Apparently OSHA is considering rulemaking. OSHA has established a PEL for dust, referred to as Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated (PNOR).) The PELs for PNOR are as follows: 15 mg/m(3) for total dust and 5 mg/m(3) for the respirable fraction. Must perform a separate evaluation for dust exposure using the PEL for PNOR.
Apparently OSHA is considering rulemaking. OSHA has established a PEL for dust, referred to as Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated (PNOR).) The PELs for PNOR are as follows: 15 mg/m(3) for total dust and 5 mg/m(3) for the respirable fraction. Must perform a separate evaluation for dust exposure using the PEL for PNOR.
NIH can do its own rulemaking.
In 2014, I was "parliamentarian" for OSHSA rulemaking on silicosis as an administrative law judge for DOL.. If OSHA wants to make a rule, it will have to follow the Administrative Procedure Act rules. I called balls and strikes in hearings when OSHA heard from international experts and industry was given an opportunity to be heard.
Plastic production involves using non-renewable resources such as oil and natural gas, which are often extracted using environmentally destructive methods. The production process also releases harmful greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, contributing to climate change.
The March 2023 issue of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) eNews includes an item announcing publication of an article entitled “ Results of the 2019 Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Health and Safety Practices” in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. According to the abstract, the survey aimed to understand whether workers follow the recommendations of NIOSH’s Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC). From September to December 2019, NIOSH worked with RTI International to administer an online survey about workplace safety and health practices related to nanomaterials. The abstract states that 45 U.S. and Canadian companies completed the survey developed by RAND Corporation. More than a third (37.8 percent) of the respondents reported using at least one NIOSH resource to acquire information about safe handling of engineered nanomaterials. The abstract notes that the small number of companies that responded to and completed the survey “is a considerable limitation to this study.” The abstract states that the survey data “are valuable for gauging the reach and influence of the NIOSH NTRC on nano OHS and for informing future outreach, particularly to small businesses.”
Are There Nano- and Microplastics in the Workplace?
Posted on February 19, 2020 by Vladimir Murashov, PhD; Charles L. Geraci, Jr., PhD, CIH, FAIHA ; Paul Schulte, PhD; and John Howard, MD
"Presently there are no occupational exposure limits for nano- and microplastics. In the absence of occupational exposure limits for nano- and microplastics workplace safety efforts should focus on minimizing potential exposure through appropriate engineering controls such as isolation cabinets, exhaust ventilation, and utilizing good industrial hygiene practices."
Efforts at rebalancing the branches of government are needed for sure. Congress can and should restrict the jurisdiction of the courts and precedent value of decisions. This has been a lingering issue in the U.S. system since 1803.
Other countries have solved such issues with concepts such as persuasive precedent and not binding precedent. In Germany court decisions are generally of persuasive precedent value. What that means is that cases are decided for the litigants in front of the court but do not carry binding authority for other litigants. The idea is that general problems in society should be sorted out by the legislature not the courts.
1803. Marbury v. Madison? Stands for the proposition that Article III gets to determine "unconstitutionality." U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.
Persuasive precedent. Sorry but that would mean "black letter law" would stand for nothing and everything would have to be relitigated. We come from a common law tradition. Deutschland does not. I'm originally from Pennsylvania where our law wasn't codified until 1977.
Marbury was a power grab where the constitution was not clear. Can and should be corrected by Congress through jurisdictional reform.
The issue with a common law tradition is that it works well in an agrarian society where only the wealthy landed gentry have access to the legal system. Beginning with the APA (1946) we left a lot of common law behind. The change makes sense because a modern administrative state cannot look like and function like early enlightenment England.
Be careful with what you wish, as it would end fairness in adjudication. I used to say the APA was a mini Constitution. There used to be two schools of thought: Bismarck and deference. These days there's the "Hamburger" school that would find the APA and all of Ad Law unconstitutional. I spoke about it the other day. The Federalist Society has consumed a lot of Hamburger. This looks like an anachronism: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol33/iss1/3/
IMHO Marbury "unconstitutionality" is no different than British law circa 1787.
I had Arthur Bonfield as an admin law professor. Lots of the same ideas about the APA were in his class. He was very clear about the tensions between common law traditions and the APA.
Seems like the Hamburger model is an invitation to a failed state.
I was a liaison member of ACUS, Administrative Conference of the United States, was a member of the ABA House of Delegates, Chair or president of several judicial organizations. Over the past 30 years most law professors have become brainwashed. Right wing organizations subsidize "research" and even ACUS seems to be cannibalizing ad law.
Apparently OSHA is considering rulemaking. OSHA has established a PEL for dust, referred to as Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated (PNOR).) The PELs for PNOR are as follows: 15 mg/m(3) for total dust and 5 mg/m(3) for the respirable fraction. Must perform a separate evaluation for dust exposure using the PEL for PNOR.
NIH can do its own rulemaking.
In 2014, I was "parliamentarian" for OSHSA rulemaking on silicosis as an administrative law judge for DOL.. If OSHA wants to make a rule, it will have to follow the Administrative Procedure Act rules. I called balls and strikes in hearings when OSHA heard from international experts and industry was given an opportunity to be heard.
Plastic production involves using non-renewable resources such as oil and natural gas, which are often extracted using environmentally destructive methods. The production process also releases harmful greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, contributing to climate change.
The March 2023 issue of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) eNews includes an item announcing publication of an article entitled “ Results of the 2019 Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Health and Safety Practices” in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. According to the abstract, the survey aimed to understand whether workers follow the recommendations of NIOSH’s Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC). From September to December 2019, NIOSH worked with RTI International to administer an online survey about workplace safety and health practices related to nanomaterials. The abstract states that 45 U.S. and Canadian companies completed the survey developed by RAND Corporation. More than a third (37.8 percent) of the respondents reported using at least one NIOSH resource to acquire information about safe handling of engineered nanomaterials. The abstract notes that the small number of companies that responded to and completed the survey “is a considerable limitation to this study.” The abstract states that the survey data “are valuable for gauging the reach and influence of the NIOSH NTRC on nano OHS and for informing future outreach, particularly to small businesses.”
Are There Nano- and Microplastics in the Workplace?
Posted on February 19, 2020 by Vladimir Murashov, PhD; Charles L. Geraci, Jr., PhD, CIH, FAIHA ; Paul Schulte, PhD; and John Howard, MD
"Presently there are no occupational exposure limits for nano- and microplastics. In the absence of occupational exposure limits for nano- and microplastics workplace safety efforts should focus on minimizing potential exposure through appropriate engineering controls such as isolation cabinets, exhaust ventilation, and utilizing good industrial hygiene practices."
https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2020/02/19/microplastics/
I'm sure the industry will come up with its own experts.
But if the GOP and corrupt SCOTUS get rid of all regulatory agencies there will be no rules. And few choices it seems!
Efforts at rebalancing the branches of government are needed for sure. Congress can and should restrict the jurisdiction of the courts and precedent value of decisions. This has been a lingering issue in the U.S. system since 1803.
Other countries have solved such issues with concepts such as persuasive precedent and not binding precedent. In Germany court decisions are generally of persuasive precedent value. What that means is that cases are decided for the litigants in front of the court but do not carry binding authority for other litigants. The idea is that general problems in society should be sorted out by the legislature not the courts.
1803. Marbury v. Madison? Stands for the proposition that Article III gets to determine "unconstitutionality." U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.
Persuasive precedent. Sorry but that would mean "black letter law" would stand for nothing and everything would have to be relitigated. We come from a common law tradition. Deutschland does not. I'm originally from Pennsylvania where our law wasn't codified until 1977.
The idea that we have a weak federal government, in part, is why we had a civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions#:~:text=Provisions%20of%20the%20Resolutions,-The%20resolutions%20opposed&text=They%20argued%20that%20the%20Constitution,declared%20unconstitutional%20by%20the%20states.
Marbury was a power grab where the constitution was not clear. Can and should be corrected by Congress through jurisdictional reform.
The issue with a common law tradition is that it works well in an agrarian society where only the wealthy landed gentry have access to the legal system. Beginning with the APA (1946) we left a lot of common law behind. The change makes sense because a modern administrative state cannot look like and function like early enlightenment England.
Be careful with what you wish, as it would end fairness in adjudication. I used to say the APA was a mini Constitution. There used to be two schools of thought: Bismarck and deference. These days there's the "Hamburger" school that would find the APA and all of Ad Law unconstitutional. I spoke about it the other day. The Federalist Society has consumed a lot of Hamburger. This looks like an anachronism: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol33/iss1/3/
IMHO Marbury "unconstitutionality" is no different than British law circa 1787.
I had Arthur Bonfield as an admin law professor. Lots of the same ideas about the APA were in his class. He was very clear about the tensions between common law traditions and the APA.
Seems like the Hamburger model is an invitation to a failed state.
He and his acolytes are working on it 24/7.
https://nclalegal.org/2022/04/nclas-board-of-directors-appoints-philip-hamburger-as-ceo-and-mark-chenoweth-as-president/
I was a liaison member of ACUS, Administrative Conference of the United States, was a member of the ABA House of Delegates, Chair or president of several judicial organizations. Over the past 30 years most law professors have become brainwashed. Right wing organizations subsidize "research" and even ACUS seems to be cannibalizing ad law.