This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

18658 

Vol. 79, No. 64 

Thursday, April 3, 2014 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

BOARD 

5 CFR Part 1201 

Practices and Procedures 

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection 

Board. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB or the Board), following 

an internal review of MSPB regulations 

and after consideration of comments 

received from MSPB stakeholders, is 

proposing to amend its rules of practice 

and procedure by amending its 

regulations governing how jurisdiction 

is established over Board appeals. 

DATES: Submit written comments on or 

before May 5, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

concerning this proposed rule by one of 

the following methods and in 

accordance with the relevant 

instructions: 

Email: mspb@mspb.gov. Comments 

submitted by email can be contained in 

the body of the email or as an 

attachment in any common electronic 

format, including word processing 

applications, HTML and PDF. If 

possible, commenters are asked to use a 

text format and not an image format for 

attachments. An email should contain a 

subject line indicating that the 

submission contains comments to the 

Board’s proposed rule regarding 

jurisdiction. The Board asks that parties 

use email to submit comments if 

possible. Submission of comments by 

email will assist MSPB to process 

comments and speed future actions, 

including publication of a final rule. 

Fax: (202) 653–7130. Faxes should be 

addressed to William D. Spencer and 

contain a subject line indicating that the 

submission contains comments 

concerning the Board’s proposed rule 

regarding jurisdiction. 

Mail or other commercial delivery: 

William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20419. 

Hand delivery or courier: Comments 

should be addressed to William D. 

Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit 

Systems Protection Board, 1615 M 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20419, and 

delivered to the 5th floor reception 

window at this street address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: As noted above, MSPB 

requests that commenters use email to 

submit comments, if possible. All 

comments received will be made 

available online at the Board’s Web site, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by law. Those desiring to 

submit anonymous comments must 

submit comments in a manner that does 

not reveal the commenter’s identity, 

include a statement that the comment is 

being submitted anonymously, and 

include no personally-identifiable 

information. The email address of a 

commenter who chooses to submit 

comments using email will not be 

disclosed unless it appears in comments 

attached to an email or in the body of 

a comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, 

Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; 

phone: (202) 653–7200; fax: (202) 653– 

7130; or email: mspb@mspb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 7, 2012, the Board published 

a proposed rule proposing amendments 

to 5 CFR 1201.56. 77 FR 33663. Now, as 

then, 5 CFR 1201.56 provides without 

qualification that the Board’s 

jurisdiction must be proven by 

preponderant evidence. In the proposed 

rule, the Board noted that 5 CFR 

1201.56 is in conflict with a significant 

body of Board case law holding that 

certain jurisdictional elements may be 

established by making nonfrivolous 

allegations. The Board therefore 

proposed to amend this regulation to 

allow the use of nonfrivolous allegations 

to establish certain jurisdictional 

elements. 

The Board received numerous 

thoughtful comments concerning the 

proposed amendments to this 

regulation. Because many of the 

comments addressed matters that went 

well beyond the scope of the original 

proposed rule, the Board decided to 

withdraw the proposed rule and 

reconsider the existing regulation in 

light of the comments and internal 

discussions spurred by the comments. 

77 FR 62350. 

Continuing Review 

Shortly after the withdrawal of the 

proposed amendments to 5 CFR 

1201.56, the Board directed an internal 

MSPB working group (MSPB regulations 

working group) to thoroughly review 5 

CFR 1201.56 and any related issues 

concerning the Board’s jurisdiction. The 

MSPB regulations working group 

thereafter developed several options for 

the Board to consider. On November 8, 

2013, the Board published a solicitation 

of public comments in the Federal 

Register seeking additional public 

comment on the various options 

developed by the MSPB regulations 

working group. 78 FR 67076. Pursuant 

to this solicitation of public comments, 

the text, summaries, and analyses of the 

options developed by the MSPB 

regulations working group were made 

available for review at the Board’s Web 

site (www.mspb.gov/regulatoryreview/

index.htm). In response to the request 

for public comment, the Board received 

72 pages of comments from 26 

commenters. The options prepared by 

the MSPB regulations working group 

and all comments received in response 

to the request for comments are 

available on the Board’s Web site and 

will remain posted there under the 

heading ‘‘Regulatory Review Initiative’’ 

through the completion of this 

rulemaking. 

Summary of Proposed Changes/Sectionby-Section Analysis 

Following a review of the proposals 

submitted by the MSPB regulations 

working group and the public comments 

received by the Board in response to its 

request for comments, the Board has 

decided to propose the following 

amendments to its regulations governing 

how jurisdiction is established over 

Board appeals. 

Section 1201.4 General Definitions 

The Board proposes to transfer the 

definitions of ‘‘substantial evidence,’’ 

‘‘preponderance of the evidence,’’ and 

‘‘harmful error’’ from 5 CFR 1201.56(c) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18659 

to this regulation as paragraphs (p), (q) 

and (r) to consolidate important 

definitions in one regulation. None of 

these definitions are otherwise changed. 

The Board also proposes to add a new 

definition of ‘‘nonfrivolous allegation’’ 

in paragraph (s) that defines this term as 

an assertion that, if proven, could 

establish the matter at issue. The 

definition further explains that an 

allegation made under oath or penalty of 

perjury will be considered nonfrivolous 

when it is more than conclusory, 

plausible on its face, and material to the 

legal issues in the appeal. This 

definition is consistent with current 

Board case law. 

Section 1201.56 Burden and Degree of 

Proof 

5 CFR 1201.56 currently provides that 

the appellant bears the burden of 

proving jurisdiction by preponderant 

evidence; that the agency bears the 

burden of supporting a performancebased action by substantial evidence 

and supporting any other action by 

preponderant evidence; and that the 

appellant will prevail if he or she can 

establish a successful affirmative 

defense under 5 U.S.C. 7701(c)(2) 

(specifically, that the agency action was 

based on a harmful procedural error, 

constituted a prohibited personnel 

practice, or was not in accordance with 

law). The foregoing principles do not 

apply, however, in four categories of 

appeals: An individual right of action 

(IRA) appeal under the Whistleblower 

Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. 1221; an appeal 

under the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act (VEOA), 5 U.S.C. 

3330a(d); an appeal under the 

Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 

38 U.S.C. 4324, in which the appellant 

alleges discrimination or retaliation in 

violation of 38 U.S.C. 4311; and an 

appeal of denial of restoration under 5 

CFR part 353. 

To correct this anomaly, this 

proposed rule would amend section 

1201.56 to limit its applicability to 

appeals other than IRA appeals, VEOA 

appeals, USERRA discrimination and 

retaliation appeals, and denial of 

restoration appeals and insert a new 

regulation, revised section 1201.57, to 

address the burden and degree of proof 

and scope of review in such appeals. 

The Board further proposes to transfer 

the definitions of ‘‘substantial 

evidence,’’ ‘‘preponderance of the 

evidence,’’ and ‘‘harmful error’’ from 5 

CFR 1201.56 to 5 CFR 1201.4. Finally, 

the Board also proposes to add a new 

requirement that the administrative 

judge inform the parties of the proof 

required as to the issues of jurisdiction, 

the timeliness of the appeal, and 

affirmative defenses. 

The following authorities justify the 

Board’s proposed rule limiting the 

coverage of section 1201.56 to appeals 

other than IRA, VEOA, USERRA 

(discrimination and retaliation), and 

denial of restoration appeals, as well as 

the proposed creation of a new 

regulation (section 1201.57) covering 

such appeals: Yunus v. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367, 1371 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (to establish jurisdiction 

in an IRA appeal, the appellant must 

prove that he has exhausted his remedy 

before the Office of Special Counsel and 

make nonfrivolous allegations that he 

engaged in whistleblowing activity by 

making a protected disclosure and the 

disclosure was a contributing factor in 

the agency’s decision to take or fail to 

take a personnel action); Williams v. 

Department of the Air Force, 97 

M.S.P.R. 252, ¶ 6 (2004) (to establish 

jurisdiction in a VEOA appeal involving 

a claimed violation of veterans’ 

preference rights, the appellant must 

show that he exhausted his remedy with 

the Department of Labor and make 

nonfrivolous allegations that he is a 

preference eligible and the agency 

violated his rights under a statute or 

regulation relating to veterans’ 

preference); Weed v. Social Security 

Administration, 112 M.S.P.R. 323, ¶ 13 

n.5 (2009) (to establish jurisdiction in a 

VEOA appeal involving a claimed 

violation of the right to compete, the 

appellant must show that he exhausted 

his remedy with the Department of 

Labor and make nonfrivolous 

allegations that he is a veteran as 

described in 5 U.S.C. 3304(f)(1) and the 

agency denied him the right to compete 

under merit promotion procedures for a 

vacant position for which the agency 

accepted applications from outside its 

own workforce); Gossage v. Department 

of Labor, 118 M.S.P.R. 455, ¶ 10 (2012) 

(to establish jurisdiction in a USERRA 

discrimination case, the appellant must 

make nonfrivolous allegations that an 

executive agency committed 

discrimination based on his past 

military service or obligation to perform 

service); Chambers v. Department of the 

Interior, 116 M.S.P.R. 17, ¶ 12 (2011) 

(the appellant bears the burden of proof 

on the merits in an IRA appeal); Dale v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 102 

M.S.P.R. 646, ¶ 13 (2006) (the appellant 

bears the burden of proof on the merits 

in a VEOA appeal); Clavin v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 99 M.S.P.R. 619, ¶ 6 (2005) (the 

appellant bears the burden of proof on 

the merits in a USERRA discrimination 

case); Marren v. Department of Justice, 

51 M.S.P.R. 632, 638–39 (1991) (in an 

IRA appeal, the Board lacks authority to 

adjudicate an appellant’s affirmative 

defense under 5 U.S.C. 7701(c)(2)), aff’d, 

980 F.2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Table); 

Goldberg v. Department of Homeland 

Security, 99 M.S.P.R. 660, ¶ 11 (2005) 

(in a VEOA appeal, the Board lacks 

authority to adjudicate an appellant’s 

affirmative defense under 5 U.S.C. 

7701(c)(2)); Bodus v. Department of the 

Air Force, 82 M.S.P.R. 508, ¶¶ 14–17 

(1999) (in a USERRA discrimination 

case, the Board lacks authority to 

adjudicate an appellant’s affirmative 

defense under 5 U.S.C. 7701(c)(2)). 

The Board justifies the proposed rule 

excluding denial of restoration appeals 

from the coverage of section 1201.56 as 

follows. Until recently, the Board had 

held that jurisdiction over a restoration 

appeal was established by nonfrivolous 

allegations that the agency violated the 

appellant’s restoration rights under 5 

CFR part 353. Chen v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 97 M.S.P.R. 527, ¶ 12 (2004). In 

Bledsoe v. Merit Systems Protection 

Board, 659 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2011), 

the court affirmed the Board’s dismissal 

of a restoration appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction, but found that the Board’s 

jurisdiction must be established in such 

appeals by preponderant evidence as 

required by 5 CFR 1201.56, citing 

Garcia v. Department of Homeland 

Security, 437 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 

(en banc). As a result, the Board found 

it necessary to overrule Chen in Latham 

v. U.S. Postal Service, 117 M.S.P.R. 400, 

¶ 10 (2012) and to apply the 

preponderance of the evidence standard 

for jurisdictional determinations in 

restoration appeals. However, the court 

also stated in Garcia that, if the Board 

has a sufficient basis, it may adopt a 

nonfrivolous allegation standard for an 

appeal by changing its regulation on 

jurisdiction in accordance with notice 

and comment rulemaking procedures. 

437 F.3d at 1343. The Board finds that 

it is appropriate in restoration appeals 

to apply the nonfrivolous allegation 

standard. 

Section 1201.57 Establishing 

Jurisdiction in Appeals Not Covered by 

Section 1201.56; Burden and Degree of 

Proof; Scope of Review 

This proposed regulation, which the 

Board proposes to insert in place of 

existing section 1201.57, would make 

clear that, in contrast to an appeal 

governed by section 1201.56, in IRA 

appeals, VEOA appeals, USERRA 

discrimination and retaliation appeals, 

and denial of restoration appeals, the 

appellant is not required to establish all 

jurisdictional elements by preponderant 

evidence and bears the burden of proof 

on the merits. This proposed regulation 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
18660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

also contains a provision requiring 

administrative judges to provide notice 

to the parties of the specific 

jurisdictional, timeliness, and merits 

elements that apply in a particular 

appeal, as well as a provision directing 

the parties to statutes and regulations 

that contain additional information 

concerning such appeals. 

Sections 1201.57, 1201.58, and 1201.59 

In order to allow the insertion of new 

section 1201.57, the Board proposes to 

redesignate existing section 1201.57 as 

section 1201.58 and existing section 

1201.58 as section 1201.59. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1201 

Administrative practice and 

Procedure. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, the Board proposes to 

amend 5 CFR part 1201 as follows: 

PART 1201—PRACTICES AND 

PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 5 CFR 

part 1201 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1204, 1305, and 7701, 

and 38 U.S.C. 4331, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 1201.4, add new paragraphs 

(p), (q), (r), and (s) as follows: 

§ 1201.4 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

(p) Substantial evidence. The degree 

of relevant evidence that a reasonable 

person, considering the record as a 

whole, might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion, even though other 

reasonable persons might disagree. This 

is a lower standard of proof than 

preponderance of the evidence. 

(q) Preponderance of the evidence. 

The degree of relevant evidence that a 

reasonable person, considering the 

record as a whole, would accept as 

sufficient to find that a contested fact is 

more likely to be true than untrue. 

(r) Harmful error. Error by the agency 

in the application of its procedures that 

is likely to have caused the agency to 

reach a conclusion different from the 

one it would have reached in the 

absence or cure of the error. The burden 

is upon the appellant to show that the 

error was harmful, i.e., that it caused 

substantial harm or prejudice to his or 

her rights. 

(s) Nonfrivolous allegation. A 

nonfrivolous allegation is an assertion 

that, if proven, could establish the 

matter at issue. An allegation generally 

will be considered nonfrivolous when, 

under oath or penalty of perjury, an 

individual makes an allegation that: 

(1) Is more than conclusory; 

(2) Is plausible on its face; and 

(3) Is material to the legal issues in the 

appeal. 

■ 3. Revise § 1201.56 to read as follows: 

§ 1201.56 Burden and degree of proof. 

(a) Applicability. This section does 

not apply to the following types of 

appeals which are covered by § 1201.57: 

(1) An individual right of action 

appeal under the Whistleblower 

Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. 1221; 

(2) An appeal under the Veterans 

Employment Opportunities Act, 5 

U.S.C. 3330a(d); 

(3) An appeal under the Uniformed 

Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 

4324, in which the appellant alleges 

discrimination or retaliation in violation 

of 38 U.S.C. 4311; and 

(4) An appeal under 5 CFR 353.304, 

in which the appellant alleges a failure 

to restore, improper restoration of, or 

failure to return following a leave of 

absence. 

(b) Burden and degree of proof. (1) 

Agency. Under 5 U.S.C. 7701(c)(1), and 

subject to the exceptions stated in 

paragraph (c) of this section, the agency 

bears the burden of proof and its action 

must be sustained only if: 

(i) It is brought under 5 U.S.C. 4303 

or 5 U.S.C. 5335 and is supported by 

substantial evidence (as defined in 

§ 1201.4(p)); or 

(ii) It is brought under any other 

provision of law or regulation and is 

supported by a preponderance of the 

evidence (as defined in § 1201.4(q)). 

(2) Appellant. (i) The appellant has 

the burden of proof, by a preponderance 

of the evidence (as defined in 

§ 1201.4(q)), with respect to: 

(A) Issues of jurisdiction; 

(B) The timeliness of the appeal; and 

(C) Affirmative defenses. 

(ii) In appeals from reconsideration 

decisions of the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) involving 

retirement benefits, if the appellant filed 

the application, the appellant has the 

burden of proving, by a preponderance 

of the evidence (as defined in 

§ 1201.4(q)), entitlement to the benefits. 

Where OPM proves by preponderant 

evidence an overpayment of benefits, an 

appellant may prove, by substantial 

evidence (as defined in § 1201.4(p)), 

eligibility for waiver or adjustment. 

(c) Affirmative defenses of the 

appellant. Under 5 U.S.C. 7701(c)(2), 

the Board is required to reverse the 

action of the agency, even where the 

agency has met the evidentiary standard 

stated in paragraph (b) of this section, if 

the appellant: 

(1) Shows harmful error in the 

application of the agency’s procedures 

in arriving at its decision (as defined in 

§ 1201.4(r)); 

(2) Shows that the decision was based 

on any prohibited personnel practice 

described in 5 U.S.C. 2302(b); or 

(3) Shows that the decision was not in 

accordance with law. 

(d) Administrative Judge. The 

administrative judge will inform the 

parties of the proof required as to the 

issues of jurisdiction, the timeliness of 

the appeal, and affirmative defenses. 

§§ 1201.57 and 1201.58 [Redesignated as 

§§ 1201.58 and 1201.59] 

■ 4. Redesignate §§ 1201.57 and 1201.58 

as §§ 1201.58 and 1201.59, respectively. 

■ 5. Add § 1201.57 to read as follows: 

§ 1201.57 Establishing jurisdiction in 

appeals not covered by § 1201.56; burden 

and degree of proof; scope of review. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the following types of appeals: 

(1) An individual right of action (IRA) 

appeal under the Whistleblower 

Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. 1221; 

(2) A request for corrective action 

under the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act (VEOA), 5 U.S.C. 

3330a(d); 

(3) A request for corrective action 

under the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4324, in which 

the appellant alleges discrimination or 

retaliation in violation of 38 U.S.C. 

4311; and 

(4) An appeal under 5 CFR 353.304, 

in which an appellant alleges a failure 

to restore, improper restoration of, or 

failure to return following a leave of 

absence (denial of restoration appeal). 

(b) Matters that must be proven by a 

preponderance of the evidence. An 

appellant who initiates an appeal 

covered by this section has the burden 

of proof, by a preponderance of the 

evidence (as defined in § 1201.4(q)), on 

the following matters: 

(1) When applicable, exhaustion of a 

statutory complaint process that is 

preliminary to an appeal to the Board; 

(2) Timeliness of an appeal under 5 

CFR 1201.22; 

(3) Standing to appeal, when disputed 

by the agency or questioned by the 

Board. (An appellant has ‘‘standing’’ 

when he or she falls within the class of 

persons who may file an appeal under 

the law applicable to the appeal.); and 

(4) The merits of an appeal, if the 

appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction 

and was timely filed. 

(c) Matters that must be supported by 

nonfrivolous allegations. Except for 

matters described in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (3) of this section, in order to 

establish jurisdiction an appellant who 

initiates an appeal covered by this 

section must make nonfrivolous 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 18661 

allegations (as defined in § 1201.4(s)) 

with regard to the substantive 

jurisdictional elements applicable to the 

particular type of appeal he or she has 

initiated. 

(d) Scope of the appeal. Appeals 

covered by this section are limited in 

scope. With the exception of denial of 

restoration appeals, the Board will not 

consider matters described at 5 U.S.C. 

7701(c)(2) in an appeal covered by this 

section. 

(e) Notice of jurisdictional, timeliness, 

and merits elements. The administrative 

judge will provide notice to the parties 

of the specific jurisdictional, timeliness, 

and merits elements that apply in a 

particular appeal. 

(f) Additional information. For 

additional information on IRA appeals, 

the reader should consult 5 CFR part 

1209. For additional information on 

VEOA appeals, the reader should 

consult 5 CFR part 1208, subparts A & 

C. For additional information on 

USERRA appeals, the reader should 

consult 5 CFR part 1208, subparts A & 

B. 

For additional information on denial 

of restoration appeals, the reader should 

consult 5 CFR part 353, subparts A & C. 

William D. Spencer, 

Clerk of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07443 Filed 4–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7400–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–DET–0035] 

RIN 1904–AD04 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products and Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Proposed Determination of Computer 

and Battery Backup Systems as a 

Covered Consumer Product 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of extension of public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document announces an 

extension of the time period for 

submitting comments on the proposed 

determination of coverage for computer 

and battery backup systems (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘computer systems’’). The 

comment period is extended to April 15, 

2014. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed determination of coverage 

relating to computer systems published 

on February 28, 2014 (79 FR 11345) is 

extended to April 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2013–BT–DET–0035, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: Computers2013DET0035@

ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2013–BT– 

DET–0035 and/or RIN 1904–AD04 in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

Proposed Determination for computers, 

EERE–2013–BT–DET–0035 and/or RIN 

1904–AD04, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 6th Floor, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, 

DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586–2945. 

Please submit one signed paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9870. Email: 

DOE_computer_standards@ee.doe.gov. 

In the Office of General Counsel, 

contact Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 28, 2014, DOE published an 

updated notice of proposed 

determination (NOPD) in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 11345) to determine that 

computer systems meet the criteria for 

classification as a covered product 

under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA, 

42 U.S.C 6291, et seq.). The NOPD 

provided for the submission of 

comments from interested parties by 

March 31, 2014. Thereafter, interested 

parties requested an extension of the 

comment period. The Information 

Technology Industry Council (ITI) 

stated that they wanted to provide clear 

guidance and propose definitions 

related to the scope of coverage for this 

rulemaking. The Consumer Electronics 

Association (CEA) stated additional 

time will enable them to complete and 

reference findings from their latest 

comprehensive energy use study in the 

comments, and gather additional 

feedback from impacted CEA members 

concerning scope and product 

classifications. 

Based on ITI and CEA’s requests, DOE 

determines that an extension of the 

public comment period to allow 

additional time for interested parties to 

submit comments is appropriate. 

Therefore, DOE is extending the 

comment period until April 15, 2014 to 

provide interested parties additional 

time to prepare and submit comments. 

Accordingly, DOE will consider any 

comments received by April 15, 2014 to 

be timely submitted. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07361 Filed 4–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2014–4; Order No. 2035] 

Periodic Reporting (Proposals One 

Through Two) 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing concerning 

the initiation of a proceeding to 

consider proposed changes in analytical 

principles (Proposals One through 

Two). This notice informs the public of 

the filing, invites public comment, and 

takes other administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: April 11, 

2014. Reply comments are due: April 

18, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1