Review by the Commission is not an automatic right; a Commissioner may choose whether to direct review on the Commissioner's own motion or after a party files a petition. See 2200.91(a) and the general authority of 2200.
A party who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the Judge's decision may file a petition for discretionary review with the Executive Secretary. See 2200.91(b).
A petition must be filed any time after the Judge serves the decision on the parties but no later than 20 days after the date the Judge's report is docketed. See 2200.91(b).
The petition must be served on the other parties and intervenors in the manner prescribed by the rules for service in 2200.7(c), while the petition itself is filed with the Executive Secretary as required by 2200.91(b).
Yes. A petition for discretionary review may be conditional — for example, stating that review is sought only if a Commissioner directs review on an opposing party's petition. See 2200.91(b).
A petition should state why review is warranted, such as whether the Judge's decision raises an important legal question, conflicts with other Judges' opinions, is contrary to law or Commission precedent, includes factual findings unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence, or contains prejudicial procedural error or abuse of discretion. See 2200.91(d).
No particular form is required for a petition; however, it should concisely state the portions of the decision for which review is sought and identify the specific citations and citation items involved. See 2200.91(d).
A party adversely affected by the Judge's decision may file a cross-petition directly with the Executive Secretary within 27 days after the Judge's report is docketed; the cross-petition may also be conditional. See 2200.91(c).
A petition for discretionary review is considered filed when it is received by the Commission, as specified in 2200.8(d)(3)(ii); this rule is summarized in 2200.91(e).
Yes. Filing a petition for discretionary review stays (pauses) the Judge's decision while the petition is pending. See 2200.91(f).
Yes. Filing a petition for discretionary review is a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of the final agency action under 5 U.S.C. 704, as stated in 2200.91(f).
Statements in opposition may be filed in the same manner as petitions for discretionary review and should concisely state why the Judge's decision should not be reviewed with respect to each portion of the petition they address. See 2200.91(g).
Brevity and precise references to the record and legal authorities help the Commission consider the petition more promptly and efficiently. The rules emphasize concise statements and accurate citation to the record and authorities in 2200.91(d) and note that brevity facilitates prompt review in 2200.91(e).
A petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Executive Secretary of the Commission; filing procedures and locations are governed by the Commission's filing rules in 2200.8 and the specific timing rules in 2200.91(b).
The rules set firm deadlines—20 days after docketing for petitions and 27 days after docketing for cross-petitions—and petitions filed after those deadlines may not receive consideration. See 2200.91(b) and 2200.91(c).
Yes. A petition may argue that a finding of material fact is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and should explain that point concisely with reference to the record. See 2200.91(d).
A petition should concisely state the specific portions of the decision for review and refer to the exact citations and citation items (for example, "citation 3, item 4a") for each portion it challenges. See 2200.91(d).
Yes. Statements in opposition to petitions for discretionary review may be filed in the same manner specified for filing petitions and should concisely explain why the Judge's decision should not be reviewed regarding the petitioned portions. See 2200.91(g).
Major settlement agreements the Agency has entered into are posted on OSHA's website and are public information, but most settlement agreements between OSHA and employers are not posted online even though they remain subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Letter of Interpretation explains that settlement agreements are public information and notes that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's rules, including 2200.100(c), require posting of settlement agreements in the same manner employers must post citations and notices of contest. See OSHA's Letter of Interpretation "OSHA website citation postings | Date: 2004-09-27" and the Commission's rules at 2200.