U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 15— OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

29 U.S.C. § 652

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purposes of this chapter—(1) The term “Secretary” mean 11 So in original. Probably should be “means”. the Secretary of Labor.(2) The term “Commission” means the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission established under this chapter.(3) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between a State and any place outside thereof, or within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States (other than the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands), or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof.(4) The term “person” means one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons.(5) The term “employer” means a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees, but does not include the United States (not including the United States Postal Service) or any State or political subdivision of a State.(6) The term “employee” means an employee of an employer who is employed in a business of his employer which affects commerce.(7) The term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.(8) The term “occupational safety and health standard” means a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.(9) The term “national consensus standard” means any occupational safety and health standard or modification thereof which (1),22 So in original. The comma probably should not appear. has been adopted and promulgated by a nationally recognized standards-producing organization under procedures whereby it can be determined by the Secretary that persons interested and affected by the scope or provisions of the standard have reached substantial agreement on its adoption, (2) was formulated in a manner which afforded an opportunity for diverse views to be considered and (3) has been designated as such a standard by the Secretary, after consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies.(10) The term “established Federal standard” means any operative occupational safety and health standard established by any agency of the United States and presently in effect, or contained in any Act of Congress in force on December 29, 1970.(11) The term “Committee” means the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health established under this chapter.(12) The term “Director” means the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.(13) The term “Institute” means the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health established under this chapter.(14) The term “Workmen’s Compensation Commission” means the National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws established under this chapter.(Pub. L. 91–596, § 3, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1591; Pub. L. 105–241, § 2(a), Sept. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 1572.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Par. (5). Pub. L. 105–241 inserted “(not including the United States Postal Service)” after “the United States”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTermination of Advisory Committees

Advisory committees in existence on January 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period following January 5, 1973, unless, in the case of a committee established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such committee is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a committee established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided by law. See section 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Executive DocumentsTermination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

For termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, see note set out preceding section 1681 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 241 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Allstates Refractory Contractors v. Julie Su, 79 F.4th 755 (6th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allstates Refractory Contractors v. Julie Su, 79 F.4th 755 (6th Cir. 2023). · cites it 18× “Plaintiff Allstates Refractory Contractors, a general contractor subject to OSHA’s oversight, challenges OSHA’s authority to set “reasonably necessary or appropriate” workplace-safety standards, 29 U.S.C. §§ 652 (8), 655(b), as a violation of the nondelegation doctrine.”
Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981). · cites it 6× “The court also held that the Standard was "reasonably necessary and appropriate" within the meaning of § 3 (8) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 652 (8), because of the risk of material health impairment caused by exposure to cotton dust.”
Indus. Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980). · cites it 6× “1591 , 29 U. S. C. § 652 (8). According to respondents, § 6 (b) (5), as tempered by § 3 (8), requires the Secretary to demonstrate that any particular health standard is justifiable on the basis of a rough balancing of costs and benefits.”
Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985). · cites it 4× “§ 402 (e); 29 U. S. C. § 652 (5); 29 U. S. C. §§ 1003 (b)(1), 1002(32); and Parker v.”
Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999). · cites it 2× “§ 77c(a)(2) (exempting state-issued securities from federal securities laws); and 29 U. S. C. § 652 (5) (exempting States from the definition of "employer[s]" subject to federal occupational safety and health laws), with 11 U.”
Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “Section 654(a)(2) uses the term "occupational safety and health standards," which is defined as "a standard which requires conditions.”
Gade v. Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Assn., 505 U.S. 88 (1992). · cites it 2× “" 29 U. S. C. § 652 (8). Any state law requirement designed to promote health and safety in the workplace falls neatly within the Act's definition of an "occupational safety and health standard.”
Potter v. Dist. of Columbia, 558 F.3d 542 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 652 (5) excludes state employees generally, and § 652(7) explains that the term "state" includes the District.”
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “at 875, and the requirement under the OSH Act that any OSHA program be reasonably related to the general goal of preventing occupational lead disease, 29 U.S.C. § 652 (8) (1976). The grant of access to “authorized” representatives of employees does raise serious problems.”
Metro-North Commuter R.R. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424 (1997). · cites it 2× “Although the Act does not apply to state public employers such as Metro-North, see 29 U. S. C. § 652 (5), New York State has adopted OSHA standards for its public employers, see N.”
Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 582 P.2d 500 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C.A. § 652 (5). The OSHA Review Commission charged with enforcement of the act has taken the position that a general contractor does not bear joint responsibility with a subcontractor for compliance with OSHA regulations, and at least one federal court has acquiesced…”
Nat'l Mar. Saf. Ass'n v. Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., 649 F.3d 743 (D.C. Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “” 29 U.S.C. § 652 (8). By not allowing voluntary industry standards to preempt regúlation, OSHA’s interpretation furthers the Act’s purpose of “building upon advances already made through employer and employee initiative.”
Show all 241 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 652(8) — 3 cases
Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002).
Allstates Refractory Contractors v. Julie Su, 79 F.4th 755 (6th Cir. 2023). “Plaintiff Allstates Refractory Contractors, a general contractor subject to OSHA’s oversight, challenges OSHA’s authority to set “reasonably necessary or appropriate” workplace-safety standards, 29 U.S.C. §§ 652 (8), 655(b), as a violation of the nondelegation doctrine.”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
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.