Scope and applicability rules

These rules govern all proceedings before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and its Judges. See the Scope in 2200.2(a).

• This means the Commission’s procedural rules apply to hearings, appeals, and other adjudicatory matters that come before the Commission and its Judges.
• Administrative matters outside Commission proceedings (for example, OSHA field inspections) are governed by other OSHA regulations and policies.

If the Commission’s rules do not provide for a specific procedure, the procedure should follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Applicability of Federal Rules in 2200.2(b).

• Practically, that means parties should look to the Federal Rules (for example, rules on pleadings, discovery, motions) when the Commission’s rules are silent.
• If a Commission rule does address the same topic, that specific Commission rule controls instead of the Federal Rule.

The rules must be read to secure an expeditious, just, and inexpensive determination of every case. See the Construction requirement in 2200.2(c).

• This directs judges and parties to apply or interpret rules in ways that avoid unnecessary delays or costs while protecting fairness.
• If multiple interpretations are possible, choose the one that advances timeliness, fairness, and cost-effectiveness.

A Commission rule controls when it contains a specific provision on the issue; otherwise the Federal Rules apply. See 2200.2(b).

• In other words, if the Commission has an explicit rule for a procedure, that rule overrides the Federal Rules on that point.
• If the Commission is silent, follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Yes — these rules govern all proceedings before the Commission and its Judges, which includes interlocutory motions and preliminary matters. See Scope in 2200.2(a).

• Routine case-management issues (scheduling, discovery disputes, motions to compel, etc.) are covered under the Commission’s rules and, where those rules are silent, by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Judges should interpret those rules to promote an "expeditious, just, and inexpensive" resolution under 2200.2(c).

Yes — when the Commission’s rules do not provide a specific procedure on an evidentiary issue, procedure should follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which include the Federal Rules of Evidence where applicable. See 2200.2(b).

• In practice, evidence-related procedures not covered by the Commission’s rules are governed by the Federal Rules (for example, relevance, hearsay exceptions, witness competence) as implemented in Commission proceedings.
• If the Commission has a specific evidentiary rule, that rule takes precedence.

Deviations should be guided by the mandate to secure an expeditious, just, and inexpensive determination, so cost or delay can support reasonable procedural choices but must not sacrifice fairness. See 2200.2(c).

• For example, a judge may streamline discovery to reduce cost or delay, provided the parties still get a fair chance to present their case.
• Any deviation should be justified by the rule’s purpose and consistent with due process.

These rules govern all proceedings before the Commission and its Judges, which includes both initial hearings and appellate or review proceedings before the Commission as provided by its procedures. See 2200.2(a).

• Appeals that are part of the Commission’s adjudicatory process fall under these rules unless another statute provides different appellate procedures.
• If the Commission’s rules are silent on an appellate step, consult the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No — the default is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the Commission’s rules are silent; parties cannot override that default by agreeing to state procedures for Commission proceedings. See 2200.2(b).

• Parties may, with the judge’s approval, agree on certain case-management practices, but such agreements cannot conflict with applicable Commission rules or the Federal Rules that apply by default.
• Any procedural agreement should respect the requirement to secure an "expeditious, just, and inexpensive" determination under 2200.2(c).

No — these rules specifically govern proceedings before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and its Judges, not unrelated administrative law judges outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. See 2200.2(a).

• If a matter is before a different agency or an ALJ outside the Review Commission, that agency’s procedural rules and applicable statutes govern.
• When in doubt about jurisdiction, consult the Commission’s rules and applicable statutes to confirm whether the Commission has authority over the proceeding.

OSHA’s interpretation explains that the Agency posts major settlement agreements on its website but does not post the vast majority of settlement agreements; regardless, most agreements are subject to FOIA disclosure. See the OSHA interpretation on website citation postings.

• The letter states that what OSHA posts is public information and that posting practices are informed by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments.
• It also notes Commission rules (cited in the letter) require that settlement agreements be posted in the same manner employers post citations and notices of contest, but OSHA’s website contains only selected "major" agreements.

No — OSHA’s interpretation states employers generally cannot force OSHA to keep settlement agreements confidential; major agreements are posted, and most agreements remain discoverable under FOIA. See the September 27, 2004 interpretation and note that posting practices are public-information based.

• The letter explains that while only selected major agreements are posted on OSHA’s public site, most settlement agreements can still be disclosed under FOIA.
• Employers should assume that settlement terms may become public and consider confidentiality in negotiating agreements, but FOIA limits OSHA’s ability to guarantee secrecy.

No — OSHA stated it posts citations and proposed penalties dating back through its inspection history and does not routinely remove older material simply because it is more than 10 years old; such information is public under FOIA. See the September 27, 2004 interpretation.

• The letter explains that the Agency’s online materials reflect records available under the Freedom of Information Act and are not limited to a specific age cutoff.
• Administrative enforcement policies (separate from public posting) may limit use of old violations for certain enforcement classifications, but that is an internal policy, not a posting rule.

A judge should interpret the ambiguous rule to achieve an expeditious, just, and inexpensive resolution of the case. See 2200.2(c).

• The judge should balance speed and cost savings with fairness and due process requirements.
• Practical steps include narrowing discovery disputes, setting firm schedules, and using summary procedures where appropriate to avoid unnecessary expense or delay.

If the Commission’s rules do not cover a discovery issue, consult the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery guidance. See 2200.2(b).

• Relevant Federal Rules include Rules 26–37 (discovery scope, disclosures, depositions, interrogatories, requests for production, and motions to compel).
• Apply those Federal Rules subject to the Commission’s requirement to secure an "expeditious, just, and inexpensive" determination under 2200.2(c).

Section 2200.2 governs procedural rules for Commission proceedings and their construction, but posting practices for citations and notices of contest are governed by specific provisions and policies discussed in OSHA guidance and the interpretation letter. See 2200.2(a) and the September 27, 2004 interpretation.

• The interpretation explains OSHA’s online posting practices and notes that rules such as those in the Commission (for example, the letter cites 29 CFR 2200.100(c)) address posting requirements for settlement agreements.
• For posting obligations and procedures, consult the specific Commission rule or OSHA guidance referenced in the interpretation.

No — when the Commission’s rules are silent, the default is the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and the Federal Rules of Evidence where applicable), not state rules. See 2200.2(b).

• State procedural or evidentiary rules do not replace federal procedural defaults in Commission proceedings.
• Any adaptation should be consistent with the Commission’s rules and the goal of an "expeditious, just, and inexpensive" resolution under 2200.2(c).

The interpretation states OSHA posts citations, proposed penalties, and news releases dating back through its history because that information is public under the Freedom of Information Act and consistent with the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. See the September 27, 2004 interpretation.

• The letter notes the archive is searchable and intended for public access, not tailored specifically for any group like bidders on public contracts.
• It emphasizes that posting practices reflect FOIA obligations and public interest in historical records.

The rules require balancing speed with fairness so that cases are resolved expeditiously and inexpensively without denying parties a fair opportunity to present relevant evidence. See 2200.2(c).

• Judges can streamline procedures (limit unnecessary discovery, use focused hearings) but must preserve core due process protections like notice and opportunity to be heard.
• Practical measures include targeted pretrial orders and firm schedules that reduce delay while allowing fair fact development.

No — when the Commission has a specific rule on filing documents, that Commission rule controls and supersedes the default Federal Rules. See 2200.2(b).

• Use the Commission’s specific filing procedures first (for example, timing, format, service), and only rely on the Federal Rules where the Commission’s rules are silent.
• This preserves uniformity and predictability in Commission proceedings.

When the Commission’s rules are silent, parties should follow the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and be prepared to explain why the chosen federal procedure fits the case, keeping in mind the goal of an expeditious, just, and inexpensive determination. See 2200.2(b) and 2200.2(c).

• Identify the Federal Rule that most closely addresses the issue (for example, service, motions practice, discovery) and cite it in filings.
• Be ready to show the judge that the approach promotes fairness and efficiency consistent with the Commission’s construction mandate.