Today is the last day to submit written comments on certain aspects of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard, which requires employees of companies with 100 or more workers to be vaccinated or undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering. 

The final comment period on any aspect of the standard ending Jan. 19.

The standard was published in the Federal Register Nov. 5 and is intended as a proposal for a permanent standard, according to OSHA.

Comments are due today regarding the preamble, which includes supporting data regarding transmissibility of the virus in enclosed workplaces, as well as the effectiveness of vaccines.

“If OSHA were to finalize a rule based on this ETS, it would be a standard adopted under 6(b) of the OSH Act, which requires a finding of significant risk from exposure to COVID–19,” the agency stated in the preamble.

OSHA, according to the preamble, “has determined that the requirements of the ETS are both economically and technologically feasible.”

The comment period for the standard was set to expire Dec. 6, but the time was extended by 45 days to Jan. 19 “to allow stakeholders additional time to review the ETS and collect information and data necessary for comment,” according to the Labor Department.

OSHA is only accepting written comments via www.regulations.gov in docket number OSHA-2021-0007. 

The agency is suspending enforcement of the rule until Jan. 10 due to uncertainty caused by court cases “so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.”

Meanwhile, in a special session on Friday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments as to whether the standard should be stayed. The High Court generally entertains only written comments on emergency applications, the National Law Review reported. The Supreme Court “will address only whether the mandates should be preliminarily enjoined pending litigation and decision in the lower courts,” the article’s attorney authors said.