[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8243-8247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4076]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 2200


Rules of Procedure

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has 
concluded that it is in the public interest to supplement the voluntary 
settlement judge procedure prescribed at 29 C.F.R. 2200.101 with an 
additional settlement process that would be mandatory for cases where 
the penalty proposed by the Secretary of Labor is $200,000 or greater 
or other cases deemed appropriate by the Chief Administrative Law 
Judge. This additional procedure, to be known as the Settlement Part, 
would be instituted as a pilot program for a one-year trial period to 
ascertain whether requiring the parties to appear before a settlement 
judge facilitates the settlement process with respect to large and 
complex cases.
    During and after the trial period, the Commission will evaluate the 
results in order to decide whether it should continue the Settlement 
Part procedure and, if so, what modifications should be made. The 
evaluation will take into account data on the rate at which settlements 
are achieved in large and complex cases and the length of time those 
cases remain on the Commission's docket before a settlement agreement 
is reached. The Commission will also consider the views of its judges 
and the parties regarding how well the process is working and how it 
might be improved.

DATES: This rule is effective from February 19, 1999 until February 22, 
2000 unless extended by the Commission by publication in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl R. Ohman, Jr., General Counsel, 
One Lafayette Center, 1120 20th St., N.W. 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 
20036-3419, phone 202-606-5410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Development of the Final Rule

    On March 2, 1998 the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission published in the Federal Register a proposal to institute, 
as a pilot program for a one year trial period, a new procedure to be 
known as the Settlement Part for the purpose of facilitating the 
settlement process in large and complex cases. 63 FR 10166. The notice 
explained the reasons why

[[Page 8244]]

the Commission developed this proposal and the basis and purpose of 
each particular provision. The notice included a request for public 
comment.
    In response, the Office of the Solicitor of Labor, which represents 
the Secretary of Labor in all adjudicative proceedings before the 
Commission, filed comments on behalf of the Secretary of Labor. Matthew 
J. Rieder, an attorney in a regional office of the Solicitor of Labor, 
filed comments setting forth his personal views based on his many years 
of experience in Commission proceedings. Comments were also received 
from two law firms, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (on behalf of United Parcel 
Service, the Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., and Champion International 
Corporation) and McDermott, Will & Emery, which is a frequent 
practitioner before the Commission. The Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturers Association, Inc. (``SOCMA''), Alabama Power, and 
Southern Company also filed comments. The Commission gratefully 
acknowledges these comments and has made several modifications and 
clarifications in response to the comments received. After careful 
consideration, the Commission issues this final rule establishing a 
mandatory settlement procedure to be evaluated after a one-year trial 
period.

Need for a Mandatory Procedure

    Alabama Power, Southern Company, and SOCMA were strongly supportive 
of the proposed Settlement Part. All three were in agreement that a 
mandatory settlement procedure would strongly enhance the possibility 
that the parties would achieve significant savings in cost and time by 
reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution of the case.
    On the other hand, two commentators, the Secretary and Gibson, Dunn 
& Crutcher, explicitly took exception to the mandatory nature of the 
proposed procedure. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher expressed the view that 
mandating formal procedures at the outset of the case will obstruct 
rather than encourage settlements because the procedural requirements--
preparing for and attending a conference or conferences and developing 
a written statement of the issues and the party's position on those 
issues--would cause the parties' positions to become hardened rather 
than more flexible and therefore would be unproductive and inefficient. 
The Secretary stated that her own statistical analysis demonstrates 
that even in cases in which substantial penalties are in issue the 
parties are able to achieve settlement within a relatively expeditious 
period of time under the Commission's existing procedures. Thus, the 
Secretary concluded that parties who are inclined to settle have 
sufficient opportunity to do so under the present procedures and 
imposing a mandatory and structured process would be costly and time-
consuming.
    At the outset, the Commission believes that the Secretary's 
estimates of the length of time in which cases achieve settlement may 
not accurately reflect the Commission's experience. The Secretary notes 
that ``many cases'' with penalties in excess of $100,000 settle 
informally before a notice of contest is filed. However, such cases do 
not become docketed with the Commission and therefore do not affect the 
Commission's caseload. In addition, the Commission conducted an 
analysis of the narrower range of cases in which the penalties sought 
are $200,000 or greater. There were eleven such cases that became final 
orders through settlement agreements in fiscal year 1997. With the 
exception of one case which settled before the pleadings were filed, 
the time between the date the case was assigned to the judge and the 
date the settlement agreement was reached ranged from 81 to 280 days, 
with a median time of 190 days, or over six months. Even more 
significant, in accordance with the Commission's usual practice, these 
cases were not even assigned to a judge until after the parties filed 
their pleadings and any preliminary matters were resolved. In almost 
half of these cases, the time consumed awaiting assignment of a judge 
added at least four months to the overall case disposition time; one 
case was not assigned to a judge until almost nine months after 
docketing and another was not assigned for over a year after docketing. 
The total time between date of docketing with the Commission and the 
date the settlement was reached ranged between 135 to 583 days, with a 
median of 261 days, or almost nine months. Three of these ten cases 
required over a year to achieve a settlement and one took almost a 
year. Moreover, of those cases having penalties between $100,000 and 
$200,000 to which the Secretary refers, most did not settle within 120 
days. Rather, the median time between docketing and final disposition 
was 226 days for those cases in the $100,000-$200,000 range which 
became final by settlement in fiscal year 1997. The statistics with 
respect to fiscal year 1998 cases are similar. Of the 25 cases having 
penalties of at least $200,000 that became final orders through 
settlement agreements in fiscal year 1998, three took over a year to 
achieve settlement, two took approximately one year, and two others 
required approximately 11 months. The total time between date of 
docketing with the Commission and the date the settlement was reached 
ranged from 100 to 527 days, with a median of 261 days, for cases 
having penalties of at least $200,000, and the median time between 
docketing and final disposition was 238 days for those cases in the 
$100,000-$200,000 range which became final by settlement in fiscal year 
1998. Thus, the Commission's experience does not support the 
Secretary's contention that high penalty cases generally settle within 
a relatively short time frame.
    The Commission also notes that through the pilot program it seeks 
to determine whether a mandatory settlement procedure not only would 
bring large and complex cases to settlement in a shorter period of time 
but also whether such a procedure would increase the proportion of such 
cases that settle rather than go to trial. Trials in large cases are 
always expensive both for the parties and the Commission. In addition, 
cases that the parties settle voluntarily rarely, if ever, come before 
the Commission for review of the judge's decision, and therefore 
settlement reduces costs and conserves resources at the appellate level 
as well as at the hearing stage of the proceeding. The Commission 
appreciates the concerns of the commentators that the settlement 
procedures not be so structured as to ultimately reduce the likelihood 
of a settlement or impose additional costs and burdens on the parties, 
and the Commission emphasizes that it is precisely those issues on 
which it intends to gather information and evaluate as part of the 
pilot program. The Commission intends to carefully review the pilot 
program. The Commission will particularly review the relative benefits 
to and burdens on participants of a mandatory settlement process.

Applicability

    Alabama Power and Southern Company suggested that the pilot program 
include smaller employers by lowering the penalty threshold to $60,000 
and that it also be expanded to include all citations for willful 
violations and any case in which the employer requests that a judge be 
appointed under the Settlement Part. As explained in the preamble to 
the proposed rule, the Commission deliberately chose the $200,000 
threshold to ensure a sufficiently large sample of cases without 
overtaxing the resources the Commission could justifiably devote to a 
pilot program.

[[Page 8245]]

Moreover, under the proposed pilot program, the Chief Administrative 
Law Judge retains discretion to assign other cases to the Settlement 
Part, and, as discussed more fully below, the settlement judge 
procedures prescribed in Sec. 2200.101 and the authority of the trial 
judge to convene settlement conferences under Sec. 2200.67(g), remain 
in effect for all cases.
    The Secretary suggested that the Commission prescribe guidelines 
for the Chief Administrative Law Judge in selecting the cases which he 
may assign to the Settlement Part at his discretion. The Commission 
emphasizes that the Settlement Part is a trial program for one year, 
and the discretion accorded the Chief Administrative Law Judge was 
intended to permit some exploration of different criteria and some 
flexibility in selecting cases for proceeding under the Settlement Part 
in the event the Commission's caseload warrants including other cases 
in the pilot program in addition to those cases meeting the $200,000 
mandatory threshold.

Assignment of the Settlement Part Judge

    Commentator McDermott, Will & Emery expressed the view that while a 
tentative evaluation of the merits of the case from an impartial third 
party early in the proceedings can potentially be an effective catalyst 
for a settlement where negotiation and discussion between the parties 
has been unsuccessful, that ``first impression'' is best given by the 
same judge who will be deciding the case. Accordingly, McDermott, Will 
& Emery suggested that the Commission amend Sec. 2200.67(g) to 
explicitly provide that the case judge is authorized to conduct 
settlement conferences regardless of whether settlement has been 
discussed under the Settlement Part structure or under the voluntary 
settlement judge procedure at Sec. 2200.101. Alternatively, McDermott, 
Will & Emery requested that the Commission invite additional public 
comment on the use of settlement conferences by the case judge after a 
case has been processed through the Settlement Part or settlement judge 
procedure.
    The Commission does not believe that either of these courses is 
necessary. The Settlement Part rule merely supplements the existing 
settlement judge procedure by making essentially the same mechanism 
available in certain cases which otherwise could have proceeded under 
the settlement judge process if the parties had so agreed. The 
Commission's existing rules specifically provide that ``settlement is 
permitted and encouraged * * * at any stage of the proceedings.'' 
Sec. 2200.100(a). Nothing in either the proposed Settlement Part or the 
existing settlement judge rule precludes either party from seeking the 
assistance of the case judge in facilitating settlement under 
Sec. 2200.100 after proceedings under Sec. 2200.101 or the Settlement 
Part have terminated. Under proposed Sec. 2200.109(f)(2) (codified as 
Sec. 2200.120(f)(1) by this final rule) the Settlement Part Judge may 
at any time make a determination that further negotiations would be 
unlikely to achieve settlement. Upon that determination, the case would 
be assigned to a hearing judge, and the possibility of settlement could 
be raised at any time during those subsequent proceedings.

Commencement of Settlement Part Proceedings

    Both the Secretary and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher urge that the 
involvement of the Settlement Part Judge not commence until after the 
parties have had an opportunity to discuss settlement among themselves 
without the formal intervention of the judge. The Secretary suggests 
that because high penalty cases have already shown themselves to be 
susceptible to settlement at an early stage of the proceedings, the 
mandatory involvement of the judge should be deferred until after the 
completion of discovery, at which point the parties would be better 
able to identify to the judge those areas in which disagreements 
remain, and the judge would be better able to assist the parties in 
addressing those areas of disagreement.
    The Commission recognizes that in order for a settlement judge to 
assist the parties, there must be some initial contact between the 
parties and some development of the parties' positions, whether by some 
exchange of discovery or by other means. As noted above, however, the 
Commission's concern relates not only to the proportion of complex or 
large cases that are resolved by settlement but also to the length of 
time required to achieve settlement. A primary purpose of the 
Settlement Part pilot program is to determine whether the settlement 
process can be expedited if the settlement judge is assigned at an 
early stage in the proceedings. It is the Commission's hope that as the 
parties engage in their initial discussions and development of the 
issues and their positions on those issues the settlement judge will be 
able to assist and guide the parties toward the objective of a 
settlement. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that 
assignment of the Settlement Part Judge should be deferred until after 
discovery is underway.
    Moreover, the Commission remains concerned as well about the length 
of time the filing of pleadings or other preliminary matters 
contributes to the delay in reaching a final disposition in cases where 
the parties are able to come to an agreement. The Commission therefore 
amends the proposed rule to authorize the Chief Administrative Law 
Judge to assign a judge as early as the docketing of the notice of 
contest under Sec. 2200.33. The Commission expects that the judge will 
act in his discretion to manage the case with the objective of 
advancing the case toward a voluntary settlement in a prompt and 
expeditious manner. The Commission emphasizes that the final rule 
empowers the judge to issue any orders that in his judgment would 
facilitate the proceedings, including at the pleading stage.

Duration of Settlement Part Procedures

    McDermott, Will & Emery contended that the maximum period of 90 
days prescribed under the proposed rule is overly short. Particularly 
considering that the Commission is amending the proposed rule to allow 
the proceedings under the Settlement Part to commence as early as the 
date of docketing, the Commission agrees. Accordingly, by this final 
rule the Commission is increasing the time allowed for settlement 
proceedings to 120 days, with an additional period, not to exceed 30 
days, permitted at the discretion of the judge. The Commission is 
cognizant of the fact that it may be necessary for the parties to 
engage in at least some discovery in order to be in a position to 
conduct meaningful settlement negotiations. However, the Commission is 
hopeful that any such discovery can be expedited, and as part of the 
pilot program the Commission intends to evaluate how effectively the 
parties are able to use discovery under the Settlement Part procedures. 
At the same time, while the Commission strongly believes that the cycle 
time for voluntary dispositions by settlement can be reduced, the 
Commission also recognizes that the parties must have some degree of 
flexibility in the length of time needed to achieve a settlement. 
Furthermore, it clearly would be counterproductive to terminate 
proceedings under this rule where the parties have been actively 
pursuing settlement but have been unable to come to a final agreement 
prior to the expiration of a fixed time period. Therefore, the final 
rule provides that with the concurrence of the Chief Administrative Law 
Judge the parties may be granted an extension of no more

[[Page 8246]]

than 30 days in which to complete ongoing settlement negotiations. The 
Commission reiterates its expectation that the parties and the 
Settlement Part Judge will work together to achieve effective and 
timely completion of proceedings under Sec. 2200.120.

Attendance at the Settlement Conference

    Several commentators expressed opposition to the requirement of 
proposed Sec. 2200.109(d)(2) that an official of the party having full 
settlement authority attend settlement conferences along with the 
party's representative. The Commission does not agree that the 
requirement is unduly burdensome. The Commission believes that the 
personal presence of a representative having full settlement authority 
may be essential for the efficacy of a settlement conference with the 
judge and will minimize the potential for further drawn-out 
negotiations. In the Commission's view, the savings in time, effort, 
and potential further negotiations outweighs any inconvenience to the 
parties that may ensue by requiring the presence of an individual 
authorized to make a final commitment for that party. The Commission 
notes, in that regard, that this provision for personal presence is 
patterned after the practice in courts of requiring the presence of a 
responsible official of each party at settlement conferences.
    Commentator Matthew Rieder expressed the concern that 
Sec. 2200.109(d)(2) may be impractical because it could require the 
attendance of high-level officials both from the Office of the 
Solicitor and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Occupational 
Safety and Health (``OSHA''). Mr. Rieder noted that in general the 
individuals having settlement authority for the Secretary are the 
Regional Solicitor and the OSHA Regional Administrator and that the 
Secretary's internal operating procedures vest final authority for the 
conduct of certain cases at the level of Deputy Solicitor and Deputy 
Assistant Secretary or above. See, e.g., OSHA Instruction CPL 2.80, 
Handling of Cases to be Proposed for Violation-By-Violation Penalties, 
sections H.4.c & H.6.d (Oct. 21, 1990). Nevertheless, the Commission 
does not agree that Sec. 2200.109(d)(2) is impractical or would impose 
an undue burden on the Secretary. The individual having authority for 
cases under the Secretary's procedures would necessarily be familiar 
with the cases under their purview. Involving these individuals in 
settlement discussions and negotiations merely continues their case 
responsibility and would occur under the Commission's existing 
settlement rules in any event. To the extent that the personal presence 
of the Regional Solicitor or other officials either of the Solicitor's 
office or of OSHA might not be practical in any particular case, any 
such difficulties could be avoided by an appropriate delegation of 
authority. For example, the Justice Department has prescribed 
regulations setting forth the authority to accept settlement offers at 
various levels within that agency. 28 CFR Secs. 0.160-0.172 and 
directives issued pursuant thereto. Indeed, the Secretary presently 
delegates settlement authority in certain cases, OSHA Instruction CPL 
2.90, Guidelines for Administering of Corporate-Wide Settlement 
Agreements, sections F.4.a & G.3 (June 3, 1991), and, as Mr. Rieder 
himself noted in his comment, Regional Solicitors in certain cases may 
now delegate settlement authority to counsel.
    In any event, although the Commission does not expect that the 
proposed rule will prove unduly burdensome for any party, the 
practicality of the requirement for attendance of a representative 
having full settlement authority will be evaluated during the course of 
the pilot program. While the Commission appreciates the concerns voiced 
by the commentators, the Commission does not regard those concerns as 
sufficient grounds to modify the Settlement Part rule at this time 
insofar as the rule permits the judge to require the attendance of 
individuals having full settlement authority when the judge deems it 
appropriate and mandates compliance by the parties with any such order 
issued by the judge.

Confidentiality

    The Commission gave a great deal of thought and consideration to 
the issue of preserving the confidentiality of settlement negotiations 
and discussions. The Commission received no comments regarding 
Sec. 2200.109(d)(3) with one exception. The rule as proposed precludes 
the Settlement Part Judge from disclosing any information revealed in 
private discussions with a party absent that party's consent. The 
Secretary, however, expressed concern that the judge might require the 
Secretary to divulge to other parties privileged information, 
principally the identity of informers. While it is conceivable, the 
Commission does not consider it very likely that a party would be 
compelled to disclose the identity of informants during the settlement 
process or that an agreement to settle would be made conditional on 
release of the identity of informers. It is the expectation that the 
identity of confidential informants will be treated consistent with 
Commission precedent--that is, protected from disclosure. In any event, 
the Commission assures the Secretary that protection of the identity of 
informers as well as the other issues addressed in this preamble have 
been and will continue to be included within the training the 
Commission is conducting for its judges assigned to the Settlement 
Part. Indeed, the Commission views training of settlement judges as 
critical and is committed to continue to conduct appropriate training.

Other Issues

    In the preamble to the proposed rule, 63 FR 10166, the Commission 
did not expressly make clear what would happen to cases assigned to the 
Settlement Part and still pending when the pilot program is concluded. 
Any case assigned to the Settlement Part during the pendency of this 
rule will continue to be processed under the provisions of the rule 
until the termination of proceedings in accordance with 
Sec. 2200.120(f) of the final rule even if the rule itself is no longer 
in effect at that time.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2200

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hearing and appeal 
procedures.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Occupational Safety 
and Health Review Commission amends Title 29, Chapter XX, Part 2200 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 2200--RULES OF PROCEDURE

    1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 661(g).

    2. Subpart H is added to Part 2200 to read as follows:

Subpart H--Settlement Part


Sec. 2200.120  Settlement part.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies only to notices of contest 
by employers in which the aggregate amount of the penalties sought by 
the Secretary is $200,000 or greater and notices of contest by 
employers which are determined to be suitable for assignment under this 
section for reasons deemed appropriate by the Chief Administrative Law 
Judge.
    (b) Proceedings under this Part. Notwithstanding any other 
provisions of these rules, upon the docketing of the notice of contest 
or at such other time as he deems appropriate the Chief

[[Page 8247]]

Administrative Law Judge shall assign to the Settlement Part any case 
which satisfies the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this 
section. The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall either act as or 
appoint a Settlement Part Judge, who shall be a Judge other than the 
one assigned to hear and decide the case, to conduct proceedings under 
the Settlement Part as set forth in this section.
    (c) Powers and duties of Settlement Part Judges. (1) The Judge 
shall confer with the parties on subjects and issues of whole or 
partial settlement of the case.
    (2) The Judge shall seek resolution of as many of the issues in the 
case as is feasible.
    (3) The Judge may require the parties to provide statements of the 
issues in controversy and the factual predicate for each party's 
position on each issue or may enter other orders as appropriate to 
facilitate the proceedings.
    (4) The Judge may allow or suspend discovery during the time of 
assignment.
    (5) The Judge may suggest privately to each attorney or other 
representative of a party what concessions his or her client should 
consider, and assess privately with each attorney or other 
representative the reasonableness of the party's case or settlement 
position.
    (d) Settlement conference--(1) General. The Settlement Part Judge 
shall convene and preside over conferences between the parties. All 
settlement conferences shall be held in person. The Judge shall 
designate a place and time of conference.
    (2) Participation in conference. The Settlement Part Judge may 
require that any attorney or other representative who is expected to 
try the case for each party be present. The Settlement Part Judge may 
also require that the party's representative be accompanied by an 
official of the party having full settlement authority on behalf of the 
party. The parties and their representatives or attorneys are expected 
to be completely candid with the Settlement Part Judge so that he may 
properly guide settlement discussions. The failure to be present at a 
settlement conference or otherwise to comply with the orders of the 
Settlement Part Judge or the refusal to cooperate fully within the 
spirit of this rule may result in the imposition of sanctions under 
Sec. 2200.41.
    (3) Confidentiality. All statements made, and all information 
presented, during the course of proceedings under this section shall be 
regarded as confidential and shall not be divulged outside of these 
proceedings except with the consent of the parties. The Settlement Part 
Judge shall if necessary issue appropriate orders in accordance with 
Sec. 2200.11 to protect confidentiality. The Settlement Part Judge 
shall not divulge any statements or information presented during 
private negotiations with a party or his representative except with the 
consent of that party. No evidence of statements or conduct in 
proceedings under this section within the scope of Federal Rule of 
Evidence 408, no notes or other material prepared by or maintained by 
the Settlement Part Judge, and no communications between the Settlement 
Part Judge and the Chief Administrative Law Judge including the report 
of the Settlement Part Judge under paragraph (f) of this section, will 
be admissible in any subsequent hearing except by stipulation of the 
parties. Documents disclosed in the settlement process may not be used 
in litigation unless obtained through appropriate discovery of 
subpoena. The Settlement Part Judge shall not discuss the merits of the 
case with any other person, nor appear as a witness in any hearing of 
the case.
    (e) Record of proceedings. No material of any form required to be 
held confidential under paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be 
considered part of the official case record required to be maintained 
under 29 U.S.C. 661(g), nor shall any such material be open to public 
inspection as required by section 661(g), unless the parties otherwise 
stipulate. With the exception of an order approving the terms of any 
partial settlement agreed to between the parties as set forth in 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the Settlement Part Judge shall not 
file or cause to be filed in the official case record any material in 
his possession relating to these proceedings, including but not limited 
to communications with the Chief Administrative Law Judge and his 
report under paragraph (f) of this section, unless the parties 
otherwise stipulate.
    (f) Report of Settlement Part Judge. (1) The Settlement Part Judge 
shall promptly notify the Chief Administrative Law Judge in writing of 
the status of the case at such time that he determines further 
negotiations would be fruitless. If the Settlement Part Judge has not 
made such a determination and a settlement agreement is not achieved 
within 120 days following assignment of the case to the Settlement Part 
Judge, the Settlement Part Judge shall then advise the Chief 
Administrative Law Judge in writing of his assessment of the likelihood 
that the parties could come to a settlement agreement if they were 
afforded additional time for settlement discussions and negotiations. 
The Chief Administrative Law Judge may then in his discretion allow an 
additional period of time, not to exceed 30 days, for further 
proceedings under this section. If at the expiration of the period 
allotted under this paragraph the Settlement Part Judge has not 
approved a full settlement pursuant to Sec. 2200.100, he shall furnish 
to the Chief Administrative Law Judge copies of any written 
stipulations and orders embodying the terms of any partial settlement 
the parties have reached.
    (2) At the termination of the settlement period without a full 
settlement, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall promptly assign 
the case to an Administrative Law Judge other than the Settlement Part 
Judge or Chief Administrative Law Judge for appropriate action on the 
remaining issues.
    (g) Non-reviewability. Notwithstanding the provisions of 
Sec. 2200.73 regarding interlocutory review, any decision concerning 
the assignment of a Settlement Part Judge or a particular Judge and any 
decision by the Settlement Part Judge to terminate proceedings under 
this section is not subject to review by, appeal to, or rehearing by 
any subsequent presiding officer, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 
or the Commission.

    Dated: February 12, 1999.
Stuart E. Weisberg,
Chairman.

    Dated: February 12, 1999.
Thomasina V. Rogers,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 99-4076 Filed 2-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7600-01-M