[greymule]

I just read the ASA rule change in their .pdf document. It is a good example of faulty and ambiguous writing.

You should be able to read the opening and logically connect it to any of parts (a) through (e), but part (a) doesn't connect. Obviously, part (a) cannot fall under "properly appealed for." Parts (b) through (e) don't connect, either. Parts (b) and (c) are redundant; parts (d) and (e) have nothing to do with appeals.

On top of that, the rule is constructed so that parts (b) through (e) seem also to fall under part (a), which of course they should not.

Part (a) should have been a separate note. Including it with (b) through (e) would require a complete recasting.