Under 2200.10, any party or intervenor may move for severance and the Commission or Judge may also act on their own motion. The rule says the Commission or the Judge "may order any proceeding severed" either "upon its own motion, or upon motion of any party or intervenor," provided a showing of good cause is made. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, a showing of good cause must be made to obtain severance. The rule authorizes severance "where a showing of good cause has been made by the party or intervenor," and permits the Commission or Judge to order severance in that circumstance. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, the Commission or Judge may sever some or all claims or parties from a proceeding. The text expressly says the order may sever a proceeding "with respect to some or all claims or parties." See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, yes—the Commission or Judge may order severance on their own motion. The rule allows severance "upon its own motion" as well as upon motion of any party or intervenor when good cause is shown. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, the rule does not require agreement from other parties; it permits the Commission or Judge to order severance either upon motion or on their own motion where good cause exists. The provision makes no mention of needing opposing parties' consent before ordering severance. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, severance may be limited; it can apply to "some or all claims or parties." The rule allows flexibility so a judge or the Commission can sever only part of a proceeding if good cause is shown. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, the rule does not define "good cause." The provision requires a showing of good cause but does not spell out specific factors or procedures for making that showing. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, an intervenor is anyone who has been allowed to intervene in the proceeding and who may move for severance in the same way as a party. The rule explicitly allows a motion for severance "upon motion of any party or intervenor" when good cause is shown. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, yes—a severance order may separate claims even if they involve the same party, because the rule permits severance "with respect to some or all claims or parties." That language allows separating individual claims for separate handling when good cause is shown. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, the rule does not set a specific deadline for filing a motion to sever. It simply provides that a motion may be made by a party or intervenor and that the Commission or Judge may act on their own motion where good cause is shown. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, severance results in separating some or all claims or parties into distinct proceedings that the Commission or Judge has ordered to be handled separately. The rule authorizes ordering any proceeding severed "with respect to some or all claims or parties" when good cause is demonstrated. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, the Commission or the Judge decides whether the showing of good cause is sufficient to order severance. The rule gives the Commission or Judge the authority to order severance when such a showing has been made. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, the rule allows severance with respect to some or all claims or parties, which can include separating issues if doing so is part of severing claims; however, the rule itself does not list specific categories like "factual" or "legal" issues. Any such separation would depend on a showing of good cause to the Commission or Judge. See 2200.10.
Under 2200.10, the rule does not prescribe scheduling details for hearings after severance. It only authorizes the Commission or Judge to order severance when good cause is shown; timing and scheduling of further proceedings are left to the authority of the adjudicator and applicable rules. See 2200.10.
Under the September 27, 2004 letter of interpretation, OSHA posts major settlement agreements on its web site, but the vast majority of settlement agreements are not put on the public web site. The letter explains that the settlement agreements on the web site are "major agreements the Agency has entered into" while most agreements are not posted, although they remain subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. See the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.
Under the September 27, 2004 letter of interpretation, an employer cannot unilaterally require OSHA to keep a settlement agreement confidential on the web site. The letter says that while most settlement agreements are not posted to the web site, settlement agreements are public information and are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; major agreements are posted and OSHA's practice is governed by FOIA. See the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.
Under the September 27, 2004 letter of interpretation, OSHA does not remove older citations and proposed penalties simply because of their age; OSHA posts citations and proposed penalties for inspections conducted since the beginning of OSHA and treats that information as public under FOIA. The letter notes OSHA's web posting practice is consistent with the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 and that information remains available. See the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.
Under the September 27, 2004 letter of interpretation, older OSHA News Releases are available in OSHA's site archive and by using the "About OSHA" and "OSHA History" features on the OSHA web site; the letter specifically states News Releases from previous administrations (back to 1994) are available in the archive. That guidance comes from the interpretation explaining OSHA's web posting practices. See the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.
Under the September 27, 2004 letter of interpretation, OSHA explains that the rules at 29 CFR 2200.100(c) provide that settlement agreements shall be posted in the same manner that employers are required to post citations and notices of contest. The letter cites that regulatory requirement while also explaining OSHA's web posting practices. See the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0 and see 2200 for the Rules of Procedure part.
Under 2200.10, the Commission or Judge may sever proceedings "with respect to some or all claims or parties" when good cause is shown, so remaining claims can be severed and handled separately if a sufficient showing of good cause is made. The September 27, 2004 interpretation does not change that rule; it addresses posting and disclosure of settlements rather than severance. See 2200.10 and the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.