Commission review procedures

Either the applicant or the Secretary may seek review of the judge's decision on a fee application. See 2204.407 and the implementing part 2204 for the rule's placement.

Yes — the Commission may direct review of a judge's decision on its own initiative. The rule explicitly states the Commission "may grant such a petition for review or direct review of the decision on the Commission's own initiative." See 2204.407.

Review by the Commission must follow the procedures set out in 2200.91 and 2200.92. See 2204.407 which ties Commission review to those sections.

You may file a petition for review with the Commission to challenge the judge's decision on the fee application. The option is expressly provided in 2204.407, and the procedures you must follow are in 2200.91 and 2200.92.

Yes — the Secretary may seek review of the judge's decision on a fee application. That authority is stated in 2204.407.

The procedural steps and filing requirements for Commission review are set out in 2200.91 and 2200.92, which 2204.407 makes applicable to fee-application reviews. Consult those sections for deadlines, content, and service rules.

Yes — time limits and deadlines for filing a petition for review are governed by 2200.91 and 2200.92, which control Commission review under 2204.407. Check those sections for the exact filing periods and any requirements for extensions.

No — only the applicant or the Secretary may file a petition for review under 2204.407; however, the Commission itself can initiate review on its own. The rule does not provide for third-party petitions.

It means the Commission has discretion to accept a properly filed petition from the applicant or the Secretary, or the Commission may choose to review the judge's decision without a petition by acting on its own initiative. See 2204.407 and follow-up procedures in 2200.91 and 2200.92.

Section 2204.407 specifically addresses review of a judge's decision on the fee application; other types of judge decisions are governed by their respective rules and procedures, including those in 2200.

If the Commission grants review, the further proceedings will be carried out under the procedures in 2200.91 and 2200.92, as required by 2204.407.

No — the Commission's authority to direct review is an additional power and does not replace the right of the applicant or the Secretary to file a petition; they may still file a petition under 2204.407, and the Commission may also initiate review on its own.

The authority and procedure are published at 2204.407 within part 2204, which implements the Equal Access to Justice Act in Commission proceedings.

No — major settlement agreements are posted on OSHA's website, but the vast majority of settlement agreements are not posted online; they remain subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. See the OSHA letter of interpretation on website postings at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.

No — an employer cannot force OSHA to withhold settlement agreements from disclosure; while most settlement agreements are not posted on the website, they are still subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and OSHA's posting practices described in the letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.

OSHA posts citations, proposed penalties, and many news releases on its public website; major settlement agreements are posted but the majority of settlement agreements are not posted online. That policy is explained in the letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.

The letter explains that the Commission's rules at 29 CFR 2200.100(c) require settlement agreements to be posted in the same manner employers post citations and notices of contest, so settlement agreements remain subject to public disclosure procedures. See the interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0 and refer to 2200 for the Commission rules.