29 C.F.R. § 2200.90

Decisions and reports of Judges

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Judge's decision—(1) Contents of Judge's decision. The Judge shall prepare a decision that conforms to 5 U.S.C. 557 of the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutes the final disposition of the proceedings. The decision shall be in writing and shall include findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the reasons or bases for them, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record. The decision shall include an order affirming, modifying, or vacating each contested citation item and each proposed penalty or directing other appropriate relief. A decision finally disposing of a petition for modification of the abatement period shall contain an order affirming or modifying the abatement period.

(2) Service of the Judge's decision. The Judge shall serve a copy of the decision on each party in a manner prescribed in § 2200.7(c).

(b) Judge's report—(1) Contents of Judge's report. The Judge's report shall consist of the entire record, including the Judge's decision.

(2) Filing of Judge's report. On the eleventh day after service of the decision on the parties, the Judge shall file the report with the Executive Secretary for docketing.

(3) Docketing of Judge's report by Executive Secretary. Promptly upon filing of the Judge's report, the Executive Secretary shall docket the report and notify all parties of the docketing date. The date of docketing of the Judge's report is the date that the Judge's report is made for purposes of section 12(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 661(j).

(4) Correction of errors in Judge's report. (i) Until the Judge's report has been directed for review or, in the absence of a direction for review, until the decision has become a final order as described in paragraph (f) of this section, the Judge may correct clerical errors arising through oversight or inadvertence in decisions, orders, or other parts of the record under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). If a Judge's report has been directed for review, the decision may be corrected during the pendency of review with leave of the Commission.

(ii) After a Judge's decision has become a final order as described in paragraph (f) of this section, the Commission or the Judge may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).

(c) Relief from default. Until the Judge's report has been docketed by the Executive Secretary, the Judge may relieve a party of default or grant reinstatement under § 2200.101(b), § 2200.52(f)(2), or § 2200.64(b).

(d) Filing documents after the docketing date. Except for documents filed under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, which shall be filed with the Judge, on or after the date of docketing of the Judge's report all documents shall be filed with the Executive Secretary.

(e) Settlement. Settlement documents shall be filed in the manner prescribed in § 2200.100(c).

(f) Judge's decision final unless review directed. If no Commissioner directs review of a report on or before the thirtieth day following the date of docketing of the Judge's report, the decision of the Judge shall become a final order of the Commission.

[84 FR 14558, Apr. 10, 2019; 84 FR 53053, Oct. 4, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 42 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S. 442 (1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S. 442 (1977). “3 §§ 659 (c), 661 (i); see 29 CFR §§ 2200.90 , 2200.91 (1976). If review is granted, the Commission’s subsequent order directing abatement and the payment of any assessed pen *447 alty becomes final unless the employer timely petitions for judicial review in the appropriate…”

R. Acosta, Sec'y, LABR v. Hensel Phelps Constr, 909 F.3d 723 (5th Cir. 2018). “See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90 (b). The Secretary timely filed a petition for review in this court.”

Sea World of Florida, LLC v. Thomas Perez, 748 F.3d 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90 (d). SeaWorld petitions for review of the general duty violation.”

Accu-Namics, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, Sec'y of Labor, & Johnt. Dunlop, 515 F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 2200.90 (a). Upon issuance of the decision, jurisdiction rests solely in the Commission.”

A.J. McNulty & Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 283 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “§ 661(j); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90 (a) (2001). Employers may appeal adverse ALJ decisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.”

In Re Worksite Inspection of Quality Prods., Inc., Appellant, 592 F.2d 611 (1st Cir. 1979). “§ 661 (i); 29 C.F.R. 2200.90. If the employer is not satisfied with the Commission’s order, he may obtain review of the order in the appropriate court of appeals, 29 U.”

Fluor Constructors, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor, 861 F.2d 936 (6th Cir. 1988). “See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90 (d) (1987). Fluor then petitioned under 29 U.”

Frank Lill & Son, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 362 F.3d 840 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “11, 2003) (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 2200.90 (d), 661©). Lili filed a timely petition for review on April 3, 2003.”

Harry C. Crooker & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 537 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2008). “In that petition, it renewed the main arguments that it had advanced before the ALJ and added a claim that the Secretary had not established a prima fa-cie case.”

Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor v. Contractors Welding of W. New York, Inc., 996 F.2d 1409 (2d Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “11, 1993) (the Commission vacated its prior decision in accordance with the First Circuit’s order, after it initially had retained a portion of the prior decision’s analysis as *1413 precedent); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2200.90 , 2200.91, 2200.92. The regulatory scheme indicates that the…”

Durez Div. of Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., 906 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “No member of the Commission having called for review of this decision, it became the final order of the Commission, per 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90 (d). II. INTERPRETATION OF THE HCS The Company places considerable weight upon the Secretary’s own distinction between mixtures and…”

Raymond J. Donovan (Successor to Ray Marshall) Sec'y of Labor v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 666 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “4 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90 (a). (b) A party aggrieved by the decision by the AU may petition for discretionary review by the Commission.”

Show all 42 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90(a) — 1 case

Gioioso v. OSHRC (1st Cir. 1997).

— 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90(b)(3) — 2 cases

Marshall v. Anaconda Co., 596 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1979).

7 O.S.H. Cas.(bna) 1382, 1979 O.S.H.D. (Cch) P 23,579 Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor v. The Anaconda Co., Montana Mining Div. (Great Falls Refinery), & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 596 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1979).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.