Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Occupational Exposure to COVID-19; Emergency Temporary Standard rule (2021)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Occupational Exposure to COVID-19; Emergency Temporary Standard rule is a significant rule issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Labor effective June 21, 2021, that aimed to protect healthcare and healthcare support workers from exposure to COVID–19 in the workplace, where people with COVID–19 were reasonably expected to be, pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Occupational Exposure to COVID-19; Emergency Temporary Standard
  • Agency:Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Labor
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    In January 2020, The Secretary of HHS declared SARS-CoV-2 a national health emergency. As COVID-19 infection numbers began to rise and caused Donald Trump to declare a national emergency on March 13, 2020, OSHA, under the OSH Act of 1970, declared that healthcare workers were in "grave danger" in the workplace. OSHA determined that because healthcare workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic will be disproportionately exposed to the virus– even required to be exposed to the virus– and that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 will reasonably be present in their workplace, they needed to create temporary emergency standards to increase the safety of healthcare workplaces.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ This ETS is based on the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act or Act) and legal precedent arising under the Act. Under section 6(c)(1) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(1), OSHA shall issue an ETS if the agency determines that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and an ETS is necessary to protect employees from such danger. These legal requirements are more fully discussed in Pertinent Legal Authority (Section III of this preamble).

    For the first time in its 50-year history, OSHA faces a new hazard so grave that it has killed nearly 600,000 people in the United States in barely over a year, and infected millions more (CDC, May 24, 2021a). And the impact of this new illness has been borne disproportionately by the healthcare and healthcare support workers tasked with caring for those infected by this disease. As of May 24, 2021, over 491,816 healthcare workers have contracted COVID–19, and more than 1,600 of those workers have died (CDC, May 24, 2021b). OSHA has determined that employee exposure to this new hazard, SARS–CoV–2 (the virus that causes COVID–19), presents a grave danger to workers in all healthcare settings in the United States and its territories where people with COVID–19 are reasonably expected to be present. This finding of grave danger is based on the science of how the virus spreads and the elevated risk in workplaces where COVID–19 patients are cared for, as well as the adverse health effects suffered by those diagnosed with COVID–19, as discussed in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. of this preamble).[1][2]

    		”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “ The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is issuing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect healthcare and healthcare support service workers from occupational exposure to COVID–19 in settings where people with COVID–19 are reasonably expected to be present. During the period of the emergency standard, covered healthcare employers must develop and implement a COVID–19 plan to identify and control COVID–19 hazards in the workplace. Covered employers must also implement other requirements to reduce transmission of COVID–19 in their workplaces, related to the following: Patient screening and management; Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions; personal protective equipment (PPE), including facemasks or respirators; controls for aerosol-generating procedures; physical distancing of at least six feet, when feasible; physical barriers; cleaning and disinfection; ventilation; health screening and medical management; training; anti-retaliation; recordkeeping; and reporting. The standard encourages vaccination by requiring employers to provide reasonable time and paid leave for employee vaccinations and any side effects. It also encourages use of respirators, where respirators are used in lieu of required facemasks, by including a mini respiratory protection program that applies to such use. Finally, the standard exempts from coverage certain workplaces where all employees are fully vaccinated and individuals with possible COVID–19 are prohibited from entry; and it exempts from some of the requirements of the standard fully vaccinated employees in well-defined areas where there is no reasonable expectation that individuals with COVID–19 will be present.[2] ”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of Occupational Exposure to COVID-19; Emergency Temporary Standard states that the OMB and the OIRA deemed this rule economically significant under E.O. 12866:

    “ This rule is an economically significant regulatory action under Sec. 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, as required by executive order.[2] ”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    References

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Federal Register, "Occupational Exposure to COVID-19; Emergency Temporary Standard," November 8, 2023.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occupational_Exposure_to_COVID-19;_Emergency_Temporary_Standard_rule_(2021)&oldid=10361002"