PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S13374-13375)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 18, 2005
Occupational Safety Fairness Act - Amends the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) to revise requirements relating to enforcing, contesting, reviewing, and adjudicating citations, failures to correct violations, and assessments of penalties.
Permits alternative compliance methods by employers.
Authorizes the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary's representative to: (1) provide technical or compliance assistance to an employer in correcting a violation; (2) issue a warning instead of a citation for violations that have no significant relationship to employee safety or health, and in cases where an employer in good faith acts promptly to abate a violation that is not willful or repeated; (3) attempt to contact an employer by telephone, facsimile, or other methods, in investigating an alleged danger or violation, to determine if corrective action has been taken or if there are reasonable grounds to believe a hazard exists; and (4) not conduct an inspection if the Secretary believes either that the request for the inspection was made for reasons other than employee health and safety or that the employees are not at risk.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Increases the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) membership from three to five, and sets forth a legal training requirement.
Awards attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing employer in an administrative adversary adjudication, or a judicial review of an action, instituted under OSHA, if at the time such adjudication was initiated or such action filed the employer had not more than: (1) 100 employees; and (2) $7,000,000 net worth.
Revises judicial review requirements to require deference to be given to reasonable OSHRC conclusions with respect to all questions of law.
Prescribes requirements relating to contesting citations, correcting conditions, written statements following inspections, time periods for issuing or contesting citations, penalties for other than serious citations, unanticipated conduct, adoption of nongovernmental standards, and employee responsibility.
People & committees
Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S13374-13375)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S13370-13371)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2066 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2066 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2066 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2066 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.