On May 5, the attorneys general of nineteen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., alleging that mass layoffs of HHS departmental staff have led to “severe, complicated, and potentially irreversible” consequences for the plaintiff states.Since March 27, when Secretary Kennedy issued a directive to reduce staffing and dramatically restructure the department, HHS has fired about 10,000 employees. Another 10,000 staff members have left voluntarily, as reported by Reuters.
The legal complaint (PDF), filed in Rhode Island, asserts that due to the layoffs and reorganization, “critical offices were left unable to perform statutory functions.” These include conducting research and training, certifying personal protective equipment, processing applications, providing staff and funding to state programs, and testing for infectious diseases. The document describes how each impacted agency and program was mandated by Congress to perform necessary functions and how the loss of these functions has harmed the plaintiff states.
NIOSH was among the agencies most affected by staff firings and reorganization. More than 870 NIOSH employees, including Dr. John Howard, the agency’s director, received termination notices on April 1. Nearly all remaining staff were laid off on May 2.
“Since the mass terminations, NIOSH has immediately stopped services and closed locations,” the complaint states. “NIOSH employees confirmed to CBS News via an annotated organizational chart that NIOSH had effectively been completely dismantled.” Pages 28 through 44 of the complaint detail the impacts of the loss of a range of programs overseen or funded by NIOSH.
For example, federal regulations require NIOSH to certify respiratory equipment for use by the estimated five million American workers who use respirators for their jobs. NIOSH’s National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, the only federal facility able to issue approvals for N95 respirators, lost nearly all its employees. As of the date of the complaint’s filing, NPPTL’s website stated that no new respirator approvals could be accepted due to the reductions in force. The complaint asserts that the plaintiff states, which employ and operate healthcare facilities and other workplaces where respiratory protection is required, “are harmed by the sudden cessation of certification of respiratory equipment, which will make it more difficult to source and purchase necessary respiratory equipment for State workers and State facilities.”
The plaintiffs argue that even the few NIOSH programs expected to remain funded “will be rendered functionally ineffective and place increased financial burden on the Plaintiff States.” Among these programs, the World Trade Center Health Program is mandated by the Zadroga Act of 2010 to provide medical research, treatment, and monitoring for responders and survivors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The program does not employ staff physicians but has relied on NIOSH doctors to certify members with new conditions. All NIOSH doctors were placed on administrative leave on April 1, and no staff remain to certify new patients for coverage, as required by law. “The result is that more people who are eligible for such programs will not receive coverage or reimbursement for their medical needs and will therefore need to rely on coverage from Plaintiff-State health plans to pay for their costs,” the complaint states.
The complaint holds that the termination of HHS employees and “confusing” reorganization of the department “is an unlawful effort to undercut the will of Congress who ordered the agencies and programs to run.” The plaintiffs note that the congressional mandates that created each agency and program remained in force, and that Congress had invested trillions of dollars in the department every year. “Much of that investment was lost in a day through the massive firings of HHS’s leaders and staff,” the complaint asserts. “More will be lost if nothing is done.”
OSHA recently encouraged construction industry employers and workers, across the nation, to take part in its 12th annual National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction. This nationwide event spotlights preventing falls, the construction industry's leading cause of worker deaths.
Throughout the week, OSHA urged employers to pause during the workday to conduct "stand-down" activities, including safety demonstrations, hazard recognition and fall prevention training, and "tool-box" talks about hazards. Employers were also encouraged to have discussions about job-specific hazards, like roofing, ladder use, and working on scaffolds.
Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling participated in the 2025 Stand-Down and provided remarks during an event at the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland, where multiple construction and renovation projects are currently underway.
The U.S. Department of Labor has filed suit against the U.S. Postal Service for wrongful termination of an employee who fell while delivering mail and reported the work-related injury.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a settlement to resolve alleged violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act with the Scranton, Pennsylvania, public school district.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is providing notice that it will not take enforcement action against offerors or carriers using the proper shipping names for electronically programmable detonators (as listed in the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) at 49 CFR § 172.101) because the two industry standards currently incorporated by reference in 49 CFR §171.7 have not been updated to include proper shipping names for these items.
New notes added to the website of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) clarify the state agency’s requirements for protecting construction workers involved with dry abrasive blasting from lead exposure. Revisions to California’s lead standards for general industry and construction were approved last year, and the updated regulations went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. Both amended standards lowered the state’s permissible exposure limit for lead from 50 µg/mg3 to 10 µg/mg3 as an eight-hour time-weighted average. Cal/OSHA’s clarifications have to do with the PEL, limits on the time construction workers can spend per day conducting abrasive blasting, and respiratory protection for these workers.
A cornerstone of OSHA's Fall Prevention Campaign, the National Safety Stand-Down, was developed in partnership with The Center for Construction Research and Training. The event also coincided with Construction Safety Week and its National Safety Stand-Down Initiative to help prevent falls in construction. Since its launch in 2012, the initiative has helped train more than 10 million workers on fall prevention.
The U.S. Department of Labor has filed suit against the U.S. Postal Service for wrongful termination of an employee who fell while delivering mail and reported the work-related injury.An investigation by OSHA found the USPS violated the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act by firing the worker on Feb. 27, 2024, 10 days after the injury was reported.
The department’s suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asks the court to hold USPS liable for illegal retaliation and require payment of back wages and damages.
OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program enforces the whistleblower provisions of 25 whistleblower statutes protecting employees from retaliation for reporting violations of workplace airline, anti-money laundering, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, criminal antitrust, environmental, financial reform, food safety, health insurance reform, maritime, motor vehicle safety, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad, safety and health, securities and tax laws. For more information on whistleblower protections, visit OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Programs webpage.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a settlement to resolve alleged violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act with the Scranton, Pennsylvania, public school district.EPA alleges the school district failed to include all required elements in the asbestos management plans for 15 schools and to maintain complete, updated copies of the asbestos management plans for 19 schools in its administrative office and in the administrative offices of those schools. Under the terms of this settlement, the district has agreed to demonstrate compliance with the relevant regulations in all of its school buildings and submit a certification of compliance.
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act is the section of the Toxic Substances Control Act that regulates how educational institutions manage asbestos in school buildings. The law requires public school districts and non-profit schools—including charter schools and schools affiliated with religious institutions—to inspect schools for asbestos, prepare management plans, and take action to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is providing notice that it will not take enforcement action against offerors or carriers using the proper shipping names for electronically programmable detonators (as listed in the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) at 49 CFR § 172.101) because the two industry standards currently incorporated by reference in 49 CFR §171.7 have not been updated to include proper shipping names for these items.The two publications include:
- The 2019 version of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) Safety Library Publication 22 (i.e., SLP-22) titled “Recommendations for the Safe Transportation of Detonators in a Vehicle with Certain Other Explosive Materials.”
- The 2021 version of IME Safety Library Publication 23 (i.e., SLP-23) titled “Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives, Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1, Combustible Liquids, Class 3, and Corrosives, Class 8 Bulk Packaging.”
On July 26, 2022, PHMSA published a final rule titled “Hazardous Materials: Harmonization with International Standards” under Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0030 (HM-215P)1 to maintain alignment with international regulations and standards by adopting various amendments, including changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements. As a part of this final rule, PHMSA adopted new proper shipping names in the HMT for detonators including: “UN0511, Detonators, electronic programmable for blasting,” “UN0512, Detonators, electronic programmable for blasting,” and “UN0513, Detonators, electronic programmable for blasting.” In addition, on March 4, 2024, PHMSA published a final rule titled “Hazardous Materials: Adoption of Miscellaneous Petitions and Updating Regulatory Requirements” under Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0102 (HM-219D)2 that incorporated the 2019 version of SLP-22 and the 2021 version of SLP-23.
The 2019 version of SLP-22 and the 2021 version of SLP-23 that were submitted to PHMSA by IME and subsequently incorporated by reference in § 171.7 did not include the new proper shipping names for electronically programable detonators added as part of the HM-215P final rule. This discrepancy is causing the frustration of electronically programmable detonator shipments transported under the IME SLP-22 and SLP-23 publications.
Using the more detailed proper shipping names added in the HM-215P final rule has no detrimental impact on transportation safety. Therefore, PHMSA will not take enforcement action against offerors or carriers using those proper shipping names. This notice of enforcement discretion shall remain in effect until PHMSA incorporates by reference in the HMR updated versions of SLP-22 and SLP-23 referencing the new proper shipping names.
This notice is limited to the shipment of electronically programmable detonators under the IME SLP-22 and SLP-23 publications. Offerors and carriers must comply with all other obligations under the HMR and other applicable laws. This document is a temporary notice of enforcement discretion. Regulated entities may rely on this notice as a safeguard from departmental enforcement as described herein, but it does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind regulated entities in any way. This enforcement discretion has been coordinated with and endorsed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. For information on the HMR, contact the Hazardous Materials Information Center at 1-800-467-4922 or infocntr@dot.gov.
New notes added to the website of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) clarify the state agency’s requirements for protecting construction workers involved with dry abrasive blasting from lead exposure. Revisions to California’s lead standards for general industry and construction were approved last year, and the updated regulations went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. Both amended standards lowered the state’s permissible exposure limit for lead from 50 µg/mg3 to 10 µg/mg3 as an eight-hour time-weighted average. Cal/OSHA’s clarifications have to do with the PEL, limits on the time construction workers can spend per day conducting abrasive blasting, and respiratory protection for these workers.California’s construction standard for lead provides an exception for employees conducting abrasive blasting, allowing a PEL of 25 µg/m3 as an eight-hour TWA during such tasks until Jan. 1, 2030. The standard also limits the number of hours a worker can spend conducting dry abrasive blasting per day until their employer performs an exposure assessment to determine the worker’s actual exposure. Until Jan. 1, 2030, a worker whose employer has not yet conducted the required exposure assessment can spend up to five hours per day abrasive blasting, and after Jan. 1, 2030, that limit becomes two hours per day. According to Cal/OSHA, there is no limit on the amount of time per day a worker can conduct abrasive blasting once the required exposure assessment is complete, “but the employer must ensure employee exposures are below the [PEL] taking into consideration the protection provided by respirators used by employees.”
Cal/OSHA’s notes on abrasive blasting and lead include a copy of a table that describes the protection provided by different types of respirators. Taking into consideration the state’s exception for the construction industry PEL, the agency explains that air concentrations of lead up to 25,000 µg/mg3 are permitted for abrasive blasting until Jan. 1, 2030. Starting on that date, air concentrations of lead will be limited to 10,000 µg/mg3. These maximum air concentrations are allowed for “employees correctly using a respirator with a protection factor of 1,000 at all times,” the agency states, as such respirators would reduce air concentrations of lead inside workers’ respirators to 25 µg/m3 and 10 µg/m3, meeting the respective PELs for before and after Jan. 1, 2030.
Abrasive blasting is among jobs that California’s regulation for lead in construction describes as “level 3 trigger tasks,” which put workers at the highest risk of lead exposure. Until an employer performs the required exposure assessment, they must assume that workers involved in level 3 trigger tasks are exposed to lead at more than 50 times the revised PEL of 10 µg/mg3, or more than 500 μg/m3.
Information about Cal/OSHA’s clarifications for its standard on lead in construction can be found in an agency news release and on its webpage for lead exposure prevention in the construction industry. Additional guidance and resources related to California’s lead standards for both construction and general industry are also available from Cal/OSHA.
News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
