Litigation

A coalition of Republican officials from 14 states has formally challenged EPA’s controversial update to the risk management program (RMP), signaling that they will argue the new rule’s mandate for facilities to assess and adopt “safer” technologies carries no clear benefits that would justify its compliance costs.

The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is sending litigation over the Biden administration’s landmark TSCA rule phasing out uses of chrysotile asbestos to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit -- the same court that overturned the agency’s first attempt to ban asbestos more than 30 years ago when it drastically narrowed EPA’s authority to regulate existing chemicals.

EPA’s industry and Republican critics are warning of a wave of imminent litigation challenging the agency’s recently finalized risk management program (RMP) rule updates and seeking to block it from taking effect later this week, charging it exceeds the agency’s authority and places unnecessary burdens on covered facilities.

Chemical industry groups, labor unions and a prominent public health group have filed separate petitions asking four different appellate courts to review EPA’s final TSCA risk management rule phasing out ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, setting up a high-stakes lottery to determine which court will ultimately hear the precedent-setting case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has denied a Texas contracting firm’s bid to overturn an OSHA trench-safety citation under the “unpreventable employee misconduct” (UEM) doctrine, backing the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) application of a four-part test for employers to invoke that defense.

OSHA is petitioning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to require a Kansas-based contracting company to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) orders after the firm was found liable for four OSH Act violations -- a rare step for the agency to rely on a court petition to enforce orders.

Two conservative lawyers are expecting the Supreme Court will side with petitioners and expand the six-year statute of limitations to bring lawsuits challenging OSHA and other federal agencies’ actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) after the court heard oral arguments this week in a high-profile administrative law case.

Supreme Court justices appeared to offer little clarity during Feb. 20 oral arguments on how they will decide when the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) six-year statute of limitations starts to run, appearing torn between concern over fairness to regulated parties and fear of reopening decades-old policies from OSHA and other agencies.

The Supreme Court’s pending decision on the future of the Chevron doctrine could imperil thousands of rules from OSHA and other agencies that have relied on the doctrine since it was first articulated in 1984, experts say, though the scope of the decision, expected in June, and its precise effects, will depend on how it is written.

The federal district judge hearing litigation over an EPA formaldehyde assessment that employers fear could drive strict workplace limits lobbed skeptical questions at all attorneys involved at a hearing on the parties’ dueling requests to either dismiss the suit or immediately block all use of the contested document, showing few hints on his plans for the case overall.