Read last week's story analyzing
the National Academy of Sciences report on ergonomics
Can
Congress overturn the ergonomics rules?
With
a final ergonomics rule out on the streets (the rule
officially went into effect on Jan. 16, just four days before
the new Administration was sworn into office), the NAM is busy
on several fronts to find a way to reverse OSHA's misguided
regulation. Since the final ergo reg does not fall under
President Bush's efforts to review all "midnight regs"
put out in the final days of the Clinton Administration,
there's an opportunity for Congress to nullify the ergonomics
rule altogether by passing a joint resolution of disapproval (JRD)
under a law that was passed in 1996, called the Congressional
Review Act (CRA).
Practically, the ergonomics regulation may be rejected if a
simple majority in both the House of Representatives and
Senate passes separate joint resolutions of disapproval (JRD),
which simply state that the rule has "no force or
effect." Unless the President vetoes the JRD, the
ergonomics rule as we know it would become null and void –
treated as if it had never been issued or gone into effect –
and may not be repromulgated in "substantially the same
form." The NAM will continue to work with our allies in
Congress to have a JRD introduced, approved and ultimately
sent to President Bush for his signature.
On the litigation front, the
number of lawsuits challenging OSHA's ergonomics rule has
risen to 31 (the filing deadline was Jan. 12). According to
a recent Bureau of National Affairs article (Jan. 26, 2001),
"the cases are being consolidated under the lead case,
which was filed on Nov. 8, by the National Association of
Manufacturers" (NAM v. OSHA). A full rundown of petitions
and significant motions can be found at the ergonomics
coalition website: www.ncergo.org/suits.htm.
Next deadline: the statements of petitioners' issues need to
be filed with the D.C. Circuit by Feb. 15. In the meantime, if
your company or your customers face serious harm from
implementation of the rule, you may be able to argue that the
rule should be held in abeyance until the litigation is
concluded.
Return to main page |
