Two industry groups are seeking to bolster allegations from the chemical sector that EPA’s TSCA rule for the solvent methylene chloride is unlawful, arguing that the agency’s claim of broad discretion to limit or ban chemical uses in order to protect workers is at odds with the Constitution and ignores Congress’s intended role for OSHA.
The Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (MSHRC) is declining to participate in a pair of D.C. Circuit appeals where both the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and mining companies hope to overturn its decisions that the agency lacks “unfettered” authority to drop already-issued citations in favor of settlement agreements.
A three-judge 5th Circuit panel is letting stand automakers’ amicus brief opposing EPA’s landmark TSCA rule for chrysotile asbestos that EPA and public-health advocates attacked as improperly adding a host of new legal questions to the case, teeing up what could be complex arguments over which of the group’s claims are properly before the court.
OSHA is arguing that California highway regulators responsible for the Golden Gate Bridge cannot continue to challenge its Trump-era guidance letter that eased implementation of a long-standing scaffolding safety standard, because officials in the state are not directly bound by the policy and thus have suffered no “injury” from it.
Trade groups and a chemical company suing EPA over its redone rule governing TSCA risk evaluations are divided on what bar the agency must clear to defend its new policy, teeing up a question that will shape how appellate judges decide whether the agency has properly justified its approach to measuring workplace risk, among other key issues.
A Missouri agriculture firm is appealing to federal circuit court an enforcement case where it argued OSHA lacks jurisdiction over fall-prevention in train loading -- an argument that an administrative law judge (ALJ) said is at odds with a nearly 30-year-old policy balancing the agency’s authority against that of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
Trade groups are asking a federal appeals court to hold that the reformed TSCA gave OSHA, not EPA, primary responsibility to regulate any “unreasonable risks” to workers from toxic substances, seeking to scrap the agency’s approach to chemical-specific rules that has focused primarily -- sometimes exclusively -- on workplace dangers.
Industry trade groups and individual companies are asking the 5th Circuit to scrap EPA’s rule governing methylene chloride for a litany of reasons, saying the agency ignored research on the chemical’s dangers, improperly refused to consider their workers’ use of protective gear and misapplied science to craft a strict workplace exposure limit, among other claims.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is weighing an enforcement appeal about the bar employers must clear to show compliance with OSHA’s machine-guarding standard, including whether they can rely on evidence that their safety practices are in line with “industry custom” -- a claim that an attorney for the agency said at oral argument could “eviscerate the OSH Act” if judges back it.
Unions and worker-safety advocates are asking the D.C. Circuit to hold that TSCA forbids the agency from considering workers’ use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when evaluating chemicals’ risks, saying its rule on the subject shows a “fundamental misunderstanding” of OSHA’s requirements for employers to provide protective gear.