Waiver of rules procedures

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or the Administrative Review Board (ARB) on review may waive rules or issue orders. This authority is stated in Special circumstances; waiver of rules in 1991.115.

• The provision applies to waiver or issuance of orders by the ALJ during hearings and by the ARB when reviewing decisions.

An ALJ or the ARB can waive a rule when there are special circumstances not contemplated by the rules or when good cause is shown. This is the standard set out in 1991.115.

• The waiver is discretionary and focused on achieving justice or proper administration of CAARA procedures.

Before granting a waiver, the ALJ or the ARB must give three days' notice to all parties after an application for the waiver is filed. This notice requirement is specified in 1991.115.

• The three-day notice gives parties an opportunity to respond before the ALJ or ARB acts.

A party should file an application asking the ALJ or ARB to waive the rule and ensure that all other parties receive at least three days' notice before action is taken. This request procedure is based on 1991.115.

• Include the reasons showing special circumstances or good cause and what relief is requested.

Acceptable reasons include special circumstances not contemplated by the rules or a showing of good cause that justifies the waiver. This standard is stated in 1991.115.

• Practical examples could be an unforeseen emergency, procedural conflict that prevents a fair hearing, or other unique factors affecting justice or administration of CAARA.

The ALJ or ARB may waive any rule of these procedural rules when special circumstances or good cause exist and after providing three days' notice. This authority comes from 1991.115.

• Waiver authority is tied to the rules governing CAARA procedures; it does not by text authorize changing statutory requirements outside those rules.

Yes; 1991.115 requires three days' notice to all parties after an application, so the rule text prescribes that notice even when seeking a waiver.

• If a true emergency prevents three full days' notice, a party should explain the emergency and request prompt consideration, but the regulation itself mandates three days' notice as the general rule.

The purpose is to achieve justice or to ensure proper administration of CAARA procedures when rules do not cover a special situation or when good cause exists. This purpose is directly stated in 1991.115.

• The waiver power is a flexible tool to address unique situations that the written rules did not foresee.

The text of 1991.115 does not explicitly require a written explanation, but any waiver is an order issued by the ALJ or ARB and should be documented so parties know the scope and basis of the decision.

• Best practice: request and expect a written order stating the good cause or special circumstances found and any limits on the waiver.

Yes; a party can and should oppose a waiver application during the three-day notice period by filing a response explaining why the waiver is not justified under 1991.115.

• Submit reasons and evidence showing lack of good cause, prejudice, or alternative ways to protect fairness.

No; 1991.115 authorizes waiving procedural rules or issuing orders for justice or administration of CAARA, but it does not override statutes or create new substantive legal rights beyond the scope of the rules.

• Waivers are intended for procedural flexibility, not for altering statutory obligations.

Yes; because 1991.115 allows waiving rules, an ALJ or ARB could grant relief that effectively excuses a missed deadline when special circumstances or good cause justify it and parties receive three days' notice.

• Parties should request such relief by application explaining the circumstances and proposed remedy.

A waiver granted under 1991.115 can be tailored by the ALJ or ARB to apply to a single party or to all parties, depending on what justice or administration of CAARA requires.

• The order should specify the scope—who is affected and how the rule is modified.

Yes; 1991.115 permits waiving any rule or issuing orders as justice requires, which allows the ALJ or ARB to grant partial waivers or limited modifications tailored to the situation.

• Clearly describe which portion of the rule you seek to modify and why a limited change serves justice.

Yes; while 1991.115 does not require alternatives, proposing a practical alternative demonstrates how justice and administration will be served and helps the ALJ or ARB evaluate the request.

• Propose specific steps or safeguards to replace the waived rule and reduce prejudice to other parties.

Yes; the ALJ or ARB can issue orders tailoring a waiver and may impose conditions to protect fairness, consistent with the authority in 1991.115.

• Conditions might include deadlines, limited scope, or additional disclosures to mitigate any unfairness.

A good waiver application should state the specific rule(s) to be waived, facts showing special circumstances or good cause, the relief sought, the effect on other parties, and proposed safeguards; reference 1991.115 to show the legal basis.

• Attach supporting evidence and explain urgent timelines to justify prompt consideration within the three-day notice framework.

Yes; the ARB on review can waive rules or issue orders upon application and after giving three days' notice to all parties, as provided in 1991.115.

• The ARB's waiver authority is available during review to address issues that arise on appeal or in the record.

If a party is not given the required three days' notice under 1991.115, the party can object and request that the ALJ or ARB reconsider the waiver or provide relief for any prejudice caused by lack of notice.

• Timely objection and explanation of prejudice are important to preserve rights.

Yes; because 1991.115 permits waiving any rule for justice or administration of CAARA, an ALJ or ARB could modify discovery or evidence rules when special circumstances or good cause are shown and parties receive three days' notice.

• Requests should explain how the change serves fairness and propose safeguards to protect the opposing party.