Occupational Safety and Health Administration October 20, 2020
(OSHA): Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) Scott D. Szymendera
and COVID-19
Analyst in Disability Policy

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not currently have a specific
standard that protects healthcare or other workers from airborne or aerosol transmission of

disease or diseases transmitted by airborne droplets. Some in Congress, and some groups
representing healthcare, meat and poultry processing, and other workers, are calling on OSHA to promulgate an emergency
temporary standard (ETS) to protect workers from exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19). The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) gives OSHA the ability to promulgate an ETS that
would remain in effect for up to six months without going through the normal review and comment process of rulemaking.
OSHA, however, has rarely used this authority in the past—not since the courts struck down its ETS on asbestos in 1983.
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), which operates California’s state occupational
safety and health plan, has had an aerosol transmissible disease (ATD) standard since 2009. This standard includes, among
other provisions, the requirement that employers provide covered employees with respirators, rather than surgical masks,
when these workers interact with ATDs, such as known or suspected COVID-19 cases. In addition, according to the
Cal/OSHA ATD standard, certain procedures require the use of powered air purifying respirators (PAPR).
The Virginia state occupational safety and health plan (VOSH) and the Michigan state occupational safety and health plan
(MIOSHA) have each promulgated emergency standards to specifically address COVID-19 in workplaces. Unlike the
Cal/OSHA ATD standard, these emergency standards are in effect for only six months and apply to all employers.
H.R. 6139, the COVID-19 Health Care Worker Protection Act of 2020, would require OSHA to promulgate an ETS on
COVID-19 that incorporates both the Cal/OSHA ATD standard and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
(CDC’s) 2007 guidelines on occupational exposure to infectious agents in healthcare settings; similar provisions appear in S.
3475. The CDC’s 2007 guidelines generally require stricter controls than its interim guidance on COVID-19 exposure. The
provisions of H.R. 6139 were incorporated into the version of H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, as
introduced in the House. The OSHA ETS provisions were not included in the House- and Senate-passed version of
legislation that was signed into law as P.L. 116-127.
H.R. 6379, as introduced in the House, also would include a requirement for an OSHA ETS and permanent standard to
address COVID-19 exposure; similar provisions appear in S. 3584. H.R. 6559 would include the requirements for an ETS
and permanent standard, clarify the requirement that employers must report work-related COVID-19 cases, and expand
protections for whistleblowers; similar provisions appear in S. 3677. The provisions of H.R. 6559 were included in H.R.
6800, The Heroes Act, passed by the House on May 15, 2020, and in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to
H.R. 925, the revised Heroes Act passed by the House on October 1, 2020.
Through October 1, 2020, OSHA has issued COVID-19-related citations to employers at 62 work sites, with total proposed
penalties of $913,133. These citations have been issued for violations of the OSH Act’s General Duty Clause and other
existing OSHA standards, such as those for respiratory protection, that may apply to COVID-19. Senators Elizabeth Warren
and Cory A. Booker have raised concerns about the low amount of penalties being assessed for COVID-19-related violations.

Congressional Research Service

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Standards
Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) grants the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the Department of Labor (DOL) the authority to
promulgate, modify, or revoke occupational safety and health standards that apply to private
sector employers, the United States Postal Service, and the federal government as an employer.1
In addition, Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, commonly referred to as the General Duty Clause,
requires that all employers under OSHA’s jurisdiction provide workplaces free of “recognized
hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm” to their
employees.2 OSHA has the authority to enforce employer compliance with its standards and with
the General Duty Clause through the issuance of abatement orders, citations, and civil monetary
penalties. The OSH Act does not cover state or local government agencies or units. Thus, certain
entities that may be affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), such as state and local
government hospitals, local fire departments and emergency medical services, state prisons and
county jails, and public schools, are not covered by the OSH Act or subject to OSHA regulation
or enforcement.
State Plans
Section 18 of the OSH Act authorizes states to establish their own occupational safety and health
plans and preempt standards established and enforced by OSHA.3 OSHA must approve state
plans if they are “at least as effective” as OSHA’s standards and enforcement.4 If a state adopts a
state plan, it also must cover state and local government entities, such as public schools, not
covered by OSHA. Currently, 21 states and Puerto Rico have state plans that cover all employers,
and 5 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands have state plans that cover only state and local
government employers not covered by the OSH Act.5 In the remaining states, state and local
government employers are not covered by OSHA standards or enforcement. State plans may
incorporate OSHA standards by reference, or states may adopt their own standards that are at
least as effective as OSHA’s standards. State plans do not have jurisdiction over federal agencies
and generally do not cover maritime workers and private-sector workers at military bases or other
federal facilities.
Promulgation of OSHA Standards
OSHA may promulgate occupational safety and health standards on its own initiative or in
response to petitions submitted to the agency by various government agencies, the public, or
employer and employee groups.6 OSHA is not required, however, to respond to a petition for a

1 29 U.S.C. §655. The provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) are extended to the
legislative branch as an employer by the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1).
2 29 U.S.C. §654(a)(1).
3 29 U.S.C. §667.
4 For additional information on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) state plans, see CRS Report
R43969, OSHA State Plans: In Brief, with Examples from California and Arizona.
5 Information on specific state plans is available from the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/stateplans.
6 Per Section 6(b)(1) of the OSH Act [29 §655(b)(1)], a petition may be submitted by “an interested person, a
representative of any organization of employers or employees, a nationally recognized standards-producing
Congressional Research Service
1

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

standard or to promulgate a standard in response to a petition. OSHA may also consult with one
of the two statutory standing advisory committees—the National Advisory Committee on
Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) or the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety
and Health (ACCSH)—or an ad-hoc advisory committee for assistance in developing a standard.7
Notice and Comment
OSHA’s rulemaking process for the promulgation of standards is largely governed by the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Section 6(b) of the OSH Act.8 Under
the APA informal rulemaking process, federal agencies, including OSHA, are required to provide
notice of proposed rules through the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
Federal Register and provide the public a period of time to provide comments on the proposed
rules.
Section 7(b) of the OSH Act mirrors the APA in that it requires notice and comment in the
rulemaking process.9 After publishing a proposed standard, the public must be given a period of
at least 30 days to provide comments. In addition, any person may submit written objections to
the proposed standard and may request a public hearing on the standard.
Statement of Reasons
Section 6(e) of the OSH Act requires OSHA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of the
reasons the agency is taking action whenever it promulgates a standard, conducts other
rulemaking, or takes certain additional actions, including issuing an order, compromising on a
penalty amount, or settling an issued penalty.10
Other Relevant Laws and Executive Order 12866
In addition to the APA and OSH Act, other federal laws that generally apply to OSHA rulemaking
include the Paperwork Reduction Act,11 Regulatory Flexibility Act,12 Congressional Review
Act,13 Information Quality Act,14 and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA).15 Also, Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in 1993, requires

organization, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, or a state or political subdivision.”
7 The National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) was established by Section 7(a) of
the OSH Act [29 U.S.C. §656(a)]. The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) was
established by Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Act (P.L. 87-581). Section 7(b) of the OSH Act
provides OSHA the authority to establish additional advisory committees.
8 The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is codified at 5 U.S.C. §§500-596. For detailed information on federal
agency rulemaking and the APA, see CRS Report RL32240, The Federal Rulemaking Process: An Overview.
9 29 U.S.C. §655(b).
10 29 U.S.C §655(e).
11 44 U.S.C. §§3501-3520.
12 5 U.S.C. §§601-612.
13 5 U.S.C. §§801-808.
14 44 U.S.C. §3516 note.
15 5 U.S.C. §601 note. For information on these additional laws that apply to OSHA rulemaking, see U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO), Workplace Safety and Health: Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s Standard Setting,
GAO-12-330, April 2012, Appendix II, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-330 (hereinafter cited as GAO-12-
330, Workplace Safety and Health).
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 7 OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

agencies to submit certain regulatory actions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before promulgation.16
OSHA Rulemaking Time Line
OSHA rulemaking for new standards historically has been a relatively time-consuming process.
In 2012, at the request of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed 59
significant OSHA standards promulgated between 1981 (after the enactments of the Paperwork
Reduction Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act) and 2010.17 For these standards, OSHA’s average
time between beginning formal consideration of the standard—either through publishing a
Request for Information or Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register or
placing the rulemaking on its semiannual regulatory agenda—and promulgation of the standard
was 93 months (7 years, 9 months). Once the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published for
these 59 standards, the average time until promulgation of the standard was 39 months (3 years, 3
months).
In 2012, OSHA’s Directorate of Standards and Guidance published a flowchart of the OSHA
rulemaking process on the agency’s website.18 This flowchart includes estimated duration ranges
for a variety of rulemaking actions, beginning with pre-rule activities—such as developing the
idea for the standard and meeting with stakeholders—and ending with promulgation of the
standard. The flowchart also includes an estimated duration range for post-promulgation
activities, such as judicial review. The estimated time from the start of preliminary rulemaking to
the promulgation of a standard ranges from 52 months (4 years, 4 months) to 138 months (11
years, 6 months). After a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, the
estimated length of time until the standard is promulgated ranges from 26 months (2 years, 2
months) to 63 months (5 years, 3 months). Table 1 provides OSHA’s estimated time lines for six
major pre-rulemaking and rulemaking activities leading to the promulgation of a standard.
Table 1. OSHA Rulemaking Process: Estimated Durations of Activities
Stage
Activities
Estimated Duration
1
Preliminary rulemaking activities
12-36 months
2
Developing the proposed rule
12-36 months
3
Publishing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
2-3 months
4
Developing and analyzing the rulemaking record, including public comments
and hearings
6-24 months
5
Developing the final rule, including Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) submission
18-36 months
6
Publishing the final rule (promulgating the new standard)
2-3 months
Total estimated duration
52-138 months
Estimated duration from NPRM to final rule
26-63 months
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) with data from Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), Directorate of Standards and Guidance, The OSHA Rulemaking Process, October 15, 2012, at
https://www.osha.gov/OSHA_FlowChart.pdf.

16 Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 Federal Register 51735, October 4, 1993.
17 GAO-12-330, Workplace Safety and Health.
18 OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, The OSHA Rulemaking Process, October 15, 2012, at
https://www.osha.gov/OSHA_FlowChart.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Judicial Review
Both the APA and the OSH Act provide for judicial review of OSHA standards. Section 7(f) of
the OSH Act provides that any person who is “adversely affected” by a standard may file, within
60 days of its promulgation, a petition challenging the standard with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the circuit in which the person lives or maintains his or her principal place of business.19 A
petition for judicial review does not automatically stay the implementation or enforcement of the
standard. However, the court may order such a stay. OSHA estimates that post-promulgation
activities, including judicial review, can take between 4 and 12 months after the standard is
promulgated.20
Emergency Temporary Standards
Section 6(c) of the OSH Act provides the authority for OSHA to issue an Emergency Temporary
Standard (ETS) without having to go through the normal rulemaking process. OSHA may
promulgate an ETS without supplying any notice or opportunity for public comment or public
hearings. An ETS is immediately effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Upon
promulgation of an ETS, OSHA is required to begin the full rulemaking process for a permanent
standard with the ETS serving as the proposed standard for this rulemaking. An ETS is valid until
superseded by a permanent standard, which OSHA must promulgate within six months of
publishing the ETS in the Federal Register.21 An ETS must include a statement of reasons for the
action in the same manner as required for a permanent standard. State plans are required to adopt
or adhere to an ETS, although the OSH Act is not clear on how quickly a state plan must come
into compliance with an ETS.
ETS Requirements
Section 6(c)(1) of the OSH Act requires that both of the following determinations be made in
order for OSHA to promulgate an ETS:
 that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or
agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and
 that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such
danger.
Grave Danger Determination
The term grave danger, used in the first mandatory determination for an ETS, is not defined in
statute or regulation. The legislative history demonstrates the intent of Congress that the ETS
process “not be utilized to circumvent the regular standard-setting process,” but the history is
unclear as to how Congress intended the term grave danger to be defined.22

19 29 U.S.C. §655(f).
20 OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, The OSHA Rulemaking Process, October 15, 2012, at
https://www.osha.gov/OSHA_FlowChart.pdf.
21 29 U.S.C §655(c)(2).
22 U.S. Congress, Senate Labor and Public Welfare, Subcommittee on Labor, Legislative History of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (S. 2193, P.L. 91-596), committee print, prepared by Subcommittee on Labor, 91st
Cong., 1 sess., June 1971, 52-531 (Washington: GPO, 1971), p. 1218.
Congressional Research Service
4

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

In addition, although the federal courts have ruled on challenges to previous ETS promulgations,
the courts have provided no clear guidance as to what constitutes a grave danger. In 1984, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Asbestos Info. Ass’n v. OSHA issued a stay and
invalidated OSHA’s November 1983 ETS lowering the permissible exposure limit for asbestos in
the workplace.23 In its decision, the court stated that “gravity of danger is a policy decision
committed to OSHA, not to the courts.”24 The court, however, ultimately rejected the ETS, in part
on the grounds that OSHA did not provide sufficient support for its claim that 80 workers would
ultimately die because of exposures to asbestos during the six-month life of the ETS.
Necessity Determination
In addition to addressing a grave danger to employees, an ETS must also be necessary to protect
employees from that danger. In Asbestos Info. Ass’n, the court invalidated the asbestos ETS for
the additional reason that OSHA had not demonstrated the necessity of the ETS. The court cited,
among other factors, the duplication between the respirator requirements of the ETS and OSHA’s
existing standards requiring respirator use. The court dismissed OSHA’s argument that the ETS
was necessary because the agency felt that the existing respiratory standards were “unenforceable
absent actual monitoring to show that ambient asbestos particles are so far above the permissible
limit that respirators are necessary to bring employees’ exposure within the PEL of 2.0 f/cc.”25
The court determined that “fear of a successful judicial challenge to enforcement of OSHA’s
permanent standard regarding respirator use hardly justifies resort to the most dramatic weapon in
OSHA’s enforcement arsenal.”26
Although OSHA has not promulgated an ETS since the 1983 asbestos standard, it has since
determined the necessity of an ETS. In 2006, the agency considered a petition from the United
Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) for an
ETS on diacetyl. The UFCW and IBT petitioned OSHA for the ETS after the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and other researchers found that airborne exposure
to diacetyl, then commonly used as an artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn and a
flavoring in other food and beverage products, was linked to the lung disease bronchiolitis
obliterans, now commonly referred to as “popcorn lung.”27 According to GAO’s 2012 report on
OSHA’s standard-setting processes, OSHA informed GAO that although the agency may have
been able to issue an ETS based on the grave danger posed by diacetyl, the actions taken by the
food and beverage industries, including reducing or removing diacetyl from products, made it less
likely that the necessity requirement could be met.28
ETS Duration
Section 6(c)(2) of the OSH Act provides that an ETS is effective until superseded by a permanent
standard promulgated pursuant to the normal rulemaking provisions of the OSH Act. Section
6(c)(3) of the OSH Act requires OSHA to promulgate a permanent standard within six months of

23 727 F.2d at 415, 425-427 (5th Cir. 1984).
24 727 F.2d at 427 (5th Cir. 1984).
25 727 F.2d at 427 (5th Cir. 1984). The ETS mandated a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos of two asbestos
fibers per cubic centimeter of air (2.0 f/cc).
26 727 F.2d at 427 (5th Cir. 1984).
27 See, for example, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), NIOSH Alert: Preventing Lung Disease in Workers who Use or Make Flavorings, DHHS (NIOSH)
publication no. 2004–110, December 2003, at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-110/.
28 GAO-12-330, Workplace Safety and Health.
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 30 OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

promulgating the ETS. As shown earlier in this report, six months is well outside of historical and
currently expected time frames for developing and promulgating a standard under the notice and
comment provisions of the APA and OSH Act, as well as under other relevant federal laws and
executive orders. This dichotomy between the statutory mandate to promulgate a standard and the
time lines that, based on historical precedent, other provisions in the OSH Act might realistically
require for such promulgation raises the question of whether or not OSHA could extend an ETS’s
duration without going through the normal rulemaking process. The statute and legislative history
do not clearly address this question.
OSHA has used its ETS authority sparingly in its history and not since the asbestos ETS
promulgated in 1983. As shown in Table A-1 in the Appendix, of the nine times OSHA has issued
an ETS, the courts have fully vacated or stayed the ETS in four cases and partially vacated the
ETS in one case.29 Of the five cases that were not challenged or that were fully or partially upheld
by the courts, OSHA issued a permanent standard either within the six months required by the
statute or within several months of the six-month period and always within one year of the
promulgation of the ETS.30 Each of these cases, however, occurred before 1980, when a
combination of additional federal laws and court decisions added additional procedural
requirements to the OSHA rulemaking process. OSHA did not attempt to extend the ETS’s
expiration date in any of these cases.
Although the courts have not ruled directly on an attempt by OSHA to solely extend the life of an
ETS, in 1974, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Florida Peach Growers Ass’n v.
United States Department of Labor that OSHA was within its authority to amend an ETS without
going through the normal rulemaking process.31 The court stated that “it is inconceivable that
Congress, having granted the Secretary the authority to react quickly in fast-breaking emergency
situations, intended to limit his ability to react to developments subsequent to his initial
response.”32 The court also recognized the difficulty OSHA may have in promulgating a standard
within six months due to the notice and comment requirements of the OSH Act, stating that in the
case of OSHA seeking to amend an ETS to expand its focus, “adherence to subsection (b)
procedures would not be in the best interest of employees, whom the Act is designed to protect.
Such lengthy procedures could all too easily consume all of the temporary standard’s six months
life”33

29 Mark A. Rothstein, “Substantive and Procedural Obstacles to OSHA Rulemaking: Reproductive Hazards as an
Example,” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, vol. 12, no. 4 (August 1985), p. 673.
30 For example, OSHA promulgated the Acrylonitrile (vinyl cyanide) ETS on January 17, 1978, and the permanent
standard on October 3, 1978, with an effective date of November 2, 1978. The preamble to the permanent standard
published in the Federal Register does not include information on the status of the ETS during the time between its
expiration and the promulgation of the permanent standard. OSHA, “Occupational Exposure to Acrylonitrile (Vinyl
Cyanide),” 43 Federal Register 45762, October 3, 1978.
31 489 F.2d. 120 (5th Cir. 1974).
32 489 F.2d. at 127 (5th Cir. 1974).
33 489 F.2d. at 127 (5th Cir. 1974).
Congressional Research Service
6

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

OSHA Standards Related to COVID-19
Current OSHA Standards
Currently, no OSHA standard directly covers exposure to airborne or aerosol diseases in the
workplace. As a result, OSHA is limited in its ability to enforce protections for healthcare and
other workers who may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.34
OSHA may enforce the General Duty Clause in the absence of a standard, if it can be determined
that an employer has failed to provide a worksite free of “recognized hazards” that are “causing
or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm” to workers.35 In addition, OSHA’s standards
for the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) may apply in cases in which workers require
eye, face, hand, or respiratory protection against COVID-19 exposure.36
As of October 1, 2020, OSHA has issued citations related to COVID-19 to employers at 62 work
sites resulting in a total of $913,133 in proposed civil penalties.37 The majority of these citations
were issued to healthcare, nursing, and long-term care providers, including two Department of
Veterans Affairs facilities—a hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana, and a community living center in
Queens, New York.38 Two employers in the meat processing industry—Smithfield Packaged
Foods, Inc. in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and JBS Foods, Inc. in Greeley, Colorado—were also
cited.39 In the two meat processing cases, citations were issued for General Duty Clause
violations. Other citations were issued for violations of OSHA’s respiratory protection, injury and
illness reporting, and recordkeeping standards.
The highest amount of proposed penalties issued to a single employer for COVID-19-related
violations was $28,070 to the Harborage nursing home operated by Hackensack Meridian
Healthcare in New Jersey for four serious and one other than serious violations of the respiratory
protection standard.40 For two of the serious violations, OSHA issued the maximum allowable
penalty of $13,494.41 For the other two serious violations, OSHA issued citations but no monetary
penalties. For the other than serious violation, OSHA issued a penalty of $1,082. The two meat
processing employers were each assessed maximum penalties of $13,494 for serious violations of
the General Duty Clause.
In a letter to OSHA, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory A. Booker raised concerns over the
amount of penalties issued to these employers.42 The Senators asked OSHA why these employers

34 OSHA has a standard on blood-borne pathogens (29 C.F.R. §1910.1030) but does not have a standard on pathogens
transmitted by airborne droplets.
35 29 U.S.C. §654(a)(1).
36 29 C.F.R. §§1910.133, 1910.134, and 1910.138.
37 OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA Announces $913,133 in Coronavirus Violations, OSHA National News
Release, October 9, 2020, https://www.osha.gov/news/newsreleases/national/10092020.
38 A list of all COVID-19-related citations issued by OSHA through October 1, 2020, is available at
https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/covid-19-data/inspections-covid-related-citations.
39 OSHA has the authority to issue citations to Executive Branch agencies, but does not have the authority to issue civil
monetary penalties to these agencies.
40 Detailed information on the citations issued to this employer is available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/
establishment.inspection_detail?id=1476465.015.
41 OSHA citations are classified as “serious,” “other than serious,” “willful,” or “repeated.” The maximum amounts of
OSHA penalties are subject to annual inflationary adjustments.
42 Letter from Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory A. Booker to Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Congressional Research Service
7

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

were each cited for single serious violations of the General Duty Clause rather than multiple
violations for each area of the facilities in which social distancing measures were not
implemented. They also asked why OSHA did not issue penalties for willful or repeated
violations that carry maximum penalties of $134,937 per violation. None of the employers cited
for COVID-19-related violations were issued penalties for willful or repeated violations.
OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Certification
The OSHA respiratory protection standard requires the use of respirators certified by NIOSH in
cases in which engineering controls, such as ventilation or enclosure of hazards, are insufficient
to protect workers from breathing contaminated air.43 Surgical masks, procedure masks, and dust
masks are not considered respirators. NIOSH certifies respirators pursuant to federal
regulations.44 For nonpowered respirators, such as filtering face piece respirators commonly used
in healthcare and construction, NIOSH classifies respirators based on their efficiency at filtering
airborne particles and their ability to protect against oil particles. Under the NIOSH classification
system, the letter (N, R, or P) indicates the level of oil protection as follows: N—no oil
protection; R—oil resistant; and P—oil proof. The number following the letter indicates the
efficiency rating of the respirator as follows: 95—filters 95% of airborne particles; 97—filters
97% of airborne particles; and 100—filters 99.7% of airborne particles. Thus an N95 respirator,
the most common type, is one that does not protect against oil particles and filters out 95% of
airborne particles. An R or P respirator can be used in place of an N respirator.
A respirator that is past its manufacturer-designated shelf life is no longer considered to be
certified by NIOSH. However, in response to potential shortages in respirators, NIOSH has tested
and approved certain models of respirators for certified use beyond their manufacturer-designated
shelf lives.45
Respirators designed for certain medical and surgical uses are subject to both certification by
NIOSH (for oil protection and efficiency) and regulation by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) as medical devices. In general, respirators with exhalation valves cannot be used in
surgical and certain medical settings because, although the presence of an exhalation valve does
not affect the respirator’s protection afforded the user, it may allow unfiltered air from the user
into a sterile field. On March 2, 2020, FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to
approve for use in medical settings certain NIOSH-certified respirators not previously regulated
by FDA.46

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, September 22, 2020, https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/Letter%20from%20Senators%20Warren,%20Booker%20to%20OSHA%209-22-20.pdf.
43 29 C.F.R. §1910.134.
44 42 C.F.R. Part 84.
45 NIOSH, Release of Stockpiled Filtering Facepiece Respirators Beyond the Manufacturer-Designated Shelf Life:
Considerations for the COVID-19 Response, February 28, 2020, at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/
release-stockpiled-N95.html.
46 Letter from RADM Denise M. Hinton, chief scientist, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to Robert R. Redfield,
Director, CDC, March 2, 2020, at https://www.fda.gov/media/135763/download. The list of respirators approved under
this Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is in Appendix B to this letter, updated at https://www.fda.gov/media/
135921/download.
Congressional Research Service
8

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

CDC Interim Guidance on Respiratory Protection
On March 10, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its interim
guidance for the protection of healthcare workers against exposure to COVID-19 to permit
healthcare workers caring for known or suspected COVID-19 cases to use “facemasks” when
respirators are not available or are in limited supply.47 This differs from the CDC’s 2007
guidelines for control of infectious agents in healthcare settings, which required the use of
respirators for treatment of known or suspected cases.48 CDC states that respirators should be
prioritized for use in medical procedures likely to generate respiratory aerosols. Before this
interim guidance was released, Representative Bobby Scott, Chairman of the House Committee
on Education and Labor, and Representative Alma Adams, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections, sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex M.
Azar II expressing their opposition to this change in the interim standard.49
Medical Evaluation and Fit Testing
The OSHA respiratory protection standard requires that the employer provide a medical
evaluation to the employee to determine if the employee is physiologically able to use a
respirator. This medical evaluation must be completed before any fit testing. For respirators
designed to fit tightly against the face, the specific type and model of respirator that an employee
is to use must be fit tested in accordance with the procedures provided in Appendix A of the
OSHA respiratory protection standard to ensure there is a complete seal around the respirator
when worn.50 Once an employee has been fit tested for a respirator, he or she is required to be fit
tested annually or whenever the model of respirator, but not the actual respirator itself, is
changed. Each time an individual uses a respirator, he or she is required to perform a check of the
seal of the respirator to his or her face in accordance with the procedures provided in Appendix B
of the standard.51 On March 14, 2020, OSHA issued guidance permitting employers to suspend
annual fit testing of respirators for employees that have already been fit tested on the same model
respirator.

47 Although the interim guidance does not specifically define the term facemask, it does differentiate between a
facemask and a respirator such that any recommendation to use a facemask does not require the use of a respirator.
CDC, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings, updated March 10, 2020, at https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html.
48 CDC, 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare
Settings, updated July 2019, at https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/isolation-guidelines-H.pdf.
49 Letter from Representative Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, and
Representative Alma S. Adams, chair, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, to The Honorable Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary of HHS, March 9, 2020, at https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Azar%20Redfield%20Letter_SIGNED%202020-03-09.pdf.
50 29 C.F.R. §1910.134 Appendix A. Powered air purifying respirators (PAPR) that do not require a seal to the user’s
face do not need to be fit tested.
51 29 C.F.R. §1910.134 Appendix B.
Congressional Research Service
9

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Temporary OSHA Enforcement Guidance on the Respiratory Protection
Standard
In response to shortages of respirators and other PPE during the national response to the COVID-
19 pandemic, OSHA has issued three sets of temporary enforcement guidance to permit the
following exceptions to the respiratory protection standard:
1. Employers may suspend annual fit testing of respirators for employees that have
already been fit tested on the same model respirator;52
2. Employers may permit the use of expired respirators and the extended use or
reuse of respirators, provided the respirator maintains its structural integrity and
is not damaged, soiled, or contaminated (e.g., with blood, oil, or paint);53 and
3. Employers may permit the use of respirators not certified by NIOSH, but
approved under standards used by the following countries or jurisdictions, in
accordance with the protection equivalency tables provided in Appendices A and
B of the enforcement guidance document:
 Australia,
 Brazil,
 European Union,
 Japan,
 Mexico,
 People’s Republic of China, and
 Republic of Korea.54
California: Cal/OSHA Aerosol Transmissible Disease Standard
Although no OSHA standard specifically covers aerosol or airborne disease transmission, the
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), under its state plan,
promulgated its aerosol transmissible disease (ATD) standard in 2009.55 The ATD standard covers
most healthcare workers, laboratory workers, as well as workers in correctional facilities,
homeless shelters, and drug treatment programs. Under the ATD standard, SARS-CoV-2, the
virus that causes COVID-19, is classified as a disease or pathogen requiring airborne isolation.
This classification subjects the virus to stricter control standards than diseases requiring only

52 OSHA, Temporary Enforcement Guidance - Healthcare Respiratory Protection Annual Fit-Testing for N95 Filtering
Facepieces During the COVID-19 Outbreak, March 14, 2020, at https://www.osha.gov/memos/2020-03-14/temporary-
enforcement-guidance-healthcare-respiratory-protection-annual-fit.
53 OSHA, Enforcement Guidance for Respiratory Protection and the N95 Shortage Due to the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, April 3, 2020, at https://www.osha.gov/memos/2020-04-03/enforcement-guidance-
respiratory-protection-and-n95-shortage-due-coronavirus. Under this guidance, employers are required to address in
their written respiratory protection plans when respirators are contaminated and not available for use or reuse.
54 OSHA, Enforcement Guidance for Use of Respiratory Protection Equipment Certified under Standards of Other
Countries or Jurisdictions During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, April 3, 2020, at
https://www.osha.gov/memos/2020-04-03/enforcement-guidance-use-respiratory-protection-equipment-certified-under.
55 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, §5199. The California state plan covers all state and local government agencies and all
private-sector workers in the state, with the exception of maritime workers; workers on military bases and in national
parks, monuments, memorials, and recreation areas; workers on federally recognized Native American reservations and
trust lands; and U.S. Postal Service contractors.
Congressional Research Service
10

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

droplet precautions, such as seasonal influenza.56 The key requirements of the ATD standard
include
 written ATD exposure control plan and procedures,
 training of all employees on COVID-19 exposure, use of PPE, and procedures if
exposed to COVID-19,
 engineering and work practice controls to control COVID-19 exposure, including
the use of airborne isolation rooms,
 provision of medical services to employees, including removal of exposed
employees,
 specific requirements for laboratory workers, and
 PPE requirements.
Cal/OSHA Aerosol Transmissible Disease PPE Requirements
The Cal/OSHA ATD standard requires that employers provide employees PPE, including gloves,
gowns or coveralls, eye protection, and respirators certified by NIOSH at least at the N95 level
whenever workers
 enter or work in an airborne isolation room or area with a case or suspected case;
 are present during procedures or services on a case or suspected case;
 repair, replace, or maintain air systems or equipment that may contain pathogens;
 decontaminate an area that is or was occupied by a case or suspected case;
 are present during aerosol generating procedures on cadavers of cases or
suspected cases;
 transport a case or suspected case within a facility or within a vehicle when the
patient is not masked; and
 are working with a viable virus in the laboratory.57
In addition, a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) with a high-efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filter must be used whenever a worker performs a high-hazard procedure on a known or
suspected COVID-19 case.58 High-hazard procedures are those in which “the potential for being
exposed to aerosol transmissible pathogens is increased due to the reasonably anticipated
generation of aerosolized pathogens”—they include intubation, airway suction, and caring for
patients on positive pressure ventilation.59 Emergency medical services (EMS) workers may use
N100, R100, or P100 respirators in place of PAPRs.

56 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, §5199 Appendix A.
57 California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), Interim Guidance for Protecting Health Care
Workers from Exposure to Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), March 2020, at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/
Coronavirus-info.html.
58 A PAPR uses a mechanical device to draw in room air and filter it before expelling that air over the user’s face. In
general, PAPRs do not require a tight seal to the user’s face and do not need to be fit tested.
59 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, §5199(b).
Congressional Research Service
11

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Cal/OSHA Interim Guidance on COVID-19
Cal/OSHA has issued interim guidance in response to shortages of respirators in the state due to
the COVID-19 pandemic response.60 Under this interim guidance, if the supply of N95 respirators
or PAPRs are insufficient to meet current or anticipated needs, surgical masks may be used for
low-hazard patient contacts that would otherwise require the use of respirators, and respirators
may be used for high-hazard procedures that would otherwise require the use of PAPRs.
Virginia: VOSH COVID-19 ETS
On July 15, 2020, the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board adopted an ETS to specifically
protect employees from exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.61 This ETS,
promulgated under Virginia’s state occupational safety and health plan (VOSH) is the first state
standard to specifically address COVID-19 in the workplace.62 As an ETS, the VOSH standard
expires within six months of its effective date, upon expiration of the Governor’s State of
Emergency, when superseded by a permanent standard, or when repealed by the Virginia Safety
and Health Codes Board, whichever comes first. The ETS can be extended only through the
normal state rulemaking process.
Unlike the Cal/OSHA ATD standard, the VOSH ETS applies to all state and local government
agencies and all covered private-sector employees in the state. As part of a state plan, the VOSH
ETS applies to state and local government entities, such as public schools, as employers. All
covered employers in Virginia must comply with the following ETS requirements:
 exposure assessment and determination, notification of suspected cases and
contacts with those cases, and employee access to their own exposure and
medical records;
 return to work of employees known or suspected to have COVID-19 based on a
duration of time since last symptoms or negative COVID-19 tests;63
 maintenance of physical distancing between employees while working and on
paid breaks at the worksite, including restricted access to the worksite and
common areas and break rooms;
 compliance with applicable existing PPE and respiratory protection standards
when physical distancing between employees is not possible; and
 sanitation and disinfection requirements.
For all employers, if engineering, administrative, or work practice controls are not feasible or do
not provide sufficient protection from SARS-CoV-2 transmission, then PPE, including respiratory
PPE—such as respirators, if necessary—must be provided to employees.

60 California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), Cal/OSHA Interim Guidance on COVID-19 for
Health Care Facilities: Severe Respirator Supply Shortages, March 28, 2020, at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/
coronavirus/Cal-OSHA-Guidance-for-respirator-shortages.pdf.
61 Infectious Disease Prevention: SARS-CoV-2 Virus That Causes COVID-19, 16 Va. Admin. Code §25-220. This ETS
is effective upon publication in a Richmond, VA, newspaper during the week of July 27, 2020.
62 The Virginia state plan covers all state and local government agencies and all private-sector workers in the state, with
the exception of maritime workers, U.S Postal Service contractors, workers at military bases or other federal enclaves
in which the federal government has civil jurisdiction, workers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Southeastern Power
Administration Kerr-Philpott System, and aircraft cabin crew members.
63 A COVID-19 test for the purposes of determining if an employee can return to work must be paid for by the
employer or offered such that the employee bears no cost for the test.
Congressional Research Service
12

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Hazard and Job Task Classification
The VOSH ETS requires that each employer assess its workplace for hazards and job tasks that
potentially expose employees to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Employers must classify each job task as
having a “very high,” “high,” “medium,” or “lower” risk level of exposure, according to the
hazards to which employees are potentially exposed. The VOSH ETS provides the following
examples of activities for the “very high” and “high” risk levels:
 “very high” risk activities include
 using aerosol-generating procedures, such as intubation, on patients known
or suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2;
 collecting or handling specimens from patients known or suspected to be
infected with SARS-CoV-2; and
 performing an autopsy involving aerosol-generating procedures on the body
of a person known or suspected to be infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus at
the time of death; and
 “high risk” activities include
 health care services, including inpatient care, outpatient care, skilled nursing
care, and nonmedical support services such as room cleaning, provided to
patients known or suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2;
 first responder and medical transport services to patients known or suspected
to be infected with SARS-CoV-2; and
 mortuary services to persons known or suspected to be infected with the
SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time of death.
“Medium” risk activities are those that require employees to have more than minimal contact,
within six feet of other employees, customers, or members of the public who are not known or
suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2.64 “Lower” risk activities are those that do not require
contact with other persons within six feet or that are able to utilize the following types of
engineering, administrative, or work practice controls to minimize contact between persons:
 installation of floor to ceiling barriers, such as barriers between cashiers and
customers;
 telecommuting;
 staggered work shifts to reduce the number of workers at a site;
 delivering services remotely, including curbside pickup of retail purchases; and
 mandatory physical distancing of persons.
The use of face coverings other than respirators or medical or surgical masks, including cloth face
coverings now required by several states, is not an acceptable method of minimizing physical
contact between persons. However, the VOSH ETS requires the use of face coverings for brief
contacts between persons within six feet of each other.

64 Examples of “medium” risk work activities are provided in the VOSH ETS at 16 Va. Admin. Code §25-220-30.
Congressional Research Service
13

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Engineering, Administrative, Work Practice, and PPE Requirements for “Very
High,” “High,” and “Medium” Risk Activities
Employers with job tasks or activities in the “very high,” “high,” or “medium” risk classifications
must adhere to specific engineering, administrative, work practice, and PPE requirements. For
“very high” and “high” risk activities, engineering controls include the use of airborne infection
isolation rooms (AIIR) for known or suspected COVID-19 patients and aerosol-generating
procedures and Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) precautions for the handling of specimens from known
or suspected COVID-19 patients.65
Employers with “very high” and “high” risk activities must implement administrative and work
practice controls, including the prescreening of all employees to ensure that employees do not
have signs or symptoms of COVID-19; enhanced medical screening of employees during
COVID-19 outbreaks; and the use of flexible work arrangements, such as telecommuting, when
feasible. In addition, all employers with “very high” or “high” risk activities must provide, to the
extent feasible, psychological and behavioral support to address employee stress at no cost to the
employee.
The standard also provides for engineering, administrative, and work practice controls for
“medium” risk activities.66
PPE Requirements for “Very High” and “High” Risk Activities
Employers with “very high” and “high” risk activities, who are not already covered by the general
OSHA PPE standards, are required to comply with the VOSH ETS requirements for PPE. An
employer subject to these requirements must assess the workplace to determine if there are any
COVID-19 hazards present or likely to be present that would require the use of PPE by
employees. The employer must provide for the participation of employees and employee
representatives in this assessment process and verify that this assessment has been conducted
through a written certification.
If hazards that require PPE are identified, the employer must select and provide the appropriate
PPE to each employee and ensure that PPE fits properly. If respiratory PPE, such as respirators or
PAPR are used as PPE, the existing OSHA standards for respiratory PPE, which include medical
evaluation of employees and fit testing, must be followed.
Unless contraindicated by the hazard and PPE assessment, when any employee is in contact
within six feet of any person known or suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, that employee
must be provided with the following types of PPE:
 gloves,
 gown large enough to cover areas needing protection,
 face shield or goggles, and
 respirator.

65 The VOSH ETS requires compliance with Biosafety Level 3 precautions provided in HHS, Biosafety in
Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. Fifth Edition, HHS Publication no. (CDC) 21-1112, December 2009, at
https://www.cdc.gov/labs/BMBL.html.
66 Engineering, administrative, and work practice controls for “medium” risk activities are provided in the VOSH ETS
at 16 Va. Admin. Code §25-220-60.
Congressional Research Service
14

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

While there are no specific PPE requirements for “medium” risk activities, PPE may be required
based on an assessment of the hazards of these activities.
Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan and Training
Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan
All employers with “very high” and “high” risk activities, and employers with 11 or more
employees and “medium” risk activities, must develop written infectious disease preparedness
and response plans. These plans must be developed with input from employees. The deadline for
the development of these plans is 60 days from the effective date of the ETS.
The infectious disease preparedness plan must include a consideration of the COVID-19 risks in
the workplace, and to the extent possible and in compliance with medical privacy laws, the
specific risks faced by employees with certain preexisting medical conditions. The plan must
include contingency plans for continued operations during a COVID-19 outbreak and provide for
the prompt identification and isolation of employees with known or suspected COVID-19 and a
procedure for employees to notify the employer of COVID-19 signs or symptoms. The plan must
also address interactions between the employer’s worksite and other businesses, such as vendors
and contractors to ensure employees of these businesses comply with the VOSH ETS and the
employer’s infectious disease preparedness and response plan.
Training
All employers with “very high,” “high,” or “medium” risk activities must provide training to all
employees, including those employees whose work does not involve any COVID-19 risks. This
training must teach employees to recognize the hazards of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, signs and
symptoms of COVID-19, and the procedures to minimize SARS-CoV-2 hazards. If the employer
has an infectious disease preparedness and response plan, training must be provided on this plan.
Written certification of training must be prepared, and retraining must be provided when
necessary.
Employers with only “lower” risk activities are not required to prepare a formal training plan but
must provide oral or written communication on the hazards of SARS-CoV-2, the signs and
symptoms of COVID-19, and measures to minimize SARS-CoV-2 exposure. VOSH is required to
develop an information sheet that employers can use to satisfy this training requirement.
Training must be provided within 30 days of the effective date of the standard, except for training
on the infectious disease preparedness and response plan, which must be completed within 60
days.
Whistleblower Protections
The VOSH ETS prohibits any employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee who does the following:
 exercises his or her rights under the ETS or existing whistleblower protection
provisions, including the limited right of an employee to refuse work because of
a reasonable fear of injury or death or serious injury;67

67 To exercise this right, the employee must, if possible, have sought unsuccessfully to have the employer remedy the
hazard, and there must be insufficient time to attempt to remedy the hazard through normal regulatory enforcement
Congressional Research Service
15

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

 provides and wears his or her own PPE, provided the PPE does not create a
greater hazard to the employee or create a serious hazard to other employees; or
 raises a reasonable concern about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 infection control
to the employer, the employer’s agent, other employees, the government, or the
public through any type of media including social media.
Michigan: MIOSHA COVID-19 Emergency Rules
On October 14, 2020, the director of the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic
Opportunity, which operates Michigan’s state occupational safety and health plan (MIOSHA),
promulgated emergency rules to address workplace exposure to COVID-19.68 These rules, which
apply to all employers in the state, went into immediate effect and will remain in effect for six
months. In addition to rules that apply to all employers, the emergency rules include specific
provisions that apply to the following industries:
 construction;
 manufacturing;
 retail, libraries, and museums;
 restaurants and bars;
 healthcare;
 in-home services such as house cleaning and repair;
 personal care services such as hair styling and tattooing;
 public accommodations such as sports and entertainment venues;
 sports and exercise facilities;
 meat and poultry processing; and
 casinos.69
Exposure Determination
Rule 3 of the MIOSHA emergency rules requires all employers to evaluate all routine and
anticipated job tasks and categorize these job tasks based on potential employee exposure to
COVID-19 into one of the following four categories:
1. “Lower exposure risk” tasks are those that do not require contact with known or
suspected COVID-19 cases or frequent close (within six feet) contact with the
general public.
2. “Medium exposure risk” tasks are those that require frequent or close contact
with persons who may be infected with COVID-19 but who are not known or
suspected COVID-19 cases. In areas of the state without ongoing community

channels. This right is provided in the OSHA standards at 29 C.F.R. §1977.12(b)(2) and in the VOSH standards at 16
Va. Admin. Code §25-60-110.
68 Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(MIOSHA) Emergency Rules: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), available at https://www.michigan.gov//documents/leo/
Final_MIOSHA_Rules_705164_7.pdf. The Michigan state plan covers all state and local government agencies and all
private-sector workers in the state, with the exception of maritime workers, U.S. Postal Service contractors, workers at
businesses owned or operated by tribal members at Indian reservations, and aircraft cabin crew members.
69 MIOSHA Emergency Rules: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), Rule 11.
Congressional Research Service
16

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

transmission of COVID-19, tasks that require frequent contact with persons
travelling from areas with widespread COVID-19 transmission are included in
this category. In areas with ongoing community transmission, tasks that involve
contact with the general public are included in this category.
3. “High exposure risk” tasks are those with high potential for exposure to known
or suspected COVID-19 cases. Licensed healthcare providers, medical first
responders, nursing home workers, law enforcement and correctional officers,
and mortuary workers are examples of types of workers that may perform tasks
in this category.
4. “Very high exposure risk” tasks are those that involve the generation of aerosols
during medical or mortuary procedures on known or suspected COVID-19 cases
and the collection and handling of laboratory specimens from known or
suspected COVID-19 cases.
Preparedness and Response Plan
Rule 4 of the MIOSHA emergency rules requires all employers to develop a written COVID-19
preparedness and response plan based on current CDC and OSHA guidance. This plan must detail
measures the employer will take to protect employees from COVID-19 exposure and must be
readily available to employees and their representatives.
Basic Infection Prevention Measures
Rule 5 of the MIOSHA emergency rules requires all employers to implement the following basic
infection prevention measures:
 promote frequent hand-washing and provide hand-washing facilities or hand
sanitizer to workers, customers, and visitors;
 require employees who are sick to not report to work or to report to an isolated
location;
 prohibit workers from using other workers’ desks, phones, and other equipment
when possible;
 increase facility cleaning, especially of high-touch surfaces and shared
equipment;
 establish procedures, consistent with CDC guidance, for disinfection of the
worksite if a worker, customer, or visitor has a known case of COVID-19;
 use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved disinfectants that are
expected to effective against SARS-CoV-2;
 follow all manufacturer’s guidelines for use of all cleaning and disinfectant
products; and
 prohibit in-person work for employees whose work can be done remotely.
Health Surveillance
Rule 6 of the MIOSHA emergency rules requires all employers to implement a health
surveillance system for the workplace. This system must include, at a minimum, a COVID-19
screening questionnaire for all employees and contractors entering the workplace. Employees
must be directed to immediately report any signs or symptoms of COVID-19 to the employer and
known and suspected COVID-19 cases must be isolated from the rest of the workforce. When an
Congressional Research Service
17

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

employer learns of an employee, contractor, customer, or visitor to the worksite with a known
case of COVID-19, the employer must immediately notify the local health department and, must
notify, within 24 hours, any workers, contractors, or suppliers who may have come into contact
with the infected person. When determining if an employee with a known or suspected case of
COVID-19 may return to the workplace, the employer must follow CDC guidelines and health
department quarantine and isolation orders.
Workplace Controls
Rule 7 of the MIOSHA emergency rules requires all employers to implement the following
workplace controls:
 designate one or more worksite COVID-19 safety coordinators to implement,
monitor, and report on COVID-19 control strategies developed by the employer
and to remain on site at all times when employees are present;
 place posters in appropriate languages in the workplace that provide information
on staying away from work while sick, cough and sneeze etiquette, and hand
hygiene;
 keep all persons at least six feet from each other using signs, floor markings, and
barriers appropriate for the worksite, to the extent possible;
 provide all employees with non-medical grade face coverings at no cost to the
employees;
 require the use of face coverings when employees cannot maintain six feet of
distance from other persons in the workplace, and consider the use of face shields
when three feet of distance cannot be maintained;
 require face coverings in shared spaces, such as restrooms and hallways and
during in-person meetings.
PPE
Rule 8 of the MIOSHA emergency rules requires that employers provide appropriate PPE,
including respiratory protection, to employees based on the exposure risks of the job and current
CDC and OSHA guidelines. All PPE must be properly fitted, inspected, maintained, cleaned,
stored, and disposed of. In workplaces that provide medical treatment to known or suspected
COVID-19 cases, employees with frequent or prolonged close contact with such patients must be
provided with and wear, at a minimum, an N95 respirator, goggles or face shield, and gown.
Training Requirements
Rule 10 of the MIOSHA emergency rules requires all employers to provide training and
communication, in languages common among the employees, on the following subjects:
 workplace infection-control practices;
 proper use of PPE;
 how to notify the employer of COVID-19 symptoms or diagnosis;
 how to report unsafe working conditions.
This training must be updated if the employer’s COVID-19 preparedness and response
plan changes or new information on COVID-19 transmission becomes available.
Congressional Research Service
18

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Recordkeeping Requirements
Rule 11 of the MIOSHA emergency rules requires that all employers maintain, for one year,
records of employee training, the screening of persons entering the workplace, and any health
surveillance notifications required by Rule 6.
OSHA Infectious Disease Standard Rulemaking
In 2010, OSHA published a Request for Information in the Federal Register seeking public
comments on strategies to control exposure to infectious diseases in healthcare workplaces.70
After collecting public comments and holding public meetings, OSHA completed the SBREFA
process in 2014. Since then, however, no public actions have occurred on this rulemaking; since
spring 2017, this rulemaking has been listed as a “long-term action” in DOL’s semiannual
regulatory agenda.
Congressional Activity to Require an OSHA
Emergency Temporary Standard on COVID-19
On March 5, 2020, Representative Bobby Scott, chairman of the House Committee on Education
and Labor, and Representative Alma Adams, chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections, sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia calling on OSHA to promulgate an
ETS to address COVID-19 exposure among healthcare workers.71 This letter followed a January
2020 letter requesting that OSHA reopen its rulemaking on the infectious disease standard and
begin to formulate for possible future promulgation an ETS to address COVID-19 exposure.72
Senator Patty Murray, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions and a group of Democratic Senators sent a similar letter to the Secretary of Labor
calling for an OSHA ETS.73
In addition, in March 2020, David Michaels, who served as the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health during the Obama Administration, wrote an op-ed in The Atlantic
calling on OSHA to promulgate a COVID-19 ETS.74 On March 6, 2020, the AFL-CIO and 22
other unions petitioned OSHA for an ETS on infectious diseases that would cover all workers
with potential exposures.75 OSHA formally denied the AFL-CIO petition on May 29, 2020,
claiming that an ETS is not necessary to protect employees from infectious diseases generally, or

70 OSHA, “Infectious Diseases,” 75 Federal Register 24835, May 6, 2010.
71 Letter from Representative Scott, chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, and Representative Adams,
chair, Subcommittee on Worker Protections, to The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor, March 5, 2020, at
https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-03-05%20OSHA%20ETS%20Letter.pdf.
72 Letter from Representative Scott, chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, and Representative Adams,
chair, Subcommittee on Worker Protections, to The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor, January 30, 2020, at
https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-01-30%20RCS%20to%20DOL%20Corona%20Letter_SIGNED1.pdf.
73 Letter from Senator Patty Murray, ranking member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Senator Robert Menendez, and Senator Tammy Baldwin, et al. to The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor,
March 9, 2020, at https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/20200309%20OSHA%20ETS%20Letter.pdf.
74 David Michaels, “What Trump Could Do Right Now to Keep Workers Safe From the Coronavirus,” The Atlantic,
March 2, 2020, at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/use-osha-help-stem-covid-19-pandemic/607312/.
75 Letter from Richard L. Trumka, president, AFL-CIO, to The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor, March 6,
2020, at https://aflcio.org/statements/petition-secretary-scalia-osha-emergency-temporary-standard-infectious-disease.
Congressional Research Service
19

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

from COVID-19.76 National Nurses United submitted a similar petition requesting that OSHA
promulgate an ETS based largely on the Cal/OSHA ATD standard.77 On May 4, 2020, the Center
for Food Safety and Food Chain Workers Alliance submitted a petition requesting that OSHA
promulgate an ETS to protect meat and poultry processing workers from COVID-19 exposure in
the workplace.78 On May 18, 2020, the AFL-CIO petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit for a writ of mandamus to compel OSHA to promulgate a COVID-19 ETS.79 The
circuit court denied this petition on June 11, 2020.
H.R. 6139, the COVID-19 Health Care Worker Protection Act
of 2020
On March 9, 2020, Representative Bobby Scott introduced H.R. 6139, the COVID-19 Health
Care Worker Protection Act of 2020. This bill would require OSHA to promulgate a COVID-19
ETS within one month of enactment. The ETS would be required to cover healthcare workers and
any workers in sectors determined by the CDC or OSHA to be at an elevated risk of COVID-19
exposure. The ETS would be required to include an exposure control plan provision and be, at a
minimum, based on CDC’s 2007 guidance and any updates to this guidance. The ETS would also
be required to provide no less protection than any state standard on novel pathogens, thus
requiring OSHA to include the elements of the Cal/OSHA ATD standard, the VOSH COVID-19
ETS, and the MIOSHA emergency rules in this ETS. Title II of the bill would provide that
hospitals and skilled nursing facilities that receive Medicare funding and that are owned by state
or local government units and not subject to state plans would be required to comply with the
ETS. Similar provisions are included in S. 3475.
P.L. 116-127, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
The provisions of H.R. 6139 were included as Division C of H.R. 6201, the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act, as introduced in the House. The American Hospital Association
(AHA) issued an alert to its members expressing its opposition to the OSHA ETS provisions in
the bill.80 Specifically, the AHA opposed the requirement that the ETS be based on the CDC’s
2007 guidance. The AHA stated that unlike severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which
was transmitted through the air, COVID-19 transmission is through droplets and surface contacts.
Thus, the requirement of the 2007 CDC guidance that N95 respirators, rather than surgical masks,
be used for patient contact is not necessary to protect healthcare workers from COVID-19, and
the use of surgical masks is consistent with World Health Organization guidance. The AHA also

76 Letter from Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor, to Richard L. Trumka, president, AFL-
CIO, May 29, 2020.
77 Letter from Bonnie Castillo, executive director, National Nurses United, to The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Secretary
of Labor, and The Honorable Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, March 4, 2020, at https://act.nationalnursesunited.org/page/-/files/graphics/NNUPetitionOSHA03042020.pdf.
78 Center for Food Safety and Food Chain Workers Alliance, Rulemaking Petition to the United States Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, May 4, 2020, at https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/
2020-05-04-osha-ets-petition_58890.pdf.
79 In re: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, D.C. Cir., No. 19-1158, May 18,
2020. This petition was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals as Section 6(f) of the OSH Act [29 U.S.C. §655(f)] grants
this court exclusive jurisdiction to provide judicial review of OSHA standards.
80 Emily Kopp, “Hospitals want to kill a policy shielding nurses from COVID-19 because there aren’t enough masks,”
Roll Call, March 3, 2020, at https://www.rollcall.com/2020/03/13/hospitals-want-to-kill-a-policy-shielding-nurses-
from-covid-19-because-there-arent-enough-masks/. This alert is available to American Hospital Association (AHA)
members on the AHA website at https://www.aha.org.
Congressional Research Service
20

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

claimed that shortages of available respirators could reduce the capacity of hospitals to treat
COVID-19 patients, due to a lack of respirators for staff. The OSHA ETS provisions were not
included in the version of the legislation that was passed by the House and the Senate and signed
into law as P.L. 116-127.
H.R. 6379, the Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act
Division D of H.R. 6379, the Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act, as introduced in
the House on March 23, 2020, includes the requirement that OSHA promulgate an ETS on
COVID-19 within seven days of enactment and a permanent COVID-19 standard within 24
months of enactment to cover healthcare workers, firefighters and emergency response workers,
and workers in other occupations that CDC or OSHA determines to have an elevated risk of
COVID-19 exposure. Division D of H.R. 6379 would amend the OSH Act, for the purposes of the
ETS only, such that state and local government employers in states without state plans would be
covered by the ETS. The provisions of Division D of H.R. 6379 were also included in S. 3584,
the COVID-19 Workers First Protection Act of 2020, as introduced in the Senate.
This legislation would specifically provide that the ETS would remain in force until the
permanent standard is promulgated and would explicitly exempt the ETS from the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Executive Order 12866. OSHA would be granted
enforcement discretion in cases in which it is not feasible for an employer to fully comply with
the ETS (such as a case in which PPE is unavailable) if the employer is exercising due diligence
to comply and implementing alternative means to protect employees.
Like the provisions in H.R. 6139 and the version of H.R. 6201 introduced in the House, the ETS
and permanent standard under H.R. 6379 would be required to include an exposure control plan
and provide no less protection than any state standard on novel pathogens, thus requiring OSHA
to include the elements of the Cal/OSHA ATD, the VOSH COVID-19 ETS, and the MIOSHA
emergency rules in this ETS and permanent standard. Although the ETS provisions in H.R. 6139
and H.R. 6201 would require that the ETS be based on the 2007 CDC guidance, specific
reference to the 2007 guidance is not included in this legislation. Rather, under H.R. 6379, the
ETS and permanent standard would have to incorporate, as appropriate, “guidelines issued by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, which are designed to prevent the transmission of infectious agents in healthcare
settings” and scientific research on novel pathogens.
States with occupational safety and health plans would be required to adopt the ETS, or their own
ETS at least as effective as the ETS, within 14 days of the legislation’s enactment.
H.R. 6559, the COVID-19 Every Worker Protection Act of 2020
H.R. 6559, the COVID-19 Every Worker Protection Act of 2020, was introduced in the House by
Representative Bobby Scott on April 21, 2020. This legislation includes the ETS and permanent
standard provisions of Division D of H.R. 6379 and S. 3584 and would require that these
standards cover healthcare workers, emergency medical responders, and “other employees at
occupational risk” of COVID-19 exposure. This legislation also adds two provisions that would
clarify the requirements for employers to record work-related COVID-19 infections and
strengthen the protections against retaliation and discrimination offered to whistleblowers.
Similar provisions are included in S. 3677 and were incorporated into H.R. 6800, the Heroes Act,
as passed by the House.
Congressional Research Service
21

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

COVID-19 Recordkeeping
Sections 8(c) and 24(a) of the OSH Act require employers to maintain records of occupational
injuries and illnesses in accordance with OSHA regulations.81 OSHA’s reporting and
recordkeeping regulations require that employers with 10 or more employees must keep records
of work-related injuries and illnesses that result in lost work time for employees or that require
medical care beyond first aid.82 Employers must also report to OSHA, within 8 hours, any
workplace fatality, and within 24 hours, any injury or illness that results in in-patient
hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye. Employers in certain industries determined by
OSHA to have lower occupational safety and health hazards are listed in the regulations as being
exempt from the recordkeeping requirements but not the requirement to report to OSHA serious
injuries, illnesses, and deaths.83 Offices of physicians, dentists, other health practitioners, and
outpatient medical clinics are included in the industries that are exempt from the recordkeeping
requirements.
OSHA regulations require the employer to determine if an employee’s injury or illness is related
to his or her work and thus subject to the recordkeeping requirements.84 The regulations provide a
presumption that an injury or illness that occurs in the workplace is work-related and recordable,
unless one of the exemptions provided in the regulations applies.85 One of the listed exemptions is
“The illness is the common cold or flu (Note: contagious diseases such as tuberculosis,
brucellosis, hepatitis A, or plague are considered work-related if the employee is infected at
work).”86
Because of the nature of COVID-19 transmission, which can occur in the community as well as
the workplace, it can be difficult to determine the exact source of any person’s COVID-19
transmission. Absent any specific guidance, this may make it difficult for employers to determine
if an employee’s COVID-19 is subject to the recordkeeping requirements.
Initial OSHA Recordkeeping Guidance
On April 10, 2020, OSHA issued enforcement guidance on how cases of COVID-19 should be
treated under the recordkeeping requirements.87 This guidance stated that COVID-19 cases were
recordable if they were work-related.
Under this guidance, employers in the following industry groups were to fully comply with the
recordkeeping regulations, including the requirement to determine if COVID-19 cases were
work-related:
 healthcare;
 emergency response, including firefighting, emergency medical services, and law
enforcement; and
 correctional institutions.

81 29 U.S.C. §§657(c) and 673(a).
82 OSHA’s reporting and recordkeeping regulations are at 29 C.F.R. Part 1904.
83 The list of exempted industries is at 29 C.F.R. Subpart B, Appendix A. States with state occupational safety and
health plans may require employers in these exempted industries to comply with the recordkeeping requirements.
84 29 C.F.R. §1904.5.
85 29 C.F.R. §1905.5(a).
86 29 C.F.R. §1904.5(b)(2)(viii).
87 OSHA, Enforcement Guidance for Recording Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), April 10, 2020, at
https://www.osha.gov/memos/2020-04-10/enforcement-guidance-recording-cases-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19.
Congressional Research Service
22

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

For all other employers, OSHA required employers to determine if COVID-19 cases were work-
related and subject to the recordkeeping requirements only if both of the following two conditions
were met:
1. There was objective evidence that a COVID-19 case may have been work-
related. This could have included, for example, a number of cases developing
among workers who worked closely together without an alternative explanation.
2. The evidence of work-relatedness was reasonably available to the employer. For
purposes of this guidance, examples of reasonably available evidence included
information given to the employer by employees, as well as information that an
employer learned regarding its employees’ health and safety in the ordinary
course of managing its business and employees.
Updated OSHA Recordkeeping Guidance
OSHA issued new guidance, effective May 26, 2020, on recordkeeping of COVID-19 cases.88
This new guidance rescinds the previous guidance issued by OSHA on April 10, 2020. Under this
new guidance, all employers, regardless of type of industry or employment, are subject to the
recordkeeping and recording regulations for work-related cases of COVID-19. To determine if an
employer has made a reasonable determination that a case of COVID-19 was work-related,
OSHA says it will consider the following factors:
 the reasonableness of the employer’s investigation of the COVID-19 case and its
transmission to the employee;
 the evidence that is available to the employer; and
 the evidence that COVID-19 was contracted at work.
The guidance provides examples of evidence that can be used to demonstrate that a COVID-19
case was or was not work-related such as if an employee had frequent close contact with
members of the public in an area with ongoing community transmission of COVID-19.
H.R. 6559
H.R. 6559 would require that the ETS and permanent standard established pursuant to the
legislation include the requirement for the recording and reporting of all COVID-19 cases in
accordance with OSHA regulations in place at the time of enactment. By referencing the
regulations in place, this provision would serve to supersede OSHA’s guidance from April 10,
2020, and apply the requirement, currently provided in the guidance effective May 26, 2020, to
determine the work-relatedness of COVID-19 cases to all employers covered by the
recordkeeping regulations.
Whistleblower Protections
Section 11(c) of the OSH Act prohibits any person from retaliating or discriminating against any
employee who exercises certain rights provided by the OSH Act.89 Commonly referred to as the

88 OSHA, Revised Enforcement Guidance for Recording Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), May 19,
2020, at https://www.osha.gov/memos/2020-05-19/revised-enforcement-guidance-recording-cases-coronavirus-
disease-2019-covid-19.
89 29 U.S.C. §660(c). OSHA also enforces whistleblower provisions in 22 other federal statutes. Information on statutes
with whistleblower provisions enforced by OSHA is at OSHA, Whistleblower Statutes Summary Chart, October 17,
2009, at https://www.whistleblowers.gov/sites/wb/files/2019-12/WB-Statute-Summary-Chart-10.8-Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

whistleblower protection provision, this provision protects any employee who takes any of the
following actions:
 files a complaint with OSHA related to a violation of the OSH Act;
 causes an OSHA proceeding, such as an investigation, to be instituted;
 testifies or is about to testify in any OSHA proceeding; and
 exercises on his or her own behalf, or on behalf of others, any other rights
afforded by the OSH Act.90
Other rights afforded by the OSH Act that are covered by the whistleblower protection provision
include the right to inform the employer about unsafe work conditions; the right to access
material safety data sheets or other information required to be made available by the employer;
and the right to report a work-related injury, illness, or death to OSHA.91 In limited cases, the
employee has the right to refuse to work if conditions reasonably present a risk of serious injury
or death and there is not sufficient time to eliminate the danger through other means.92
H.R. 6559 would require that the ETS and permanent standard promulgated pursuant to the
legislation expand the protections for whistleblowers. The following additional activities taken by
employees would grant them protection from retaliation and discrimination from employers and
agents of employers:
 reporting to the employer; a local, state, or federal agency; or the media; or on a
social media platform; the following:
 a violation of the ETS or permanent standard promulgated pursuant to the
legislation;
 a violation of the infectious disease control plan required by the ETS or
permanent standard; or
 a good-faith concern about an infectious disease hazard in the workplace;
 seeking assistance from the employer or a local, state, or federal agency with
such a report; and
 using personally supplied PPE with a higher level of protection than offered by
the employer.
H.R. 6800, The Heroes Act
The provisions of H.R. 6559, including the provisions relating to recordkeeping and
whistleblower protections, were included as Title III of Division L of H.R. 6800, The Heroes Act.
H.R. 6800 was passed by the House on May 15, 2020. In a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi, the AHA expressed its opposition to the ETS provisions in The Heroes Act citing the
potential for confusion that new regulations could bring and the “ongoing global lack of supplies,
equipment and testing capability” faced by hospitals.93 The AHA also stated that the provision

90 29 C.F.R. §1977.3. Public-sector employees, except employees of the United States Postal Service, are not protected
by the whistleblower provision, but may be covered by whistleblower provisions in other federal and state statutes.
91 For additional information on other rights covered by the whistleblower protection provision, see OSHA, January 9,
2019, Investigator’s Desk Aid to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) Whistleblower Protection
Provision, pp. 5-7, at https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/11cDeskAid.pdf.
92 29 C.F.R. §1977.12(b)(2).
93 Letter from Thomas P. Nickels, executive vice president, American Hospital Association, to Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Congressional Research Service
24

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

that would require the ETS to be based on state standards “suggests that the federal government is
surrendering its responsibility to appropriately regulate the nation to a state government agency
without consideration of whether that state’s decisions are appropriate for implementation
anywhere and everywhere.”
H.R. 925, The Heroes Act (Revised)
The provisions of H.R. 6559 and H.R. 6800 were included in the House Amendment to the Senate
Amendment to H.R. 925, the revised Heroes Act, passed by the House on October 1, 2020.

Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, May 14, 2020, at https://www.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2020/05/web-
AHALettertoHouseonHEROESAct051420final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Appendix. OSHA Emergency Temporary Standards
Table A-1. OSHA Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS)
Federal Register
Result of Judicial
Judicial Review
Year
Subject of ETS
Citation of ETS
Review
Case Citation
1971
Asbestos
36 Federal Register
Not challenged
—
23207 (December 7,
1971)
1973
Organophosphorous
38 Federal Register
Vacated
Florida Peach Growers
pesticides
10715 (May 1, 1973);
Ass'n v. United States
amended by 38 Federal
Department of Labor,
Register 17214 (June
489 F.2d 120 (5th Cir.
29, 1973)
1974)
1973
Fourteen carcinogens
38 Federal Register
Twelve upheld, two
Dry Color Mfrs. Ass'n v.
10929 (May 3, 1973)
vacated
Department of Labor,
486 F.2d 98 (3d Cir.
1973)
1974
Vinyl chloride
39 Federal Register
Not challenged
—
12342 (April 5, 1974)
1976
Diving operations
41 Federal Register
Stayed
Taylor Diving & Salvage
24271 (June 15, 1976)
Co. v. Department of
Labor, 537 F.2d 819
(5th Cir. 1976)
1977
Benzene
42 Federal Register
Stayed
Industrial Union Dep't v.
22515 (May 3, 1977)
Bingham, 570 F.2d 965
(D.C. Cir. 1977)
1977
1,2 Dibromo-3-
42 Federal Register
Not challenged
—
chloropropane (DBCP) 45535 (September 9,
1977)
1978
Acrylonitrile (vinyl
43 Federal Register
Stay denied
Vistron v. OSHA, 6
cyanide)
2585 (January 17,
OSHC 1483 (6th Cir.
1978)
1978)
1983
Asbestos
48 Federal Register
Stayed
Asbestos Info. Ass'n v.
51086 (November 4,
OSHA, 727 F.2d 415
1983)
(5th Cir. 1984)
Source: CRS with data from Mark A. Rothstein, “Substantive and Procedural Obstacles to OSHA Rulemaking:
Reproductive Hazards as an Example,” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, vol. 12, no. 4 (August
1985), p. 673.

Author Information

Scott D. Szymendera

Analyst in Disability Policy

Congressional Research Service
26

OSHA: ETS and COVID-19

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46288 · VERSION 13 · UPDATED
27