[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 29, Volume 9]
[Revised as of July 1, 2001]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 29CFR1975.3]

[Page 194-195]
 
                             TITLE 29--LABOR
 
CHAPTER XVII--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT 
                          OF LABOR--(CONTINUED)
 
PART 1975--COVERAGE OF EMPLOYERS UNDER THE WILLIAMS-STEIGER OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 1975.3  Extent of coverage.

    (a) Section 2(b) of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and 
Health Act (Public Law 91-596) sets forth the purpose and policy of 
Congress in enacting this legislation. In pertinent part, that section 
reads as follows:

    (b) Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy, through the 
exercise of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States and 
with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare, to assure 
so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and 
healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources * * *


Congressman William Steiger described the scope of the Act's coverage in 
the following words during a discussion of the legislation on the floor 
of the House of Representatives:


[[Page 195]]


    The coverage of this bill is as broad, generally speaking, as the 
authority vested in the Federal Government by the commerce clause of the 
Constitution (Cong. Rec., vol. 116, p. H-11899, Dec. 17, 1970)


The legislative history, as a whole, clearly shows that every amendment 
or other proposal which would have resulted in any employee's being left 
outside the protections afforded by the Act was rejected. The reason for 
excluding no employee, either by exemption or limitation on coverage, 
lies in the most fundamental of social purposes of this legislation 
which is to protect the lives and health of human beings in the context 
of their employment.
    (b) The Williams-Steiger Act includes special provisions (sections 
19 and 18(c)(6)) for the protection of Federal and State employees to 
whom the Act's other provisions are made inapplicable under section 
3(5), which excludes from the definition of the term ``employer'' both 
the United States and any State or political subdivision of a State.
    (c) In the case of section 4(b)(1) of the Act, which makes the Act 
inapplicable to working conditions to the extent they are protected 
under laws administered by other Federal agencies, Congress did not 
intend to grant any general exemptions under the Act; its sole purpose 
was to avoid duplication of effort by Federal agencies in establishing a 
national policy of occupational safety and health protection.
    (d) Interpretation of the provisions and terms of the Williams-
Steiger Act must of necessity be consistent with the express intent of 
Congress to exercise its commerce power to the extent that, ``so far as 
possible, every working man and woman in the Nation'' would be protected 
as provided for in the Act. The words ``so far as possible'' refer to 
the practical extent to which governmental regulation and expended 
resources are capable of achieving safe and healthful working 
conditions; the words are not ones of limitation on coverage. The 
controlling definition for the purpose of coverage under the Act is that 
of ``employer'' contained in section 3(5). This term is defined as 
follows:

    (5) The term ``employer'' means any person engaged in a business 
affecting commerce who has employees, but does not include the United 
States or any State or political subdivision of a State.


In carrying out the broad coverage mandate of Congress, we interpret the 
term ``business'' in the above definition as including any commercial or 
noncommercial activity affecting commerce and involving the employment 
of one or more employees; the term ``commerce'' is defined in the Act 
itself, in section 3(3). Since the legislative history and the words of 
the statute, itself, indicate that Congress intended the full exercise 
of its commerce power in order to reduce employment-related hazards 
which, as a whole impose a substantial burden on commerce, it follows 
that all employments where such hazards exist or could exist (that is, 
those involving the employment of one or more employees) were intended 
to be regulated as a class of activities which affects commerce.