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

29 U.S.C. § 658

Citations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Authority to issue; grounds; contents; notice in lieu of citation for de minimis violations

If, upon inspection or investigation, the Secretary or his authorized representative believes that an employer has violated a requirement of section 654 of this title, of any standard, rule or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, he shall with reasonable promptness issue a citation to the employer. Each citation shall be in writing and shall describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision of the chapter, standard, rule, regulation, or order alleged to have been violated. In addition, the citation shall fix a reasonable time for the abatement of the violation. The Secretary may prescribe procedures for the issuance of a notice in lieu of a citation with respect to de minimis violations which have no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health.

(b) Posting

Each citation issued under this section, or a copy or copies thereof, shall be prominently posted, as prescribed in regulations issued by the Secretary, at or near each place a violation referred to in the citation occurred.

(c) Time for issuance

No citation may be issued under this section after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation.

(Pub. L. 91–596, § 9, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1601.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 165 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Akm LLC v. Sec'y of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Akm LLC v. Sec'y of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 16× “after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation," 29 U.S.C. § 658 (c), we agree with Volks that the citations are untimely and should be vacated.”
Delek Refining, Ltd. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 845 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “Because we conclude that the citations for Items 4 and 12 are barred by the six-month statute of limitations in 29 U.S.C. § 658 (c), we VACATE the citations for those items.”
Inland Foundry Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 24 P.3d 424 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “But that language is identical to that used in 29 U.S.C. § 658 (a). In the federal arena, a citation is sufficiently particular upon giving the employer notice of precisely what it did wrong and what it must do to correct the situation.”
Elaine M. Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 291 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 29 U.S.C. §§ 658 , 659. The Commission, by contrast, bears responsibility for “adjudicatory functions” under the Act.”
Martin v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144 (1991). “See 29 U. S. C. § 658 . Under these circumstances, the Secretary’s litigating position before the Commission is as much an exercise of delegated lawmaking powers as is the Secretary’s promulgation of a workplace health and safety standard.”
Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 639 A.2d 507 (Conn. 1994). “In addition, Shanok listed in his report several resulting violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA); 29 U.S.C. § 658 et seq.; General Industry Regulations; 29 C.”
Vulcan Constr. Materials, L.P. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 700 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “See 29 U.S.C. § 658 . Under these circumstances, the Secretary’s litigating position before the Commission is as much an exercise of delegated lawmaking powers as is the Secretary’s promulgation of a workplace health and safety standard.”
Sullivan v. Chief Just. for Admin. & Mgmt. of the Trial Court, 448 Mass. 15 (2006). “See 29 U.S.C. § 658 (authorizing Secretary to issue citations for violations of occupational safety and health standards and to establish reasonable time for abatement); 29 U.”
F. Ray Marshall v. B. W. Harrison Lumber Co., 569 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1978). · cites it 3× “” 29 U.S.C. § 658 (a). In part this requirement subserves the goal of providing fair notice to the employer.”
Empire Steel Mfg. Co. v. Marshall, 437 F. Supp. 873 (D. Mont. 1977). · cites it 3× “On April 5, 1977, the United States Magistrate issued a warrant ordering that an inspection be conducted of “the structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment and materials more particularly described in a complaint filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 658 (f)(1) [sic], a copy of…”
Titan Tire Corp. v. Labor Comm'r, 637 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 2001). · cites it 2× “In rejecting this argument, the court stated: [The company] has misread the statute, for the statute refers to issuing a citation for an OSHA violation within six months of the inspection revealing the violation.”
Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. OSHC, 811 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2016). “” 29 U.S.C. § 658 (a). The de minimis label carries no *736 adverse consequences and would achieve the result that Sanderson Farms seeks.”
Show all 165 citing cases →
29 U.S.C. § 658(a): 1 case
Lance Roofing Co. v. Hodgson, 343 F. Supp. 685 (N.D. Ga. 1972).
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.