Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 1831 

a credit union owned electronic facility that 

meets, at a minimum, these requirements. A 

service facility also includes a shared branch 

or a shared branch network location, 

including a shared ATM or other electronic 

facility, if a credit union participates in a 

shared branching network. This definition 

does not include the credit union’s internet 

website. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–28277 Filed 1–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals 

Board 

20 CFR Part 501 

RIN 1290–AA37 

Rules of Practice and Procedure 

AGENCY: Employees’ Compensation 

Appeals Board, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL or Department) is issuing this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

to seek public comments on a proposal 

to require electronic filing (e-filing) and 

electronic service (e-service) for 

attorneys and lay representatives 

representing parties in proceedings 

before the Employees’ Compensation 

Appeals Board (ECAB or the Board). 

These proposed regulations would 

establish e-filing and e-service rules of 

practice and procedure for the Board 

that would apply where a governing 

statute, regulation, or executive order 

does not establish contrary rules of 

practice or procedure. The rule would 

mandate e-filing, makes e-service 

automatic of documents for parties 

represented by attorneys and duly 

authorized lay representatives, and 

provides an option for pro se/selfrepresented parties to utilize these 

capabilities. It would also allow the 

Board, in its discretion, to hold oral 

arguments by videoconference. 

DATES: The Department invites 

interested persons to submit comments 

on the proposed rules of practice and 

procedure. To ensure consideration, 

comments must be in writing and must 

be received by February 10, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) 1290–AA37, only by the 

following method: Electronic 

Comments. Submit comments through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://

www.regulations.gov. To locate the 

proposed rule, use docket number DOL– 

2020–0017 or key words such as 

‘‘Administrative practice and 

procedure’’ or ‘‘Workers’ 

compensation.’’ Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. All comments 

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

date indicated for consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

generally be posted without change to 

https://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. If 

you need assistance to review the 

comments or the proposed rule, the 

Department will consider providing the 

comments and the proposed rule in 

other formats upon request. For 

assistance to review the comments or 

obtain the proposed rule in an alternate 

format, contact Mr. Thomas Shepherd, 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards, at (202) 

693–6319. Individuals with hearing or 

speech impairments may access the 

telephone number above by TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Information 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Shepherd, Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards, at 202–693–6319 or 

ECAB-Inquiries@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

preamble is divided into four sections: 

Section I explains the process of issuing 

a proposed rule concurrently with a 

companion direct final rule; Section II 

provides general background 

information on the development of the 

proposed rulemaking; Section III is a 

section-by-section summary and 

discussion of the proposed regulatory 

text; and Section IV covers the 

administrative requirements for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

I. Proposed Rule Published 

Concurrently With Companion Direct 

Final Rule 

The Department is simultaneously 

publishing with this proposed rule an 

identical ‘‘direct final’’ rule elsewhere 

in this issue of the Federal Register. In 

direct final rulemaking, an agency 

publishes a final rule with a statement 

that the rule will go into effect unless 

the agency receives significant adverse 

comment within a specified period. If 

the agency receives no significant 

adverse comment in response to the 

direct final rule, the 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. The proposed rule then 

provides the procedural framework to 

finalize the rule. An agency typically 

uses direct final rulemaking when it 

anticipates the rule will be noncontroversial. 

The Department has determined that 

this rule is suitable for direct final 

rulemaking. The proposed revisions to 

the Board’s procedural regulations 

would require representatives to use the 

Board’s electronic system for filing and 

serving documents unless exempted by 

the Board for good cause. Some 

represented parties are already filing 

documents through the Board’s existing 

electronic system on a voluntary basis. 

Moreover, this system is similar to those 

used by courts and other administrative 

agency electronic systems and will thus 

be familiar to the representatives. The 

proposed rule would also give selfrepresented (pro se) appellants the 

option to file and serve documents 

through the electronic system or via 

conventional methods. It would also 

allow the Board to hear oral argument 

by videoconference under the same 

discretionary criteria outlined in its 

2008 proposal. These changes to the 

Board’s procedures and practices are not 

expected to be controversial and are 

consistent with its statements in its 

2008 proposal. 73 FR 35103 (‘‘[T]he 

Board has anticipated that technological 

advances may, in the future, allow the 

filing, notice, service and presentation 

of documents and argument by 

electronic means.’’). 

The comment period for this 

proposed rule runs concurrently with 

the comment period for the direct final 

rule. Any comments received in 

response to this proposed rule will also 

be considered as comments regarding 

the direct final rule and vice versa. For 

purposes of this rulemaking, a 

significant adverse comment is one that 

explains (1) why the rule is 

inappropriate, including challenges to 

the rule’s underlying premise or 

approach; or (2) why the direct final 

rule will be ineffective or unacceptable 

without a change. In determining 

whether a significant adverse comment 

necessitates withdrawal of this direct 

final rule, the Department will consider 

whether the comment raises an issue 

serious enough to warrant a substantive 

response had it been submitted in a 

standard 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1832 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

impacts of this rule on the regulated 

community. All interested parties 

should comment at this time because 

the Department will not initiate an 

additional comment period on the 

proposed rule even if it withdraws the 

direct final rule. 

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 

regulatory action because this rule has 

been determined by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as 

not significant under E.O. 12866. 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

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

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated this rule as not a ‘major rule,’ 

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

II. Background of This Rulemaking 

The Board is proposing a rule that 

would make e-filing and e-service 

mandatory for parties represented by 

attorneys and lay representatives. The 

Board’s long-term goal is to have 

entirely electronic case files (e-case 

files), which would significantly benefit 

both the Board and the participants in 

Board appeals. All parties and 

representatives, as well as appropriate 

Board employees, would have access to 

all of the Board’s case-related 

documents through the Board’s case 

management system at any time and 

place, as long as they have access to the 

internet. In addition, digitally filed and 

served documents would allow the 

Board to leverage its case management 

system to more efficiently process 

incoming documents and reduce the 

time it takes to adjudicate appeals. 

The Board’s case management system 

is a consolidated web-based case 

tracking system that was deployed in 

FY2011 to replace individual legacy 

applications and streamline business 

processes specific to each of the 

Department’s three Adjudicatory 

Boards: the Administrative Review 

Board (created in 1996) is the 

adjudicatory Board that issues final 

agency decisions for the Secretary of 

Labor in cases arising under a variety of 

worker protection laws; the Benefits 

Review Board (created in 1972) reviews 

appeals of administrative law judges’ 

decisions arising primarily under the 

Black Lung Benefits Act, the Longshore 

and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act 

and its extensions; and the Employees’ 

Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) 

(created in 1946) hears appeals taken 

from determinations and awards under 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act by the Department’s Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP) (whose predecessor agency was 

the Bureau of Federal Employees’ 

Compensation as described in 20 CFR 

1.6) with respect to claims of Federal 

employees injured in performance of 

duty. 

The case management system has 

provided a broad range of capabilities to 

the staff of the Boards for inputting, 

processing, tracking, managing, and 

reporting specific details on thousands 

of cases since the initial 

implementation. In FY 2013, the system 

was enhanced to provide access to the 

general public. Specifically, users have 

the ability to check their case status, 

electronically file motions and briefs, 

and receive Board issuances 

electronically. Currently, more than 

1,400 individuals are registered users of 

the system. 

At present, there are two methods for 

placing the parties’ pleadings into an 

electronic format for inclusion on the 

Board’s case management system: 

pleadings can be filed in an electronic 

format; or pleadings can be digitally 

imaged after they have been filed in 

paper form. If e-filing and e-service 

remains optional, it is unlikely that the 

Board will achieve the goal of 

completely electronic case files. If, 

however, all pleadings submitted by 

attorneys and lay representatives are efiled, imaging the remaining paper 

pleadings from self-represented parties 

(pro se parties) would be more 

manageable and allow greater 

efficiencies in the processing of appeals. 

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

times by eliminating, in most cases, the 

timeframes required to allow for the 

delivery of traditional mailings. These 

time savings will allow the Board to 

more efficiently process appeals without 

any sacrifice of the quality of work and 

will reduce mailing costs for the Board 

and private parties. 

Although the law requires Federal 

agencies to provide information and 

services via the internet, it also 

mandates that agencies consider the 

impact on persons without access to the 

internet and, to the extent practicable, 

ensure that the availability of 

government services has not been 

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

3501. Accordingly, the Board will make 

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

legal restriction to a requirement that 

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

are there undue costs or difficulties 

imposed, particularly because a party 

may obtain an exemption for good cause 

shown. The Board notes that in this 

regard, e-filing is generally mandatory 

for attorneys in the Federal court 

system. See 76 FR 56107 (Sept. 12, 

2011) (Social Security Administration 

final rule announcing that it will require 

claimant representatives to use SSA’s 

electronic services as they become 

available on matters for which the 

representatives request direct fee 

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

(U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

pilot program requiring agencies and 

attorneys representing appellants to file 

pleadings electronically for appeals in 

the Washington Regional Office and 

Denver Field Office); 84 FR 14554 (Apr. 

10, 2019) (Occupational Safety and 

Health Review Commission final rule 

adopting mandatory electronic filing 

and service); 84 FR 37081 (July 31, 

2019) (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

final rule amending its Rules of Practice 

in Trademark Cases and Rules of 

Practice in Filings to mandate electronic 

filing of trademark applications and 

submissions associated with trademark 

applications and registrations). 

Individuals who are e-filing appeals to 

the Board need access to a computer 

with internet connectivity and an email 

account. 

III. Section-by Section Analysis of 

Proposed Rule 

Title 20 

Part 501 Rules of Procedure 

Section 501.3 Notice of Appeal 

Current § 501.3(a) defines who may 

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

the Director. Proposed § 501.3(a) would 

change the phrase ‘‘file for review’’ to 

‘‘file an appeal’’ to reflect the 

terminology contained in this section. 

Current § 501.3(b) defines the ‘‘place 

of filing’’ as with the Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards at a specific mailing 

address. Proposed § 501.3(b) would 

define ‘‘how to file’’ appeals and all 

post-appeal pleadings and motions, 

requiring e-filing by attorneys and lay 

representatives beginning 45 days after 

the effective date of the rule and 

allowing for e-filing by self-represented 

appellants. This requirement applies 

only to those documents filed 45 days 

after the effective date or later. This time 

period between the effective date, when 

litigants can be certain that the direct 

final rule will not be withdrawn, and 

the applicability date, on which e-filing 

becomes mandatory, allows those who 

were previously filing and serving 

documents by mail to adjust to 

electronic filing. 

Current § 501.3(c)(2) contains 

requirements for the content of an 

appeal to the Board regarding the name 

and contact information for an appellant 

or a deceased employee who is the 

subject of an appeal. In addition it 

requires a signed authorization 

identifying the name and contact 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 1833 

information of his or her representative, 

if applicable. Proposed § 501.3(c)(2) 

would require the identifying contact 

information to include an email address. 

Current § 501.3(c)(6) requires an 

appellant to sign the notice of appeal. 

Proposed § 501.3(c)(6) would allow for 

the use of an electronic signature when 

an appeal is electronically filed by a 

registered user. 

Current § 501.3(f) sets forth how the 

date of filing an appeal is determined by 

the Board for purposes of timeliness of 

an appeal. Proposed § 501.3(f) would 

change the word ‘‘Clerk’’ to ‘‘Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards’’ to reflect the 

terminology contained in this section. 

Current § 501.3(f)(1) sets forth how 

timeliness of an appeal is determined 

and provides that a notice of appeal is 

deemed to be ‘‘received when received 

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

would include a provision for the 

timeliness of an appeal when e-filed. It 

also contains technical amendments to 

change the terminology ‘‘United States 

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

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

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

to ‘‘filed when received.’’ Paragraph 

(f)(2) would be renumbered to (f)(3), and 

proposed new paragraph (f)(2) would 

clarify that e-filed documents are 

deemed filed as of the date and time the 

Board’s electronic case management 

system records its receipt and must be 

filed by 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the due date. 

Current § 501.3(h) describes when a 

notice of appeal will be considered 

incomplete. Proposed § 501.3(h) would 

change the terminology from ‘‘Clerk’’ to 

‘‘Clerk of the Appellate Boards.’’ 

Section 501.4 Case Record; Inspection; 

Submission of Pleadings and Motions 

Current § 501.4(e) requires all filings 

with the Board to include an original 

and two copies. This proposal would 

remove that paragraph because paper 

copies are not necessary when e-filing, 

and the Board no longer needs multiple 

paper copies from self-represented 

parties or those who are granted an 

exemption from e-filing. 

Section 501.5 Oral Argument 

Current § 501.5 provides that oral 

argument is held only in Washington, 

DC. The proposal would allow the 

Board, in its discretion, to hold oral 

argument by videoconference. It also 

provides that the notice to the parties 

will specify whether the oral argument 

is to be held in person or by 

videoconference. This would provide 

the Board with greater flexibility and 

efficiency. Oral arguments (including 

those conducted by videoconference) 

will not be recorded because ECAB 

decisions are not subject to further 

review by OWCP or the courts. 

IV. Administrative Requirements of the 

Proposed Rulemaking 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required for this rule 

under section 553(b) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, the 

regulatory flexibility requirements of the 

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

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

601(2). 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The Department has determined that 

this proposed 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 

proposed 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 

proposed rule in accordance with 

Executive Order 13175 and has 

determined that it does not have ‘‘tribal 

implications.’’ The proposed rule does 

not ‘‘have substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ 

Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The Department has reviewed this 

proposed rule and has determined that 

the provisions of Executive Order 13211 

are not applicable as this is not a 

significant regulatory action and there 

are no direct or implied effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use. 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 501 

Administrative practice and 

procedure; Claims; Government 

employees; Worker’s compensation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Labor 

proposes to amend 20 CFR part 501 as 

follows: 

PART 501 [AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 501 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Federal Employees’ 

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

■ 2. Amend § 501.3 by revising 

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

(h) to read as follows: 

§ 501.3 Notice of Appeal. 

(a) Who may file. Any person 

adversely affected by a final decision of 

the Director, or his or her authorized 

Representative, may file an appeal of 

such decision to the Board. 

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

[DATE 45 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], attorneys and 

lay representatives must file appeals 

with the Board electronically through 

the Board’s case management system, 

along with all post-appeal pleadings and 

motions as set forth in paragraphs (d) 

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

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

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

(2) Attorneys and lay representatives 

may request an exemption (pursuant to 

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

a request must include a detailed 

explanation why e-filing or acceptance 

of e-service should not be required. 

(3) Self-represented parties may either 

file appeals electronically through the 

Board’s case management system or file 

appeals by mail or other method of 

delivery to the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards at 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20210. 

(c) * * * 

(2) Full name, address, email address, 

and telephone number of the Appellant 

and the full name of any deceased 

employee on whose behalf an appeal is 

taken. In addition, the Appellant must 

provide a signed authorization 

identifying the full name, address, email 

address, and telephone number of his or 

her representative, if applicable. 

* * * * * 

(6) Signature: An Appellant must sign 

the notice of appeal. A filing made 

electronically through the Board’s case 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1834 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

management system by a registered user 

containing the Appellant’s name in an 

appropriate signature block constitutes 

the Appellant’s signature. 

* * * * * 

(f) Date of filing. A notice of appeal 

complying with this paragraph (c) is 

considered to have been filed only if 

received by the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards within the period specified 

under paragraph (e) of this section, 

except as otherwise provided in this 

subsection: 

(1) If the notice of appeal is sent via 

the U.S. Postal Service or commercial 

carrier and use of the date of delivery 

as the date of filing would result in a 

loss of appeal rights, the appeal will be 

considered to have been filed as of the 

date of the postmark or other carriers’ 

date markings. The date appearing on 

the U.S. Postal Service postmark or 

other carriers’ date markings (when 

available and legible) shall be prima 

facie evidence of the date of mailing. If 

there is no such postmark or date 

marking, or it is illegible, then other 

evidence including, but not limited to, 

certified mail receipts, certificate of 

service, and affidavits, may be used to 

establish the mailing date. If a notice of 

appeal is delivered or sent by means 

other than the U.S. Postal Service or 

commercial carrier, including e-filing, 

personal delivery, or fax, the notice is 

deemed to be filed when received by the 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards. 

(2) For electronic filings made 

through the Board’s case management 

system, a document is deemed filed as 

of the date and time the Board’s 

electronic case management system 

records its receipt, even if transmitted 

after the close of business. To be 

considered timely, an e-filed document 

or pleading must be filed by 11:59:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

(3) In computing the date of filing, the 

180-day time period for filing an appeal 

begins to run on the day following the 

date of the OWCP decision. The last day 

of the period so computed shall be 

included, unless it is a Saturday, 

Sunday or Federal holiday, in which 

event the period runs to the close of the 

next business day. 

* * * * * 

(h) Incomplete notice of appeal. Any 

timely notice of appeal that does not 

contain the information specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section will be 

considered incomplete. On receipt by 

the Board, the Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards will inform Appellant of the 

deficiencies in the notice of appeal and 

specify a reasonable time to submit the 

requisite information. Such appeal will 

be dismissed unless Appellant provides 

the requisite information in the 

specified time. 

§ 501.4 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 501.4 by removing 

paragraph (e). 

■ 4. Amend § 501.5 by revising 

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

§ 501.5 Oral argument. 

* * * * * 

(c) Notice of argument. If a request for 

oral argument is granted, the Clerk will 

notify the Appellant and the Director at 

least 30 days prior to the date set for 

argument. The notice of oral argument 

will state the issues that the Board has 

determined will be heard and whether 

the oral argument will take place in 

person in Washington, DC or by 

videoconference. 

* * * * * 

(f) Location. Oral argument in person 

is heard before the Board only in 

Washington, DC. The Board may, in its 

discretion, hear oral argument by 

videoconference. The Board does not 

reimburse costs associated with an oral 

argument. 

* * * * * 

Signed on this 14th day of December, 2020, 

in Washington, DC. 

Eugene Scalia, 

Secretary of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28048 Filed 1–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Parts 641, 655, 658, 667, and 

683 

Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs 

20 CFR Part 726 

Office of the Secretary of Labor 

29 CFR Parts 7, 8, 22, 24, 26, 29, 37, 

38, and 96 

Office of Labor-Management 

Standards 

29 CFR Parts 417 and 458 

Wage and Hour Division 

29 CFR Parts 500, 525, 530, and 580 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Parts 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 

1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 

1988 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs 

41 CFR Part 60–30 

RIN 1290–AA28 

Rules of Practice and Procedure 

Concerning Filing and Service and 

Amended Rules Concerning Filing and 

Service 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs, Office of the 

Secretary, Office of Labor-Management 

Standards, Wage and Hour Division, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(Department or DOL) is issuing this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

to seek public comments on a proposal 

to require electronic filing (e-filing) and 

make acceptance of electronic service 

(e-service) automatic for attorneys and 

non-attorney representatives 

representing parties in proceedings 

before the Administrative Review Board 

(Board), unless the Board authorizes 

non-electronic filing and service for 

good cause. Self-represented persons 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS