Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Issuance of notice and order: October 21, 2003;
See 66 FR 33034, June 20, 2001 (request for comments and technical conference).
See 67 FR 35766, May 21,2002 (notice of proposed rulemaking).
The Commission has concluded that it is feasible and desirable to make electronic filing of documents over the Internet the standard procedure for filing official documents with the Commission.
The Commission began laying the groundwork for the conversion from hardcopy to online filing in its notice and order concerning electronic filing (order no. 1317), issued June 13, 2001. That notice established docket no. T2002-1 as a vehicle for conducting a live test of its proposed online filing procedures. Drawing on its experience with that live test, the Commission issued its notice of proposed rulemaking in this docket on May 8, 2002. See order no. 1341, issued May 8, 2002, (67 FR 35766, Tuesday, May 21, 2002). That notice proposed amending the Commission's rules of practice to require that documents submitted to the Commission in official dockets be submitted online, unless a waiver is obtained. The notice included a User Guide describing proposed Filing Online operating procedures. Following publication of its proposed rules and operating procedures, the Commission conducted a Filing Online workshop on June 12, 2002 to provide those intending to participate in future dockets with instruction and hands-on training in those procedures.
Several times over the next several months, the Commission asked those who had participated in recent Commission proceedings to join it in testing Filing Online functions and system capacity. These tests were generally successful. The success of these training and testing procedures has led the Commission to conclude that the Filing Online system is sufficiently developed to warrant its immediate implementation as the standard system for receiving and disseminating documents in formal dockets.
The Commission has concluded that one part of its proposed rules requires further examination before it is implemented. That is the proposal that material filed as library references or computer analyses be filed in a form that can be read and executed on PC hardware. This proposal will be severed from this docket so that it can undergo an additional round of comment before it is implemented.
The rules implementing the Filing Online system that are adopted in this order will apply to subpart H of the Commission's rules of practice, which govern small post office closings. The Commission, however, contemplates making some refinements to subpart H procedures in the near future in order to take better advantage of the Filing Online system.
The amended rules of practice set out in attachment 1 to this order are final rules implementing the Filing Online system. They generally require that documents in formal proceedings before the Commission be filed through the Filing Online system. These final rules will take effect on January 7, 2003. They differ from the rules described in the notice of proposed rulemaking issued earlier in this docket (order No. 1341, issued May 8, 2002) in several minor respects.
The proposed rules provided for only one kind of account holder. The final
Current account holders who meet the definition of Primary Account Holders will automatically be designated Primary Account Holders by the Secretary. Current account holders who do not meet the definition of Primary Account Holders must reapply to become Agent Account Holders. Primary Account Holders may delegate their authority to file documents with the Commission to other Primary or Agent Account Holders by designating them on their Filing Online Profile Page.
The proposed rules required that certain kinds of lengthy documents be filed both online and in hardcopy form. Under the final rules, the only documents that will be accepted in hardcopy form are those for which a waiver of the online filing requirement has been obtained, designations of written-cross examination, and formal Postal Service requests to change rates or classifications.
The proposed rules required that word processing files be submitted in text-based portable document format (pdf) format, and that all other files that could be converted to text-based pdf files also be submitted in that form. Non-word-processing files could be submitted in their native format, but this was not required.
The final rules require that word processing files be submitted in text-based pdf format, but do not require other files to be submitted in that format. They strongly encourage, but do not require, that word-processing files be submitted in their native format as well. The final rules require that non-word-processing files that are submitted as attachments to host documents be submitted in their native format. Such files may be submitted in text-based pdf on a voluntary basis.
The final rules require that notice be given to the Secretary if a scanned pdf file is being submitted.
The Secretary has expanded the capability of the Filing Online system. As before, a file can be converted to text-based pdf format on line. Now it is also possible to integrate multiple text-based pdf files into a single text-based pdf file on line. This should make it easier for account holders to produce a host document entirely in text-based pdf format.
The proposed rules required that participants serve documents in hardcopy form on other participants who had obtained a waiver of the online filing requirement. Under the final rules, the Commission has assumed the duty of serving hardcopy documents on participants who cannot receive service on line.
The proposed rules required that participants who had obtained a waiver of the online filing requirements serve their documents on others in hardcopy form. Under the final rules, those participants may submit hardcopy documents to the Secretary. The Secretary will serve them by posting them on the Commission's Web site or, if necessary, mailing them in hardcopy form.
The final rules allow complex cross-examination exhibits to be served two calendar days before the appearance of the witness by filing them on line, or by providing them in hardcopy form to the witness's counsel, at the option of the cross examiner.
Five sets of written comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking in this docket.
Val-Pak also criticizes the Commission's proposal not to require testimony and briefs to be filed in hard copy if they are 20 pages or less in length. It argues that it would be cumbersome for participants to ascertain which briefs fall under this threshold, and therefore should be printed out by the participant.
There is little reason for Val-Pak to fear that the record will not be reliably preserved unless the documents that comprise it are filed with the Commission in hardcopy form. The Commission will print a hard copy of every document filed on line in a formal docket and archive it, at least for the duration of that docket. Val-Pak's concern that hardcopy documents are easier to work with should not interfere with the transition to the filing online. While hardcopy documents might be easier to work with, this is not a reason to require documents to be in hardcopy form when they are initially filed with the Commission. Participants who prefer to work with hardcopy documents may print them at any time after the Commission has posted them on its Web site.
A more legitimate concern is Val-Pak's argument that having different filing requirements for testimony and briefs depending on their length will make it difficult for participants to determine whether they have assembled a complete set of such documents. Val-Pak Comments at 3. The Commission agrees that this is likely to complicate the tracking and archiving of such documents. This is one reason that the Commission has decided to drop this
MMA seeks clarification of one aspect of the Commission's proposed Filing Online procedures. It assumes that when an account holder uploads a file to the Commission's Web site in its native format, such as Microsoft Word, converts it to the required pdf format on the Commission's Web site, and submits it for filing, that the Commission posts both the native format file and the pdf file so that others can download them. When an account holder uses Adobe software to convert a file from native format to pdf on his own computer before submitting the document for filing, MMA asks whether the account holder is obligated to submit the file in native format as well. MMA argues that there should be such an obligation, since the native format file is likely to be more amenable to cutting, pasting, and searching than the pdf file. MMA also asks whether computer analyses, such as spreadsheets created in Microsoft Excel, are required to be filed and posted in their native format, and not just posted as a scanned pdf file. MMA Comments at 4-5. The Postal Service also emphasizes the benefits of filing text documents in their native format. Rather than asking that filing in both pdf and native formats be required, however, it asks that it be encouraged as a courtesy to other participants. Postal Service Comments at 7.
It is advantageous for participants to file word processing files in both pdf and native formats for all of the reasons that MMA and the Postal Service cite. The Commission, however, believes that it is premature to make it mandatory to file word processing files in native format. Filing such files in native format raises minor security concerns. For example, account holders could occasionally have hidden annotations or legislative formatting in their native-format text documents which others could retrieve. If the account holder is not aware that these annotations are present, and regards them as confidential, the account holder might regret having submitted the document in native format. One solution, of course, is to check the document for hidden annotations before submitting it for filing. The Commission is searching for technical tools that might facilitate this process. For now, however, the Commission strongly encourages account holders to submit word processing files in native format, but it will not make it mandatory. If the account holder converts a native format file to a pdf file on the Commissions Web site, the option of deleting the native file before submitting the filing record to the Commission is still available. If a filing record submitted to the Commission contains both the native file and the pdf file, the Commission will post both files on its Web site.
MMA also observes that filing computer analyses in native format should be considered mandatory under rule 31(k)(3)(i). It notes that common spreadsheet software allows the analyst to embed formulae and assumptions in spreadsheets that are lost if they are converted to pdf. It further notes that spreadsheets in pdf format must be converted back to their native format before they can be modified or manipulated. For these reasons, MMA urges the Commission to make it clear that account holders must file a native-format version of their computer analyses. MMA Comments at 5. The Postal Service expresses related concerns. It questions whether the Commission's admonition in its notice of proposed rulemaking that “[a]ny collateral files that can be produced in text-based pdf must also be submitted in that form” is well considered. It argues that some Excel files can be converted to a text-based pdf format, but that doing so eliminates most of their embedded utility.
In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed filing rules that did not make filing computer analyses or spreadsheet analyses in their native formats mandatory. The rules as proposed required computer analyses to be filed in text-based pdf form if they were part of a host document. If they were filed as attachments to a host document, the proposal required that they be filed in text-based pdf form where possible. Otherwise they allowed them to be filed in their native format. See order no. 1341, issued May 8, 2002, at 4.
The parties' comments have persuaded the Commission to reconsider how its format requirements should apply to computer and spreadsheet analyses. The Commission agrees that it is highly desirable to have computer and spreadsheet analyses filed in their native format for the reasons that MMA and the Postal Service cite. Filing such analyses in native format is already required in most circumstances to satisfy the Commission's documentation rules [such as rules 31(k)(2) and (3) and rule 54(o)]. This is because in most circumstances detailed assumptions, formulae, and sources for numbers are not fully disclosed in testimony or other text documents.
Computer and spreadsheet analyses are typically filed as attachments to host documents. The Filing Online rules authorized by this order require that computer and spreadsheet analyses filed as attachments to a host document be filed in their native format. Filing them in native format, such as Excel, Lotus, or Quattropro, will preserve the ability to read embedded formulae and the ability to manipulate the files. As the Postal Service points out, Excel and similar files are not very useful in pdf format because their embedded formulae cannot be read, and the numbers cannot be manipulated. Accordingly, the Filing Online rules authorized by this order do not require that computer and spreadsheet analyses filed as attachments to host documents be provided in pdf format. Text-based documents filed as attachments to host documents, however, are required to be submitted in text-based pdf format, whenever possible. This will maximize the amount of filed material that can be included in Filing Online's searchable database.
Another way to maximize the amount of material that will be included in Filing Online's searchable database is
Rather than provide tables or graphs generated in Excel or similar formats in a separate file attached to a host document, an account holder may choose to integrate them into a host document and to explain and annotate them in the host document thoroughly enough to satisfy the Commission's documentation rules. The filing rules authorized by this order require that host documents and all their components be submitted in text-based pdf format. If such material is thoroughly documented in the host document, account holders will not be required to provide it as native format attachments as well. Supplemental files containing such material in native format are useful, however, for reasons already described, and account holders are encouraged to provide them.
Participants should be aware that the host document in text-based pdf format that they are required to provide under Filing Online must be a single file that reads continuously from beginning to end. If Excel-based tables or figures are inserted into the host document, or intended to be a part of the host document as appendices, they should not be submitted as separate files that other participants would have to download separately and reassemble in order to obtain a coherent host document. In order to make it easier for account holders to include material generated in Excel or similar formats in a host document that is a single text-based pdf file, an “Assemble PDF” function has been added to the Filing Online system.
The “Assemble PDF” function will allow an Account Holder to upload an Excel, Lotus, or Quattropro file, convert it to pdf format, print it, and then decide if it needs to be manipulated in one of several ways. One way would be to simply add it to the end of an existing text-based pdf file. The “Assemble PDF” function, however, also provides an account holder with a way to excerpt designated pages from one or more Excel files, reorder them, and append them to an existing pdf file. If an account holder wants to insert Excel-based material at various points in an existing pdf file, this is most easily done by “embedding” the material at the desired points, but it could also be done in a multi-step process using the “Assemble PDF” function that the Commission has provided.
Embedding, or the various features of the “Assemble PDF” function, will help the account holder produce a host document that consists of a single text-based pdf file in order to satisfy the requirements of the Filing Online system. These techniques will be effective if the analyst who has generated the Excel or similar material has set print areas appropriately, and provided any needed headers and footers, prior to converting the Excel material to pdf format.
• Host Documents and other word processing-based files must be submitted as text-based pdf files. The Commission urges that they be submitted as native files as well, but does not require it.
• Files that are not word-processing based (spreadsheet, computer language, scanned files, etc.) must be submitted as native files if they are attached to a host document. They may be submitted as text-based pdf files as well.
• Scanned pdf files must be designated as such at the time they are submitted.
Mr. Carlson assumes that the rationale for the Commission's proposed rule that lengthy briefs and testimonies be filed and served in hardcopy form as well as on line is a need to avoid the crush of downloading and printing numerous large documents on the same day and the need to avoid congestion in the Commission's docket section. As an alternative to raising the 20-page threshold, he proposes that briefs and testimonies filed in advance of the filing deadline be excused from the hardcopy requirement. Carlson Comments at 2. The OCA opposes this alternative. It argues that it would give opponents a procedural advantage if they were to receive advance notice of arguments in testimony or briefs, particularly for reply briefs. OCA Comments at 3.
The Commission has decided to drop its proposed rule that would have required lengthy testimony and briefs to be filed and served in hardcopy form. This will eliminate the source of the objections voiced by Mr. Carlson. The recent expansion of capacity of the Commission's Filing Online system, and the tests of that capacity, indicate that congestion of that system is unlikely, even on days of anticipated peak demand. Accordingly, account holders should be able both to upload documents, and to download and print documents on peak filing days, without unreasonable delay. Account holders will be able to print any briefs or testimony that they prefer to review in hardcopy form without having to first determine whether the documents fall on one side or the other of a page-based threshold.
The Postal Service assumes that the portions of proposed rules 9, 10, and 11 that allow a waiver of the requirement that documents be filed online apply “only to a participant who is wholly excluded from Filing Online.” Postal Service Comments at 4. It says that responses to discovery sometimes require that material other than electronic documents be provided, such as videotapes or Priority Mail envelopes, or documents that were generated by non-standard software. It reasons that paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of the current library reference rule (39 CFR 31(b)(2)(vii)) could still accommodate such material if it were made a library reference and an appropriate notice of
The Postal Service wrongly assumes that proposed rules 9 through 11 would not authorize waivers for individual filings. The language of those rules is explicit that both the online-filing requirement and waivers of that requirement apply on a document-by-document basis. Proposed rule 9(a) provides that “
Close reading of proposed rules 9 through 12 (which are made final rules by this order) makes it clear that waivers of the online filing requirement are available on both a document-by-document basis, and on a participant basis. If it is feasible to provide material to be filed in electronic form, participants are obligated under these rules to do so, and to file them online. Even if a participant did not originally obtain a document in electronic form, such as a newspaper clipping, but he can readily scan it to produce a legible pdf, he is obligated to do so, and to attach it to a host document, such as an interrogatory answer. A document is eligible to be treated as a library reference only if it is not feasible to generate a legible document in electronic form that can be attached to a host document and filed online. This is consistent with the Commission's policy to minimize the number of library references.
The Postal Service believes that a problem may be created by the gap that would occur between the time that the Filing Online system generates a receipt for a document that has been submitted for filing, and the time that it is accepted and posted on the Commission's Web site.
In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission indicates that when the Filing Online system receives an electronic document that an account holder has submitted for filing, it will issue an electronic receipt to the account holder indicating the time that is was received. It explains that the Commission's docket section would then review the document for compliance with its rules before accepting it as filed. Acceptance would be indicated by posting the document on the Daily Listing page of the Commission's Web site. See order no. 1341, issued May 8, 2002, at 6-7.
The Postal Service speculates that under the current hardcopy system, when a document is submitted at the docket window the docket staff reviews it for compliance with the Commission's filing rules, and then applies a date stamp indicating that it has been accepted for filing. It contrasts this with the Commission's proposed Filing Online procedures, where the docket section would first issue an electronic receipt for a document, then review it for compliance with filing rules. The Postal Service suggests that the scope of the review that the docket section would perform prior to acceptance of a document submitted online would be broader than under the current hardcopy system (for example, determining whether a document is a single-or a multiple-purpose document) and that the authority for such review needs to be clarified. Postal Service Comments at 4-5.
Contrary to the Postal Service's assumption, under the current hardcopy filing system, the docket section date stamps a document when it is received. It then reviews it for compliance with the Commission's filing rules. The date stamp indicates only the time that the document was received. It does not indicate that the document was accepted for filing.
Proposed Filing Online procedures would parallel the current hardcopy procedure. The Commission would issue an electronic receipt to indicate the time that the document was received, and then review it for compliance with filing rules. The difference would be that under Filing Online, the Commission would affirmatively indicate that a document had been accepted for filing by posting it on its Web site. Under current hardcopy filing procedures, if a date-stamped document is determined to be in compliance with the Commission's filing rules, the Commission takes no further action.
The Postal Service is correct, however, that Filing Online would impose filing requirements beyond those that currently apply to hardcopy documents. While the general filing requirements will continue to be set forth in the Commission's rules of practice, some of the more detailed requirements, such as the role of the host document, and the formats that are acceptable, will be published only on the Commission's Web site in the Filing Online User Guide. Reserving such detailed filing requirements for the Filing Online User Guide is necessary because the technical features of the Filing Online system can be expected to continually evolve, and Filing Online procedures will need to evolve with them. It would not be practical to have to continually amend the Commission's rules of practice through notice and comment rulemaking procedures as the Filing Online system evolves.
The Postal Service points out that under rule 9 as it was proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Secretary is authorized to reject filings if they do not comply with an applicable “statute, rule, regulation, or order.” It suggests that if Filing Online requirements do not take the form of a “statute, rule, regulation, or order” the Secretary may not use them as grounds for rejection. Postal Service Comments at 4-5.
To clarify the Secretary's rejection authority, final rule 9(d) includes non-compliance with “filing instructions published by the Secretary” among the grounds for which the Secretary may reject a filing. For purposes of rule 9(d), it will be sufficient if the Secretary's filing instructions have been published on the Commission's Web site.
The Postal Service was prompted to raise the issue of the Secretary's rejection authority by a comment made by the Secretary's staff during the Filing Online workshop held on June 12, 2002. The Postal Service understood the staff to have asserted that a pleading that serves two separate purposes would be rejected. Postal Service Comments at 5.
The Secretary's staff meant to articulate a more limited requirement. The staff meant to assert that pleadings that would normally be submitted as separate documents if they were filed in
The Postal Service's comments, however, have drawn the Commission's attention to the desirability of requiring that each host document have a separate procedural purpose. Compound pleadings and composite motions are difficult to track and archive. If each pleading has a distinct procedural purpose it will be easier to associate it with a unique Filing Record and unique set of record identifiers. This should make it easier to track and archive pleadings. In particular, it should make it easier to track motions. Because each motion will be submitted with its own Filing Record, and would have a unique file identifier, it will make it less likely that a motion would “fall through the cracks” and fail to be addressed. Accordingly, the requirement that each host document serve a separate procedural purpose will be included in the Filing Online User Guide.
Under this requirement, as noted, a motion for acceptance of late-filed interrogatory answers and the interrogatory answers themselves would be filed as separate host documents in separate Filing Records. Of course, a motion that is conditioned on the disposition of another motion should prominently refer to the motion upon which it is conditioned, even though it is filed separately.
Requiring participants to plead for distinct kinds of relief and file separate host documents submitted in separate Filing Records should not add significantly to the time or expense of filing those documents if they are filed electronically. It should, however, make tracking and archiving more efficient for both the Commission and the participants.
The Postal Service observes that under the proposed rules, a participant may obtain a blanket waiver of the requirement that documents be filed online. It notes that it will be difficult to reap the benefits that an online filing system can provide if blanket waivers are commonly granted. It argues that almost all participants in past Commission proceedings have demonstrated their ability to participate electronically. It observes that even if there are future participants who do not have their own Internet connections, they should be able to access the Commission's Web site from a public library. Under these circumstances, it argues, the bar should be set quite high for anyone desiring to be excused from participating online. Postal Service Comments at 5-6.
The Postal Service discusses the burden of serving hardcopy documents on a participant who has obtained a waiver, and the burden that such a participant has of serving hardcopy documents on others. It argues that the Commission should assume responsibility for serving documents on such participants. It asserts that the Commission could consolidate all documents that need to be served on such a participant each day, and send them in a single package. This, it contends, would avoid much duplication of effort by other participants. It argues that service of hardcopy documents by a participant with a waiver also should be facilitated by the Commission. It argues that such a participant could mail or fax documents to the Commission, which could then digitize them and post them on its Web site, again avoiding duplication of effort. It argues that to be consistent with the expedited service that would characterize the Filing Online system, a participant with a waiver should be required to mail its documents to the Commission by Express Mail or facsimile transmission. It goes on to argue that service of a hardcopy document by the Commission on behalf of a participant with a waiver should be considered to be effective on the date that it is received by the Commission, presumably because the Commission will have posted the document on the day that it was received. The Postal Service suggests that this would make service computation dates consistent for all participants, whether or not they were required to file online. Postal Service Comments at 5-6.
The Commission agrees with the Postal Service that almost all participants in recent Commission proceedings have shown that they can interact with the Commission's Web site and are likely to be able to participate in the Filing Online system. The Commission expects to be able to provide participants with sufficient technical assistance to ensure that they can effectively use the Filing Online system. Under these circumstances, a participant will have a heavy burden of persuasion to overcome if it wishes to obtain a blanket waiver of the online filing requirements adopted in this order.
If a participant were to obtain a blanket waiver, the Commission will assume responsibility for serving that participant with the documents filed by other participants. As the Postal Service validly observes, the Commission could avoid duplication of effort on the part of other participants by consolidating into a single mailing each day the documents that must be served on a participant with a blanket waiver. The assumption of this responsibility by the Commission is reflected in revised rule 12(a)(2). Similarly, if a participant were to obtain a blanket waiver, the Commission would facilitate service of documents by that participant on others. Under rule 12(b), a participant with a blanket waiver would deliver hardcopy documents that it wished to serve on others to the Secretary by hand or First-Class Mail. Such documents would be deemed served when they are posted on the Commission's Web site. If for some reason such documents cannot be converted to electronic form by the Commission and posted on its Web site, they will be deemed served when the Secretary posts them as First-Class Mail.
Under a system where filing documents online is the norm, the need for filing hard copies of documents with the Commission will remain, although these instances are expected to be rare. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, proposed rule 10(b) specified that when participants are required to file documents with the Commission in hardcopy form, that they must provide the Commission with an original and 24 conforming copies. Proposed rule 10(c) specified that when participants who have obtained a waiver of the online filing requirements choose to file documents on computer media, that they must provide the Commission with an original and three conforming copies. Upon further reflection, the Commission has determined that the number of conforming copies that must be provided to the Commission under either rule 10(b) or rule 10(c) should be reduced to two.
In the rare instance when a participant has a document that it cannot digitize and file online, yet it still can feasibly serve on participants in hardcopy form (perhaps a newspaper article that it is unable to scan), the Commission is likely to be able to digitize it and to distribute it internally by posting it on its Web site. Accordingly, the Commission generally will not need to be provided with
Among the Filing Online rules contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was rule 10(a)(2), which stated that “[d]ocuments filed online must satisfy computer system compatibility requirements specified by the Secretary.” The notice indicated that the Secretary would publish these requirements on the Commission's Web site in the form of instructions in the Filing Online User Guide. See order no. 1341 at 11-12. To date, the Secretary has identified and published only a few technical requirements for interfacing with the Filing Online system.
For the basic document filing function, the only technical restrictions are the formats in which documents must be submitted. Enhanced functions, such as batch downloading and batch printing, require that specified utilities be downloaded from the Commission's server.
The Commission's Web site contains a list of word processing, browser, and PC/MAC combinations that have been tested and found to be compatible with the Filing Online system. In its comments, the Postal Service infers that this (rather than the Filing Online User Guide) is the list of system compatibility requirements that the Secretary is authorized to prescribe under proposed rule 10(a)(2). It observes that there are some word processing applications that are absent from that list even though they can produce rich text format (RTF) files. It argues that it would not be prudent to bar participants from using various applications or platforms simply because they have not yet been tested. Because this list of tested platforms does not actually prescribe software or hardware that must be used in order to participate in Filing Online, the Postal Service asks what effect proposed rule 10(a)(2) is intended to have. Postal Service Comments at 7.
In arriving at its conclusion that the list of tested platforms published on the Commission's Web site was meant to implement proposed rule 10(a)(2), the Postal Service apparently overlooked the portion of the discussion of rule 10(a)(2) in the notice of proposed rulemaking that explains that the Secretary will prescribe system compatibility requirements in the Filing Online User Guide. See order no. 1341 at 11-12. The Secretary has not attempted to restrict the applications, browsers, or hardware that an account holder may use to access the Filing Online system. The Commission agrees with the Postal Service that it would not be prudent to limit the software or hardware that account holders may use simply because they have yet not been tested by the Commission. The Secretary will continue to post on the Commission's Web site, separate from the list of technical requirements, a list of software/hardware combinations that have been tested and found to be compatible with the system. It should prove useful to participants that might be deciding how to configure systems that they expect to use to access Filing Online.
Proposed rule 10 has been revised to reflect the refinements described above to Filing Online's format requirements. As a result of these revisions, proposed rule 10(a)(2) now appears as final rule 10(a)(5).
Password security is the final issue that the Postal Service's comments address. The Postal Service notes the Commission's admonition that regular password changes augment security. It asks the Commission to consider adding software that would force account holders to make regular password changes. Postal Service Comments at 8. In the Commission's view, the benefits of this change could be outweighed by the inconvenience it would cause to account holders who properly manage their passwords.
Currently, account holders must undertake the duties and obligations associated with the subscription requirement that is found in rule 11(e). These include warranting that the material submitted for filing is authorized by the participant that the account holder represents, and is authentic and accurate. Authority to provide these assurances resides with the person appearing in a proceeding on his or her own behalf or on behalf of a participant, rather than with a secretary or paralegal. Accordingly, the Commission has decided that there is a need to distinguish between types of account holders to better reflect the duties that they assume. Principal account holders are those that are able to undertake the obligations of rule 11(e) because they are appearing on their own behalf or that of a client. An agent account holder is one to whom a principal account holder has delegated authority to submit material for filing on the principal's or a client's behalf. When an agent account holder files material, the subscription obligations of rule 11(e) remain with the principal account holder who authorized the filing.
The Commission's decision to distinguish between types of account holders will not require most current account holders to take further steps to retain their Filing Online account. If a current account holder represents himself, herself, or a client, before the Commission, the Filing Online system will automatically treat such an account holder as a principal account holder.
A current account holder who does not qualify as a principal account holder, however, will have to reapply for a Filing Online account to be recognized as an agent account holder. A revised account holder application that distinguishes between principal account holders and agent account holders is provided with this order as attachment 2. After receiving a new user name and password, the agent account holder's ability to file through Filing Online will depend on the delegations of authority that appear on the Profile Pages of principal account holders. Principals will have to update their Profile Pages by furnishing, in the space provided, the user name of each agent account holder to whom they wish to delegate authority to file documents online. Agent account holders may have multiple principals. Similarly, principals may delegate their authority to file documents to other principals, as well as to agents, by furnishing the appropriate user Names on their Profile Pages. Principals who delegate their authority to file to others must take responsibility for updating their Profile Pages to reflect any changes in the identity of their delegates or agents.
User Activity Pages will be modified to reflect the distinction between principal account holders and agent account holders. An agent account holder's User Activity Page will show each document that the agent is working on, or has submitted for filing in the previous two days, and which principal has authorized it. A principal account holder's User Activity Page will show each document that the principal is working on, or has submitted for filing in the previous two days, and any agent that is assisting with the document.
The specific procedures that are proposed for filing documents online with the Secretary of the Commission are set forth in the Filing Online User Guide, which may be accessed from the Filing Online Login Page on the Commission's Web site (URL:
Under the Filing Online procedures adopted in this order, each individual who wishes to represent a participant in a Commission proceeding must be a principal account holder. If a principal account holder wishes to delegate his authority to file documents in a proceeding, the individual to whom this authority is delegated must first become an agent account holder. An individual may become a principal account holder or an agent account holder by filling out the account holder application available by contacting the Secretary (See
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission hereby amends subpart A of its rules of practice and procedure as set forth below to this order.
1. The Commission adopts the provisions below as the final rules amending 39 CFR 3001.6, 9-13, 20, 20a, 26-28, 30, 31 and 42.
2. These rules will take effect on January 7, 2003.
3. Changes to 39 CFR 3001.31(b)(2)(vii) and 3001.31(k)(3) that were proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (order no. 1341, issued May 8, 2002), will be addressed in a subsequent docket.
4. The Secretary shall cause this notice and order adopting final rule to be published in the
By the Commission.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service
39 U.S.C. 404(b); 3603, 3622-24, 3661, 3662, 3663.
(1) Subject to § 3001.9(d):
(i) A document submitted through Filing Online is filed on the date indicated on the receipt issued by the Secretary. It is accepted when the Secretary, after review, has posted it on the Daily Listing page of the Commission's Web site.
(ii) A hardcopy document is filed on the date stamped by the Secretary. It is accepted when the Secretary, after review, has posted it on the Daily Listing page of the Commission's Web site.
(2) Any document received after the close of regular business hours or on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, shall be deemed to be filed on the next regular business day.
(1) The text of documents filed with the Commission shall be formatted in not less than one and one-half spaced lines except that footnotes and quotations may be single spaced. Documents must be submitted in Arial 12 point font, or such program, format, or font as the presiding officer may designate.
(2) The Secretary may prescribe additional format requirements for documents submitted through Filing Online.
(3) The form of documents filed as library references is governed by § 3001.31(b)(2)(iv).
(4) Requests for changes in rates and classifications, including supporting documentation, shall be filed both online and in hardcopy form pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) Documents filed online must satisfy Filing Online system compatibility requirements specified by the Secretary in the Filing Online User Guide, which may be accessed from the Filing Online page on the Commission's Web site,
(6) Documents requiring privileged or protected treatment shall not be filed online.