Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.071 (2026)

Citation for safety or health standard violations; effect of failure to correct violation; posting of citations and notices by employer

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      654.071 Citation for safety or health standard violations; effect of failure to correct violation; posting of citations and notices by employer. (1) If the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services or an authorized representative of the director has reason to believe, after inspection or investigation of a place of employment, that an employer has violated any state occupational safety or health law, regulation, standard, rule or order, the director or the authorized representative shall with reasonable promptness issue to such employer a citation, and notice of proposed civil penalty, if any, to be assessed under this chapter, and fix a reasonable time for correction of the alleged violation.

      (2) Each citation and notice required by subsection (1) of this section shall be in writing, shall be mailed to or served upon the employer or a registered agent of the employer, and shall contain:

      (a) The date and place of the alleged violation;

      (b) A plain statement of the facts upon which the citation is based;

      (c) A reference to the law, regulation, rule, standard or order relied upon;

      (d) The amount, if any, of the proposed civil penalty;

      (e) The time, if any, fixed for the correction of the alleged violation;

      (f) Notice of the employer’s right to contest the citation, the proposed civil penalty and the period of time fixed for correction of the alleged violation; and

      (g) Notice of any affected employee’s right to contest the period of time fixed for correction of the alleged violation.

      (3) No citation or notice of proposed civil penalty may be issued under this section after the expiration of 180 days following the start of the inspection or investigation, but this shall not prevent the issuance, at any time, of an order to correct that violation or the issuance of a citation for a subsequent violation.

      (4) If the director has reason to believe that an employer has failed to correct a violation within the period of time fixed for correction, or within the time fixed in a subsequent order granting an extension of time to correct the violation, the director shall consider such failure as a separate and continuing violation and shall issue a citation and notice of proposed civil penalty, if any, to be assessed pursuant to ORS 654.086 (1)(d).

      (5) The director may prescribe procedures for the issuance of a notice in lieu of citation to inform an employer and employees of a minimal violation that has no direct or immediate relationship to occupational safety or health.

      (6) Each citation and notice, or copies thereof, issued under ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780 shall be posted by the employer, immediately upon receipt, in a conspicuous manner in a sufficient number of locations in the place or places of employment to reasonably inform employees of such citation and notice.

      (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the director or authorized representative of the director shall deliver to the operator of a farm labor camp a copy of any notice, evaluation report or citation resulting from the inspection. [1973 c.833 §17; 1981 c.696 §4; 1999 c.72 §1; 1999 c.1017 §4]

 

      654.074 [1973 c.833 §17a; repealed by 1977 c.804 §55]

 

      654.075 [Repealed by 1973 c.833 §34 (654.290 enacted in lieu of 654.040, 654.065, 654.070, 654.075 and 654.080)]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2022 · leading case: OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline, Co., 514 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline, Co., 514 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “The citation notice requirement of OSEA, ORS 654.071(2), requires among other things, a “plain statement of facts upon which the citation is based,” and a “reference to the law, regulation, rule, standard or order relied upon.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Port of Portland, 918 P.2d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 14× “To construe the reference to “knowledge” in ORS 654.071 to mean “has reason to believe,” would require us to ignore the distinction that the legislature has drawn in that section between the two different terms without any evidence that the legislature so intended.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. CBI Servs., Inc., 295 P.3d 660 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” Because OR-OSHA does not challenge that finding on judicial review, we determine only whether the rule incorporates the collective height requirements set forth in OAR 437-003-1501 without regard to any specific height requirement applicable to these facts. A minimal violation…”
Ass'n of Oregon Loggers, Inc. v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 883 P.2d 859 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). ““(d) Any employer who receives a citation, as provided in ORS 654.071(4), for failure to correct a violation may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $7,000 for each day during which such failure or violation continues.”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Stadeli Pump & Constr., Inc., 525 P.2d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “The code was promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Oregon Safe Employment Act, ORS 654.071. Among other things the code requires that all trenches over four feet in depth be shored to prevent eave-in accidents.”
Saf. Occupation Saf. & Health Div. v. Fall Creek Logging Co., 905 P.2d 241 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “OSHD’s authority to issue citations is set forth in ORS 654.071(1): *510 “If the director or an authorized representative of the director has reason to believe, after inspection or investigation of a place of employment, that an employer has violated any state occupational…”
Nygaard Logging Co. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs., 995 P.2d 589 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “293 and the authority in ORS 654.071(l)(b) to conduct private employee interviews.”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Sunrise Seed Co., 552 P.2d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “"(d) Any employer who receives a citation, as provided in subsection (4) of ORS 654.071, for failure to correct a violation may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each day during which such failure or violation continues.”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Van Eyk, 572 P.2d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “On June 2, 1976, a Safety Compliance Officer inspected petitioner’s premises and issued a citation pursuant to ORS 654.071 for eight violations. Petitioner excepted to the citation, and a hearing was held before a referee pursuant to ORS 654.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Reno Drain Oil Servs., 986 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “And so I think that [ORS 654.071(1) 2 and (3)] inevitably have to be read together and cannot be separated.”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 667 P.2d 543 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “ORS 654.071. Hoffman claims that the supposedly stronger language in subsection (c) requires that there be a final order before issuance of a citation for a repeat violation.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Ostlie, 902 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “ORS 654.071(1) provides: “If the director or an authorized representative of the director has reason to believe, after inspection or investigation of the place of employment, that an employer has violated any state occupational safety or health law, regulation, standard, rule or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.071(1) — 5 cases
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Port of Portland, 918 P.2d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “To construe the reference to “knowledge” in ORS 654.071 to mean “has reason to believe,” would require us to ignore the distinction that the legislature has drawn in that section between the two different terms without any evidence that the legislature so intended.”
Saf. Occupation Saf. & Health Div. v. Fall Creek Logging Co., 905 P.2d 241 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “OSHD’s authority to issue citations is set forth in ORS 654.071(1): *510 “If the director or an authorized representative of the director has reason to believe, after inspection or investigation of a place of employment, that an employer has violated any state occupational…”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Reno Drain Oil Servs., 986 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “And so I think that [ORS 654.071(1) 2 and (3)] inevitably have to be read together and cannot be separated.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Ostlie, 902 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “ORS 654.071(1) provides: “If the director or an authorized representative of the director has reason to believe, after inspection or investigation of the place of employment, that an employer has violated any state occupational safety or health law, regulation, standard, rule or…”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Fought & Co., Inc., 555 P.2d 472 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.071(2) — 1 case
OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline, Co., 514 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “The citation notice requirement of OSEA, ORS 654.071(2), requires among other things, a “plain statement of facts upon which the citation is based,” and a “reference to the law, regulation, rule, standard or order relied upon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.071(2)(a) — 1 case
OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline, Co., 514 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “The citation notice requirement of OSEA, ORS 654.071(2), requires among other things, a “plain statement of facts upon which the citation is based,” and a “reference to the law, regulation, rule, standard or order relied upon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.071(3) — 4 cases
OR-OSHA v. Loy Clark Pipeline, Co., 514 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “The citation notice requirement of OSEA, ORS 654.071(2), requires among other things, a “plain statement of facts upon which the citation is based,” and a “reference to the law, regulation, rule, standard or order relied upon.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Port of Portland, 918 P.2d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “To construe the reference to “knowledge” in ORS 654.071 to mean “has reason to believe,” would require us to ignore the distinction that the legislature has drawn in that section between the two different terms without any evidence that the legislature so intended.”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Van Eyk, 572 P.2d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “On June 2, 1976, a Safety Compliance Officer inspected petitioner’s premises and issued a citation pursuant to ORS 654.071 for eight violations. Petitioner excepted to the citation, and a hearing was held before a referee pursuant to ORS 654.”
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Reno Drain Oil Servs., 986 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “And so I think that [ORS 654.071(1) 2 and (3)] inevitably have to be read together and cannot be separated.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.071(4) — 3 cases
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. Port of Portland, 918 P.2d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “To construe the reference to “knowledge” in ORS 654.071 to mean “has reason to believe,” would require us to ignore the distinction that the legislature has drawn in that section between the two different terms without any evidence that the legislature so intended.”
Ass'n of Oregon Loggers, Inc. v. Dep't of Ins. & Fin., 883 P.2d 859 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). ““(d) Any employer who receives a citation, as provided in ORS 654.071(4), for failure to correct a violation may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $7,000 for each day during which such failure or violation continues.”
Accident Prevention Div. v. Sunrise Seed Co., 552 P.2d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “"(d) Any employer who receives a citation, as provided in subsection (4) of ORS 654.071, for failure to correct a violation may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each day during which such failure or violation continues.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.071(5) — 1 case
Oregon Occupational Saf. & Health Div. v. CBI Servs., Inc., 295 P.3d 660 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” Because OR-OSHA does not challenge that finding on judicial review, we determine only whether the rule incorporates the collective height requirements set forth in OAR 437-003-1501 without regard to any specific height requirement applicable to these facts. A minimal violation…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.071(l)(b) — 1 case
Nygaard Logging Co. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Consum. & Bus. Servs., 995 P.2d 589 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “293 and the authority in ORS 654.071(l)(b) to conduct private employee interviews.”
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.