Subpart C
You must file written exceptions within 20 days after service of the presiding hearing examiner's decision. This 20-day deadline is set by 1905.28, which states that any party may file exceptions "within 20 days after service of a decision of a presiding hearing examiner."
Any party to the proceeding may file written exceptions to the hearing examiner's decision. The regulation is explicit that "any party" may file exceptions, as provided in 1905.28.
Exceptions must be filed in writing with the hearing examiner. 1905.28 requires "written exceptions" and supporting reasons to be filed with the hearing examiner.
A written exception must identify the exact findings, conclusions, or terms you object to, point to the relevant transcript pages, and suggest corrected findings, conclusions, or terms. 1905.28 requires exceptions to "refer to the specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or terms of the rule or order excepted to, the specific pages of transcript relevant to the suggestions, and shall suggest corrected findings of fact, conclusions of law, or terms of the rule or order."
Yes — after receiving exceptions, the hearing examiner must set a deadline for filing any objections to those exceptions. 1905.28 states that upon receipt of exceptions the hearing examiner "shall fix a time for filing any objections to the exceptions and any supporting reasons."
Yes — exceptions should include suggested corrected findings of fact and conclusions of law when you believe the decision contains errors. 1905.28 specifically requires that exceptions "shall suggest corrected findings of fact, conclusions of law, or terms of the rule or order."
Yes — exceptions must cite the specific transcript pages that support your objections so the examiner can locate the record basis for your claims. 1905.28 requires referencing "the specific pages of transcript relevant to the suggestions," which helps the examiner evaluate whether the record supports the requested corrections.
No — 1905.28 provides a procedure for filing exceptions but does not itself create an automatic stay of the decision. 1905.28 describes the time and content for exceptions but does not grant an automatic suspension; if you need a stay you must pursue any available separate procedures or relief under applicable rules or court processes.
If no exceptions are filed within the 20-day period, the party forfeits the right to raise the kinds of objections addressed by exceptions under that rule, and the decision proceeds according to the agency's procedures. 1905.28 sets the 20-day filing window for exceptions; failing to file within that window leaves the decision unresolved only by the normal post-decision processes available under Part 1905 and any applicable statutes or orders.
No — exceptions under 1905.28 are meant to address the hearing record, not to introduce new evidence. 1905.28 requires exceptions to refer to specific transcript pages and to suggest corrected findings or conclusions based on that record; introducing new evidence typically must be done under other procedural mechanisms, not by exceptions to the examiner's decision.
Yes — any party, including one without an attorney, may file written exceptions, but they must meet the content requirements in the rule. 1905.28 permits "any party" to file exceptions and requires that those exceptions refer to the specific findings, conclusions, or terms excepted to, cite the relevant transcript pages, and suggest corrected findings, conclusions, or terms.
Yes — the hearing examiner may decide to allow further proceedings if necessary, but 1905.28 only requires the examiner to fix a time for objections and does not prescribe further steps. 1905.28 mandates setting a time for objections; whether additional hearings or submissions are needed is left to the examiner's procedural discretion and other applicable parts of Part 1905.
Suggested corrected findings should be specific, clear, and tied to the record — identify the exact finding or conclusion you want changed, explain why, point to transcript pages or evidence, and provide the precise alternative wording you propose. 1905.28 requires that exceptions "shall suggest corrected findings of fact, conclusions of law, or terms of the rule or order," which means practical, concrete alternative language is most helpful to the hearing examiner.
Yes — 1905.28 gives the hearing examiner the authority to fix the time for filing objections after receipt of exceptions, so the examiner controls that schedule. 1905.28 states the examiner "shall fix a time for filing any objections to the exceptions and any supporting reasons," which allows the examiner to set an appropriate timeframe.
Parties should address both factual findings and legal conclusions when warranted; 1905.28 allows exceptions to challenge "findings of fact, conclusions of law, or terms of the rule or order." 1905.28 explicitly lists all three categories as appropriate subjects for exceptions.
The exceptions process under 1905.28 applies to decisions of presiding hearing examiners generally, including matters that may involve variances, and parties should follow the same content and timing rules while also accounting for broader variance procedures in Part 1905. 1905.28 governs exceptions; for context on variance practice and requirements you can review Part 1905 and related Letters of Interpretation discussing variances, such as the discussion in the "Variance for crane load over people" letter (https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1999-03-24).
Yes — you can use exceptions to argue that the hearing examiner's factual findings or legal conclusions incorrectly rejected an alternative practice and to suggest corrected findings showing equivalence; your exceptions must tie those arguments to the hearing record and suggest precise corrections. 1905.28 requires that exceptions refer to specific findings or conclusions and suggest corrected language, and past Letters of Interpretation about variances explain that establishing equivalence is central to variance decisions (see for example https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1999-03-24).
To preserve those objections, identify the specific factual finding or conclusion that rests on the credibility or procedural ruling, cite the transcript pages where the record shows the issue, explain why the finding or ruling was erroneous, and suggest the corrected finding or ruling in your written exceptions. 1905.28 requires pinpointing the particular findings or conclusions and the transcript pages, which is the proper way to preserve and present such objections.
Yes — exceptions may raise procedural errors if you can point to the transcript pages and show how the error affected findings or conclusions, because 1905.28 allows exceptions to challenge specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, or terms of the order. 1905.28 requires that exceptions refer to the parts of the record supporting your claim, so procedural complaints should be tied to the record and suggested corrections.
Yes — while 1905.28 governs exceptions, the broader Part 1905 rules cover variances and related procedures, and OSHA has issued Letters of Interpretation that explain variance practice and limits (for example, see the letter discussing variances and clearance requirements at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2001-04-06-0 and the letter about variance procedure and interim relief at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1995-05-25-1). You should consult Part 1905 together with these interpretations when preparing or objecting to exceptions on variance-related matters.