Examination of witnesses

Yes. 2200.69 requires that witnesses be examined orally under oath or affirmation, which means testimony must be given when the witness has sworn to tell the truth (by oath) or has affirmed that they will tell the truth (by affirmation).

• This requirement ensures that witness testimony is given under a formal promise of truthfulness.
• The provision appears in the Rules of Procedure for hearings, found under Part 2200.

Yes. 2200.69 explicitly allows examination under oath or by affirmation, so a witness who for religious or other reasons does not take an oath may give an affirmation instead.

• Both oath and affirmation create the same legal obligation to tell the truth for the purposes of the hearing.

Yes. 2200.69 states that opposing parties have the right to cross-examine any witness whose testimony is introduced by an adverse party.

• That means if one side calls a witness or introduces that witness's testimony, the other side may question that witness to challenge or test the testimony.

Yes. 2200.69 specifically provides that all parties shall have the right to cross-examine any witness called by the Judge pursuant to 2200.67(j).

• If the Judge calls a witness under the authority cited in 2200.67(j), every party in the proceeding may question that witness.

Direct answer: 2200.69 requires that witnesses be examined orally under oath or affirmation, which means testimony must be delivered by spoken answers rather than purely written statements.

• "Orally" emphasizes spoken testimony at the hearing, under oath or affirmation.
• The rule does not in itself describe how remote testimony (for example, by telephone or video) is handled; other procedural rules or the Judge's orders would govern logistics.

Yes. 2200.69 grants opposing parties the right to cross-examine any witness whose testimony is introduced by an adverse party, and it also gives all parties the right to cross-examine witnesses called by the Judge under 2200.67(j).

• In short, whether a witness is introduced by a party or called by the Judge, the parties have cross-examination rights as stated in 2200.69.

Direct answer: 2200.69 grants the right of cross-examination to opposing parties; in practice, that right is typically exercised by the party or the party’s representative (for example, an attorney or authorized advocate).

• The regulation focuses on the parties' right; representation and who actually asks the questions are governed by courtroom practice and the Judge's procedural rules.

Both situations are covered. 2200.69 explicitly gives opposing parties the right to cross-examine witnesses introduced by an adverse party, and it also states that all parties have the right to cross-examine witnesses called by the Judge pursuant to 2200.67(j).

• So parties may cross-examine both party-introduced witnesses and Judge-called witnesses.

Yes. 2200.69 states broadly that witnesses shall be examined orally under oath or affirmation and then confirms cross-examination rights both for witnesses introduced by a party and for those called by the Judge under 2200.67(j).

• The oath/affirmation requirement applies to all witnesses whose testimony is presented at the hearing, regardless of who calls them.

Direct answer: 2200.69 focuses on witness testimony and requires that witnesses be examined orally under oath or affirmation; it does not itself describe the treatment of documentary evidence.

• The regulation requires oral, sworn or affirmed testimony for witnesses, but documentary evidence and how it is introduced or authenticated are addressed elsewhere in the Rules of Procedure and by the Judge's rulings.

Yes. 2200.69 expressly provides that all parties have the right to cross-examine any witness called by the Judge pursuant to 2200.67(j), so parties are entitled to an opportunity to question Judge-called witnesses.

Yes. The September 27, 2004 letter explains that settlement agreements that OSHA posts on its website are public information, although the Agency typically posts only major agreements while the majority of settlement agreements are not put on the site but remain subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; see the letter here: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.

• The letter states OSHA posts citations and proposed penalties on its website and that posted settlement agreements are public information.
• Even when a settlement agreement is not posted on the web site, it may still be obtainable under FOIA, according to the same letter.

No. The letter dated September 27, 2004 explains that OSHA's web-posted settlement agreements are major public agreements and therefore public; employers generally cannot force OSHA to keep such posted agreements confidential. The letter is available at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.

• The letter also notes that most settlement agreements are not placed on the web site, but they remain subject to disclosure under FOIA.
• The letter references the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission rule at 29 CFR 2200.100(c) that settlement agreements shall be posted in the same manner that employers are required to post citations and notices of contest (as explained in the letter).