Construction-sector groups and occupational health experts are providing a mixed reaction to OSHA’s proposal to remove medical evaluation requirements from its respirator standard, with even some groups who support modifying the standard arguing that total elimination goes too far because such screenings are best practice.
Labor unions and other worker advocates are opposing OSHA’s proposal to remove some medical evaluation requirements in its respiratory protection rule, arguing the proposal is based on flawed reasoning and a lack of understanding of respirator use that is contrary to the law and will result in harm to workers.
EPA has released its draft TSCA risk evaluation of the solvent 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), preliminarily determining that it presents unreasonable risk of inhalation or dermal injuries to workers from a variety of uses, though the agency also says it will not seek further review of the draft since an underlying health assessment was reviewed last year alongside a related chemical.
The Labor Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) reopened on Nov. 13 after the 43-day government shutdown ended, allowing pending cases to resume and requiring some proceedings to be rescheduled following the weeks-long closure.
A recent policy memorandum from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) aimed at speeding deregulatory efforts is likely to also affect the way OSHA approaches new regulations it deems necessary, with the agency prioritizing rules rooted in clear statutory text, one legal expert says.
A coalition of 14 states led by Pennsylvania and Illinois is outlining a series of legal arguments against OSHA’s proposal to narrow the agency’s interpretation of the General Duty Clause, raising concerns about the increased burden for states while echoing statutory and case law arguments raised by unions and occupational health experts.
Chemical manufacturers and a conservative foundation are pressing EPA in comments on a proposed renewal of data collection for the TSCA methylene chloride risk management rules to eliminate duplicative and overlapping EPA and OSHA workplace requirements for the chemical as well other cost burdens.
A conservative regulatory reform group is strongly supporting OSHA’s proposal to narrow its interpretation of the General Duty Clause, saying the change “will restore regulatory clarity, align enforcement with statutory and constitutional limits, reduce burdens on small business, and reinforce respect for professional autonomy and risk management.”
Labor unions and occupational health experts are urging OSHA to withdraw a proposed rule that would narrow the agency’s interpretation of the General Duty Clause to exclude certain activities from enforcement, saying the proposal violates the agency’s statutory mandate and is based on faulty legal reasoning.
Worker rights advocates are opposing a trio of related Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) proposals that would narrow district managers’ authority to require additional safety measures at coal mines, arguing MSHA has failed to demonstrate the proposals are necessary and would not harm miners.