palletcentral

Pallet C e nt ral • S e ptem be r- O ctobe r 2 0 26 4 3 ladder safety systems or other personal fall arrest systems by November 2036. e proposed change would allow employers to update their ladders at the end of their service lives and to continue to use the ladder cages or wells. e comment period closed on June 5, 2026, for this rulemaking, but it will be addressed at the public hearings in August 2026. OSHA will also address changes to the interpretation of its General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act), which serves as a "gap filler" where there is a recognized hazard that could seriously harm workers and there is a feasible method of abatement but no specific OSHA standard applies. At this time, the change would be to exempt "inherently risky professional activities" from being citable under the General Duty Clause. But examples used by OSHA are professional sports and entertainment venues (stages) where performers may engage in risky behavior—Cirque du Soleil being be a good example. e real question is how far the scope of the exemption may stretch following review of the comments and any testimony at the public hearings. The most immediately significant proposal impacting WoodPack members is the pending heat illness rule from federal OSHA. At this time, multiple state OSHA agencies have adopted unique heat illness standards: CalOSHA (California), Oregon OSHA, Washington State "WISHA," MN-OSHA (Minnesota), and most recently Maryland OSHA (MOSH rule was effective September 2025) and Virginia OSHA (VOSH rule takes effect in January 2027). All of these have some elements that conflict with the other state rules as well as with the guidance put out from federal OSHA in support of its ongoing National Emphasis Program (warehousing is one of the targeted sectors). One complication for the heat illness proposed rule comes from Congress. On July 21, 2026, the House Education & Workforce Committee approved legislation (HR 6213) to bar OSHA from promulgating a heat illness prevention rule. is is essentially prior restraint on agency rulemaking, which seems to be a case of first impression and will no doubt end up in court in the event that the bill passes the full House and Senate before adjournment this session. But since it has over 50 co-sponsors at present, the odds are in its favor. If Congress is successful in this approach, future rules can be smothered in infancy rather than spending the time and effort to complete a rulemaking only to have it killed by Congress and a new Administration using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). e CRA was used twice to date to rescind final OSHA rules: the Clinton Administration's Ergonomics Standard and the Obama Administration's "Continuing Violation" rule. e CRA bars the agency from ever promulgating a "substantially similar rule" without the express permission of Congress. Other items on OSHA's "long term agenda" (for now) include changes to the powered industrial truck rules, adoption of a workplace violence rule for the healthcare and social services sector, changes to the chemical industry's Process Safety Management standard, and communication tower safety. To observe the upcoming public hearings on these OSHA standards, more information will be posted via OSHA. gov. No preregistration is required. In the meantime, while this regulatory review process continues, the US District Court in Texas is currently considering whether the majority of OSHA rules were improperly promulgated. See Texas International Produce Association and the Texas Vegetable Association v. Secretary of Labor (2025, pending). e concept is that the OSH Act delegates authority for rulemaking to the agency rather than requiring acts of Congress to direct what rules should be promulgated (e.g., for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act directed promulgation of air rules and the Clean Water Act allowed rules impacting waters of the US). e claim is that this violates the "non-delegation doctrine" in the US Constitution. is gambit was tried a few years ago (OSHA won) and while the US Supreme Court denied certiorari, Justices omas and Gorsuch wrote a dissent and invited another case to be brought to them on the same theory. It is noteworthy that the federal regulatory review is also emphasizing rescission of rules that violate this "non-delegation" precept, and so the next update on the OSHA "Standards Improvement Project" (due in July 2027) should have some substantive proposals for eliminating rules entirely. While the initial OSHA rules were founded upon 1960s ANSI standards (and this was properly directed by Congress in the Act), all of the later rules that were propounded by the agency are now at risk. Will the government's deregulatory campaign result in improved rules and a reduced regulatory burden, or will it end with the elimination of nearly all OSHA rules? Stay tuned! Adele Abrams, Esq., ASP, CMSP, is Senior Counsel in the Washington, DC, office of Liler Mendelson PC, where she is part of the firm's Occupational Safety and Health group and leads the national MSHA practice. Adele provides OSHA/MSHA case representation, training, and consultative services on safety and employment law. She can be reached at Aabrams@liler.com or 301-613-7498.

• Cover