Opinion ID: 518856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of the Amendment of the Hazard Communication Standard

Text: 14 Plaintiffs argue that we are not bound by Hughey I because OSHA subsequently amended the language of its preemption regulation in Hazard Communication, 52 Fed.Reg. at 31,860-61. Compare 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(a)(2) (1988) (Under section 18 of the Act, no state or political subdivision of a state may adopt ... any requirement relating to the issue addressed by this Federal standard....) (emphasis added) with 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(a)(2) (1984) (This occupational safety and health standard is intended ... to preempt any state law pertaining to this subject.) (emphasis added). The first flaw in appellant's argument is that the language relating to does not sweep much more broadly, if at all, than pertaining to. Second, OSHA's release cites Hughey I without criticizing it and states that the purpose of the new language is to ensure that local laws as well as state laws pertaining to occupational hazard communication are preempted by the Federal standard. 52 Fed.Reg. at 31,860 (emphasis added). Thus the release not only uses the language of the old standard but also states that the purpose of the change was not to substitute relating to for pertaining to but to ensure that the express preemption provision of the regulation reached local as well as state laws. Third, Hughey I does not rely upon the pertaining to language of the old regulation but instead interprets the relating to language of section 18(b) of the OSH Act, Hughey I, 774 F.2d at 592. We therefore conclude that OSHA's subsequent amendments to the federal standard have no effect on our obligation to follow Hughey I. 15