Bridge v. United States Department of Labor

Background

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District sought a declaration that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by issuing a 2020 letter interpreting scaffolding regulations. The defendants were OSHA, the United States Department of Labor, the Acting Labor Secretary, and the Assistant Labor Secretary for OSHA.

The underlying OSHA regulation requires each scaffold and scaffold component to support its own weight and at least four times the maximum intended load. OSHA issued a 2013 interpretation letter about how scaffold weight should be considered, then issued the 2020 letter with revised wording.

The District alleged that one of its contractors relied on the 2020 letter when disputing a scaffolding design. According to the complaint, this led to additional costs, delays on another project, and $9 million spent on a specialized engineering firm. The District asserted two APA claims: first, that OSHA issued the 2020 letter without the notice-and-comment procedures required for a legislative rule; and second, that the letter was arbitrary and capricious.

Standing and the First Claim

The defendants argued that the District lacked Article III standing and that the 2020 letter was not a reviewable final agency action. Standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

For the first claim, the District alleged a procedural right to notice and comment. The court held that the 2020 letter was interpretive guidance, not a legislative rule. Interpretive guidance explains an agency’s view of existing law but does not have the force and effect of law. The court therefore concluded that notice and comment was not required, and the District had no procedural right that could protect its asserted interests.

The court also found that the alleged financial injury was not reasonably probable. Because the letter did not have legal force, the District’s theory depended on contractors misunderstanding the letter and then charging more for scaffolding. The court found that this causal chain was too attenuated and unsupported by sufficient facts. It therefore held that the District lacked standing to bring the first claim.

Standing and the Second Claim

The second claim alleged that OSHA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by departing from the regulation without explanation and by failing to consider practical harms and safety concerns.

The APA permits review of agency actions made reviewable by statute or of final agency actions for which there is no other adequate remedy. The court held that the 2020 letter was not final agency action because it was informational, did not compel anyone to act, did not determine rights or obligations, and did not create legal consequences. The court also noted that the letter was not directed to the District or its contractors and that the complaint did not show OSHA was enforcing the regulation differently than before.

The court compared the letter to an agency advice letter that merely explains the agency’s view of existing law, rather than to an agency decision that concludes a proceeding and produces legal consequences. The court stated that it was unclear whether the 2020 letter definitively departed from the 2013 letter.

Disposition

The court concluded that the District could not demonstrate injury from the 2020 letter and therefore lacked Article III standing for both claims. Because the letter was not a final agency action, the court also held that it was not reviewable under the APA. Judge Richard Seeborg granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion does not expressly state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.