An employer attorney says the Supreme Court’s reversal of its long-standing Chevron deference doctrine bolsters the odds that a court will reverse OSHA’s new rule governing employee representatives’ roles in inspection walkarounds and will encourage the targets of enforcement actions to challenge whatever standards the agency cites them for violating.
The Supreme Court will not take up an employer’s suit that claimed OSH Act provisions giving OSHA authority to craft long-term safety standards as “appropriate” are unconstitutional, denying a bid to drastically expand the “nondelegation” doctrine limiting Congress’ ability to grant agencies rulemaking discretion.
OSHA has released its proposed nationwide heat illness and injury prevention standard after years of development, closely following the outline it previewed to agency advisors earlier this year that mandates written safety plans at both indoor and outdoor work sites, with triggers for action based on either heat index or wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) measurements.
The Supreme Court has held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not require lawsuits over OSHA and other agencies’ rules and “final agency action” to begin within six years of their promulgation but rather within six years of when a party was first injured by a particular policy -- a precedent that could open the door for a “tsunami” of wide-ranging challenges to long-settled policies.
The Supreme Court has overruled its 40-year-old Chevron doctrine granting deference to OSHA and other agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutory language, scrapping a principle that was the basis for countless decisions on the lawfulness of agency rules, guidance and other actions.
The Supreme Court has adopted a new, stringent standard for regulatory agencies to justify sending enforcement actions to administrative law judges (ALJs) for review rather than federal courts, but the majority appears to hold up the OSH Act as an example of a law that passes its test, signaling that OSHA could avoid major impacts from the precedent.
The industry coalition suing EPA over its controversial update to the risk management program (RMP) says it will ask a federal appellate court to scrap four aspects of the rule in particular -- those that mandate third-party audits, “safer technology” analyses, public transparency, and adoption of new “generally accepted” engineering practices.
The industry coalition suing EPA over its controversial update to the risk management program (RMP) says it will ask a federal appellate court to scrap four aspects of the rule in particular -- those that mandate third-party audits, “safer technology” analyses, public transparency, and adoption of new “generally accepted” engineering practices.
California OSHA’s (Cal/OSHA) standards board has approved -- as expected -- first-time indoor heat worker-protection standards, along with a petition from a labor union to begin work on a rule that would subject renewable fuel refineries to the same strict worker-safety standards that already apply at petroleum refineries.
Unions and a worker-protection group are signaling that their suit over EPA’s rule setting out requirements for chemical risk evaluations will target a single provision allowing the agency to consider data on companies’ use of protective equipment in its reviews -- a narrow focus despite the rule’s broad swath of policy changes.