Back to Federal guidance

Classifying serious OSHA violations

Summary A senator relayed a concern that OSHA was reclassifying less serious violations to raise penalties. OSHA said the statutory definition had not changed, but a 1976 clarification meant some hazards formerly classified as nonserious were being cited as serious. OSHA archives the letter.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1977-10-03
Date issued
October 3, 1977
Status
Archived by the agency
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy.
Status last verified October 10, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

The current status of this document is unclear
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy. It may no longer reflect the agency's current position. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

October 3, 1977
Honorable Thomas F. Eagleton
United States Senate
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Senator Eagleton:
This is in response to your correspondence dated August 11, 1977, which transmitted a memorandum dated July 28, 1977, from Mr. Curt Long, Associated Industries of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Long's memorandum makes reference to the front page article of the August 1977, "Reporter" which he enclosed. The article "Is Non-Serious Becoming Serious?" covers several points of interest concerning the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The article begins with comments concerning Senator Dole's amendment to the Fiscal Year 1978 appropriations for the Department of Labor and HEW. As of this date, this amendment is no longer attached to the appropriations bill. If the appropriations bill is passed as it now is, the only limitations concerning OSHA penalties are those carried over from the FY 1977 Labor-HEW Appropriations Act. These limitations are interpreted in OSHA Program Directive #76-9 (copy enclosed).
The article further states that evidence indicates some OSHA offices are meeting the challenge (Senator Dole's amendment) by changing non-serious violations to serious violations. The examples of evidence given to substantiate this claim are too general for comment, but I can assure you that all field personnel continue to follow the dictates of Section 17.(k) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (copy enclosed). Section 17.(k) gives the definition of a serious violation as:

...a serious violation shall be deemed to exist in a place of employment if there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a condition which exists, or from one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes which have been adopted or are in use, in such place of employment unless the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation.

OSHA has not changed this definition but did issue a clarification of its meaning in OSHA Program Directive #200-54 (copy enclosed) dated December 17, 1976. The clarification has caused an increase in the number of serious violations which would indicate that in the past, many serious hazards that were previously classified non-serious are now being properly classified as serious violations.
If I may be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Pursuant to your request, the enclosure is herewith returned.
Sincerely,
Basil J. Whiting, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Secretary

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace