Hearing attendance and defaults

Under 2200.64(a), failure of a party to appear at the hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing and may result in a default against the non-appearing party. The rule says that a party who does not appear in person or through a duly authorized representative waives the hearing right, and the Judge may default the non-appearing party without further proceeding or notice; additionally, a failure of the Respondent to appear is deemed an admission of the facts alleged and consent to the relief sought or the citation and proposed penalty in Simplified Proceedings. See 2200.64(a).

Under 2200.64(a), if the Secretary fails to appear at the hearing, that failure is treated as an abandonment of the case. The regulation states that a failure of the Secretary to appear constitutes abandonment, which means the case is not pursued by the Secretary unless further action is taken. See 2200.64(a).

Under 2200.64(a), yes—the Judge may enter a default against a non-appearing party without further proceeding or notice. The regulation explicitly permits the Judge to default the non-appearing party without additional proceedings or notice, though the Judge may later excuse the failure to appear for good cause under 2200.64(c). See 2200.64(a) and 2200.64(c).

Under 2200.64(a), if the Respondent does not appear, the Respondent is deemed to have admitted the facts alleged in the Complaint and to have consented to the relief sought; in Simplified Proceedings, the absence is deemed an admission of the citation and notification of proposed penalty. The regulation makes clear that nonappearance by the Respondent operates as an admission of the agency's allegations and the requested remedy or penalties. See 2200.64(a).

Under 2200.64(b), requests for reinstatement must be made, absent extraordinary circumstances, within 7 days after the scheduled hearing date. The regulation sets a strict seven-day timeframe for filing a reinstatement request unless extraordinary circumstances justify a later filing; it also points to procedural detail in 2200.90(c). See 2200.64(b).

Under 2200.64(c), a party must show good cause for the failure to appear in order to have the hearing excused and rescheduled. The regulation states that the Commission or Judge may excuse the failure to appear upon a showing of good cause, and if excused the hearing will be rescheduled as expeditiously as possible from the Judge's order. See 2200.64(c).

Under 2200.64(b) and 2200.90(c), you should consult 2200.90(c) for the procedural rules that apply to reinstatement requests. Section 2200.64(b) sets the seven-day timeframe for requests (absent extraordinary circumstances) and directs parties to 2200.90(c) for further procedural guidance. See 2200.64(b) and 2200.90(c).

Under 2200.64(c), if the Judge excuses a missed appearance for good cause, the hearing will be rescheduled as expeditiously as possible from the issuance of the Judge's order. The regulation requires that any rescheduling occur promptly once the Judge grants relief. See 2200.64(c).

Under 2200.64(b), the regulation does not define the term "extraordinary circumstances," so parties must provide a showing that explains why the seven-day deadline could not be met; procedural detail and standards for relief are addressed in 2200.90(c). Because the rule itself does not list specific examples, parties typically rely on the Judge's evaluation of the facts and any supporting documentation to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or good cause. See 2200.64(b) and 2200.64(c).

Under 2200.64(a) and 2200.64(c), to avoid default a Respondent should appear in person or by a duly authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, or promptly seek relief from the Judge by showing good cause to reschedule. The rule makes appearance the key obligation and allows the Commission or Judge to excuse failures to appear for good cause and reschedule the hearing promptly. See 2200.64(a) and 2200.64(c).

Under 2200.64(a), in Simplified Proceedings a Respondent's failure to appear is deemed an admission of the citation and notification of the proposed penalty. The regulation specifies that the consequences in Simplified Proceedings are an admission of the citation and the proposed penalty notification, which removes the need for further factual proof at hearing. See 2200.64(a).

Under 2200.64(c), yes—the Commission or Judge may excuse the failure to appear upon a showing of good cause and reschedule the hearing; the regulation requires rescheduling to occur as expeditiously as possible from the Judge's order. In practice, a Judge who determines good cause exists can set aside a default and reopen the case by issuing a rescheduling order. See 2200.64(c).

Under the OSHA Letter of Interpretation, not all settlement agreements are posted on OSHA's public website and most are not placed online; however, settlement agreements are public information and remain subject to disclosure under FOIA, and the Review Commission rules require posting settlement agreements in the same manner that citations must be posted. The letter explains that OSHA posts major agreements but that the vast majority of settlement agreements are not put on the website even though they are disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act; see the OSHA letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0 and the Review Commission rule framework at 2200. See the OSHA letter: OSHA website citation postings.

Under 2200.64(a), the regulation requires appearance in person or by a "duly authorized representative," but it does not define in detail who qualifies; generally that means a person authorized by the party to appear and act on its behalf, such as an attorney or an authorized company representative, and the Judge will expect appropriate proof of that authorization if contested. See 2200.64(a).

Under 2200.64(a), the rule provides that the Judge may default the non-appearing party without further proceeding or notice, so the regulation does not require additional notice before entering a default for a missed appearance. However, the same section and 2200.64(c) preserve the Judge's authority to later excuse the absence for good cause and reschedule. See 2200.64(a) and 2200.64(c).

Under 2200.64(b) and 2200.90(c), you should file the reinstatement request as soon as possible and include a clear, documented showing of the extraordinary circumstances or good cause that prevented timely filing; because 2200.64(b) imposes a 7-day deadline absent extraordinary circumstances, timely filing with supporting evidence increases the chance the Judge will excuse the absence. See 2200.64(b) and 2200.90(c).

Under 2200.64(a) and the OSHA Letter of Interpretation regarding postings, a default that results in admission or consent to relief means the citation and proposed penalty are part of the case record; OSHA posts citations and proposed penalties on its website consistent with FOIA, and settlement agreements and related documents may also be public information. For general posting practices see the OSHA letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0 and the Review Commission's regulatory framework at 2200. See 2200.64(a).

Under 2200.64, the most directly relevant rule sections to review are 2200.64(a) (which describes default consequences) and 2200.64(c) (which addresses excusing failures to appear and rescheduling), as well as the procedural guidance in 2200.90(c) concerning reinstatement requests. Reviewing those provisions will identify the applicable deadlines and the standards for asking the Judge to set aside the default.