Industry Seeks Hazcom Review in Supreme Court

Occupational Hazards, May 1989 | Go to article overview

Industry Seeks Hazcom Review in Supreme Court


INDUSTRY SEEKS HAZCOM REVIEW IN SUPREME COURT

The hazard communication standard (HCS) is currently the subject of four petitions for review by the Supreme Court. The petitions all stem from a decision last November by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that lifted an earlier stay and extended the hazcom rule's scope to include the construction industry.

The petition by the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) challenges the Third Circuit's order curtailing statutorily mandated notice and comment procedures. In August 1987, the court ordered OSHA to expand the standard to include the nonmanufacturing sector without first seeking additional public comment.

"The revised HCS was issued without regard to statutorily mandated rulemaking procedures, pursuant to an extraordinary series of orders by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit," ABC's petition, filed in December 1988, states. "As a result of the Third Circuit's order and OSHA's attempt to comply therewith, millions of employers have been deprived of any meaningful opportunity to comment." The new standard, the petition argues, "imposes tremendous burdens on small businesses without any improvement in workplace safety."

ABC also disputes the Third Circuit's August 1988 ruling that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) overstepped its authority in disapproving three provisions of the hazcom standard. Those provisions are: . The requirement that employers exchange material safety data sheets (MSDS's) at multi-employer worksites. . An exemption from the requirements of the standard limited to consumer products used in the workplace in the same manner and quantities as intended for consumer use. . An exemption for drugs limited to those in tablet or pill form regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Both the ABC petition and a petition filed by the Associated General Contractors (AGC) contest the Third Circuit's failure to require OSHA to determine whether the provisions of the revised standard were necessary and appropriate to reduce the risk of harm to workers in the construction industry. According to the two trade associations, the Third Circuit failed to require OSHA to demonstrate that the revised standard is feasible within the "unique circumstances of the construction industry. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Industry Seeks Hazcom Review in Supreme Court
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.