Yes — Congress’s authority to regulate employment conditions under the OSH Act is grounded primarily in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. See 1975.2 which explains that the Act’s power flows from the Commerce Clause and cites controlling cases such as United States v. Darby.
Yes — OSHA can regulate purely intrastate activities when those activities are part of a class of activities Congress intended to regulate because the class affects interstate commerce. The explanation in 1975.2 cites cases like Wickard v. Filburn and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States to show that Congress’s commerce power reaches intrastate activities included in a regulated class.
No — it is not necessary to prove that any particular intrastate activity affects commerce if the activity falls within a class of activities that Congress intended to regulate because the class affects commerce. 1975.2 explains this point and cites Supreme Court precedents such as Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach v. McClung.
Congress’s commerce power for the OSH Act is very broad — generally as inclusive as Congress intends, subject only to specific constitutional prohibitions. 1975.2 states that the commerce power is plenary and cites supporting cases like United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. and United States v. Darby.
The limits are only specific constitutional prohibitions and any restrictions Congress itself places on the commerce power. 1975.2 explains that because no specific constitutional prohibitions apply here, the key question becomes how inclusive Congress intended the class of activities covered by the Act to be.
Employers should understand that coverage depends on Congress’s intended scope for the class of activities, not necessarily on a case‑by‑case commerce‑impact showing. 1975.2 explains that if Congress included an activity in a regulated class because the class affects commerce, OSHA enforcement can apply to those activities.
No — uncompensated volunteers generally are not considered "employees" under the federal OSH Act, so OSHA would not enforce standards that apply only to employees against an organization that uses only unpaid volunteers. See the OSHA Letter of Interpretation Applicability to volunteers (May 13, 2005) which explains OSHA’s view that purely uncompensated volunteers are not employees for coverage under the Act, while also noting that State plan rules may differ.
Maybe — a state hospital may be excluded only if it meets the tests showing it is a department or administrative arm of the state or is administered by officials controlled by public officials or the electorate. The August 27, 2001 Letter of Interpretation State hospital employer definition explains the two tests in 1975.5 and lists the factual factors used to determine whether an entity is a state or political subdivision and thus not an "employer" under the Act.
Yes — the exemption for individuals who privately employ persons to perform ordinary domestic household tasks in their own residence extends to caring for elderly household members. The February 21, 2001 Letter of Interpretation State hospital employer definition (discussing 1975.6) states that tasks "commonly regarded as ordinary domestic household tasks" include caring for children and likewise would include caring for an elderly member of the household.
Yes — an organization can be treated as a joint employer under the Field Sanitation Standard if the facts show it recruits, supervises, or otherwise shares responsibility for the workers. The April 25, 1994 Letter of Interpretation Field Sanitation Standard applicability explains that OSHA and state plan authorities will look at the specific facts to determine joint‑employer status, and it notes that the FSS was written to include as employers those who are best able to ensure sanitation and potable water for farmworkers (see also 1975).
Yes — OSHA has jurisdiction over employees working on Indian reservations and tribal employers are generally treated like any other private sector employer under the Act. The March 25, 1993 Letter of Interpretation OSHA jurisdiction on reservations explains that Congress made no special provisions for tribes in the OSH Act, citing court precedent, and that OSHA standards apply on reservations.
Yes — State plans approved under Section 18 of the OSH Act can extend coverage beyond federal OSHA and some State plans do cover volunteers or other groups not covered by federal OSHA. The May 13, 2005 Letter of Interpretation Applicability to volunteers explains that twenty‑six States operate their own plans and that coverage of volunteers varies by State plan (see also 1975).