Subpart B
An affected employer or an affected employee may apply in writing to request a modification or revocation. See 1905.13(a) for the rule allowing an affected employer or affected employee to file such an application.
The application must include the applicant’s name and address, a clear description of the relief sought, the specific grounds for relief, the required employee-notification certification or employer notification if the applicant is an employee, and any request for a hearing. See 1905.13(a)(1) and its subparts 1905.13(a)(1)(i)–(vi).
An employer applicant must certify that affected employees were informed by giving a copy to their authorized representative, by posting a summary (or the full application) where employee notices are normally posted, and by other appropriate means as needed. See 1905.13(a)(1)(iv) with its subparts 1905.13(a)(1)(iv)(a)–(c).
An affected-employee applicant must certify that a copy of the application has been furnished to the employer. See 1905.13(a)(1)(v).
A request for a hearing must include a short and plain statement of how the proposed modification or revocation would affect the requesting party and what the requesting party would seek to show on the issues involved. See 1905.13(a)(1)(vi) and 1905.13(a)(2)(i)–(ii).
Yes; the Assistant Secretary may on their own motion proceed to modify or revoke a rule or order issued under the specified Act sections. See 1905.13(a)(2).
When that happens, OSHA will publish a Federal Register notice inviting comments and informing affected parties of their right to request a hearing, and will take other steps to give actual notice to affected employees.
OSHA will publish a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER of its intention and will afford interested persons an opportunity to submit written data, views, or arguments and to request a hearing; OSHA will also inform affected employers and employees of their right to request a hearing and take other steps to give actual notice to affected employees. See 1905.13(a)(2).
Yes; any final rule or order issued under section 6(b)(6)(A) or 16 of the Act may be renewed or extended as permitted by the applicable section and in the manner prescribed for its issuance. See 1905.13(b).
A federal variance that has multi-state applicability from a federal standard identical to a State standard will be deemed an authoritative interpretation of employers’ compliance obligations with respect to the State standard once the information required under 1905.10(b)(11) or 1905.11(b)(8) is filed, provided no substantive objections are interposed by the State under 1905.14. See 1905.13(c).
The filing requirements referenced are the information to be filed under 1905.10(b)(11) for certain variances and 1905.11(b)(8) for other proceedings; those sections explain what must be submitted so the variance can be recognized for State-plan purposes. See 1905.13(c).
If a State authority interposes substantive objections under 1905.14, the federal variance will not be deemed an authoritative interpretation of the State standard until those objections are resolved; the State may prevent automatic recognition by raising substantive concerns. See 1905.13(c) and 1905.14.
You must demonstrate that the alternative conditions, practices, means, methods, or operations you propose will provide employees with employment and places of employment that are as safe and healthful as those required by the standard from which the variance is sought. See 1905 and guidance in OSHA letters such as the Variance request for crane safety LOI, which emphasizes the need to show equivalence and to address worst‑case scenarios.
OSHA has long held that section 6(d) of the Act does not provide for the grant of interim relief, and therefore the provisions of 1905.11 that address interim relief are inoperative for permanent-variance applications; you generally cannot rely on Part 1905 to obtain interim relief. See the OSHA LOI Variance request for safety valves for this explanation.
No; 1905.13 and the quoted text set procedural requirements (what to file, notices, hearings, and renewals) but do not establish specific calendar deadlines for OSHA to make final decisions. See 1905.13.
The application must set forth the grounds for relief with particularity, meaning you should provide specific factual and legal reasons, data, and documentation explaining why modification or revocation is warranted. See 1905.13(a)(1)(iii).
You must apply in writing to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health as provided by the regulation. See 1905.13(a)(1).
To satisfy the posting requirement you should post a clear summary of the application (or the full application) where employee notices are normally posted so affected employees can examine it; the regulation explicitly allows posting the full application instead of a summary. See 1905.13(a)(1)(iv)(b).
Variances are typically narrow in scope and will specify the conditions, practices, or alternative measures the employer must meet; OSHA will tailor the variance to the employer’s application and the evidence showing equivalent protection. See 1905 and the Overhead crane lateral clearance LOI, which explains that variances prescribe specific conditions and are not broad waivers of the standard.
If an application omits required elements (name/address, description of relief, grounds with particularity, certification of employee notice, or hearing request), OSHA may treat the filing as deficient, seek additional information, or decline to proceed until the application is complete. See 1905.13(a)(1) and general Part 1905 procedures in 1905.
Yes; an employer can seek a variance when compliance is infeasible or when deenergizing/compliance would create greater hazards, but OSHA evaluates infeasibility and alternative protections case-by-case and requires evidence showing the alternative provides equivalent protection. See 1905 and the LOI on Energized control circuits scenario, which discusses infeasibility and the need to follow applicable lockout/tagout and variance procedures.
OSHA will deny a variance if the proposed practices do not provide the same degree of protection as the standard; applicants must show alternatives provide an equivalent level of health and safety. See 1905 and the Variance request for crane safety LOI, which states that proposals that do not provide equal protection will be denied but that OSHA can work with applicants to improve alternatives.