ExxonMobil Corp. is urging a federal appeals court to overturn an OSHA enforcement action related to improper recordkeeping for failing to properly log work-related mental illnesses, arguing the action was arbitrary, contravened due process and exceeded the limits of OSHA’s statutory authority.
Industry and employer groups are charging that California OSHA (Cal/OSHA) officials are exceeding the requirements of a 2022 state law in proposing changes to the agency’s indoor and outdoor heat illness-prevention rules, including by tightening certain thresholds for when employers must take special actions to protect employees.
A coalition of environmental groups is urging OSHA and EPA to penalize four dispersant manufacturers for not accurately reporting the detrimental harms their products can have on workers, the public and the environment in their safety data sheets as part of right-to-know laws.
While OSHA may still opt against finalizing a national heat standard, some observers believe the agency is looking to find middle ground on requirements that could be palatable to both employers and workers, especially because a federal rule would preempt state actions and prevent a more prescriptive approach in the future.
South Carolina is asking a federal district court to grant its motion for summary judgment in a long-running challenge to an Obama-era rule requiring states to match annual increases to federal minimum and maximum OSH Act penalties, while acknowledging that OSHA’s bid to dismiss the case is still pending.
California OSHA (Cal/OSHA) is alerting businesses that for the first time, domestic workers employed by companies in California, such as housecleaners, caregivers and gardeners, will be covered by state workplace safety and health laws effective July 1.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is seeking to eliminate a number of regulatory provisions that allow district managers to require additional safety measures beyond those specified in regulation as part of a group of proposals to remove outdated or duplicative provisions.
OSHA is proposing to eliminate dozens of regulatory requirements that it says are outdated, duplicative or improperly inflexible, including changing its interpretation of the General Duty Clause to exclude from enforcement known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance.
The Trump administration’s plan to slash funding for OSHA and other federal agencies tasked with worker protection is drawing concerns from Democratic lawmakers, who have questioned how less money can lead to better outcomes, and worker advocates who argue the cuts are threats to all workers.
California lawmakers are advancing a narrowed, labor-backed bill to bar employers from relying on automated decision-making systems (ADS) to make certain employment decisions -- including those aimed at aiding worker safety -- without human oversight, despite ongoing opposition by employer and tech organizations.
Legal experts are warning that a recent 7th Circuit decision upholding criminal convictions of two grain mill supervisors that stemmed from falsifying health and safety records illustrates the significant risks of failing to comply with OSHA requirements, though the Trump administration is seeking to limit such enforcement.
Labor unions and employer-focused attorneys are raising concerns about the effects of massive staffing cuts at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on OSHA’s effort to develop a national heat standard, noting the current lack of neutral expertise NIOSH has traditionally provided for OSHA rulemakings.
EPA’s final TSCA risk evaluation of the solvent-ingredient 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) finds fewer unreasonable risks to workers than a Biden-era draft version of the document, narrowing the categories of affected workers that may win protections from seven to three, and drops unreasonable risk findings for the general population or the environment.
Industry groups and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) have begun discussions about a possible settlement of consolidated litigation challenging the Biden-era silica dust rule following the Trump administration’s pause on enforcing the rule and a federal appeals court’s stay of the rule’s compliance deadlines.
OSHA attorneys are reiterating their calls for a federal court to dismiss North Dakota’s suit challenging an agency investigation into alleged whistleblower retaliation by the state’s environment department, arguing that a federal court lacks jurisdiction and the state has no sovereign immunity from its enforcement action.
The Trump EPA’s plan to rewrite the Biden-era TSCA phaseout of chrysotile asbestos to limit workplace exposures and further delay litigation over the measure is raising questions over whether the agency will continue to enforce the existing rule as it expects it will take 30 months -- much of the administration’s remaining term -- to redo the rule.
Small business advocates are urging OSHA to withdraw the Biden-era proposed heat standard and start over, pointing to the proposal’s failure to address multiple issues raised by a federal review panel, though they say if the agency decides to propose a new rule, it should use performance-based outcomes rather than prescriptive mandates.
As the Trump administration prepares to hear stakeholder views on a Biden-era OSHA rule setting heat-protection standards, groups in California are weighing a Cal/OSHA plan to strengthen the state’s heat illness-prevention standards as required by a 2022 law, which was prompted by fears of the potential impacts of hotter temperatures caused by climate change.
David Keeling, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead OSHA, is suggesting the Trump administration may be able to fill data gaps as a result of its plans to slash the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) by using data from “private entities” and “professional groups,” though he acknowledged that it may not be easy to do so.
A former Trump administration official is hoping that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit helps define the threshold “unreasonable risk” standard EPA must use when regulating chemicals to protect workers and others under TSCA given Congress’ and the agency’s failure so far to define the term.