29 U.S.C. § 665
Variations, tolerances, and exemptions from required provisions; procedure; duration
The Secretary, on the record, after notice and opportunity for a hearing may provide such reasonable limitations and may make such rules and regulations allowing reasonable variations, tolerances, and exemptions to and from any or all provisions of this chapter as he may find necessary and proper to avoid serious impairment of the national defense. Such action shall not be in effect for more than six months without notification to affected employees and an opportunity being afforded for a hearing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Martin v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144 (1991).
Martin v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144 (1991). “See 29 U. S. C. § 665 . If the Secretary (or the Secretary’s designate) determines upon investigation that an employer is failing to comply with such a standard, the Secretary is authorized to issue a citation and to assess the employer a monetary penalty.”
State of Georgia v. President of the United States, 46 F.4th 1283 (11th Cir. 2022). “661 , 663, 665 (2022) (finding the major questions doctrine applicable where the statute provided OSHA authority to create emergency stand- ards in the workplace where “employees are exposed to grave dan- ger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or…”
Sea World of Florida, LLC v. Thomas Perez, 748 F.3d 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “” 29 U.S.C. § 665 . SeaWorld does not contest that it is an “employer” under the Act.”
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “* * * 29 U.S.C. § 665 (b)(5) (1976). This language is neither precise nor artful.”
North Am.'s Bldg. Trades Unions v. Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., 878 F.3d 271 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “Economic Feasibility The OSH Act’s requirement that OSHA health standards protect workers “to the extent feasible,” 29 U.S.C. § 665 (b)(6), also requires OSHA to show that its rule is economically feasible, Lead I, 647 F.”
Patzig v. O'Neil, 577 F.2d 841 (3rd Cir. 1978). “29 U.S.C. § 665 (b)(5) grants authority to the Secretary to develop and promulgate standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful agents “based upon research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as may be appropriate.”
Dir., Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 84 P.3d 530 (Haw. App. 2004). “§ 651(b)(3). If an employer wishes to contest a citation, the Commission must afford the employer an evidentiary hearing and “thereafter issue an order, based on findings of fact, affirming, modifying, or vacating the Secretary’s citation or proposed penalty.”
Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Occupation Saf. & Health Appeals Bd., 120 Cal. App. 3d 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “( 29 U.S.C. §§ 665 , 667(b).) California has so assumed responsibility and federal law is thus inapplicable to the issue herein.”
Marshall v. Anaconda Co., 596 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1979). “The court held that the Secretary exceeded his powers under 29 U.S.C. § 665 (a). It stated: We have not found, however, that the framers of the ANSI Code were in substantial agreement that Section IV was mandatory: thus the Secretary could not adopt that rule as a national…”
S.G. Loewendick & Sons, Inc. v. Reich, 70 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “29 U.S.C. §§ 665 , 658-659. The OSH Act gives adjudicatory powers to the Commission, a three-member body appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.”
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rubber Mfrs. Ass'n, 783 F.2d 1117 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “Indeed, it was not until the mid-1970’s that scientific evidence clearly established a link between benzene and cancer. In 1978, OSHA responded to this evidence by promulgating a new “permanent standard,” reducing the allowable concentration of benzene to 1 ppm.”
Edwards v. Oklahoma, 577 F.2d 1119 (10th Cir. 1978). “Like other statutes and regulations which allow monetary penalties against those who violate them, an occupational safety and health standard must give an employer fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires, and it must provide a reasonably clear standard of…”
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.