Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges

Issuing agencies

Abstract

This action finalizes the Department of Labor's (DOL or Department) proposal to require electronic filing (e-filing) in proceedings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), published on January 11, 2021. The Department has reviewed the comments received in response to the proposal and is now implementing the rule as described in the proposed rule of January 11, 2021, with appropriate exceptions for good cause shown and self-represented parties.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 215 (Monday, November 9, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 215 (Monday, November 9, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70790-70795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22761]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the Department of Labor's (DOL or 
Department) proposal to require electronic filing (e-filing) in 
proceedings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), 
published on January 11, 2021. The Department has reviewed the comments 
received in response to the proposal and is now implementing the rule 
as described in the proposed rule of January 11, 2021, with appropriate 
exceptions for good cause shown and self-represented parties.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 9, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alyssa Kaercher, General Counsel of 
the Office of Administrative Law Judges, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9a2888c9b8a818c9bc7a885909a9a88c7a3a98d8685c78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9dd6fcf8effef5f8efb3dcf1e4eeeefcb3d7ddf9f2f1b3faf2eb">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> 
or 202-693-7347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This preamble is divided into three 
sections: Section I provides an overview of this rulemaking and 
describes its procedural background; Section II provides a summary of 
the public comments received; and Section III covers the administrative 
requirements for this rulemaking.

I. Background

    On January 11, 2021, the Department published a direct final rule 
(DFR) (86 FR 1800) and companion notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
(86 FR 1862) to require e-filing and make acceptance of electronic 
service (e-service) automatic by attorneys and lay representatives 
representing parties in proceedings before the OALJ, and to provide an 
option for self-represented parties to utilize these electronic 
capabilities. The rule also would have required 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. The Department invited written comments from the 
public for 30 days on the proposed rule. The Department received 
significant adverse public comments from stakeholders on the direct 
final

[[Page 70791]]

rule. Therefore, the OALJ withdrew the direct final rule on February 
25, 2021. The Department has reviewed the comments received in response 
to the proposal and is now implementing the rule as described in the 
proposed rule of January 11, 2021, with appropriate exceptions for good 
cause shown and self-represented parties.

A. Overview

    This action finalizes the corresponding NPRM published in the 
January 11, 2021 issue of the Federal Register (86 FR 1862). The e-
filing amendments are revising 29 CFR part 18 in order to require e-
filing and allow for automatic e-service system for OALJ, as well as 
require advance notice to the parties of the manner of a hearing or 
prehearing conference, whether in person, by telephone, by 
videoconference, or by other means.
    A general overview of the legal framework, statements explaining 
the necessity of this e-filing rule, as well as further background on 
the rulemaking is available in the Department's NPRM, as published in 
the Federal Register on January 11, 2021, and will not be restated in 
full herein.
    In brief, this final rule requires persons represented by attorney 
and non-attorney representatives to use the Department's system to file 
all papers electronically and to receive electronic service of 
documents unless another form of filing or service is allowed by the 
presiding judge for good cause or is required by standing order; gives 
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; and 
provides that a filing made through a person's eFile/eServe system 
account and authorized by that person, together with that person's name 
on a signature block, constitutes that person's signature. It also 
requires 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, to account for the 
increase in the use of telephonic and video hearings as a result of the 
COVID-19 national emergency. See 5 U.S.C. 554(b)(1) (requiring timely 
notice of the time, place, and nature of the hearing).
    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[.]'' 29 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.

B. Procedural History

    On January 11, 2021, the Department initially published the e-
filing amendments as a DFR (86 FR 1800) without a prior proposal 
because the Department viewed such amendments as noncontroversial at 
that time and anticipated no adverse comment. The Department also 
published a companion NPRM in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the 
January 11, 2021 (86 FR 1862) issue to expedite notice-and-comment 
rulemaking in case significant adverse comments were received from 
stakeholders. A significant adverse comment for the purposes of these 
notices is one that explains (1) why the rule is inappropriate, 
including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or 
(2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable 
without a change. The proposed and direct final rules were 
substantively identical, and their respective comment periods ran 
concurrently. The Department is treating comments received on the 
companion direct final rule as comments regarding the proposed rule, 
and vice versa.
    On February 25, 2021, the Department withdrew the January 11, 2021 
DFR due to the receipt of significant adverse comment (86 FR 11426). 
Accordingly, on March 17, 2021, the Department re-opened the comment 
period on the January 11, 2021 NPRM for 15 days in order to give the 
public an additional opportunity to voice concerns regarding the 
proposed e-filing rule (86 FR 14559). The Department also scheduled 
listening sessions in order to better understand and address concerns 
from practitioners and the regulated community.

II. Public Comments Received

    The Department invited written comment in its January 11, 2021 DFR 
and concurrently published NPRM. The proposed and direct final rules 
were substantively identical, and their comment periods ran 
contemporaneously from January 11, 2021 to February 10, 2021. On March 
17, 2021, each comment period was reopened for fifteen days. Comments 
were submitted electronically at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> using 
docket number DOL-2020-0015. The Department requested comments on all 
issues related to the rule, including economic or other regulatory 
impacts of the rule on the regulated community.
    In issuing this final action, the Department considered comments 
received on the DFR and NPRM during both the initial and subsequent 
comment periods. The Department also considered comments received on 
the conforming Benefits Review Board (Board) rulemaking because 
commenters noted that they also practiced before the OALJ. Comments to 
the conforming Board rulemaking were submitted electronically at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> using docket number DOL-2020-0013.
    The Department received thirty-six unique comments on its OALJ and 
Board e-filing rules. Of the thirty-six comments received, twelve were 
determined to be out of scope either because they were comments 
exclusively on the technical aspects of the Electronic Filing System 
and did not address the substance of the e-filing rule, addressed 
issues wholly unrelated to this rulemaking, or were general statements. 
Of the remaining twenty-four comments, one commenter supported the e-
filing rule and twenty-three raised concerns that are discussed below.

A. Comment Supporting the E-Filing Rule

    The Department received one comment in support of the rule's e-
filing requirement and automation of e-service, and the rule's 
extension of the provisions to self-represented parties. The commenter 
attested to the ``overall greater convenience for both parties to use 
e-filing and e-service, as well as the costs saved by going 
paperless.'' They observed that ``it is in the public interest for the 
DOL to create a streamlined procedure'' because ``[a] disarray of 
inconsistent filing methods is not only burdensome to those processing 
at DOL, but also to those who would like to track their submitted 
applications.'' Additionally, the commenter cited to both Forbes and 
the New York City Bar Environmental Law Committee in addressing the 
range of significant environmental benefits that e-filing provides.
    This comment reflects the Department's belief that e-filing will 
benefit all participants in OALJ matters. The greater utilization of e-
filing and e-service will reduce case processing times by eliminating 
the timeframes required to allow for the delivery of traditional 
mailings. These time savings will allow the OALJ to more efficiently 
process appeals without any sacrifice to the quality of their work. It 
will also

[[Page 70792]]

greatly reduce mailing and copying costs for both OALJ and the parties. 
The Department agrees that the cost, convenience, and efficiency 
benefits merit this final rule.

B. Comments Raising Concerns About the E-Filing Rule

    Nearly all commenters raising concerns about the rule identified 
themselves as practitioners before OALJ or the Board. These commenters 
predominately objected to the rule's e-filing mandate at Sec.  18.30, 
but many expressed support for the Department's efforts to move to e-
filing and e-service. Three opposing commenters addressed concerns with 
other rule provisions.
1. Comments Regarding the Portion of the Rule That Makes E-Filing 
Mandatory at Sec.  18.30
    Twenty-two commenters recommended that the rule's e-filing mandate 
be delayed or abandoned. Several commenters expressed general support 
for the efficiency and modernization that e-filing provides. However, 
commenters expressed frustration with the OALJ and Board e-filing 
systems, which they found to be time-consuming, resource intensive, and 
difficult to navigate. Accordingly, commenters asked that the e-filing 
mandate be abandoned or delayed to allow for the eFile/eServe system's 
redesign.
    Three of the commenters encouraged the continued use of paper 
filings to accommodate unreliable technology. One practitioner 
identified the particular technological barriers faced by black lung 
practitioners, who ``likely have some of the worst internet service in 
the United States'' and ``[o]ften experience the loss of internet 
access.'' Another noted, ``[i]f internet service is disrupted, we 
currently have backup: `snail mail', wherein dropping a document in the 
mail constitutes proper service.'' Practitioners also expressed concern 
that pro se (self-represented) applicants may be disadvantaged if they 
cannot use the e-filing system successfully.
    The Department has acknowledged the commenters' concerns with the 
e-filing system and has taken initiatives to improve the user 
experience of the system. All twenty-two comments requesting that the 
rule be delayed due to concerns about the eFile/eServe system were made 
during the initial comment period that closed on February 10, 2021. 
After receiving these comments, the Department held listening sessions 
for users to provide feedback on the e-filing systems. The Department 
relied on the information obtained at these listening sessions to make 
improvements to the eFile/eServe system. The Department is confident 
that the issues identified have been addressed sufficiently to merit 
effectuating the e-filing mandate without additional delay.
    Additionally, the final rule sufficiently responds to the 
commenters' technology concerns. First, Sec.  18.30(b)(3) allows 
attorneys and lay representatives to request an exemption from the e-
filing mandate for good cause. Individuals who anticipate technological 
barriers to e-filing may use this provision to request an exception to 
the mandate. Second, Sec.  18.30(b)(3)(i)(B) exempts self-represented 
petitioners from the e-filing mandate, allowing those who cannot 
navigate the e-filing system to continue submitting paper filings. The 
Department notes that these concerns were largely Board specific, and 
that the corresponding Board e-filing rule contains an additional 
provision addressing technological failures. Overall, the OALJ 
framework is largely consistent with Federal district court and U.S. 
Courts of Appeals practice, which generally mandate e-filings for 
attorneys unless an exception is granted, and provide self-represented 
parties the option of filing pleadings in paper form.
2. Comments Regarding Portions of the Rule Addressing Filing Deadlines, 
Public Access, and Service
    One commenter asked that the rule's requirement at Sec.  18.32 be 
changed to allow e-filings to be considered timely if they are filed by 
11:59 p.m. based on the time in which the filer is located. Section 
18.32 requires that filing deadlines be computed ``using 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 [Eastern Time].'' The commenter 
supported the rule's definition of the end of the filing day at 11:59 
p.m. However, the commenter observed that ``[w]hether the filing is 
made at 11:59 p.m. East Coast, or 11:59 p.m. West Coast, the Agency 
personnel who receive the filing will find it the next morning when 
they report to the office.'' Accordingly, there is ``no harm'' in 
allowing all filers to file at the end of their local day.
    The Department has considered this request and finds that 
maintaining the rulemaking's filing deadline computation better 
effectuates its goal of efficiently processing case appeals. Computing 
filing deadlines by the time zone of the presiding judge's office 
allows OALJ to expeditiously determine whether a filing is timely. In 
contrast, a filing deadline based on the filer's location creates an 
administrative burden because it requires an individualized assessment 
of the filer's location, which may not be readily apparent in firms 
with multiple office locations. Using the presiding judge's office, or 
Eastern Time for unassigned cases, mirrors the approach of Federal 
courts. See, e.g., Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(4). 
Further, the preamble to the DFR explained that the Department 
initially considered standardizing the time for electronic filing at 
midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the filing period, because the 
Department's eFile/eServe system is administered in Washington, DC. 
Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the 
Office of Administrative Law Judges, 86 FR 1800, 1803 (Jan. 11, 2021). 
However, 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,'' satisfying 
this commenter's concern. Id.
    One commenter asserted that requiring separate e-service was 
inefficient and requested that the Electronic Case Filing System be 
changed so that service was automatically made on all parties. Section 
18.30 allows for e-service to be completed sending a filing to a user 
registered with the Department's eFile/eServe system. The eFile/eServe 
system is designed to function similarly to the Case Management/
Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system used by the Federal district 
courts and Courts of Appeals. This allows for automatic e-service with 
minimal exceptions for individuals exempted from e-filing and documents 
containing sensitive information that must be served through an 
alternative, secure method. Accordingly, the Department has taken 
measures to establish automatic service through the eFile/eServe 
system.
    One commenter expressed concern that e-filing would impede public 
access to OALJ and Board case files because the rule does not allow for 
general access by non-parties. The Department appreciates this comment. 
However, the Department believes that public policy concerns merit the 
level of public access provided, which balances the public's right to 
know about proceedings and the parties' privacy interests. Here, broad, 
public access is inappropriate because of the significant personal 
information contained within OALJ and Board case files. OALJ 
adjudicates immigrant and non-immigrant employment-related cases, which 
often contain extensive

[[Page 70793]]

information about job applicants, wage documents, personally 
identifiable information, and similar information of a private, 
business or financial nature. Black lung and longshore claims also 
often contain extensive information of a private nature, where general 
public interest is limited.
    Restricting general access by non-parties is consistent with the 
approach of the federal courts in similar cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c) 
limits remote public access to electronic files in Social Security and 
immigration cases due to the significant amount of personal information 
these files contain. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c) does not completely bar 
public access because it permits non-parties to obtain the full case 
file at the courthouse. Likewise, this rulemaking limits non-parties' 
remote access to electronic files, while allowing access through an 
alternative means. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) governs public 
access to agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings. See 
5 U.S.C. 552; 29 CFR 70.1 through 70.54. Under FOIA, non-parties may 
submit a request to obtain OALJ and Board case files subject to the 
applicable FOIA exceptions. Accordingly, this final rule's restrictions 
on non-parties' access to electronic records in agency proceedings are 
consistent with FOIA's public access provisions, the federal court 
process, and the policy considerations inherent in Fed. R. Civ. P. 
5.2(c).

C. Out of Scope Comments

    Twelve comments were beyond the scope of this action. Five comments 
related only to specific concerns about using the Electronic Filing 
System, rather than the rule's specific e-filing mandate or other 
procedural amendments. To the extent that these comments refer to the 
e-filing mandate, these comments do not alter the Department's 
conclusion for the reasons noted above. One comment appears to pose 
questions to employers about their ``coronavirus response plan,'' and 
is therefore out of scope. Finally, six comments made general and vague 
statements that did not address specific provisions of the OALJ or 
Board rules, or about e-filing or e-service, and were therefore also 
out of scope.

D. Removal of Delayed Applicability Date

    This final rule will take effect December 9, 2026. Although this is 
a rule of agency procedure, the Department is using the minimum period 
provided under section 553(d) of the APA for substantive rules that do 
not meet a statutory exception. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Department 
is removing the 45-day delayed applicability date included in the 
initial DFR and NPRM. See Rules of Practice and Procedure for 
Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, 
86 FR 1803, 1805; Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative 
Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, 86 FR 1862, 
1865, 1867 (proposed Jan. 11, 2021). The 30-day period between 
publication and the effective date of this final rule is reasonable and 
practical because the eFile/eServe system is currently operational. 
Accordingly, the Department no longer needs additional time to update 
communications about e-filing or to allow parties time to adjust to the 
e-filing system. The Department determines that both it and the public 
are prepared to adhere to the e-filing mandate within 30 days of this 
rule's publication, obviating the need for a delayed applicability 
date.

III. Administrative Requirements of the Rulemaking

A. 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, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility.
    This 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 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.

B. 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), 604(a).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Department has determined that this final rule is not subject 
to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., as this rulemaking involves administrative actions to which the 
federal government is a party or that occur after an administrative 
case file has been opened regarding a particular individual. See 5 CFR 
1320.4(a)(2), (c).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism

    The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and has found no potential or 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. As there 
is no federal mandate contained herein that could result in increased 
expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private 
sector, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement.

E. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive 
Order 13175 and has determined that it does not have ``tribal 
implications.'' The 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.

[[Page 70794]]

PART 18--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 
HEARINGS BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

0
1. The authority citation for part 18 continues 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 the Office of Administrative Law Judges (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:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(E);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(iii);
0
c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1) introductory text 
and paragraphs (b)(2) and (3); and
0
d. 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 person--generally required; exceptions. 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 this section.
    (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 <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/contacts">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/contacts</a>.
    (A) Filing by facsimile--cover sheet. Filings by facsimile must 
include a cover sheet that identifies the sender, the total number of 
pages transmitted, 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 at 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)

[[Page 70795]]

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 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.

Keith Sonderling,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2026-22761 Filed 11-6-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-HW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>