C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1911—RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PROMULGATING, MODIFYING, OR REVOKING OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY OR HEALTH STANDARDS

29 C.F.R. § 1911.15

Nature of hearing

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

(a)(1) The legislative history of section 6 indicates that Congress intended informal rather than formal rulemaking procedures to apply. See the Conference Report, H. Rept. No. 91-1765, 91st Cong., second sess., 34 (1970). The informality of the proceedings is also suggested by the fact that section 6(b) permits the making of a decision on the basis of written comments alone (unless an objection to a rule is made and a hearing is requested), the use of advisory committees, and the inherent legislative nature of the tasks involved. For these reasons, the proceedings pursuant to § 1911.11 shall be informal.

(2) Section 6(b)(3) provides an opportunity for a hearing on objections to proposed rulemaking, and section 6(f) provides in connection with the judicial review of standards, that determinations of the Secretary shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Although these sections are not read as requiring a rulemaking proceeding within the meaning of the last sentence of 5 U.S.C. 553(c) requiring the application of the formal requirements of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557, they do suggest a congressional expectation that the rulemaking would be on the basis of a record to which a substantial evidence test, where pertinent, may be applied in the event an informal hearing is held.

(3) The oral hearing shall be legislative in type. However, fairness may require an opportunity for cross-examination on crucial issues. The presiding officer is empowered to permit cross- examination under such circumstances. The essential intent is to provide an opportunity for effective oral presentation by interested persons which can be carried out with expedition and in the absence of rigid procedures which might unduly impede or protract the rulemaking process.

(b) Although any hearing shall be informal and legislative in type, this part is intended to provide more than the bare essentials of informal rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553. The additional requirements are the following:

(1) The presiding officer shall be a hearing examiner appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105.

(2) The presiding officer shall provide an opportunity for cross-examination on crucial issues.

(3) The hearing shall be reported verbatim, and a transcript shall be available to any interested person on such terms as the presiding officer may provide.

[37 FR 8664, Apr. 29, 1972, as amended at 37 FR 12231, June 21, 1972; 90 FR 27999, July 1, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1974–1980 · leading case: United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall (1980) cadc · cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 1911.15 (b) (1979). Nevertheless, Congress’ decision to impose the substantial evidence test on OSHA does not alter the essentially informal character of OSHA rulemaking.”
Industrial Union Department, Afl-Cio v. James D. Hodgson, Secretary, Department of Labor, Environmentaldefense Fund, Inc (1974) cadc “In 29 C.F.R. § 1911.15 (“Nature of Hearing”), the Secretary stated in relevant part: “(a)(2) Section 6(b)(3) provides an opportunity for a hearing on objections to proposed rule making, and section 6(f) provides in connection with the judicial review of standards, that…”
Lead Industries Ass'n v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (1979) ca2 “§ 655 (f) to have the standards set aside if they are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, see also 29 C.F.R. § 1911.15 (a)(2), may obtain some small aid in that endeavor by finding a few nuggets of non-intertwined, “reasonably segrega-ble”, non-record factual…”
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Marshall (1979) cadc “See K. Davis, 1 Administrative Law Treatise, 453 (1978).”
National Constructors Ass'n v. Marshal (1978) cadc “29 C.F.R. § 1911.15 (a)(2) (1977). This informality, while sufficient under OSHA, see note 2 supra and accompanying text, may not adhere religiously to CSA, which apparently requires “formal hearings,” pursuant to 5 U.”
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.