Notable OSHA court decision affirms legality of interpretive letter
Siding with OSHA, an 11-page court opinion confirms that an agency interpretive letter is not a rulemaking. Therefore, the letter at issue in the case did not require notice and comment and was not arbitrary or capricious, argues the court.
The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California dismissed case number 24-cv-04985-RS on February 3. The court found that the plaintiff could not show it was damaged by the letter.
OSHA frequently posts letters of interpretation (LOIs) online. These letters respond to stakeholders who ask regulatory questions. OSHA directive STD 08-00-001 defines interpretations as “explanations of standards and their workplace application.”
The STD goes on to say that interpretations address “scope and limitation, and any other questions which may arise regarding application to situations.” OSHA firmly states in the directive that “interpretations are not intended to change, modify, or cancel standards.”
Background
In 1996, OSHA issued a final rule — Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in the Construction Industry. It revised Subpart L of 29 CFR 1926.
Fast forward to December 6, 2013, OSHA sent an LOI to an engineer. Subsequently, OSHA posted it on the agency’s website. The letter focused on questions about how the weight of a scaffold is considered when determining whether the 4-to-1 factor is met under 1926.451(a)(1).
Then, in 2020, after the original letter “raised some confusion in the scaffold industry,” OSHA entered revisions to the 2013 letter posted online.
What prompted the court case?
The court opinion explains that the plaintiff claimed:
- It contracted a construction company for a project.
- The contractor and the plaintiff had a dispute over the design of a scaffold for the project.
- The contractor turned to the revised LOI and felt that the plaintiff’s design was not really required by the regulations.
- The dispute prompted engineering costs and project delays for the plaintiff.
Subsequently, the plaintiff sued OSHA in 2024. The case hinged on whether OSHA violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by issuing the 2020 LOI revisions without notice and comment. The plaintiff also asked the court to find the letter to be arbitrary and capricious (another violation of the APA).
What did the judge say?
The APA requires notice and comment for rulemakings. However, the judge wrote that, per 5 U.S.C. 553, these procedures don’t apply “to interpretative rules” in this case. The judge then referred to another court decision that explained that having no notice and comment makes issuing interpretive rules fast and easy. The tradeoff is that interpretive rules cannot be treated as laws or hold such weight. In fact, the judge calls the revised letter “informational.” In other words, LOIs are not requirements and cannot make employers do something, said the judge.
The opinion went on to project that even if the interpretation shifted from the 2013 to 2020 letters, the plaintiff did not show that OSHA changed its enforcement in any regard or that employers were likely to have changed their compliance approach in response to the revised letter. Plus, the plaintiff could have responded to the contractor dispute in ways other than those involving costs and project delays, contended the judge.
Finally, with regard to the claim of an arbitrary and capricious interpretation, the judge explains that while final rules are “reviewable,” LOIs are not.
OSHA’s website provides context
Today, OSHA’s Standard Interpretations webpage provides a notice: “OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. [OSHA] interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. Each letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that [OSHA] enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time [the agency updates its] guidance in response to new information.”
Interestingly, that wording has changed over time. Back when the revised letter was issued in 2020, the webpage’s notice read: “Standard Interpretations are letters or memos written in response to public inquiries or field office inquiries regarding how some aspect of or terminology in an OSHA standard or regulation is to be interpreted and enforced by the Agency. These letters provide guidance to clarify the application of an established OSHA standard, policy, or procedure, but they may not, in themselves, establish or revise OSHA policy or procedure or interpret the OSH Act. They must specifically cite the source policy or procedure document they interpret.”
While both the old and new wording are similar, the new wording makes clear that LOIs do not set employer obligations. Rather, only the statute, standards, and regulations set requirements.
Key to remember
A court sided with OSHA over whether a revised LOI violated the APA. An opinion confirms that the OSHA interpretive letter is not a rulemaking, so it did not violate APA requirements.