be 

included, unless it is a Saturday, 

Sunday, or legal holiday, in which event 

the period runs until the end of the next 

day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or 

legal holiday. 

(b) For nonelectronic documents, the 

time period computed under paragraph 

(a) of this section will be deemed 

complied with if— 

(1) When sent by mail, the envelope 

containing the document is postmarked 

by the U.S. Postal Service within the 

time period allowed. If there is no such 

postmark, or it is not legible, other 

evidence such as, but not limited to, 

certified mail receipts, certificates of 

service, and affidavits, may be used to 

establish the mailing date. 

(2) When sent by commercial carrier, 

the receipt or tracking information 

demonstrates that the paper was 

delivered to the carrier within the time 

period allowed. 

(c) For electronic filings made through 

the Board’s case management system, 

paragraph (a) of this section will be 

deemed to be met if the document is 

electronically filed within the time 

period allowed. A document is deemed 

filed as of the date and time the Board’s 

electronic case management system 

records its receipt, even if transmitted 

outside of the Board’s business hours set 

forth in § 801.304 of this chapter. To be 

considered timely, an e-filed pleading 

must be filed by 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. 

(d) A waiver of the time limitations 

for filing a paper, other than a notice of 

appeal, may be requested by proper 

motion filed in accordance with 

§§ 802.217 and 802.219. 

■ 7. Add § 802.222 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 802.222 Filing notice of appeal, 

pleadings, and other correspondence. 

This section prescribes rules and 

procedures by which parties and 

representatives to proceedings before 

the Board file pleadings (including 

notices of appeal, petitions for review 

and briefs, response briefs, additional 

briefs, and motions), exhibits, and other 

documents including routine 

correspondence. 

(a) Requirements for all pleadings. All 

pleadings filed with the Board must— 

(1) Include a caption and title. 

(2) Include a certificate of service 

containing— 

(i) The date and manner of service; 

(ii) The names of persons served; and 

(iii) Their mail or electronic mail 

addresses or the addresses of the places 

of delivery, as appropriate for the 

manner of service. 

(3) Include a signature of the party (or 

their attorney or lay representative) and 

date of signature. Pleadings filed by an 

attorney, lay representative or selfrepresented party via the Board’s case 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 8537 

management system will be deemed to 

be signed by that person. 

(4) Conform to standard letter 

dimensions (8.5 x 11 inches). 

(b) Redacted filings and exhibits. Any 

person who files a pleading, exhibit, or 

other document that contains an 

individual’s social security number, 

taxpayer-identification number, or birth 

date; the name of an individual known 

to be a minor; or a financial-account 

number, must redact all such 

information, except the last four digits 

of the social security number and 

taxpayer-identification number; the year 

of the individual’s birth; the minor’s 

initials; and the last four digits of the 

financial-account number. 

(c) Nonelectronic filings. All 

nonelectronic pleadings filed with the 

Board must be secured at the top. For 

each pleading filed with the Board, the 

original and two legible copies must be 

submitted. Nonelectronic filings must 

be sent to the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Benefits Review Board, ATTN: Office of 

the Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

(OCAB), 200 Constitution Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20210–0001, or 

otherwise presented to the Clerk. 

(d) Electronic filings. (1) Except as 

provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section, beginning on March 11, 2024, 

attorneys and lay representatives must 

be registered with the Board’s electronic 

case management system and file all 

pleadings, exhibits, and other 

documents with the Board through this 

system (e-file). All e-filed documents 

must be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). The Board prefers that pleadings 

be filed in text-searchable PDF format. 

Paper copies are not required unless 

requested by the Board. 

(2) Attorneys and lay representatives 

may request an exemption (pursuant to 

§ 802.219) 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 file 

pleadings, exhibits, and other 

documents in electronic or 

nonelectronic form in accordance with 

paragraph (c) or (d) of this section. 

(4) A document filed electronically is 

a written paper for purposes of this Part. 

(5) A person who is adversely affected 

by a technical failure in connection with 

filing or receipt of an electronic 

document may seek appropriate relief 

from the Board under § 802.219. If a 

technical malfunction or other issue 

prevents access to the Board’s case 

management system for a protracted 

period, the Board by special order may 

provide appropriate relief pending 

restoration of electronic access. 

(e) Special rules for notices of appeal. 

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this 

section, a notice of appeal is considered 

to have been filed only as of the date it 

is received by the office of the Clerk of 

the Board. 

(2) A notice of appeal submitted to 

any other agency or subdivision of the 

Department of Labor or of the U.S. 

Government or any state government, 

and subsequently received by the office 

of the Clerk of the Board, will be 

considered filed with the Clerk of the 

Board as of the date it was received by 

the other governmental unit if the Board 

finds in its discretion that it is in the 

interest of justice to do so. 

(3) If the notice of appeal is sent by 

mail or commercial carrier and the 

fixing of the date of delivery as the date 

of filing would result in a loss or 

impairment of appeal rights, it will be 

considered to have been filed as of the 

date of mailing or the date of delivery 

to the commercial carrier. 

(i) For notices sent by mail, the date 

appearing on the U.S. Postal Service 

postmark (when available and legible) 

will be prima facie evidence of the date 

of mailing. If there is no such postmark 

or it is not legible, other evidence such 

as, but not limited to, certified mail 

receipts, certificates of service, and 

affidavits, may be used to establish the 

mailing date. 

(ii) For notices sent by commercial 

carrier, the date of delivery to the carrier 

may be demonstrated by the carrier’s 

receipt or tracking information. 

(4) If the notice of appeal is 

electronically filed through the Board’s 

case management system, it is 

considered received by the office of the 

Clerk of the Board as of the date and 

time recorded by the system under 

§ 802.221(c). 

■ 6. Add § 802.223 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 802.223 Service requirements. 

This section prescribes rules and 

procedures for serving pleadings 

(including notices of appeal, petitions 

for review, and response briefs, 

additional briefs, and motions), exhibits, 

and other documents including routine 

correspondence on other parties and 

representatives. 

(a) A copy of any document filed with 

the Board must be served on each party 

and the Solicitor of Labor by the party 

filing the document. 

(b) Manner of service. (1) 

Nonelectronic service may be completed 

by: 

(i) Personal delivery; 

(ii) Mail; or 

(iii) Commercial delivery. 

(2) Electronic service may be 

completed by: 

(i) Electronic mail, if consented to in 

writing by the person served; or 

(ii) Sending it to a user registered with 

the Board’s electronic case management 

system by filing via this system. A 

person who registers to use the Board’s 

case management system is deemed to 

have consented to accept service 

through the system. 

(c) When service is effected. (1) 

Service by personal delivery is effected 

on the date the document is delivered 

to the recipient. 

(2) Service by mail or commercial 

carrier is effected on mailing or delivery 

to the carrier. 

(3) Service by electronic means is 

effected on sending. 

(d) Date of receipt for electronic 

documents. Unless the party making 

service is notified that the document 

was not received by the party served— 

(1) A document filed via the Board’s 

case management system is considered 

received by registered users on the date 

it is sent by the system; and 

(2) A document served via electronic 

mail is considered received by the 

recipient on the date it is sent. 

Signed in Washington, DC. 

Julie A. Su, 

Acting Secretary of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01991 Filed 2–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 73 

[Docket No. FDA–2018–C–4117] 

Sensient Colors, LLC.; Filing of Color 

Additive Petition 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notification of petition. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA or we) is 

announcing that we have filed a 

petition, submitted by Sensient Colors, 

LLC., proposing that we amend our 

color additive regulations to provide for 

the safe use of butterfly pea flower 

extract in ready-to-eat cereals, crackers 

and snack mixes, and chips at levels 

consistent with good manufacturing 

practice. 

DATES: The color additive petition was 

filed on December 5, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1