By Brent I. ClarkJames L. CurtisBenjamin D. BriggsMark A. Lies, IIIlana R. Morady, and Patrick D. Joyce,

Seyfarth Synopsis:  As most employers probably know by now, OSHA’s revised recordkeeping rule requires certain employers to electronically file injury and illness data with OSHA. Originally the reporting deadline was July 1, 2017. OSHA has again extended the deadline, this time to December 15, 2017.

During the previous extension period, it appeared that OSHA might be reconsidering the rule, with a possibility of modifications or a complete revocation of the rule by December 1, 2017. However with the recent extension to December 15, it appears that the rule will remain unchanged for the time being and that covered employers must report by the new deadline.

As a reminder, establishments with 250 or more employees must submit information electronically from their 2016 Form 300A by December 15, 2017. These same employers will be required to submit information from all 2017 forms (300A, 300, and 301) beginning in 2018.

Establishments with 20-249 employees operating in what OSHA deems to be “high-risk industries” (including department stores, nursing homes, construction) must submit information from their 2016 Form 300A by the December 15, 2017 deadline. These same employers will continue to only submit information from their 300A forms in later years.

Although OSHA’s electronic reporting webpage experienced malfunctions earlier this year, the webpage now appears to be working.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Brent I. ClarkIlana R. Morady, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: President Trump’s selection for Administrator at MSHA has been confirmed this week by the Senate.

In a 52-46 vote, David G. Zatezalo, of West Virginia, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate this week, on November 15, 2017, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health (MSHA). The vote was along party lines, with Zatezalo  getting 52 Republican votes.

Zatezalo has deep roots in the mining industry, including a Mining Engineering degree from West Virginia University in 1977, and having become a Professional Engineer and received an award for high grade on the mining exam in 1981.  According to the Whitehouse press release, “Zatezalo began his mining career in 1974 with Consolidation Coal Company as a UMWA Laborer, became a foreman and subsequently General Superintendent for Southern Ohio Coal Company and General Manager of AEP’s Windsor Coal Company. He later rose to be Vice-President of Operations of AEP’s Appalachian Mining Operations.”  He had also served as Chairman, President, CEO, and COO of Rhino Resources GP, LLC, and as President of Hopedale Mining, LLC.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Frederick T. Smith, Jennifer L. Mora, and Christopher W. Kelleher

Seyfarth Synopsis: On November 13, 2017, the Department of Transportation amended its drug testing program regulation which, among other things, adds certain semi-synthetic opioids to its drug testing panel.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has published its long-awaited final rule amending its drug testing program for DOT-regulated employers. The new rule comes in the wake of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revised “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs” which became effective on October 1, 2017.

The new DOT rule makes the following significant changes:

  • Adding four semi-synthetic opioids (hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and oxymorphone) to the drug testing panel, which is “intended to help address the nation-wide epidemic of opioid abuse” and create safer conditions for transportation industries and the public;
  • Adding methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) as an initial test analyte because, in addition to being considered a drug of abuse, it is a metabolite of methylenedioxyethylamphetaime (MDEA) and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”), and such testing potentially acts as a deterrent;
  • Removing testing for MDEA from the existing drug testing panel;
  • Removing the requirement for employers and consortium/third party administrators (C/TPAs) to submit blind specimens in order to relieve unnecessary burdens on employers, C/TPAs, and other parties; and
  • Adding three “fatal flaws” to the list of when a laboratory would reject a specimen and modifying the “shy bladder” process so that the collector will discard certain questionable specimens.

The new rule goes into effect on January 1, 2018. Employers who comply with DOT standards when drug testing should modify their drug testing policies accordingly. Employers that are not subject to DOT requirements, but comply with the HHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs also should consider whether to modify their drug testing policies to comply with the new rules and guidelines.

If you have questions about the new regulations or employee drug testing in general, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the  Labor & Employment or Workplace Policies and Handbooks Teams.

By Jane HallPaul CutroneSam Witton, and Nick Neil

Seyfarth Synopsis:  We are aware that many of the clients we advise on U.S. workplace safety and health laws and regulations also have operations in Australia.  The below blog provides insights into recent significant developments in workplace safety and health law in Queensland.  Please feel free to contact the authors, or any of our workplace safety and health attorneys in Australia, with any questions you may have on this or any related topics.

The community was rightly outraged by the tragic loss of life in incidents at Dreamworld and Eagle Farm. The recent legislative response to those tragedies has attracted significant media attention, with laws recently rushed through Queensland parliament, introducing new offences into the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), the Electrical Safety Act 2002(Qld) and the Recreational Water Activities Act 2011 (Qld), from 23 October 2017.

Much of the focus in the legal media and beyond has been on the headline grabbing figures of penalties of up to AUD$10m for body corporates and 20 years imprisonment for individuals – making these the toughest workplace penalties in Australia at the moment. The new offences respond to the sense of outrage, but with the attention on the penalties, there has been little pause to ask:

Are these laws an appropriate response to the tragedies?

To coin the phrase often used by lawyers, “the jury is still out”.

Looking at the introduction of the industrial manslaughter offences in the Work Health and Safety Act, we make the following observations:

  • The Act has the primary objective of protecting workers and other persons against harm to their health and safety.
  • The Act already provided for terms of imprisonment for the most serious types of offending.
  • It is not clear how the recent introduction of longer terms of imprisonment and higher penalties will help regulators prevent injury, illness and death as correctly highlighted by the Bar Association of Queensland, there has only been one prosecution of a category 1 offence (the most serious offence under the WHS Act) in Queensland so far.
  • There is no real evidence that the existing laws were ”inadequate”. We are not suggesting that a tragic loss of life in a workplace should not result in a detailed examination of the circumstances and, where there is evidence of serious offending by a duty holder, regulators ought to take enforcement action. The query is whether regulators in Queensland were unable to adequately do so prior to 23 October 2017.

Will the new offences have unintended consequences?

One serious concern amongst businesses, their workers, key stakeholders and others ought to be whether the introduction of longer terms of imprisonment and higher penalties and threats of greater enforcement will encourage business and industries to learn from failure in an open and transparent way.

The prospect of very severe (and, in particular, personal) penalties, will be an impediment to sharing valuable safety learnings in industries, at least until the legal processes have run their course. This can take up to five years in some circumstances. Will valuable lessons be lost?

This can only be detrimental to health and safety outcomes – the very opposite of what the laws seek to achieve.

We all want healthy and safe workplaces and appropriate responses to serious offending, but this should not be at the expense of an environment that encourages learning and sharing. We hope that the approach taken to the enforcement of the new offences does not create a new form of outrage caused by business and individuals justifiably exercising significant caution about sharing safety learnings with others in a timely fashion.

We raised the question in our related blog, Victorian OHS enforcement: why change the game plan when your team is on top? If the ‘end game’ is improving health and safety outcomes, are better options available?

By Brent I. ClarkAdam R. Young, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA has recently published “Small Entity Compliance” Guides for the new Crystalline Silica Standard for Construction and General Industry.

OSHA recently released small entity compliance guides for both construction and general industry.  See Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard in Construction (OSHA 3902 – 2017), and Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard for General Industry and Maritime (OSHA 3911 – 2017).

OSHA does not define what it means by “small entity” in the Guides, other than referring to helping “small businesses.”  Generally, under the Small Business Act, Public Law 85-536, as amended, a small business concern is one that is “independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation.”

We have previously blogged about crystalline silica, such as: OSHA Adopts 30-Day “Phase-In” of Enforcement of Crystalline Silica Standard for Construction, OSHA Proposes Silica Worker Exposure Hazards Rule, and New OSHA Hazard Safety Bulletin for the Hydraulic Fracturing Industries.

Crystalline silica ubiquitous in modern society. Crystalline silica is found in many naturally-occurring building materials and used in many industrial products and at construction sites. Materials such as sand, concrete, stone, and mortar contain crystalline silica. Crystalline silica is also used to make products like glass, pottery, ceramics, bricks, concrete and artificial stone. Industrial sand containing crystalline silica is used in foundry work and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations.

While these Guides may assist employers in understanding compliance with the new rules, note that OSHA specifically states that:

This document provides guidance only, and does not alter or determine compliance responsibilities, which are laid out in OSHA standards and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This guide does not replace the official Respirable Crystalline Silica standard [s].  The employer must refer to the standard to ensure that it is in compliance. Moreover, because interpretations and enforcement policy may change over time, for additional guidance on OSHA compliance requirements the reader should consult current administrative interpretations and [OSHRC] decisions….

Employers who work with silica must now comply with the Crystalline Silica Standard.  Due to the complexity of the regulations and requirements, we recommend you contact your occupational safety and health attorney as soon as possible to discuss a path to compliance.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Brent I. Clark, Benjamin Briggs, James L. Curtis, Adam R. Young, Daniel Birnbaum, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth SynopsisThe White House picks Scott A. Mugno as the new Administrator of federal OSHA.

The White House announced on October 27th that it has nominated Scott A. Mugno to be the Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health.  If confirmed, Mr. Mugno will serve as the Administrator of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  Mr. Mungo will replace Dr. David Michaels, who left the Agency on January 10, 2017.

Mr. Mugno currently serves  as the Vice President for Safety, Sustainability and Vehicle Maintenance at FedEx Ground in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Mr. Mugno previously served at FedEx as the Managing Director, Corporate Safety, Health and Fire Protection, and as a Senior Attorney.  Prior to FedEx, Mr. Mugno was a Senior Counsel at Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps.  Mr. Mugno is a graduate of Washburn University School of Law, and St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York.

In the past, Mr. Mugno has advocated at the United States Chamber of Commerce for the review and elimination of outdated safety regulations.  If he is confirmed, employers can anticipate that Mr. Mugno will be a strong supporter of  the Trump Administration’s anti-regulatory stance on issues such as post-accident drug testing, incentive programs, and voluntary protection programs (VPP).

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Christopher W. Kelleher, Rashal G. Baz, James L. Curtis, and Brent I. Clark,

Seyfarth Synopsis:  On October 11, 2017, the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance that will require Chicago hotels to provide certain staff with “panic buttons” and develop enhanced anti-sexual harassment policies.

In an effort to protect hotel employees from sexual harassment and other guest-misconduct, Chicago has passed the Hotel Workers Sexual Harassment Ordinance, which requires Chicago hotels to provide employees who work alone in guest rooms or bathrooms with “a panic button or notification device” which can be used to call for help if the employee “reasonably believes that an ongoing crime, sexual harassment, sexual assault or other emergency is occurring in the employee’s presence.”

According to the Ordinance, “a panic button or notification device” is a portable device designed to be used in emergency situations to summon hotel security or other appropriate hotel staff to the employee’s location.  The Ordinance does not require hotels to use a specific type of device, as long as it warns proper hotel personnel and it comes at no cost to the employee.

The Ordinance also requires hotels to develop and distribute a written policy to protect employees against sexual harassment.  Specifically, the policy must: (1) encourage employees to promptly report sexual misconduct by guests; (2) describe procedures for handling the reported misconduct; (3) instruct the complaining employee to stop work and leave the dangerous area; (4) offer the employee temporary work assignments; (5) provide the employee with paid time off to make a complaint or testify as a witness; (6) inform employees of additional protections; and (7) include an anti-retaliation provision.  The policy must be conspicuously posted in English, Spanish, and Polish.

The Ordinance authorizes fines of $250 – $500 for each day a violation continues, and two or more violations within any 12-month period may result in license suspension or revocation.  Hotels will have until July 1, 2018 to implement “panic button” systems, but must comply with the Ordinance’s other provisions (i.e. develop and distribute an updated anti-sexual harassment policy) within 60 days of the law’s publication, which we can expect any day now.

Notably, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) uses the General Duty Clause to enforce workplace issues against employers.  OSHA can rely on industry practices to support a claim that a “recognized hazard” exists.  It is possible that OSHA will use the new Ordinance and employer compliance in Chicago as a basis to require that other hotel employers should also have “panic buttons.”

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team or the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Ilana R. Morady and Andrew H. Perellis

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act makes California the first state to require ingredient labeling both on product labels and online for consumer cleaning products.

On October 15, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed California Senate Bill (S.B.) 258, the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017. The new law requires manufacturers of certain cleaning products, i.e. “designated products,” to disclose certain chemical ingredients on the product label by 2021.

Designated products are “a finished product that is an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, or institutional cleaning purposes.” Exceptions apply, such as referencing that the ingredient information is available on a website, or providing a toll-free phone number.

Under the new law, product information – such as the CAS numbers, the functional purposes of certain ingredients, and a link to the safety data sheets for the products – must also be made available on the manufacturers’ website by 2020. In light of the new law, chemical manufacturers of cleaning products should review their inventory of products sold in California and determine if such products are covered.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Brent I. ClarkIlana R. Morady, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (Review Commission) issued two orders this month — the first we have heard from the Review Commission since April 27, 2017.  The orders followed, on August 28, 2017, James J. Sullivan, Jr., being sworn in as a new and needed third Commissioner.  Also on August 16, 2017, Heather L. MacDougall was sworn in as the Chairman, after being appointed to the position by President Trump.  These two orders represent the first of many expected now to come.

For the first time in over two years, the OSHA Review Commission is fully staffed with three Commissioners. The Review Commission is the independent federal agency that provides trial and appellate review of contested cases resulting from OSHA inspections.

Although two commissioners can and have been deciding cases, it is expected that cases will now be addressed more expediently with three Commissioners. In the past years, the Commission has been criticized for its heavy backlog. Dozens of cases await the Commission’s attention right now. Although the new 3-person panel has only issued two orders so far, we can expect to see many more orders issue in the coming months.

For employers this means that contests of citations that are appealed from administrative law judge decisions will likely be resolved more quickly than in the recent past. This also means that new case law precedent will be issued, which will affect employer defenses in a variety of safety and health contexts.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Patrick D. Joyce and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: OSHA announced a thirty day phase-in for enforcement of the Crystalline Silica Standard for Construction under 29 CFR 1926.1153.  The new rule will be fully effective by Monday, October 23, 2017.

OSHA’s new crystalline silica rule is wide-reaching and, for that reason, the rulemaking has been contentious. We have blogged about crystalline silica many times: OSHA Proposes Silica Worker Exposure Hazards Rule, OSHA Extends the Comment Deadline for Proposed Silica Worker Exposure Hazards Rule, New OSHA Hazard Safety Bulletin for the Hydraulic Fracturing Industries, and Senators Ask OSHA to Consider the Fracking Industry Economy and to More Fully Extend the Comment Deadline for Proposed Silica Worker Exposure Hazards Rule.

Crystalline silica is a staple of modern society. Crystalline silica is a common mineral found in many naturally occurring materials and used in many industrial products and at construction sites. Materials such as sand, concrete, stone, and mortar contain crystalline silica. Crystalline silica is also used to make products like glass, pottery, ceramics, bricks, concrete and artificial stone. Industrial sand containing crystalline silica is also used in certain foundry work and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations.

OSHA estimates that 2.3 million workers are potentially exposed to crystalline silica on the job, and that nearly 676,000 workplaces will be affected by the crystalline silica rule, including in construction and in general industry and maritime. The rule was expected to result in annual costs of $1,524 for the average workplace covered by the rule. The total cost of compliance with the rule was estimated at “just over $1 billion” (per year).

In an effort to remedy some of the difficulties that have arisen to come into compliance with the construction portion of the new rule, the Agency had previously decided to delay enforcement of the standard from June 23, 2017, until September 23, 2017.

Now that September 23 has passed, the Agency issued a standard interpretation letter for the Launch of Enforcement of the Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard, 29 CFR § 1926.1153.  The new rule will be fully effective on Monday, October 23, 2017.  Specifically the interpretation states that:

During the first 30 days of enforcement, OSHA will carefully evaluate good faith efforts taken by employers in their attempts to meet the new construction silica standard. OSHA will render compliance assistance and outreach to assure that covered employers are fully and properly complying with its requirements. Given the novelty of the Table 1 approach, OSHA will pay particular attention to assisting employers in fully and properly implementing the controls in the table. OSHA will assist employers who are making good faith efforts to meet the new requirements to assure understanding and compliance.

If, upon inspection, it appears an employer is not making any efforts to comply, OSHA’s inspection will not only include collection of exposure air monitoring performed in accordance with Agency procedures, but those employers may also be considered for citation. Any proposed citations related to inspections conducted in this time period will require National Office review.

For employers in these industries, it is important to note that this phase in period provides little additional time to come into compliance with the new rule. Due to the complexity of the rule, we recommend you contact your occupational safety and health attorney as soon as possible to discuss a path to compliance.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.