[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1800-1806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28049]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
29 CFR Part 18
RIN 1290-AA36
Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings
Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL or Department) is revising the
Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the
Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ rules of practice and
procedure) to provide for electronic filing (e-filing) and electronic
service (e-service) of papers. In addition to technical amendments, the
revised regulations provide that e-filing will be required for persons
represented by attorneys or non-attorney representatives unless good
cause is shown justifying a different form of filing. Self-represented
persons will have the option of e-filing or of filing by conventional
means. Finally, the Department is revising the OALJ rules of practice
and procedure to require advance notice to the parties of the manner of
a hearing or prehearing conference, whether in person in the same
physical location, by telephone, by videoconference, or by other means.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on February 25, 2021 without
further action unless the Department receives significant adverse
comment to this rule by midnight 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 read background documents, submit comments, and read
comments received through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this direct final rule, identified by
Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1290-AA36, search for docket
number DOL-2020-0015 or key words such as ``Office of Administrative
Law Judges'' or ``Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative
Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges.'' Instructions
for submitting comments are found on the www.regulations.gov website.
Please be advised that comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Therefore, the Department recommends that commenters safeguard
their personal information by not including social security numbers,
personal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses in comments.
It is the responsibility of the commenters to safeguard their
information. 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. Todd Smyth, General Counsel, at (513) 684-3252.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Smyth, General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, 800 K Street
NW, Washington, DC 20001-8002; telephone (513) 684-3252. 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This preamble has four sections: Section I
describes the process of rulemaking using a direct final rule with a
companion proposed rule; Section II provides background; Section III
provides a section-by-section analysis of the regulatory text; and
Section IV
[[Page 1801]]
addresses the administrative requirements for this rulemaking.
I. Direct Final Rule Published Concurrently With Companion Proposed
Rule
In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule
in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will go into
effect unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within a
specified period. The agency concurrently publishes an identical
proposed rule. If the agency receives no significant adverse comment in
response to the direct final rule, the agency publishes a Federal
Register notice withdrawing the proposed rule, and the final rule goes
into effect. If the agency receives significant adverse comment, the
agency withdraws the direct final rule and treats such comment as
submissions on the proposed rule. An agency typically uses direct final
rulemaking when it anticipates the rule will be non-controversial.
The Department has determined that this rule, which revises the
OALJ rules of practice and procedure to accommodate electronic filing
by persons appearing before OALJ and electronic service of ALJ-issued
documents, is exempt from the notice and comment requirements under 5
U.S.C. 553(b) as a rule of agency practice and procedure. Regardless,
the agency has decided to allow for public input, so this rule is
suitable for direct final rulemaking. The rule makes technical changes
to OALJ's procedural rules, and--consistent with similar court and
agency e-filing systems--provides that persons represented by attorney
and non-attorney representatives will be required to e-file unless good
cause is shown to be exempted, and that self-represented persons will
have the option of e-filing or using conventional filing methods. Thus,
the Department does not expect to receive significant adverse comment
on this rule.
The Department is also publishing a companion notice of proposed
rulemaking in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register to expedite notice-and-comment rulemaking in the event the
Department receives significant adverse comment and withdraws this
direct final rule. The proposed and direct final rules are
substantively identical, and their respective comment periods run
concurrently. The Department will treat comments received on the
companion proposed rule as comments regarding the direct final rule and
vice versa. Thus, if the Department receives significant adverse
comment on either this direct final rule or the companion proposed
rule, the Department will publish a Federal Register notice withdrawing
this direct final rule and will proceed with the proposed rule. If no
significant adverse comment is received, this direct final rule will
become effective.
For purposes of this direct final rule, 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 notice-and-
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.
The Department requests comments on all issues related to this
rule, including economic or other regulatory impacts of this rule on
the regulated community.
This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it is not
significant under E.O. 12866.
II. Background
On May 19, 2015, the regulations governing practice and procedure
for proceedings before the United States Department of Labor, Office of
Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) were significantly revised. 80 FR
28768 (May 19, 2015). At the time, the Department acknowledged that
implementation of a dedicated electronic filing system and electronic
service system for OALJ adjudications would be beneficial, but stated
that because the OALJ did not have a dedicated electronic filing and
service system, the rules of practice and procedure necessarily focused
on traditional filing and service. 80 FR at 28772, 28775. The
Department now has an electronic filing and service system (eFile/
eServe system) for its adjudicatory agencies. This revision to part 18
makes regulatory changes to implement this new system.
When the Department revised the OALJ rules of practice and
procedure in 2015, it modeled those rules on the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (FRCP). The Department noted that ``[u]sing language similar
or identical to the applicable FRCP gains the advantage of the broad
experience of the Federal courts and the well-developed precedent they
have created to guide litigants, judges, and reviewing authorities
within the Department on procedure. Parties and judges obtain the
additional advantage of focusing primarily on the substance of the
administrative disputes, spending less time on the distraction of
litigating about procedure.'' 77 FR 72142, 72144 (Dec. 4, 2012)
(proposed rule). Accordingly, the Department revises part 18 to
accommodate electronic filing with a view toward aligning part 18, to
the extent practicable, with the equivalent federal rules.
The current OALJ rule at 29 CFR 18.30 governs serving and filing of
pleadings and other papers, and was modeled on FRCP 5. As noted above,
Sec. 18.30 did not address in detail electronic filing or service
because OALJ did not have a dedicated e-filing system in 2015. In 2018,
FRCP 5 was amended to revise the provisions for electronic service
based on the federal judiciary's experience with its electronic filing
system, namely the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)
system. In brief, the changes to FRCP 5 deleted the requirement of
consent in writing to electronic service where service is made on a
registered user through the court's electronic filing system; ended the
practice of leaving it to local rules to require or allow electronic
filing, and instead established a uniform national rule that makes
electronic filing mandatory for parties represented by counsel
(providing, however, for certain exceptions); required that any local
rule requiring electronic filing by self-represented parties must allow
reasonable exceptions; established a uniform national signature
provision; and provided that no certificate of service is required when
a paper is served by filing it with the court's electronic filing
system.
Most of the Rule 5 revisions make sense in regard to DOL OALJ
adjudications but with some modifications to reflect administrative
practice and functional differences between CM/ECF and the Department's
eFile/eServe system. As explained in more detail below, the regulatory
amendments address the following:
Require 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 presiding judge for
good cause or is required by standing order;
[[Page 1802]]
give self-represented 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;
provide 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.
FRCP 5(d)(1)(B) was revised in 2018 to provide that ``[n]o
certificate of service is required when a paper is served by filing it
with the court's electronic-filing system.'' The Department, however,
has determined that a certificate of service will continue to be
required for all filings with OALJ given that (1) OALJ proceedings have
a significant number of self-represented parties as participants, and
(2) especially early in OALJ proceedings, the identification of parties
and their representatives--and accurate contact information for such
persons and entities--is often fluid and uncertain. Compare ``Notice
for Comment on Proposed Amendments to the Local Civil and Criminal
Rules for the Middle District of Louisiana'' (Apr. 12, 2019) (proposing
to revise court's local rule to provide that a certificate of service
is required for an initial complaint filed with the court's electronic
filing system, and the case involves a party who is not an electronic
filer); General Order 2019-06 (M.D. La. Nov. 12, 2019) (adopting
amendment to Local Civil Rule 5(e)(1) to provide that ``[w]hen a
document filed after the initial complaint is served by filing it with
the Court's electronic filing system, no certificate of service is
required when all parties are electronic filers.'').
The Department notes that, as with all OALJ rules of practice and
procedure, the e-filing provisions will not apply if they are
``inconsistent with a governing statute, regulation, or executive
order. . . . If a specific Department of Labor regulation governs a
proceeding, the provisions of that regulation apply[.]'' 20 CFR
18.10(a). For instance, OALJ will continue to serve decisions via
certified mail where required by the governing statute or regulation,
including on persons participating in the Department's eFile/eServe
system.
Finally, as a consequence of the COVID-19 national emergency in
2020, courts and administrative adjudicators across the Nation have
dramatically increased the use of telephonic and video hearings,
including the Department of Labor's OALJ. The Department is revising
Part 18 to require the judge to give advance notice of the manner of
the hearing--whether in person in the same physical location, by
telephone, by videoconference, or by other means--and to provide
parties an opportunity to request a different manner of hearing. See 5
U.S.C. 554(b)(1) (requiring timely notice of the time, place, and
nature of the hearing).
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
General Provisions
Sec. 18.11 Definitions
A definition of ``eFile/eServe system'' is added to the definitions
section of part 18 to clarify that it means the Department of Labor's
electronic filing and electronic service system for adjudications.
A definition of ``registered user'' is added to the definitions
section of part 18 to clarify that it means any person registered to
file papers using the Department's eFile/eServe system.
A definition of ``standing order'' is added to the definitions
section of part 18. Amendments to Sec. 18.30 follow the language of
FRCP 5 to permit exceptions, permissions, or requirements relating to
e-filing to be established by ``local rule.'' OALJ is organized
differently than the judiciary, and does not use local rules. However,
OALJ sometimes issues Administrative Orders addressing court
administration applicable to all cases pending before OALJ, or to all
cases pending in a district office. For example, in the past when an
OALJ district office was closed for an extended period due to severe
weather conditions and the aftermath, the Chief Judge or District Chief
Judge issued an Administrative Order extending filing dates and
permitting alternative forms of filing (such as email) until the office
returned to normal operations. Similarly, OALJ may need to issue
standing orders to address national or local conditions impacting
electronic filing.
Service, Format and Timing of Filings and Other Papers
Sec. 18.30 Service and Filing
The current Sec. 18.30 is modeled on FRCP 5. FRCP 5 was amended in
2018 in regard to electronic filing, and the following revisions to
Sec. 18.30 are modeled on the FRCP 5 amendments to the extent
practicable.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E) is revised to permit a registered user of
the Department's eFile/eServe system to serve filings on other
registered users through the Department's system.
A new paragraph (a)(2)(iii) is added to provide that represented
persons required to file electronically using the Department's eFile/
eServe system, and self-represented persons who opt to file
electronically using that system, are deemed to have consented to
electronic service of documents issued by the judge and papers filed by
other registered users of the system.
The first sentence of paragraph (b)(1) is revised to harmonize it
to the current FRCP 5 in regard to the time period for filing a paper.
Specifically, rather than the current requirement to file a paper
``within a reasonable time after service with a certificate of
service,'' the amended paragraph requires filing ``no later than a
reasonable time after service.'' The FRCP 5 made this change because
``within'' might be read as barring filing before the paper is served.
``No later than'' was substituted in FRCP 5 to ensure that it is proper
to file a paper before it is served.
Paragraph (b)(2) is revised to clarify that a paper submitted
electronically in the Department's eFile/eServe system is filed when
received by that system.
The provisions of Sec. 18.30(b)(3) have been amended and
reorganized. New paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) provides that a person
represented by an attorney or non-attorney representative is required
to file using the Department's eFile/eServe system following the
instructions on the system's website, unless another form of electronic
or non-electronic filing is allowed by the judge for good cause or is
allowed or required by standing order. This aligns practice before OALJ
with current common practice before state and federal courts and
agencies. 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). The
Department believes that, rather than imposing undue costs or
difficulties on representatives, e-filing will reduce costs and make
filing with OALJ more convenient and certain. See generally
[[Page 1803]]
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/efiling/advantages (outlining advantages of
electronic case filing). At present, a representative filing via the
Department's eFile/eServe system would need a computer, access to email
and the internet, and a Portable Document Format (PDF) application.
Such capacities are common, if not essential, in legal practice today.
Moreover, because a representative is allowed to establish good cause
for using other forms of filing, the amended rule allows for reasonable
exceptions to an e-filing mandate. 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 the Department time
to update its communications to parties about how to file and allows
parties who were previously filing and serving documents by mail to
adjust to electronic filing.
New paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) provides that a self-represented person
may use the Department's eFile/eServe system to file papers. This is a
more permissive approach than found in FRCP 5, which allows a self-
represented party to file electronically only by court order or a local
rule. The Department, by contrast, encourages all persons participating
in OALJ hearings to use the Department's eFile/eServe system for
filings.
New paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C) provides that a filing made through the
Department's eFile/eServe system containing the registered user's name
on a signature block constitutes that person's signature. This is
consistent with FRCP 5 and provides a simple, practical solution to the
signing of papers filed electronically through the Department's system.
New paragraph (b)(3)(i)(D) provides that a paper filed
electronically is a written paper for purposes of the part 18
regulations. This provision is consistent with FRCP 5(d)(3)(D).
Current Sec. 18.30(b)(3) has been moved to paragraph (b)(3)(ii),
and modified to state the permissible methods of filing for those
persons excepted from mandatory use of the Department's eFile/eServe
system. Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) is also revised to state the website
address at which current OALJ National and District office addresses
are listed--specifically: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/contacts.
Current Sec. 18.30(b)(3)(i) requires prior permission from the
judge to file by facsimile. With the availability of e-filing, the
concerns that prompted that limitation on facsimile filing will be
largely mooted. For self-represented persons who do not have ready
access to reliable internet services, filing by facsimile may be a
viable alternative. Thus, the Department will eliminate the requirement
of current Sec. 18.30(b)(3)(i)(A) to receive prior permission to file
by facsimile. The Department, however, will retain the current
requirements for use of a facsimile cover sheet and retention of the
original document and a transmission record. These requirements are
consolidated and re-lettered as new paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) and (B).
Current Sec. 18.30(b)(4) is deleted as it has been mooted by the
new provisions in paragraph 18.30(b)(3)(i).
Sec. 18.32 Computing and Extending Time
FRCP 6(a) governs the computation of time periods under the FRCP,
in any local rule or court order, or in any statute that does not
specify a method of computing time. In this regard, FRCP 6(a)(1)(C)
provides that the ``last day'' of a time period is included in the
calculation, and provides that the ``last day'' ends at midnight in the
court's time zone for electronic filing, and when the clerk's office is
scheduled to close for filing by other means. FRCP 6(a)(4)(A) and (B).
The current Sec. 18.32 is modeled on FRCP 6, but does not address
electronic filing. Thus, the Department revises Sec. 18.32(a)(2)(i) to
provide that unless a different time is set by a statute, executive
order, regulation, or judge's order, for electronic filing, the ``last
day'' goes through 11:59:59 p.m. in the time zone of the presiding
judge's office--or, for cases not yet assigned to an OALJ national or
district office--in the time zone of the office of the Chief Judge of
OALJ. Although standardizing the time for electronic filing at midnight
Eastern Time on the last day of the filing period was considered,
because the Department's eFile/eServe system is administered in
Washington, DC, the Department opted to set the time based on local
time at the presiding judge's location in order not to reduce hours
available for e-filing for persons outside the Eastern time zone. In
regard to filing by means other than electronic filing, the Department
revises Sec. 18.32(a)(2)(ii) to follow FRCP 6(a)(4)(B) to state ``when
the clerk's office is scheduled to close.'' OALJ clerks' offices close
at 4:30 p.m. in the time zone of the presiding judge's office or 4:30
p.m. in the time zone of the office of the Chief Judge of OALJ for
cases not yet assigned to an OALJ national or district office.
Sec. 18.34 Format of Papers Filed
The current Sec. 18.34 addresses the format of papers filed in
hard copy. New Sec. 18.34 requires that papers filed electronically be
in a format that is accepted by the Department's eFile/eServe system.
Prehearing Procedure
Current Sec. 18.40(a) requires that the judge provide at least 14
days' notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing. In view of
increased use of telephonic and video hearings, Sec. 18.40(a) is
revised to require the judge to also provide 14 days' notice of the
manner of hearing, whether in person in the same physical location, by
telephone, by videoconference, or by other means. Paragraph 18.40(a) is
also revised to refer to the provisions of new Sec. 18.30(a) in regard
to how the notice of hearing will be sent to the parties. This revision
is necessary to harmonize Sec. 18.40(a) with the new eFile/eServe
system.
The Department amends Sec. 18.40(b) to require the judge to
consider the convenience and necessity of the parties and witnesses in
selecting the manner of the hearing.
Current Sec. 18.41 addresses changes to the time, date, and place
of the hearing. The Department amends Sec. 18.41(a), (b), and (c) to
add the manner of the hearing to the subjects that can be changed by
the judge or upon motion of a party.
Current Sec. 18.44(b) provides that prehearing conferences may be
conducted in person, by telephone, or other means. New Sec. 18.44(b)
explicitly includes videoconferences as a permissible means of
conducting prehearing conferences.
Hearing
Sec. 18.82 Exhibits
By 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
will, to the fullest extent possible, no longer accept temporary or
permanent records from agencies in a non-electronic format. See
National Archives and Records Administration, 2018-2022 Strategic Plan
at 12 (Feb. 2018); Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century,
at 22, 100-102 (June 21, 2018). Accordingly, the Department must move
expeditiously toward conducting administrative adjudications using
electronic records to the greatest extent practical. Thus, new Sec.
18.82(a) provides that those who are required or have opted to file
using the Department's eFile/eServe system must file electronically any
exhibits to be offered into evidence at the hearing, unless the exhibit
is not susceptive to electronic filing. An example of an
[[Page 1804]]
exhibit not susceptive to electronic filing is a three-dimensional
object. Current paragraphs (a) through (g) are re-lettered to
paragraphs (b) through (h). Newly lettered paragraph (d) on exchange of
exhibits is amended to clarify that if a copy of a written exhibit
being offered into evidence was previously filed electronically
pursuant to Sec. 18.82(a), a physical copy of the exhibit need not be
produced for the judge at the hearing unless the judge directs
otherwise.
IV. Administrative Requirements
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, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This direct final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that
this direct 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 $100 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 a novel legal or policy issue arising out of legal
mandates, 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 (PRA)
The Department has determined that this direct final 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 direct final 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 direct final 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 29 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor.
For the reasons set out in the Preamble, the Department of Labor
amends 29 CFR part 18 as set forth below.
PART 18--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
0
1. The authority citations for part 18 continue to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. 551-553; 5 U.S.C. 571 note;
E.O. 12778; 57 FR 7292.
0
2. Amend Sec. 18.11 by adding definitions in alphabetical order for
``eFile/eServe system'', ``Registered user'', and ``Standing order'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 18.11 Definitions.
* * * * *
eFile/eServe system means the Department of Labor's electronic
filing and electronic service system for adjudications.
* * * * *
Registered user means any person registered to file papers using
the Department's eFile/eServe system.
* * * * *
Standing order means an order issued by the Chief Judge or District
Chief Judge addressing court administration that applies to all cases
pending before OALJ or an OALJ district office, and which is in force
until changed or withdrawn by a subsequent order.
0
3. Amend Sec. 18.30 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E), adding
paragraph (a)(2)(iii), revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1)
introductory text, revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), and removing
paragraph (b)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 18.30 Service and filing.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) Sending it to a registered user by filing it with the
Department's eFile/eServe system or sending it by other electronic
means that the person consented to in writing--in either of which
events service is complete upon filing or sending, but is not effective
if the filer or sender learns that it did not reach the person to be
served; or
* * * * *
(iii) Consent to electronic service. Any person required to file
electronically pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section and
any person who opts to file electronically pursuant to paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(B) of this section is deemed to have consented to electronic
service of documents issued by the judge and papers filed by a
registered user of the Department's eFile/eServe system.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * * Any paper that is required to be served must be filed no
later than a reasonable time after service with a certificate of
service. * * *
(2) Filing: when made--in general. A paper submitted electronically
in the Department's eFile/eServe system is filed when received by the
system. Papers submitted by other means are filed when received by the
docket clerk or by the judge during a hearing.
(3) Filing: how made--(i) Electronic filing and signing--(A) By a
represented
[[Page 1805]]
person--generally required; exceptions. Beginning on April 12, 2021, a
person represented by an attorney or non-attorney representative must
file using the Department's eFile/eServe system following the
instructions on the system's website, unless another form of electronic
or non-electronic filing is allowed by the judge for good cause or is
allowed or required by standing order.
(B) By a self-represented person--when allowed or required. A
person not represented by an attorney or non-attorney representative
may file using the Department's eFile/eServe system following the
instructions on the system's website.
(C) Signing. 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 the person's signature.
(D) Same as a written paper. A paper filed electronically is a
written paper for purposes of these rules.
(ii) Other forms of filing. Persons who are excepted from e-filing
under paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section, or who have opted not to
use e-filing as permitted by paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) of this section,
may file papers by mail, courier service, hand delivery, facsimile, or
alternative means of electronic delivery. The mailing addresses for
OALJ's National and District offices are found at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/contacts.
(A) Filing by facsimile--cover sheet. Filings by facsimile must
include a cover sheet that identifies the sender, the total number of
pages transmitted, and the matter's docket number and the document's
title.
(B) Filing by facsimile--retention of the original document. The
original signed document will not be substituted into the record unless
required by law or the judge. Any party filing a facsimile of a
document must maintain the original document and transmission record
until the case is final. A transmission record is a paper printed by
the transmitting facsimile machine that states the telephone number of
the receiving machine, the number of pages sent, the transmission time,
and an indication that no error in transmission occurred. Upon a
party's request or judge's order, the filing party must provide for
review the original transmitted document from which the facsimile was
produced.
0
4. Amend Sec. 18.32 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 18.32 Computing and extending time.
(a) * * *
(2) ``Last day'' defined. Unless a different time is set by a
statute, regulation, executive order, or judge's order, the ``last
day'' ends:
(i) For electronic filing, at 11:59:59 p.m. in the time zone of the
presiding judge's office--or, for cases not yet assigned to an OALJ
national or district office--at 11:59:59 p.m. in the time zone of the
office of the Chief Judge of OALJ; and
(ii) For filing by other means, when the clerk's office is
scheduled to close.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 18.34 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 18.34 Format of papers filed.
Papers submitted electronically in the Department's eFile/eServe
system must be in a format accepted by the Department's eFile/eServe
system. Papers not filed electronically must be printed in black ink on
8.5 x 11-inch opaque white paper. All papers must be legible, and begin
with a caption that includes:
* * * * *
0
6. Revise Sec. 18.40 to read as follows:
Sec. 18.40 Notice of hearing.
(a) In general. Except when the hearing is scheduled by calendar
call, the judge must, at least 14 days before the hearing, notify the
parties of the hearing's date, time, and place, and of the manner of
the hearing, whether in person in the same physical location, by
telephone, by videoconference, or by other means. The notice is sent by
the means provided for in Sec. 18.30(a), unless the judge determines
that circumstances require service by certified mail or other means.
The parties may agree to waive the 14-day notice for the hearing.
(b) Date, time, place, and manner. The judge must consider the
convenience and necessity of the parties and the witnesses in selecting
the date, time, place, and manner of the hearing.
0
7. Amend Sec. 18.41 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 18.41 Continuances and changes in place or manner of hearing.
(a) By the judge. Upon reasonable notice to the parties, the judge
may change the time, date, place, and manner of the hearing.
(b) By a party's motion. A request by a party to continue a hearing
or to change the place or manner of the hearing must be made by motion.
* * * * *
(2) Change in place or manner of hearing. A motion to change the
place or manner of a hearing must be filed promptly.
0
8. Amend Sec. 18.44 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 18.44 Prehearing conference.
* * * * *
(b) Scheduling. Prehearing conferences may be conducted in person
in the same physical location, by telephone, by videoconference, or by
other means after reasonable notice of time, place, and manner of
conference has been given.
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec. 18.82 to read as follows:
Sec. 18.82 Exhibits.
(a) Filing of exhibits to be offered into evidence. Persons who are
required to file electronically pursuant to Sec. 18.30(b)(3)(i)(A)--or
who have opted to use e-filing as permitted by Sec.
18.30(b)(3)(i)(B)--must electronically file in the Department's eFile/
eServe system any exhibits to be offered in evidence at a hearing,
unless that exhibit is not susceptive to filing in electronic form.
(b) Identification. All exhibits offered in evidence must be marked
with a designation identifying the party offering the exhibit and must
be numbered and paginated as the judge orders.
(c) Electronic data. By order, the judge may prescribe the format
for the submission of data that is in electronic form.
(d) Exchange of exhibits. When written exhibits are offered in
evidence, one copy must be furnished to the judge and to each of the
parties. If the exhibit being offered was previously filed with the
judge, either electronically pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section
or otherwise, and furnished to the other parties prior to hearing, the
exhibit need not be produced at the hearing unless the judge directs
otherwise. If the exhibit being offered at the hearing was not
furnished to each party or filed with the judge prior to the hearing, a
paper copy of that exhibit for the judge and each party must be
produced at the hearing unless the judge directs otherwise. If the
judge does not fix a date for the exchange of exhibits, the parties
must exchange copies of exhibits at the earliest practicable time
before the hearing begins.
(e) Authenticity. The authenticity of a document identified in a
pre-hearing exhibit list is admitted unless a party files a written
objection to authenticity at least seven days before the hearing. The
judge may permit a party to challenge a document's authenticity if
[[Page 1806]]
the party establishes good cause for its failure to file a timely
written objection.
(f) Substitution of copies for original exhibits. The judge may
permit a party to withdraw original documents offered in evidence and
substitute accurate copies of the originals.
(g) Designation of parts of documents. When only a portion of a
document contains relevant matter, the offering party must exclude the
irrelevant parts to the greatest extent practicable.
(h) Records in other proceedings. Portions of the record of other
administrative proceedings, civil actions, or criminal prosecutions may
be received in evidence, when the offering party shows the copies are
accurate.
Signed on this 14th day of December, 2020, in Washington, DC.
Eugene Scalia,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2020-28049 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P