Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), 61383-61438 [2014-24009]
Download as PDF
Vol. 79
Friday,
No. 197
October 10, 2014
Part II
Department of Labor
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, et al.
Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs); Proposed
Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61384
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918,
and 1926
[Docket No. OSHA 2012–0023]
RIN 1218–AC74
Chemical Management and
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).
AGENCY:
OSHA is reviewing its overall
approach to managing chemical
exposures in the workplace and seeks
stakeholder input about more effective
and efficient approaches that addresses
challenges found with the current
regulatory approach. This review
involves considering issues related to
updating permissible exposure limits
(PELs), as well as examining other
strategies that could be implemented to
address workplace conditions where
workers are exposed to chemicals. The
notice details the role of past court
decisions on the Agency’s current
approach to chemical management for
the purpose of informing stakeholders of
the legal framework in which the
Agency must operate. It then describes
possible modifications of existing
processes, along with potential new
sources of data and alternative
approaches the Agency may consider.
The Agency is particularly interested in
information about how it may take
advantage of newer approaches, given
its legal requirements. This RFI is
concerned primarily with chemicals
that cause adverse health effects from
long-term occupational exposure, and is
not related to activities being conducted
under Executive Order 13650,
Improving Chemical Facility Safety and
Security.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by
the following dates:
Hard copy: must be submitted
(postmarked or sent) by April 8, 2015.
Electronic transmission or facsimile:
must be submitted by April 8, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
Electronically: Submit comments
electronically at: www.regulations.gov,
which is the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the instructions online
for making electronic submissions.
Fax: Submissions no longer than 10pages (including attachments) may be
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
faxed to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693–1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail, or
messenger or courier service: Copies
must be submitted in triplicate (3) to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA–2012–0023, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N–2625, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail,
messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of
Labor and Docket Office’s normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
(E.T.).
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and the OSHA
docket number (i.e. OSHA–2012–0023).
Submissions, including any personal
information provided, are placed in the
public docket without change and may
be made available online at:
www.regulations.gov. OSHA cautions
against the inclusion of personally
identifiable information (e.g., social
security number, birth dates).
If you submit scientific or technical
studies or other results of scientific
research, OSHA requests that you also
provide the following information
where it is available: (1) Identification of
the funding source(s) and sponsoring
organization(s) of the research; (2) the
extent to which the research findings
were reviewed by a potentially affected
party prior to publication or submission
to the docket, and identification of any
such parties; and (3) the nature of any
financial relationships (e.g., consulting
agreements, expert witness support, or
research funding) between investigators
who conducted the research and any
organization(s) or entities having an
interest in the rulemaking. If you are
submitting comments or testimony on
the Agency’s scientific and technical
analyses, OSHA requests that you
disclose: (1) The nature of any financial
relationships you may have with any
organization(s) or entities having an
interest in the rulemaking; and (2) the
extent to which your comments or
testimony were reviewed by an
interested party prior to its submission.
Disclosure of such information is
intended to promote transparency and
scientific integrity of data and technical
information submitted to the record.
This request is consistent with
Executive Order 13563, issued on
January 18, 2011, which instructs
agencies to ensure the objectivity of any
scientific and technological information
used to support their regulatory actions.
OSHA emphasizes that all material
submitted to the rulemaking record will
be considered by the Agency to develop
the final rule and supporting analyses.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Docket: To read or download
submissions or other material in the
docket go to: www.regulations.gov or the
OSHA Docket Office at the address
above. All documents in the docket are
listed in the index; however, some
information (e.g. copyrighted materials)
is not publicly available to read or
download through the Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General information and press inquiries:
Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of
Communications, U. S. Department of
Labor, Room N–3647, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,
telephone (202) 693–1999; email
meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. Technical
information: Ms. Lyn Penniman, Office
of Physical Hazards, OSHA, Room N–
3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202)
693–1950; email penniman.lyn@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Purpose
II. Legal Requirements for OSHA Standards
A. Significant Risk of a Material
Impairment: The Benzene Case
B. Technological and Economic Feasibility
C. The Substantial Evidence Test
III. History of OSHA’s Efforts To Establish
PELs
A. Adopting the PELs in 1971
B. The 1989 PELs Update
C. The 1989 PELs Update is Vacated
D. Revising OSHA’s PELs in the Wake of
the Eleventh Circuit Decision
IV. Reconsideration of Current Rulemaking
Processes
A. Considerations for Risk Assessment
Methods
1. Current Quantitative Risk Assessment
Methods Typically Used by OSHA To
Support 6(b) Single Substance
Rulemaking
2. Proposed Tiered Approach to Risk
Assessment in Support of Updating PELs
for Chemical Substances
a. General Description and Rationale of
Tiered Approach
b. Hazard Identification and Dose–
Response Analysis in the Observed
Range
c. Derivation of Low-End Toxicity
Exposure (LETE)
d. Margin of Exposure (MOE) as a Decision
Tool for Low Dose Extrapolation
e. Extrapolation Below the Observed Range
3. Chemical Grouping for Risk Assessment
a. Background on Chemical Grouping
b. Methods of Gap Analysis and Filling
i. Read-Across Method
ii. Trend Analysis
iii. QSAR
iv. Threshold of Toxicological Concern
4. Use of Systems Biology and Other
Emerging Test Data in Risk Assessment
B. Considerations for Technological
Feasibility
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
1. Legal Background of Technological
Feasibility
2. Current Methodology of the
Technological Feasibility Requirement
3. Role of Exposure Modeling in
Technological Feasibility
a. Computational Fluid Dynamics
Modeling To Predict Workplace
Exposures
b. The Potential Role of REACH in
Technological Feasibility
c. Technological Feasibility Analysis With
a Focus on Industries with Highest
Exposures
C. Economic Feasibility for Health
Standards
1. OSHA’s Current Approach to Economic
Feasibility
2. Alternative Approaches to Formulating
Health Standards that Might Accelerate
the Economic Feasibility Analysis
3. Alternative Analytical Approaches to
Economic Feasibility in Health
Standards
4. Approaches to Economic Feasibility
Analysis for a Comprehensive PELs
Update
V. Recent Developments and Potential
Alternative Approaches
A. Sources of Information About Chemical
Hazards
1. EPA’s High Production Volume
Chemicals
2. EPA’s CompTox and ToxCast
3. Production and Use Data Under EPA’s
Chemical Data Reporting Rule
4. Structure-Activity Data for Chemical
Grouping
5. REACH: Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization, and Restriction of
Chemicals in the European Union (EU)
B. Non-OEL Approaches to Chemical
Management
1. Informed Substitution
2. Hazard Communication and the Globally
Harmonized System (GHS)
3. Health Hazard Banding
4. Occupational Exposure Bands
5. Control Banding
6. Task-based Exposure Assessment and
Control Approaches
VI. Authority and Signature
Appendix A: History, Legal Background and
Significant Court Decisions
Appendix B: 1989 PELs Table
List of References by Exhibit Number
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
List of Acronyms: Request for
Information on Chemical Management
and Permissible Exposure Limits
ACGIH American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ADI Allowable Daily Intake
AIHA American Industrial Hygiene
Association
AISI American Iron and Steel Institute
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
APHA American Public Health Association
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances
Disease Registry
BAuA Federal Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (Germany)
BMD Benchmark Dose
BMDL Benchmark Dose Low
BMR Benchmark Response
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
CDR Chemical Data Reporting
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to
Health (U.K.)
CrVI Hexavalent Chromium
CSTEE Scientific Committee on Toxicity,
Ecotoxicity and the Environment (E.U.)
CT Control Technology
DfE Design for the Environment (EPA)
DHHS Department of Health and Human
Services (U.S.)
DMEL Derived Minimal Effect Level
DNEL Derived No Effect Level
DOE Washington Department of Ecology
DOL Department of Labor (U.S.)
ECB European Chemicals Bureau (E.U.)
ECHA European Chemicals Agency (E.U.)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S.)
ES Exposure Scenario
EU European Union
FDA Food and Drug Administration (U.S.)
GAO Government Accountability Office
(U.S.)
GHS Globally Harmonized System for the
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
HazCom 2012 Revised OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard
HCS Hazard Communication Standard
(OSHA)
HHE Health Hazard Evaluation (NIOSH)
HPV High Production Volume (EPA)
HPVIS High Production Volume
Information System (EPA)
HSE Health and Safety Executive (U.K.)
HTS High Throughput Screening
IFA Federation of Institutions for Statutory
Accident Insurance and Prevention
(Germany)
IMIS Integrated Management Information
System (OSHA)
IPCS World Health Organization
International Programme on Chemical
Safety
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
(EPA)
ISTAS Institute of Work, Environment, and
Health (Spain)
ITC Interagency Testing Committee (EPA
TSCA)
IUR Inventory Update Reporting
LETE Low-end Toxicity Exposure
LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect
Level
LOD Limit of Detection
LTFE Lowest Technologically Feasible
Exposure
MA DEP Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
MIBK Methyl isobutyl ketone
MOA Modes of Action
MOE Margin of Exposure
MRL Minimal Risk Level
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NCGC National Institutes of Health
Chemical Genomics Center
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (U.S.)
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (U.S.)
NIST National Institute of Standards and
Technology (U.S.)
NMCSD Navy Medical Center San Diego
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NOES National Occupational Exposure
Survey
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61385
NORA National Occupational Research
Agenda (NIOSH)
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(OSHA)
NRC National Research Council (U.S.,
private)
NTP National Toxicology Program (U.S.)
OECD Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (multiple
countries, private)
OEL Occupational Exposure Limit
OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (EPA)
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
OTA Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance and Technology
PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic
PBZ Personal Breathing Zone
PCRARM (EPA) Presidential/Congressional
Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk
Management
PEL Permissible Exposure Limits
PMN Pre-manufacture Notification (EPA)
PNEC Predicted No Effect Concentration
POD Point of Departure
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
PPM Parts Per Million
QCAT Quick Chemical Assessment Tool
(DOE)
QSAR Quantitative Structure-Activity
Relationship
REACH Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals
(E.U.)
REL Recommended Exposure Level
RfC Reference Concentration
RFI Request for Information
SAR Structural Activity Relation
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (U.S.)
SDS Safety Data Sheet
SEP Special Emphasis Program
SIC Standards Industrial Classification
SIDS Screening Information Data Set
(OECD)
STEL Short-term Exposure Limit
TLV Threshold Value Limit (ACGIH)
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act (EPA)
TTC Threshold of Toxicological Concern
TWA Time-weighted Average
vPvB Very Persistent and Very
Bioaccumulative
WEEL Workplace Environmental Exposure
Level (AIHA)
I. Purpose
The purpose of this Request for
Information (RFI) is to present
background information and request
comment on a number of technical
issues related to aspects of OSHA’s
rulemaking process for chemical
hazards in the workplace. In particular,
the purpose of the RFI is to:
• Review OSHA’s current approach to
chemical regulation in its historical
context;
• Describe and explore other possible
approaches that may be relevant to
future strategies to reduce and control
exposure to chemicals in the workplace;
and
• Inform the public and obtain public
input on the best approaches for the
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61386
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Agency to advance the development and
implementation of approaches to reduce
or eliminate harmful chemical
exposures in the 21st century
workplace.
By all estimates, the number of
chemicals found in workplaces today far
exceeds the number which OSHA
regulates, and is growing rapidly. There
is no single source recording all
chemicals available in commerce.
Through its Chemical Data Reporting
Rule, EPA collects information on
chemicals manufactured or imported at
a single site at 25,000 pounds or greater;
currently this number exceeds 7,674
chemicals (U.S. EPA, 2013a; Ex. #1)
The American Chemistry Council
estimates that approximately 8,300
chemicals (or about 10 percent of the
87,000 chemicals in the TSCA
inventory) are actually in commerce in
significant amounts (Hogue, 2007; Ex.
#2). By contrast the European Chemicals
Agency database contains 10,203 unique
substances (as of 9/12/2013) (ECHA,
2013; Ex. #3). Of these, OSHA has
occupational exposure limits for only
about 470 substances. Most of these are
listed as simple limits and appear in
tables (referred to as ‘‘Z-tables’’) in 29
CFR 1910.1000, Air Contaminants,
Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous
Substances; Ex. #4. Approximately 30
have been adopted by OSHA as a part
of a comprehensive standard, and
include a number of additional
requirements such as regulated areas, air
sampling, medical monitoring, and
training However, with few exceptions,
OSHA’s permissible exposure limits,
(PELs), which specify the amount of a
particular chemical substance allowed
in workplace air, have not been updated
since they were established in 1971
under expedited procedures available in
the short period after the OSH Act’s
adoption (see 29 CFR 1910.1000; Ex. #4,
1915.1000; Ex. #5, and 1926.55; Ex. #6).
Yet, in many instances, scientific
evidence has accumulated suggesting
that the current limits are not
sufficiently protective. Although OSHA
has attempted to update its PELs, the
Agency has not been successful, except
through the promulgation of a relatively
few substance-specific health standard
rulemakings (e.g., benzene, cadmium,
lead, and asbestos).
The most significant effort to update
the PELs occurred in 1989 when OSHA
tried to update many of its outdated
PELs and to create new PELs for other
substances in a single rulemaking
covering general industry PELs. After
public notice and comment, the Agency
published a general industry rule that
lowered PELs for 212 chemicals and
added new PELs for 164 more (54 FR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
2332; Ex. #7). Appendix B to this
Request for Information contains the
table of PELs from the 1989 Air
Contaminants Final Rule. The table
includes both the PELs originally
adopted by OSHA in 1971 and the PELs
established under the 1989 final rule.
While the Agency presented analyses of
the risks associated with these
chemicals, as well as the analyses of the
economic and technological feasibility
of the proposed limits for these
chemicals, these analyses were not as
detailed as those OSHA would have
prepared for individual rulemakings.
The final rule was challenged by both
industry and labor groups. The 1989
PEL update was vacated by the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals because it
found that OSHA had not made
sufficiently detailed findings that each
new PEL would eliminate significant
risk and would be feasible in each
industry in which the chemical was
used. (AFL–CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962
(11th Cir. 1992) (the Air Contaminants
case; Ex. #8). This decision is discussed
further below and in Appendix A.
Despite these challenges, health
professionals and labor and industry
groups have continued to support
addressing PELs which may be outdated
and or inconsistent with the best
available current science. The 1989 Air
Contaminants rulemaking effort was
supported by the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA), the
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and the
American Public Health Association
(APHA), among many other professional
organizations and associations
representing both industry and labor. In
an October 2012 survey, members of the
AIHA identified updating OSHA PELs
as their number one policy priority. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a letter
dated April 8, 2011 to then Deputy
Secretary of Labor, Seth Harris, also
supported updating OSHA’s PELs.
Much has changed in the world since
the OSH Act was signed in 1970.
However, workers are essentially
covered by the same PELs as they were
forty years ago. And while OSHA has
been given no new tools or increased
resources to control workplace
exposures, it has had to conduct
increasingly complex analyses, which
has effectively slowed the process. The
purpose of this RFI is for OSHA to
solicit information as to the best
approach(es) for the Agency to help
employers and employees devise and
implement risk management strategies
to reduce or eliminate chemical
exposures in the 21st century workplace
environment. This is likely to involve a
multi-faceted plan that may include
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
changing or improving OSHA policies
and procedures regarding the derivation
and implementation of PELs, as well as
pursuing new strategies to improve
chemical management in the workplace.
The Agency is publishing this notice to
inform the public of its consideration of
these issues, as well as solicit public
input that can be used to inform further
deliberations, and the determination of
an appropriate approach.
II. Legal Requirements for OSHA
Standards
In the past, OSHA has received many
suggestions for updating its PELs, but
these suggestions often do not take
account of the requirements imposed by
the OSH Act, and thus have been of
limited value to OSHA. OSHA is
providing an overview of its legal
requirements for setting standards in
order to help commenters responding to
this RFI to provide suggestions that can
satisfy these requirements. This section
summarizes OSHA’s legal requirements,
which are discussed in greater detail in
Appendix A. The next section provides
an overview of OSHA’s previous
attempts to update the PELs.
Section 6(b) of the OSH Act (Ex. #9)
provides OSHA with the authority to
promulgate health standards. It specifies
procedures that OSHA must use to
promulgate, modify, or revoke its
standards, including publishing the
proposed rule in the Federal Register,
providing interested persons an
opportunity to comment, and holding a
public hearing upon request. However,
much of the labor and analysis that goes
into the final rule starts before the
publication of the proposal. Section
6(b)(5) of the Act specifies:
The Secretary, in promulgating standards
dealing with toxic materials or harmful
physical agents under this subsection, shall
set the standard which most adequately
assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of
the best available evidence, that no employee
will suffer material impairment of health or
functional capacity even if such employee
has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with
by such standard for the period of his
working life. Development of standards
under this subsection shall be based upon
research, demonstrations, experiments, and
such other information as may be
appropriate. In addition to the attainment of
the highest degree of health and safety
protection for the employee, other
considerations shall be the latest available
scientific data in the field, the feasibility of
the standards, and experience gained under
this and other health and safety laws.
Whenever practicable, the standard
promulgated shall be expressed in terms of
objective criteria and of the performance
desired.
In general, as this provision has been
construed by the courts, any workplace
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
health standard adopted by OSHA must
meet the following requirements:
(1) The standard must substantially
reduce a significant risk of material
harm.
(2) Compliance with the standard
must be technically feasible. This means
that the protective measures required by
the standard currently exist, can be
brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with
technology that can reasonably be
developed.
(3) Compliance with the standard
must be economically feasible. This
means that the standard will not
threaten the industry’s long term
profitability or substantially alter its
competitive structure.
(4) It must reduce risk of adverse
health to workers to the extent feasible.
(5) The standard must be supported
by substantial evidence in the record,
consistent with prior agency practice or
is supported by some justification for
departing from that practice.
The significant risk, economic and
technological feasibility, and substantial
evidence requirements are of particular
relevance in setting PELs, and are
discussed further below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Significant Risk of a Material
Impairment: The Benzene Case
The significant risk requirement was
first articulated in a plurality decision of
the Supreme Court in Industrial Union
Department, AFL–CIO v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980),
commonly referred to as the Benzene
case. The petitioners challenged
OSHA’s rule lowering the PEL for
benzene from 10 ppm to 1 ppm. In
support of the new PEL, OSHA found
that benzene caused leukemia and that
the evidence did not show that there
was a safe threshold exposure level
below which no excess leukemia would
occur; OSHA chose the new PEL of 1
ppm as the lowest feasible exposure
level. The Benzene Court rejected
OSHA’s approach, finding that the OSH
Act only required that employers ensure
that their workplaces are safe, that is,
that their workers are not exposed to
‘‘significant risk[s] of harm.’’ 448 U.S. at
642 (Ex. #10). The Court also made it
clear that it is OSHA’s burden to
establish that a significant risk is
present at the current standard before
lowering a PEL, stating that the burden
of proof is normally on the proponent.
Thus, the Court held, before
promulgating a health standard, OSHA
is required to make a ‘‘threshold finding
that a place of employment is unsafe—
in the sense that significant risks are
present and can be eliminated or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
lessened by a change in practices’’
before it can adopt a new standard. Id.
Although the Court declined to
establish a set test for determining
whether a workplace is unsafe, it did
state that a significant risk was one that
a reasonable person would consider
significant and ‘‘take appropriate steps
to decrease or eliminate.’’ 448 U.S. at
655. For example, it said, a one in a
1,000 risk would satisfy the
requirement. However, this example
was merely an illustration, not a hard
line rule. The Court made it clear that
determining whether a risk was
‘‘significant’’ was not a ‘‘mathematical
straitjacket’’ and did not require the
Agency to calculate the exact
probability of harm. Id. The 1 ppm PEL
was vacated because OSHA had not
made a significant risk finding at the 10
ppm level.
Following the Benzene case, OSHA
has satisfied the significant risk
requirement by estimating the risk to
workers subject to a lifetime of exposure
at various possible exposure levels.
These estimates have typically been
based on quantitative risk assessments
in which OSHA, as a general policy, has
considered an excess risk of one death
per 1000 workers over a 45-year
working lifetime as clearly representing
a significant risk. However, the Benzene
case does not require OSHA to use such
a benchmark. In the past, OSHA has
stated that a lower risk of death could
be considered significant. See, e.g.,
Preamble to Formaldehyde Standard, 52
FR 46168, 46234 (suggesting that risk
approaching six in a million could be
viewed as significant). (Ex. #11)
B. Technological and Economic
Feasibility
Under section 6(b)(5) of the Act, a
standard must protect against significant
risk, ‘‘to the extent feasible, and
feasibility is understood to have both
technological and economic aspects. A
standard is technologically feasible if ‘‘a
typical firm will be able to develop and
install engineering and work practice
controls that can meet the PEL in most
operations.’’ United Steelworkers v.
Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir.
1981) (‘‘Lead I’’; Ex. #12). OSHA must
show the existence of ‘‘technology that
is either already in use or has been
conceived and is reasonably capable of
experimental refinement and
distribution within the standard’s
deadlines.’’ Id. Where the Agency
presents ‘‘substantial evidence that
companies acting vigorously and in
good faith can develop the technology,’’
the Agency is not bound to the
technological status quo, and ‘‘can
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61387
require industry to meet PELs never
attained anywhere.’’ Id. at 1264–65.
Some courts have required OSHA to
determine whether a standard is
technologically feasible on an industryby-industry basis, Color Pigments
Manufacturers Assoc. v. OSHA, 16 F.3d
1157, 1162–63 (11th Cir. 1994; Ex. #13);
AFL–CIO v. OSHA, 965, F.2d 962, 981–
82 (11th Cir. 1992) (Air Contaminants;
Ex. #8). However, another court has
upheld technological feasibility findings
based on the nature of an activity across
many industries rather than on an
industry-by-industry basis, Public
Citizen Health Research Group v.
United States Department of Labor, 557
F.3d 165,178–79 (3d Cir. 2009; Ex. #14).
With respect to economic feasibility,
the courts have stated ‘‘A standard is
feasible if it does not threaten massive
dislocation to . . . or imperil the
existence of the industry.’’ Lead I, 647
F.2d at 1265 (Ex. #12). In order to show
this, OSHA should ‘‘construct a
reasonable estimate of compliance costs
and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
that these costs will not threaten the
existence or competitive structure of an
industry.’’ Id. at 1266. However, ‘‘[T]he
court probably cannot expect hard and
precise estimates of costs. Nevertheless,
the agency must of course provide a
reasonable assessment of the likely
range of costs of its standard, and the
likely effects of those costs on the
industry.’’ Id.
While OSHA is not required to show
that all companies within an industry
will be able to bear the burden of
compliance, at least one court has held
that OSHA is required to show that the
rule is economically feasible on an
industry-by-industry basis. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982, 986. (Ex.
#8)
C. The Substantial Evidence Test
The ‘‘substantial evidence test’’ is
used by the courts to determine whether
OSHA has reached its burden of proof
for policy decisions and factual
determinations. ‘‘Substantial evidence’’
is defined as ‘‘such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.’’
American Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 522 (1981; Ex.
#15) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v.
NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951); Ex.
#16). The substantial evidence test does
not require ‘‘scientific certainty’’ before
promulgating a health standard (AFL–
CIO v. American Petroleum Institute,
448 U.S. 607, 656 (1980); Ex. 10), but
the test does require OSHA to ‘‘identify
relevant factual evidence, to explain the
logic and the policies underlying any
legislative choice, to state candidly any
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61388
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
assumptions on which it relies, and to
present its reasons for rejecting
significant contrary evidence and
argument.’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d. at 1207.
(Ex. #12)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
III. History of OSHA’s Efforts To
Establish PELs
The history of OSHA’s PELs has three
stages. First, OSHA adopted its current
PELs in 1971, shortly after coming into
existence. Second, OSHA attempted to
update its PELs wholesale in 1989, but
that effort was rejected by the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992. Third,
OSHA has made subsequent, smaller
efforts to update certain PELs, but those
efforts have never come to fruition. This
history is summarized below, and
discussed in further detail in Appendix
A.
A. Adopting the PELs in 1971
Under section 6(a), OSHA was
permitted an initial two-year window
after the passage of the OSH Act to
adopt ‘‘any national consensus standard
and any established Federal standard’’
29 U.S.C 655(6)(a). OSHA used this
authority in 1971 to establish PELs that
were adopted from federal health
standards originally set by the
Department of Labor through the WalshHealy Act, in which approximately 400
occupational exposure limits were
selected based on ACGIH’s 1968 list of
Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). In
addition, about 25 additional exposure
limits recommended by the American
Standards Association (now called the
American National Standards Institute)
(ANSI), were adopted as national
consensus standards.
These standards were intended to
provide initial protections for workers
from what the Congress deemed to be
the most dangerous workplace threats.
Congress found it was ‘‘essential that
such standards be constantly improved
and replaced as new knowledge and
techniques are developed.’’ S. Rep. 91–
1282 at 6. (Ex. #17) However, because
OSHA has been unable to update the
PELs, they remain frozen at the levels at
which they were initially adopted.
OSHA’s PELs are also largely based on
acute health effects and do not take into
consideration newer research regarding
chronic health effects occurring at lower
occupational exposures.
B. The 1989 PELs Update
In 1989, OSHA published the Air
Contaminants final rule, which remains
the Agency’s most significant attempt at
updating the PELs (54 FR 2332). (Ex. #7)
Unlike typical substance-specific
rulemakings, where OSHA develops a
comprehensive standard, the Air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Contaminants final rule was only
intended to update existing PELs or to
add PELs for substances within
established boundaries. After extensive
review of all available sources of
occupational exposure limits (OELs),
OSHA selected the ACGIH’s 1987–88
TLVs as the boundaries for identifying
the substances that would be included
in the proposed rule. OSHA proposed
212 more protective PELs and new PELs
for 164 substances not previously
regulated. In general, rather than
performing a quantitative risk
assessment for each chemical, the
agency looked at whether studies
showed excess effects of concern at
concentrations lower than allowed
under the existing standard. Where they
did, OSHA made a significant risk
finding and either set a PEL (where
none existed previously) or lowered the
existing PEL. These new PELs were
based on Agency judgment, taking into
account the existing studies and, as
appropriate, safety factors. Safety factors
(also called uncertainty factors) are
applied to the lowest level an effect is
seen or to a level where no effects are
seen to derive a PEL.
In order to determine whether the Air
Contaminants rule was feasible, OSHA
prepared the regulatory impact analysis.
As part of the analysis, OSHA
performed an industry survey as well as
site visits. The survey was the largest
survey ever conducted by OSHA and
included responses from 5,700 firms in
industries believed to use chemicals
addressed in the scope of the Air
Contaminants proposal. (Ex. #18) It was
designed to focus on industry sectors
that potentially had the highest
compliance costs, identified through an
analysis of existing exposure data at the
four-digit SIC (Standards Industrial
Classification) code level. OSHA
analyzed the data collected to determine
whether the updated PELs were both
technologically and economically
feasible for each industry sector
covered.
For technological feasibility, OSHA
found that ‘‘in the overwhelming
majority of situations where air
contaminants [were] encountered by
workers, compliance [could] be
achieved by applying known
engineering control methods, and work
practice improvements.’’ 54 FR at 2789;
Ex. #7. For economic feasibility, OSHA
assessed the economic impact of the
standard on industry profits at the twodigit SIC code level, and found the
economic impact not to be significant,
and the new standard therefore
economically feasible.
In the Air Contaminants final rule,
OSHA summarized the health evidence
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for each individual substance, discussed
over 2,000 studies, reviewed and
addressed all major comments
submitted to the record, and provided a
rationale for each new PEL chosen.
OSHA estimated that over 21 million
employees were potentially exposed to
hazardous substances in the workplace
and over 4.5 million employees were
exposed to levels above the applicable
exposure limits. OSHA projected that
the final rule would result in a potential
reduction of over 55,000 lost workdays
due to illnesses per year and that annual
compliance with this final rule would
prevent an average of 683 fatalities
annually from exposures to hazardous
substances.
C. The 1989 PELs Update Is Vacated by
the Court of Appeals
The update to the Air Contaminants
standard generally received widespread
support from both industry and labor.
However, there was dissatisfaction on
the part of some industry
representatives and union leaders, who
brought petitions for review challenging
the standard. For example, some
industry petitioners argued that OSHA’s
use of generic findings, the inclusion of
so many substances in one rulemaking,
and the allegedly insufficient time
provided for comment by interested
parties created a record inadequate to
support the new set of PELs. In contrast,
the unions challenged the approach
used by OSHA to promulgate the
standard and argued that several PELs
were not protective enough. The unions
also asserted that OSHA’s failure to
include any ancillary provisions, such
as exposure monitoring and medical
surveillance, prevented employers from
ensuring the exposure limits were not
exceeded, and resulted in lessprotective PELs.
Although only 23 of the 428 PELs
were challenged, the court ultimately
decided to vacate the entire rulemaking,
finding that ‘‘OSHA [had] not
sufficiently explained or supported its
threshold determination that exposure
to these substances at previous levels
posed a significant risk of these material
health impairments or that the new
standard eliminates or reduces that risk
to the extent feasible.’’ Air
Contaminants 965 F.2d at 986–987; Ex.
#8
With respect to significant risk, the
court held that OSHA had failed to
‘‘explain why the studies mandated a
particular PEL chosen.’’ Id. at 976.
Specifically, the court stated that OSHA
failed to quantify the risk from
individual substances and merely
provided conclusory statements that the
new PEL would reduce a significant risk
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
of material health effects.’’ Id. at 975.
Further, the court rejected OSHA’s
argument that it had relied on safety
factors in setting the new PELs, stating
that OSHA had not adequately
supported their use. The court observed
that ‘‘the difference between the level
shown by the evidence and the final
PEL is sometimes substantial.’’ Id. at
978. It said that OSHA had not
indicated ‘‘how the existing evidence
for individual substances was
inadequate to show the extent of risk for
these factors’’ and that the agency had
‘‘failed to explain the method by which
its safety factors were determined.’’ Id.
‘‘OSHA may use assumptions but only
to the extent that those assumptions
have some basis in reputable scientific
evidence,’’ the court concluded. Id. at
978–79.
The Eleventh Circuit court also
rejected OSHA’s technological
feasibility findings. The Agency had
made these findings mainly at the twodigit SIC level, but also at the three- and
four- digit level where appropriate given
the processes involved. The court
rejected this approach, finding that
OSHA failed to make industry-specific
findings or identify the specific
technologies capable of meeting the
proposed limit in industry-specific
operations. Id. at 981. While OSHA had
identified primary air contaminant
control methods: Engineering controls,
administrative controls and work
practices and personal protective
equipment, the agency, ‘‘only provided
a general description of how the generic
engineering controls might be used in
the given sector.’’ Id. Though noting that
OSHA need only provide evidence
sufficient to justify a ‘‘general
presumption of feasibility,’’ the court
held that this ‘‘does not grant OSHA
license to make overbroad generalities
as to feasibility or to group large
categories of industries together without
some explanation of why findings for
the group adequately represents the
different industries in that group.’’ Id. at
981–82.
The court rejected OSHA’s economic
feasibility findings for similar reasons.
As discussed above, OSHA supported
its economic feasibility findings for the
1989 Air Contaminants rule based
primarily on the results of a survey of
over 5700 businesses, summarizing the
projected cost of compliance at the twodigit SIC industry sector level. The court
held that OSHA was required to show
that the rule was economically feasible
on an industry-by industry basis, and
that OSHA had not shown that its
analyses at the two-digit SIC industry
sector level were appropriate to meet
this burden. Id. at 982. ‘‘[A]verage
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
estimates of cost can be extremely
misleading in assessing the impact of
particular standards on individual
industries’’ the court said, and
‘‘analyzing the economic impact for an
entire sector could conceal particular
industries laboring under special
disabilities and likely to fail as a result
of enforcement.’’ Id. While OSHA might
‘‘find and explain that certain impacts
and standards do apply to entire sectors
of an industry’’ if ‘‘coupled with a
showing that there are no
disproportionately affected industries
within the group,’’ OSHA had not
explained why its use of such a ‘‘broad
grouping was appropriate.’’ Id. at 982
n.28, 983.
D. Revising OSHA’s PELs in the Wake of
the Eleventh Circuit Decision
In the wake of the Eleventh Circuit’s
decision, OSHA has generally pursued a
conservative course in satisfying its
judicially imposed analytical burdens.
The set of resulting analytical
approaches OSHA has engaged in is
highly resource-intensive and has
constrained OSHA’s ability to prioritize
its regulatory efforts based on risk of
harm to workers. In 1995, OSHA made
its first attempt following the Air
Contaminants ruling to update a smaller
number of PELs using a more rigorous
analysis of risk, workplace exposures,
and technological and economic
feasibility. (Ex. #20) OSHA and the
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted
preliminary research on health risks
associated with exposure and extent of
occupational exposure. Sixty priority
substances were identified for further
examination and twenty of the sixty
substances were selected to form a
priority list. Early in 1996, the Agency
announced its plans for a stakeholder
meeting, and identified the twenty
priority substances, as well as several
risk-related discussion topics. (Ex. #21)
During the meeting, almost all
stakeholders from industry and labor
agreed that the PELs needed to be
updated; however, not one group
completely supported OSHA’s
suggested approach. Overall, many of
the stakeholders did not support the
development of a list of priority
chemicals targeted for potential
regulation and felt there was a lack of
transparency in the process for selecting
the initial chemicals.
In response to stakeholder input and
OSHA’s research, the agency selected
seven of the 20 substances discussed at
the stakeholder meeting for detailed
analysis of risks and feasibility. The
chemicals selected were: (i)
Glutaraldehyde, (ii) carbon disulfide,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61389
(iii) hydrazine, (iv) perchloroethylene,
(v) manganese, (vi) trimellitic
anhydride, and (vii) chloroprene.
Quantitative risk assessments were
performed in-house, and research
(including site visits) was undertaken to
collect detailed data on uses, worker
exposures, exposure control technology
effectiveness, and economic
characteristics of affected industries.
The research and analysis were
carried out over several years, after
which OSHA decided not to proceed
with rulemaking. (Ex. #22) This
decision was influenced by findings that
(i) prevalence and intensity of worker
exposures for some of the substances
(e.g., carbon disulfide and hydrazine)
had declined substantially since the
1989 rule was promulgated; (ii) industry
had voluntarily implemented controls to
reduce the exposure to safe levels; and
(iii) for others, substantial Agency
resources would have been required to
fully assess technological and economic
impacts.
In 1997, OSHA held another meeting
with industry and labor on the proposed
PEL development process. Although the
project did not result in a rulemaking to
revise the PELs, OSHA gained valuable
experience in developing useful
approaches for quantifying non-cancer
health risks through collaboration with
external reviewers in scientific peer
reviews of its risk analyses. OSHA is
now examining ways to better address
chemical exposures given current
resource constraints and regulatory
limitations.
For readers who are interested in a
more detailed account of the legislation
and court decisions that shaped OSHA’s
current regulatory framework, Appendix
A to this Request for Information,
History, Legal Background and
Significant Court Decisions, provides
additional information. Readers may
want to consult Appendix A as they
frame responses to the questions posed
in this Request for Information.
IV. Reconsideration of Current
Rulemaking Processes
As reviewed in Section II (Legal
Requirements for OSHA Standards) and
Section III (History of OSHA’s Efforts to
Establish PELs), OSHA has to use the
best available evidence to make findings
of significant risk, substantial
reductions in risk, and technological
and economic feasibility under the Act.
This section reviews how interpretation
of 6(b)(5) and subsequent case law has
resulted in the methods it uses when
developing risk, technical feasibility,
and economic findings as well as the
evidence OSHA has used in the past to
make these findings (i.e., OSHA’s use of
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61390
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
formal risk assessment modeling to
evaluate significant risk, and the
Agency’s use of worker exposure data
and exposure control effectiveness data
to evaluate technical feasibility and
costs of compliance).
This section also reviews
developments in science and technology
and how these new advancements may
improve the scientific basis for making
findings of significant risk, technical
feasibility, and economic feasibility. As
an example, the National Academies of
Science has released extensive reviews
of advances in science, toxicology, and
risk and exposure assessment and
evaluated how the Federal government
can potentially utilize these
advancements in its decision-making
processes (NRC, 2012; Ex. #23, NRC,
2009; Ex. #24, NRC, 2007; Ex. #25).
While new technologies will advance
the public’s understanding in these
critical areas, the Agency has
obligations under the OSH Act to make
certain findings under 6(b)(5), as
discussed above in Section III. How
OSHA might utilize these new
developments to meet the Agency’s
evidentiary burden will be discussed in
this section.
A. Considerations for Risk Assessment
Methods
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Current Quantitative Risk Assessment
Methods Typically Used by OSHA To
Support 6(b) Single Substance
Rulemaking
As discussed in Section III, the
Supreme Court requires OSHA to
determine that a significant risk exists
before adopting an occupational safety
and health standard. While the Court
did not stipulate a means to distinguish
significant from insignificant risks, it
broadly described the range of risks
OSHA might determine to be
significant:
It is the Agency’s responsibility to
determine in the first instance what it
considers to be a ‘‘significant’’ risk. Some
risks are plainly acceptable and others are
plainly unacceptable. If, for example, the
odds are one in a billion that a person will
die from cancer by taking a drink of
chlorinated water, the risk clearly could not
be considered significant. On the other hand,
if the odds are one in a thousand that regular
inhalation of gasoline vapors that are 2
percent benzene will be fatal, a reasonable
person might well consider the risk
significant and take the appropriate steps to
decrease or eliminate it. (Benzene, 448 U.S.
at 655). (Ex. #10),
OSHA has interpreted the Court’s
example to mean that a 1 in 1000 risk
of serious illness is significant, and has
used this measure to guide its
significance of risk determinations. For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
example, OSHA’s risk assessment for
hexavalent chromium estimated that a
45-year occupational exposure at the
PEL of 5mg/m3 would lead to more than
10 lung cancer cases per 1000 workers
exposed. Because this risk exceeds the
value of one case of lung cancer per
1000 exposed workers, OSHA found it
to be significant. The significance of risk
determinations of other rules since the
Benzene decision have typically
followed a similar logic.
Over the three decades since the
Benzene decision, OSHA has gradually
built up a highly rigorous approach to
derive quantitative estimates of risk
such as those found in the hexavalent
chromium preamble. First, the Agency
reviews the available exposure-response
data for a chemical of interest. It
evaluates the available data sets and
identifies those best suited for
quantitative analysis. Using the best
available data, the Agency then
conducts extensive statistical analyses
to develop an exposure-response model
that is able to extrapolate probability of
disease at exposures below the observed
data. Once the model is developed,
OSHA conducts further analyses to
evaluate the sensitivity of the model to
error and uncertainties in the modeling
inputs and approach. The exposureresponse model is used to generate
estimates of risk associated with a
working lifetime of occupational
exposure to the chemical of interest over
a range of PEL options that often
include exposure levels below those
considered to be technologically
feasible. The entire risk assessment has
always been subject to peer review, from
choice of data set(s) through generation
of lifetime risk estimates.When the
proposed rule is released for comment,
it receives additional scrutiny from the
scientific community, stakeholders, and
the general public. The Agency uses the
feedback of the peer review panel and
public comment at the time of proposal
to further test and develop the risk
analysis.
This model-based approach to risk
assessment has a number of important
advantages. The quantitative risk
estimates can be easily compared with
the level of 1 in 1000 that the Court
cited as an example of significant risk.
Sometimes, the best available data come
from worker or animal populations with
exposure levels far above the
technologically feasible levels for which
OSHA must evaluate risk, and a risk
model is used to extrapolate from high
to low exposures. When large, highquality exposure-response data sets are
available, a rigorous quantitative
analysis can yield robust and fairly
precise risk estimates to inform public
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
understanding and debate about the
health benefits of a new or revised
regulation. However, there are also
drawbacks to the model-based
approach, and there are situations
where a modeling analysis may not be
necessary or appropriate for OSHA to
make the significance of risk
determination to support a new or
revised regulation. Model-based risk
analyses tend to require a great deal of
Agency time and resources.
In some cases, the model-based
approach is essential to OSHA’s
significant risk determination, because
it is not evident prior to a modeling
analysis whether there is significant risk
at current and technologically-feasible
exposures. In other cases, however, it
may be evident from the scientific
literature or other readily available
evidence that risk at the existing PEL is
clearly significant and that it can be
substantially reduced by a more
stringent regulation without the need for
quantitative estimates extrapolated from
an exposure-response model. In
addition to reducing significant risk of
harm, the OSH Act also directs the
Agency to determine that health
standards for toxic chemicals are
feasible. At times, it is evident without
extensive analysis that the most
stringent PEL feasible can only reduce,
not eliminate, significant risk. In such
cases, the value of a model-based
quantitative risk assessment may not
warrant the Agency time and resources
that model-based risk assessment
requires.
In situations described above where
the PEL may be set at the lowest feasible
level, OSHA believes that it can
establish significant risk more
efficiently instead of relying on
probabilistic estimates from doseresponse modeling as described above.
OSHA is exploring a number of more
flexible, scientifically accepted
approaches that may streamline the risk
assessment process and increase the
capacity to address a greater number of
chemicals.
Question IV.A.1: OSHA seeks input
on the risk assessment process
described above. When is a model-based
analysis necessary or appropriate to
determine significance of risk and to
select a new or revised PEL? When
should simpler approaches be
employed? Are there specific
approaches OSHA should consider
using when a model-based analysis is
not required? To the extent possible,
please provide detailed explanation and
examples of situations when a modelbased risk analysis is or is not necessary
to determine significance of risk and to
develop a new standard.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Proposed Tiered Approach to Risk
Assessment in Support of Updating
PELs for Chemical Substances
a. General Description and Rationale of
Tiered Approach
OSHA is considering a tiered process
to exposure-response assessment that
may enable the agency to more
efficiently make the significant risk
findings needed to establish acceptable
PELs for larger numbers of workplace
chemicals. The approach involves three
stages: dose-response analysis in the
observed range, margin of exposure
determination, and exposure-response
extrapolation (if needed). The process
overlaps with the risk-based
methodologies employed by EPA IRIS,
NIOSH, the Agency for Toxic
Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR),
the European Union Registration,
Evaluation, Authorization, and
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
program, and other organizations that
recommend chemical toxicity values or
exposure levels protective of human
health. The first step is dose-response
analysis in the observed range. During
this step, OSHA analyzes exposures (or
doses) and adverse outcomes from
human studies or animal bioassays,
particularly at the lower end of the
exposure range. This involves the
derivation of a ‘‘low-end toxicity
exposure’’ (LETE), which is discussed
further in section IV.A.2.c. below.
The second step is margin of exposure
determination, where LETEs are
compared with the range of possible
exposure limits that OSHA believes to
be feasible for the new or proposed
standard. Typically, there is a close and
ongoing dialogue between those OSHA
technical staff and management
responsible for the risk assessment and
their counterparts responsible for the
feasibility analyses as the separate
determinations are being
simultaneously developed. Feasibility
analyses, in particular, can take years of
research, including site visits and
industry surveys. In many of OSHA’s
rulemakings, the lowest feasible PEL
can only reduce, not eliminate,
significant risk. Thus, OSHA sets many
PELs at the lowest feasible level, and
not at a level of occupational exposure
considered to be without significant
risk. This significant risk orientation
differs from other Federal Agencies,
such as EPA and ATSDR that set
environmental exposure levels
determined to be health protective
without consideration of feasibility.
OSHA is considering using a margin
of exposure (MOE) approach to compare
the LETE with the range of feasible
exposure limits. If the MOE indicates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
the range of feasible exposures is in
close proximity to the exposures where
toxicity is observed (i.e., a low MOE)
then it may not be necessary to
extrapolate exposure-response below
the observed range in order to establish
significant risk. In this situation, OSHA
would set the PEL at the exposure level
it determines to be feasible and the
dose-response analysis in the observed
range should be sufficient to support
Agency significant risk findings. The
PEL is set at the lowest feasible level,
with the understanding that significant
risk of adverse health outcomes remains
at the new PEL. In the traditional risk
assessment approach described
previously, OSHA uses quantitative
exposure-response modeling to estimate
risks below the range of observed
exposure, without regard to whether
such exposures are considered to be
technologically feasible. If the lowest
technologically feasible workplace
exposures are determined to be far
below the LETE (i.e., a high MOE), an
exposure-response model would be
needed to determine significant risk at
exposures below the observed range and
to set the appropriate PEL.
If there is a high MOE, then the
Agency would move onto the final stage
of the tiered approach, which is
exposure-response extrapolation, where
the dose-response relationship is
extrapolated outside the observed range.
Many regulatory agencies, such as EPA,
choose to extrapolate outside the
observed range for non-cancer health
outcomes by applying a series of
extrapolation factors, also called
uncertainty factors, to an observed lowend toxicity value, referred to as a point
of departure (POD). The POD is very
similar to the LETE described above.
The distinction between these toxicity
values is discussed later in the
subsection. The extrapolation factors are
further explained below.
In many instances, EPA does not use
the extrapolation factor approach for
cancer effects. Rather, EPA uses doseresponse modeling in the observed
range and a linear extrapolation below
the observed range to derive a unit risk
(i.e., risk per unit of exposure). As
described previously, OSHA also uses
dose-response modeling to extrapolate
risk below the observed range for
carcinogens as was done for hexavalent
chromium (71 FR 10174–10221; Ex.
#26) and methylene chloride (62 FR
1516–1560; Ex. #27). There is a
reasonable body of scientific evidence
that genotoxic carcinogens, and perhaps
other carcinogenic modes of action,
display linear, non-threshold behavior
at very low dose levels. OSHA also uses
dose-response modeling to extrapolate
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61391
risk below the observed range for
carcinogens. As mentioned earlier, the
Agency develops appropriate exposureresponse models (linear or non-linear)
that best fit the existing data and are
consistent with available information on
mode of action. The models can be used
to extrapolate risk associated with a
working lifetime at occupational
exposures below the observed range.
In some situations, the LETE is further
adjusted to calculate worker equivalent
exposures and to account for how the
chemical is absorbed, distributed, and
metabolized, and interacts with target
tissues in the body. These features and
other important issues related to the
tiered approach to exposure-response
assessment are discussed below. OSHA
believes that there are a number of
potential advantages to using a tiered
risk assessment framework including
opportunities to rely more heavily on
peer-reviewed risk assessments already
prepared by other Federal agencies.
b. Hazard Identification and DoseResponse Analysis in the Observed
Range
Hazard identification is the first step
in the Federal risk assessment
framework as laid out by the National
Research Council’s ‘red book’ in 1983
(NRC, 1983; Ex. #28). In conducting a
hazard identification, OSHA evaluates
individual study quality and determines
the weight of evidence from
epidemiological, experimental, and
supporting data. Study quality favors
strong methodology, characterization of
exposure during critical periods,
adequate sample size/statistical power,
and relevance to the workplace
population. OSHA gives weight to both
positive and negative studies according
to study quality when the Agency
evaluates the association between
chemical agent and an adverse health
effect. OSHA determines causality based
on criteria developed by Bradford Hill
(Hill, 1965; Ex. #29, Rothman &
Greenland, 1998; Ex. #30). In its review
of the available evidence, OSHA
assesses the chemical’s modes of action
(MOA) and the key molecular,
biological, pathological, and clinical
endpoints that contribute to the health
effects of concern.
The Mode of Action (MOA) is a
sequence of key events and processes
starting with the interaction of the agent
with a molecular or cellular target(s)
and proceeding through operational and
anatomical changes that result in an
adverse health effect(s) of concern. The
key events are empirically measurable
molecular or pathological endpoints and
outcomes in experimental systems.
These represent necessary precursor
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61392
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
steps or biologically-based markers
along the progression to frank illness
and injury.
MOA informs selection of appropriate
toxicity-related endpoints and models
for dose-response analysis. OSHA then
conducts a dose-response analysis for
critical health effects determined to be
associated with a chemical, provided
there are suitable data available. Doseresponse analysis requires quantitative
measures of both exposure and toxicityrelated endpoints. OSHA gives
preference to studies with relevant
occupational routes that display a welldefined dose-related change in response
with adequate power to detect effects at
the exposure levels of interest. The
Agency generally prefers high quality
epidemiologic studies for dose-response
analysis over experimental animal
models, provided there is adequate
exposure information and confounding
factors are appropriately controlled.
OSHA may only adopt standards for
exposure to ‘‘toxic materials and
harmful physical agents’’ that causes
‘‘material impairment of health and loss
of functional capacity even if such
employee has regular exposure to the
hazard dealt with by such standard for
the period of his working life.’’ OSH Act
§ 6(b)(5) (Ex. #9) Therefore, its doseresponse analysis considers those
biological endpoints and health
outcomes that can lead to adverse
physiological or clinical harm caused by
continued exposure over a working
lifetime. This includes key molecular
and cellular biomarkers established as
necessary precursor events along a
critical disease pathway. It is important
that the toxicity-related endpoints
observed in experimental animals
selected for dose-response analysis have
relevance to humans and are not unique
to the test species.
In the past, OSHA, for the most part,
has undertaken an independent
evaluation of the evidence in its
identification of hazards and selection
of critical studies and toxicity-related
endpoints for dose-response analysis.
However, other Federal agencies use the
same risk assessment framework with
similar hazard identification and doseresponse selection procedures. EPA,
ATSDR, NIOSH and others have active
risk assessment programs and have
recently evaluated many chemicals of
interest to OSHA. These assessments
undergo scientific peer review and are
subject to public comment. The Agency
is considering ways to reduce the time
and resources needed to independently
evaluate the available study data by
placing greater reliance on the efforts of
other credible scientific organizations.
Although some organizations use their
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
study evaluations to support nonoccupational risk assessments, OSHA
believes that, in most cases, these
evaluations can be adapted to the
occupational context.
Question IV.A.2: If there is no OSHA
PEL for a particular substance used in
your facility, does your company/firm
develop and/or use internal
occupational exposure limits (OELs)? If
so, what is the basis and process for
establishing the OEL? Do you use an
authoritative source, or do you conduct
a risk assessment? If so, what sources
and risk assessment approaches are
applied? What criteria do facilities/firms
consider when deciding which
authoritative source to use? For
example, is rigorous scientific peer
review of the OEL an important factor?
Is transparency of how the OEL was
developed important?
Question IV.A.3: OSHA is considering
greater reliance on peer-reviewed
toxicological evaluations by other
Federal agencies, such as NIOSH, EPA,
ATSDR, NIEHS and NTP for hazard
identification and dose-response
analysis in the observed range. What
advantages and disadvantages would
result from this approach and could it
be used in support of the PEL update
process?
c. Derivation of Low-End Toxicity
Exposure (LETE)
An important aspect of the doseresponse analysis is the determination
of exposures that can result in adverse
outcomes of interest. For most studies,
response rates ranging from 1 to 10
percent represent the low end of the
observed range. Epidemiologic studies
generally are larger and can show a
lower observed response rate than
animal studies, which typically have
fewer test subjects. EPA, ATSDR and EU
REACH also derive an estimated dose at
the low end of the observed range (i.e.,
LETE) as part of their dose-response
assessments. This dose is referred to as
the POD (‘point of departure’) because it
is used as a starting point for low dose
extrapolation or the application of
uncertainty factors as described above to
derive toxicity values. EPA, ATSDR and
EU REACH use the POD/extrapolation
factor approach to determine Reference
Concentrations (RfC), Minimal Risk
Levels (MRL) and Derived No Effect
Levels (DNELs), respectively. OSHA
believes the LETE is an exposure where
studies may have demonstrated
significant risk. However, OSHA does
not intend to use the LETE as the point
of extrapolation for determining a ‘‘safe’’
exposure level in the manner used by
the aforementioned agencies. OSHA
may use the LETE in calculating an
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
MOE to evaluate the need for low dose
extrapolation as described in the next
section.
Traditionally, either the Lowest
Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL)
or No Observed Adverse Effect Levels
(NOAEL) has served as easily obtainable
LETE descriptors. More recently, the
Benchmark Dose (BMD) methodology
has increasingly been applied to derive
an LETE. The BMD approach uses a
standard set of empirical models to
determine the dose associated with a
pre-selected benchmark response (BMR)
level. An example is the dose associated
with a 10 percent incidence (i.e.,
BMD10) and the statistical lower
confidence limit (i.e., BMDL10).
Selection of an appropriate BMR
considers biologic as well as statistical
factors and a lower BMR is typically
applied for clinically serious outcomes
(e.g., lung or heart disease) than for less
serious adverse effects (e.g., preclinical
loss of neurological or pulmonary
function). In some cases, more
sophisticated models can be used in the
LETE determination, based on
physiologically-based toxicokinetics,
toxicodynamics, or dosimetry models
that relate the administered dose to a
more toxicologically relevant dose
metric at a biological target site, if
sufficient data is available and the
models are appropriately validated. This
is discussed further below.
Question IV.A.4: OSHA is considering
using the Point of Departure (POD) (e.g.,
BMD, LOAEL, NOAEL), commonly
employed by other authoritative
organizations for carrying out noncancer risk assessments as a suitable
descriptor of the Low End Toxicity
Exposure (LETE) level that represents a
significant risk of harm. Is this an
appropriate application of the POD by
OSHA? Are there other exposure values
that OSHA should consider for its
LETE?
In many situations, the LETE must be
adjusted to represent a typical worker
exposure. The most common
adjustments are to correct for the
standard occupational exposure
conditions of eight hours a day/five
days a week and/or respiratory volume
during work activity. OSHA and NIOSH
have used a standard ventilation rate of
10 m3 of air per 8-hour work shift for
a typical worker undergoing light
physical work activity.
Allometric scaling (i.e., BW3/4) is
recommended by some Federal
authorities when scaling animal doses
to human equivalents to account for
toxicokinetic differences in rates of
absorption, metabolism, and excretion
when more specific data is lacking.
Allometric scaling refers to scaling
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
physiological rates and quantities to
mass or volume of one animal species
to another animal species. The
relationship is generally dependent on
body weight (BW), often in the form of
y=BWa where y is the physiological
measure and a is the scaling
component. Many physiological and
biochemical processes (such as heart
rate, basal metabolic rate, and
respiration rate have been found to have
a scaling component of 0.75.
Allometric scaling is most applicable
when the toxicologically relevant dose
is a parent compound or stable
metabolite whose absorption rate and
clearance from the target site is
controlled primarily by first order
processes. Allometric scaling is less
well suited for portal-of-entry effects or
when toxicity is a consequence of a
highly reactive compound or metabolite.
Portal of entry refers to the tissue or
organ of first contact between the
biological system and the agent. This is
nasal, respiratory tract and pulmonary
tissues for inhalation; skin for dermal
contact, and mouth and digestive tract
for oral exposure.
In the case of respiratory tract effects
from inhalation, EPA recommends
adjusting inhalation doses based on
generic dosimetry modeling that
depends on the form of the chemical
(e.g., particle of gas) and site of toxicity
(e.g., portal of entry or systemic) (EPA,
1994; Ex. #31). For example, the human
equivalent for a reactive gas that exerts
its toxic effect on the respiratory tract is
scaled based on animal to human
differences in ventilation rate and
regional surface area of the respiratory
tract. On the other hand, the dosimetry
model adjustment for an insoluble gas
that exerts its effect in a tissue remote
from the lung is scaled by species
differences in the blood: gas partition
coefficient. The generic dosimetry
models can accommodate specific
chemical data, if available. The models
are only intended to account for humanto-animal differences in bioavailability
and further allometric or extrapolation
factors may be needed to account for
species differences in metabolic
activation and toxicodynamics (i.e.,
target site sensitivity to an equivalent
delivered dose).
Question IV.A.5: Several
methodologies have been utilized to
adjust critical study exposures to a
worker equivalent under representative
occupational exposure conditions
including standard ventilation rates,
allometric scaling, and toxicokinetic
modeling. What are reasonable and
acceptable methods to determine worker
equivalent exposure concentrations,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
especially from studies in animals or
other experimental systems?
The worker-adjusted LETE that is
derived from dose-response analysis in
the observed range should be regarded
as a chemical exposure level that leads
to significant risk of harm. In most
cases, the LETE is expected to elicit a
toxic response in 1 to 10 percent of the
worker population. This approximates
an excess risk of 10 to 100 cases of
impairment per 1000 exposed workers
over a duration that is typically less
than a 45-year working life. This degree
of risk would exceed the 1 per 1000
probability that OSHA historically
regards as a clearly significant risk.
d. Margin of Exposure (MOE) as a
Decision Tool for Low Dose
Extrapolation
As discussed previously, OSHA’s
statutory and legal obligations dictate
that PELs be set at the level that
eliminates significant risk, if feasible, or
if not, at the lowest feasible level.
Therefore, Agency risk assessments are
directed at determining significant risk
at these feasible exposures. Because of
the feasibility constraints, low dose
extrapolation is not always needed to
make the required risk findings. The
OSHA significant risk orientation differs
from other Federal Agencies, such as
EPA and ATSDR. The risk-based EPA
RfCs and ATSDR MRLs are intended as
environmental exposure levels
determined to be health protective
without consideration of feasibility.
NIOSH also develops workplace
exposure limits. These recommended
exposure limits (RELs) are based on risk
evaluations using human or animal
health effects data. The exposure levels
that can be achieved by engineering
controls and measured by analytical
techniques are considered in the
development of RELs, but the
recommended levels are often below
what OSHA regards as technologically
feasible.
A MOE approach can assist in
determining the need to extrapolate risk
below the observed range. The
appropriate MOE for use as a decision
tool for low dose extrapolation is the
LETE divided by an estimate of the
lowest technologically feasible exposure
(LTFE). A large MOE (i.e., LETE/LTFE
ratio) means the LTFE is considerably
below exposures observed to cause
adverse outcomes along a critical
toxicity pathway. This situation would
require low-dose risk extrapolation to
determine whether technologically
feasible exposures lead to significant
risk. A small MOE means the LTFE
estimate is reasonably close to the
observed toxic exposures indicating the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61393
LTFE likely leads to significant risk of
harm. In this situation, OSHA would set
the PEL at the exposure level it
determines to be feasible and the doseresponse analysis in the observed range
should be sufficient to support Agency
significant risk findings.
There are several factors that OSHA
would need to consider in order to find
that the MOE is adequate to avoid lowdose risk extrapolation. These include
the nature of the adverse outcome, the
magnitude of the effect, the
methodological designs and
experimental models of the selected
studies, the exposure metric associated
with the outcome, and the exposure
period over which the outcome was
studied. OSHA may regard a larger MOE
as acceptable to avoid the need for lowdose extrapolation for serious clinical
effects than a less serious subclinical
outcome. A larger MOE may also be
found acceptable for irreversible health
outcomes that continue to progress with
continued exposure and respond poorly
to treatment than reversible health
outcomes that do not progress with
further exposure. Health outcomes that
relate to cumulative exposures would
tolerate higher MOEs than similar
outcomes unrelated to cumulative
exposure, especially in short-term
studies. In some instances, an adverse
outcome observed in experimental
animals would tolerate higher MOEs
than the same response in a human
study that more closely resembles the
occupational situation.
Other Federal agencies apply the
MOE approach as part of the risk
assessment process. EPA has included
MOE calculations in risk
characterizations of environmental
exposure scenarios to assist in risk
management decisions (EPA, 2005; Ex.
#32). The EU has also applied a very
similar Margin of Safety analysis to
characterize results of risk assessment
conclusions (ECB, 2003; Ex. #33). In its
report on the appropriate uses of risk
assessment and risk management in
federal regulatory programs, the
Presidential Commission on Risk
Assessment and Risk Management
recommended MOE as an approach that
provides a common metric for
comparing health risks across different
toxicities and public health programs
(PCRARM, 1997; Ex. #34).
Question IV.A.6: OSHA is considering
a Margin of Exposure approach that
compares the LETE with the Lowest
Technologically Feasible Exposure
(LTFE) as a decision tool for low dose
extrapolation. Is this a reasonable means
of determining if further low dose
extrapolation methods are needed to
meet agency significant risk findings?
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61394
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
What other approaches should be
considered?
e. Extrapolation Below the Observed
Range
The last step in the tiered approach is
extrapolation of risk below the observed
range. This low-dose extrapolation
would only be needed if the MOE is
sufficiently high to warrant further
dose-response analysis. This situation
occurs when technologically feasible
exposures are far below the LETE and
quantitative estimates of risk could be
highly informative in the determination
of significant risk. As described in
subsection A.1, OSHA has historically
used probabilistic risk modeling to
quantitatively estimate risks at exposure
levels below the observed range.
Depending on the nature of the
exposure-response data, the Agency has
relied on a wide range of different
models that have included linear
relative risk (e.g., hexavalent chromium/
lung cancer), logistic regression (e.g.,
cadmium/kidney dysfunction), and
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic
(e.g., methylene chloride/cancer)
approaches.
Probabilistic risk models can require
considerable time and resources to
construct, parameterize, and statistically
verify against appropriate study data,
especially for a large number of
chemical substances. As mentioned
previously, several government
authorities responsible for managing the
risk to human populations posed by
hazardous chemicals commonly use the
computationally less complex
uncertainty factor approach to
extrapolate dose-response below the
observed range. The uncertainty factors
account for variability in response
within the human population,
uncertainty with regard to the
differences between experimental
animals and humans, and uncertainty
associated with various other data
inferences made in the assessment. For
each of these considerations, a
numerical value is assigned and the
point of departure is divided by the
product of all applied uncertainty
factors. The result is an exposure level
considered to be without appreciable
risk. OSHA attempted to apply
uncertainty factors in the 1989 Air
Contaminants Rule to ensure that new
PELs were set at levels that were
sufficiently below exposures observed
to cause health effects. The Eleventh
Circuit ruled that OSHA had failed to
show how uncertainty factors addressed
the extent of risk posed by individual
substances and that similarly, OSHA
failed to explain the method it used to
derive the safety factors. Air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Contaminants 965 F.2d at 978.( Ex. #8)
Since the court ruling, the uncertainty
factor approach has undergone
considerable refinement. The scientific
considerations for applying individual
factors have been carefully articulated
by EPA and other scientific authorities
in various guidance materials (EPA,
2002; Ex. #35, IPCS, 2005; Ex. #36,
ECHA, 2012a; Ex. #37). For some factors
under certain circumstances, it is being
proposed that standard ‘default’ values
can be replaced with ‘data-driven’
values (EPA, 2011; Ex. #38). However,
the type and magnitude of the
uncertainty factor employed for any
individual substance still requires a
degree of scientific judgment. The
methodology does not provide
quantitative exposure-specific estimates
of risk, such as one in a thousand, that
can readily be compared to the
significant risk probabilities discussed
in the Benzene decision.
The National Research Council’s
Science and Decisions report recently
advocated a dose-response framework
that provides quantitative risk estimates
by applying distributions instead of
‘single value’ factors (NRC, 2009; Ex.
#24). The critical extrapolation factors,
such as species differences in toxic
response at equivalent target doses and
inter-individual variability in the
human population are defined by
lognormal distribution with an
estimated standard deviation. This
allows the human equivalent LETE to be
derived in terms of a median and
statistical lower confidence bound. The
distributional nature of the analysis
facilitates extrapolation in terms of a
probabilistic projection of average and
upper bound risk at specific exposures,
such as X number of individuals
projected to develop disease out of 1000
workers exposed to Z level of a toxic
substance within some confidence level
Y. The NRC report describes several
different conceptual models with case
examples and extrapolation factor
distribution calculations (NRC, 2009;
Ex. #24).
Question IV.A.7: Can the uncertainty
factor methodology for extrapolating
below the observed range for non-cancer
effects be successfully adapted by
OSHA to streamline its risk assessment
process for the purpose of setting
updated PELs? Why or why not? Are
there advantages and disadvantages to
applying extrapolation factor
distributions rather than single
uncertainty factor values? Please
explain your reasoning.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3. Chemical Grouping for Risk
Assessment
OSHA is also considering the use of
one or more chemical grouping
approaches to expedite the risk
assessment process. In certain cases, it
may be appropriate to extrapolate data
about one chemical across a group or
category of similar chemicals. These
approaches are discussed below.
a. Background on Chemical Grouping
The term ‘grouping’ or ‘chemical
grouping’ describes the general
approach to assessing more than one
chemical at the same time. It can
include formation of a chemical
category or identification of a chemical
analogue (OECD, 2007; Ex. #39).
Chemical categories or analogues can be
based on the structural relationship
between the chemicals being grouped.
Structure-activity relationships (SAR)
are relationships between a compound’s
chemical structure and physicochemical
properties and its biological effects (e.g.,
cancer) on living systems. Structurally
diverse chemicals can sometimes be
grouped for risk analysis based on a
common mechanism/mode of action or
metabolic activation pathway (i.e.,
mechanism/mode of action clustering).
Endpoint information for one chemical
is used to predict the same endpoint for
another chemical, which is considered
to be ‘‘similar’’ in some way (usually on
the basis of structural similarity and
similar properties and/or activities).
A chemical category is a group of
chemicals whose physical-chemical,
human health, environmental,
toxicological, and/or environmental fate
properties are likely to be similar or
follow a regular pattern as a result of
structural similarity, structural
relationship, or other characteristic(s). A
chemical category is selected based on
the hypothesis that the properties of a
series of chemicals with common
features will show coherent trends in
their physical-chemical properties, and
more importantly, in their toxicological
effects (OECD, 2007; Ex. #39).
The use of a category approach means
that it is possible to identify chemical
properties which are common to at least
some members of the category. This
approach provides a basis for
establishing trends in properties across
that category and extends the measured
data (e.g., toxicological endpoint) to
similar untested chemicals.
In the category approach, not every
chemical in a group needs to have
exposure-response data in order to be
evaluated. Rather, the overall data for
the category as a whole must prove
adequate to support a risk assessment.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
The overall data set must allow for an
assessment of risk for the compounds
and adverse outcomes that lack
adequate study. Chemicals may be
grouped for risk assessment based on
the following:
• Common functional group (e.g.,
aldehyde, epoxide, ester, specific metal
ion);
• Common constituents or chemical
classes, similar carbon range numbers;
• Incremental and constant change
across the category (e.g., a chain-length
category);
• The likelihood of common
precursors and/or breakdown products,
via physical or biological processes,
which result in structurally similar
chemicals (e.g., the metabolic pathway
approach of examining related
chemicals such as acid/ester/salt).
Within a chemical category, data gaps
may be filled by read-across, trend
analysis and Quantitative StructureActivity Relationships (QSARs) and
threshold of toxicological concern. In
some cases, an effect can be present for
some but not all members of the
category. An example is the glycol
ethers, where the lower carbon chain
length members of the category indicate
reproductive toxicity but the higher
carbon chain length members of the
category do not. In other cases, the
category may show a consistent trend
where the resulting potencies lead to
different classifications (OECD, 2007;
Ex. #39).
(the source chemical) to predict the
same endpoint for another chemical (the
target chemical), which is considered to
be ‘‘similar’’ in some way (usually on
the basis of structural similarity or on
the basis of the same mode or
mechanisms of action). Read-across
methods have been used to assess
physicochemical properties and toxicity
in a qualitative or quantitative manner.
The main application for qualitative
read-across is in hazard identification.
b. Methods of Gap Analysis and Filling
As a result of grouping chemicals
based on similarities determined when
employing the various techniques as
described above, data gap filling in a
chemical category can be carried out by
applying one or more of the following
procedures: read-across, trend analysis,
quantitative (Q)SARs and threshold of
toxicological concern (TTC).
iii. QSAR
A Quantitative Structure-Activity
Relationship (QSAR) is a quantitative
relationship between a numerical
measure of chemical structure, and/or a
physicochemical property, and an
effect/activity. QSARs use mathematical
calculations to make predictions of
effects/activities that are either on a
continuous scale or on a categorical
scale. ‘‘Quantitative’’ refers to the nature
of the relationship between structurally
related chemicals, not the endpoint
being predicted. Most often QSARs have
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
i. Read-Across Method
The read-across approach uses
endpoint information for one chemical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
ii. Trend Analysis
Chemical category members are often
related by a trend (e.g., increasing,
decreasing or constant) for any specific
endpoint. The relationship of the
categorical trend could be molecular
mass, carbon chain length, or to some
other physicochemical property.
The observation of a trend (increasing,
decreasing or constant) in the
experimental data for a given endpoint
across chemicals can be used as the
basis for interpolation and possibly also
extrapolation to fill data gaps for
chemicals with little to no data.
Interpolation is the estimation of a value
for a member using measured values
from other members on ‘‘both sides’’ of
that member within the defined
category spectrum, whereas
extrapolation refers to the estimation of
a value for a member that is near or at
the category boundary using measured
values from internal category members
(OECD, 2007; Ex. #39).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61395
been used for determining aquatic
toxicity or genotoxicity but can be used
for evaluating other endpoints as well
(OECD, 2007; Ex. #39).
Question IV.A.8: Are QSAR, readacross, and trend analysis acceptable
methods for developing risk
assessments for a category of chemicals
with similar structural alerts (chemical
groupings known to be associated with
a particular type of toxic effect, e.g.,
mutagenicity) or other toxicologicallyrelevant physiochemical attributes?
Why or why not? Are there other
suitable approaches?
iv. Threshold of Toxicological Concern
(TTC)
The Threshold of Toxicological
Concern (TTC) refers to the
establishment of an exposure level for a
group of chemicals below which there
would be no appreciable risk to human
health. The original concept proposed
that a low level of exposure with a
negligible risk can be identified for
many chemicals, including those of
unknown toxicity, based on knowledge
of their chemical structures. The TTC
approach is a form of risk
characterization in which uncertainties
arising from the use of data on other
compounds are balanced against the low
level of exposure. The approach was
initially developed by the FDA for
migration of chemicals from consumer
packaging into food products and used
a single threshold value of 1.5mg/day
(referred to as the threshold of
regulation).
The TTC principle extends the
concept used in setting acceptable daily
allowable intakes (ADIs) by proposing
that a de minimis value can be
identified for chemicals with little to no
toxicity data utilizing information from
structurally related chemicals with
known toxicities.
A decision tree can be developed to
apply the TTC principle for risk
assessment decisions:
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
For OSHA purposes the TTC
approach could be adapted to develop
an endpoint-specific LETE value for
chemicals in a specific category where
little to no toxicity data exist utilizing
source chemicals within the category
where toxicity data is available.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Use of Systems Biology and Other
Emerging Test Data in Risk Assessment
Toxicity testing is undergoing
transformation from an approach
primarily based on pathological
outcomes in experimental animal
studies to a more predictive paradigm
that characterizes critical molecular/
cellular perturbations in toxicity
pathways using in vitro test systems.
The paradigm shift is being largely
driven by the technological advances in
molecular systems biology such as the
use of high throughput screening (HTS)
assays, new computational methods to
predict chemical properties, and
computer models able to associate
molecular events with a biological
response. The vision, strategies, and
frameworks for applying the new
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
toxicity data to risk-based decision
making are laid out in landmark reports
by the National Research Council (NRC,
2009; Ex. #24, NRC, 2007; Ex. #25). A
collaborative Federal initiative known
as ‘‘Tox21’’ has been established
between the National Toxicology
Program (NTP), the EPA Office of
Research and Development, the NIH
Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC), and
the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) to collaborate on development,
validation, and translation of innovative
HTS methods to characterize key steps
in toxicity pathways (NTP, 2013; Ex.
#40). Tox21 has already screened over a
1000 compounds in more than 50
quantitative HTS assays that have been
made available to the scientific
community through publically
accessible databases (e.g., EPA ACToR,
NTP CEBS). EPA has launched a
program, known as ‘‘NexGen’’, to
implement the NRC vision and advance
the next generation of risk assessment
(EPA, 2013b; Ex. #41). NexGen is a
partnership among EPA, NTP, NCGC,
AND FDA, along with ATSDR and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
California’s EPA Office of
Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment. The objectives of NexGen
are to pilot the new NRC risk
assessment framework, refine existing
bioinformatics systems, and develop
specific prototype health risk
assessments. These objectives are
expected to be achieved through an
iterative development process that
includes discussion with scientists, risk
managers, and stakeholders.
Question IV.A.9: How should OSHA
utilize the new molecular-based toxicity
data, high throughput and computerbased computational approaches being
generated on many workplace chemicals
and the updated NRC risk-based
decision making framework to inform
future Agency risk assessments?
B. Considerations for Technological
Feasibility
Before adopting a particular
regulatory alternative, the Agency must
demonstrate that it is technologically
feasible. As OSHA currently performs it,
a technological feasibility analysis is
often one of the most resource-intensive
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
EP10OC14.000
61396
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
aspects of the rulemaking process. The
Agency must identify all of the
industries that are potentially affected
and compile the available information
on current worker exposure and existing
controls for each industry. On occasion,
the best information available for
technological feasibility analyses comes
from sparse and incomplete data sets.
Rather than rely exclusively on such
variable information, OSHA is
considering the use of exposure
modeling, such as computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) modeling, for a more
complete picture of worker exposures
and the potential effectiveness of
different control strategies.
Additionally, OSHA is looking at other
sources of information, such as the
REACH initiative from the European
Union, that may help the Agency to
better characterize industries or jobs
where there is little to no data on
worker exposures and control
technologies.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Legal Background of Technological
Feasibility
OSHA must demonstrate that a PEL,
as well as any ancillary provisions, to
the extend they are being adopted, are
feasible. In general, OSHA determines
that a regulatory alternative is
technologically feasible when it has
evidence that demonstrates the
alternative is achievable in most
operations most of the time. The Agency
must also show that sampling and
analytical methods can measure
exposures at the proposed PEL within
an acceptable degree of accuracy. OSHA
makes these determinations in the
technological feasibility analysis, which
is made available to the public in the
OSHA rulemaking docket.
2. Current Methodology of the
Technological Feasibility Requirement
To develop its technological
feasibility analysis, the Agency must
first collect the information about the
industries that are affected by a
particular hazard, the sources of
exposure, the frequency of the exposure,
the number of workers exposed to
various levels, what control measures or
other efforts are being made to reduce
exposure to the hazard, and what
sampling and analytical methods are
available.
This information is typically obtained
from numerous sources including:
• Published literature,
• OSHA Special Emphasis Program
(SEP) reports,
• NIOSH reports, such as health
hazard evaluations (HHE), control
technology (CT) assessments, surveys,
recommendations for exposure control,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
and engineering control feasibility
studies,
• Site visits, conducted by OSHA,
NIOSH, or supporting contractors,
• Information from other
stakeholders, such as federal and state
agencies, labor organizations, industry
associations, and consensus standards,
• Unpublished information, such as
personal communications, meetings,
and presentations, and
• OSHA Integrated Management
Information System (IMIS) data.
With this information, OSHA creates
profiles that identify the industries
where exposures occur, what operations
lead to exposures, and what engineering
controls and work practices are being
implemented to mitigate exposures. A
technological feasibility analysis is
typically organized by industry sector or
group of sectors that performs a unique
activity involving similar activities.
OSHA identifies the operations that lead
to exposures in all of these industries,
and eventually determines the
feasibility of a PEL by analyzing
whether the PEL can be achieved in
most operations most of the time, as an
aggregate across all industries affected.
OSHA has also utilized an application
approach that evaluates the feasibility of
controls for a specific type of process
used across a number of industry
sectors, such as welding, rather than on
an industry-by-industry basis.
OSHA develops detailed descriptions
of how the substance is used in different
industries, the work activities during
which workers are exposed, and the
primary sources of exposure. The
Agency also constructs exposure
profiles for each industry, or by job
category, based on operations
performed. The Agency classifies
workers by job categories within those
industries, based on how similar work
processes are, and to what extent similar
engineering controls can be applied to
control exposures in those processes.
Each exposure profile contains a list
of affected job categories, summary
statistics for each job category and
subcategories (such as the mean,
median, and range of exposures), and
the distribution of worker exposures
using increments based on the
regulatory alternatives.
OSHA’s technological feasibility
analyses for PEL-setting standards have
traditionally relied on full-shift,
personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples
to create exposure profiles. A PBZ
sample is the best sample type to
quantify the inhalation exposure of a
worker. Area samples are typically not
used to construct exposure profiles but
are useful to characterize how much
airborne contamination is present in a
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61397
work environment and to evaluate the
effectiveness of engineering and other
process control measures.
Exposure profiles are used to establish
the baseline exposure conditions for
every job category in affected industries.
Baseline conditions are developed to
allow the Agency to estimate the extent
to which additional controls will be
required to achieve a level specified by
a regulatory alternative.
Next, the technological feasibility
analysis describes the additional
controls necessary to achieve the
regulatory alternatives. OSHA relies on
its traditional hierarchy of controls
when demonstrating the feasibility of
control technology. The traditional
hierarchy of controls includes, in order
of preference: Substitution, local
exhaust ventilation, dust suppression,
process enclosures, work practices, and
housekeeping. OSHA considers use of
personal protective equipment, such as
respirators, to be is the least effective
method for controlling employee
exposure, and therefore, personal
protective equipment is considered only
for limited situations in which all
feasible engineering controls have been
implemented, but do not effectively
reduce exposure to below the
permissible exposure limit. To identify
what additional controls are feasible,
the Agency conducts a detailed
investigation of the controls used in
different industries based primarily on
case studies.
OSHA develops preliminary
conclusions regarding feasibility of
regulatory alternatives, by identifying
the lowest levels of exposure that are
technologically feasible in workplaces.
To determine whether an alternative is
feasible throughout the spectrum of
affected industries, OSHA studies
whether the regulatory alternative is
achievable in most operations most of
the time by a typical firm. OSHA may
also determine whether a specific
process used across a number of
different industries can be effectively
controlled.
3. Role of Exposure Modeling in
Technological Feasibility
In many situations, the Agency has
found it difficult to develop
comprehensive exposure profiles and
determine additional controls because
of limitations associated with the
available exposure data. These
information gaps could be filled by
incorporating exposure modeling into
the technological feasibility process.
The limitations associated with the data
collected include:
• Limited number of exposure
samples: On occasions, an exposure
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61398
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
profile for a job category may be built
on a limited number of full-shift
exposure samples, and the Agency has
to judge whether the samples available
are representative of the actual exposure
distribution for that industry.
• Limit of Detection (LOD) issues:
Because only a few exposure samples
may be available for a job category, the
analysis may include samples reported
as ‘‘less than’’ values, high LODs, or
adjusted LOD values. This causes
inconsistency in the use of LOD samples
and may cause the Agency to under- or
over-estimate the actual exposure
distribution.
• Lack of information on controls
associated with data: Information
regarding working conditions and
control strategies associated with
exposure samples may not be available.
This makes it difficult for the Agency to
determine the impact of the control
strategies for various sources of
exposure. Additionally, it is common
that the data does not include
information about the exact nature of
the task performed during the sampling
period. Sometimes, samples may not
exactly correspond to the job category to
which OSHA assigns it in the analysis
because the job activities performed are
not adequately described.
• Limitations of traditional industrial
hygiene sampling: Traditional industrial
hygiene practices require a ‘‘before and
after’’ data set to gauge the effectiveness
of control strategies implemented, and
changes that occur in the working
environment during the sampling
periods. The exact impact of control
strategies and environmental conditions
cannot be determined easily with only
one set of samples obtained at a discrete
moment in time. It is often the case that
OSHA does not have the luxury of
‘‘before and after’’ data sets and must
determine how the sample set fits into
the exposure profile.
• IMIS data limitations: Since the
Agency may lack exposure data for a
particular job category or operation, it
sometimes relies on IMIS data. OSHA
does not usually rely on IMIS data in its
exposure profiles unless there are no
other exposure data available because
the IMIS data can have some significant
limitations, which include the
following:
Æ Insufficient information to
determine if a hazard is present in the
work area in significant amounts as to
be relevant for an exposure profile. For
example, an analyst cannot tell from the
information available in the IMIS
database if a sample was targeted for the
hazard in question, or if it was part of
a larger metal screening process (if the
hazard is a metal), which typically
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
includes up to 16 different metals
whether they are thought to be present
in the sampling environment or not.
Æ Use of SIC codes in historic IMIS
data, which do not translate directly
into the NAICS codes currently used in
the analyses.
Æ There is no information in the
database on the end product being
developed, the action performed to
produce it, or the materials being used
when the sample is taken. This limits
the interpretation of the data, since an
analyst is not able to attribute the
exposure to any particular practice or
process, and cannot recommend
engineering controls.
Generally, OSHA has had the most
success using IMIS data to identify and
collect enforcement case files for further
review. Case files from OSHA
inspections contain more detailed
information on worker activities and
exposure controls observed at the time
an exposure sample is taken. Thus, use
of case files to a large extent mitigates
the limitations of using IMIS data.
For most health standards, OSHA
does not have the resources to conduct
site visits to obtain the necessary
exposure information at firms that are
representative of all the affected
industries. In an effort to develop more
robust exposure profiles, the Agency is
considering the use of exposure
modeling, such as computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) modeling, to
complement the exposure information
that is already available from literature,
site visits, NIOSH and similar field
investigations, and employer-provided
data. This technique would potentially
allow OSHA to better estimate
workplace exposures in those
environments were data are limited.
Question IV.B.1: OSHA described
how it obtains information necessary to
conduct its industry profiles. Are there
additional or better sources of
information on the industries where
exposures are likely, the numbers of
workers and current exposure levels
that OSHA could use?
a. Computational Fluid Dynamics
Modeling To Predict Workplace
Exposures
OSHA is considering the use of
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to
model workplace exposure. CFD is a
discipline of fluid mechanics that uses
computer modeling to solve complex
problems involving fluid flows. Fluid
flow is the physical behavior of fluids,
either liquids or gases, and it is
represented by systems of partial
differential equations that describe
conservation of energy, mass, and
momentum. For some physical
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
phenomena, such as the laminar flow of
a fluid through a cylindrical pipe, these
equations can be solved mathematically.
Such solutions describe how a fluid will
move through the specified area, or
geometry, as a function of time. For
more complex physical phenomena,
such as turbulent flow of a fluid through
a complex geometry, numerical
approaches are used to solve the
governing differential equations. As
such, CFD modeling uses mathematical
models and numerical methods to
determine how fluids will behave
according to a particular set of variables
and parameters. A mathematical model
simulates the physical phenomena
under consideration (i.e. governing
equations of energy, mass, and
momentum) and, in turn, a numerical
method solves that model. Overall, CFD
modeling enables scientists and
engineers to perform computer
simulations in order to make better
qualitative and quantitative predictions
of fluid flows.
Some modeling techniques, such as
CFD, allow a user to create a virtual
geometry to simulate actual work
environments using appropriate
mathematical models and
computational methods. The solutions
predict exposures at any given time and
in any point in the space of the
geometry established. A model
developed with this technique allows
the user to evaluate exposures in a
worker’s personal breathing zone and
identify areas in the work space that
present high concentrations of the
contaminant. Because the exposure
concentration can be solved as a
function of time, the user can observe
how concentration increases or
decreases with time or other changes in
the model input parameters. This allows
the user to consider administrative
controls such as limiting the time of the
operation, the quantity of material
emitted by the process, or determining
how long after an operation a worker
can safely enter a previously
contaminated area. In some cases, work
tasks and processes that are timevarying can be communicated to the
CFD model through time-varying
boundary conditions.
Models require a defined geometry
(i.e., work space), and this step in the
model building may be resource
intensive. To construct geometries of
complex work environments, OSHA
would need to gather the necessary
information to model the work
environment. This includes taking
measurements of the work area,
machinery, engineering control
specifications (e.g., exhaust face
velocities, spray systems flow rates),
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
and any other objects or activities that
may affect the air flow in the area of
interest. Moreover, gathering sitespecific information for building CFD
models can be integrated with
traditional industrial hygiene survey
activities. OSHA is interested in
identifying ways to reduce the time and
money that may be spent recreating
work environments. One alternative is
to import facility layouts in an
electronic format (such as CAD) into the
modeling software. If an establishment
has its facility layout in this format,
then the model designer would not have
to take physical measurements and
recreate the work area by 3–D modeling.
Question IV.B.2: In cases where there
is no exposure information available, to
what degree should OSHA rely on
modeling results to develop exposure
profiles and feasible control strategies?
Please explain why or why not.
Question IV.B.3: What partnerships
should OSHA seek to obtain
information required to most efficiently
construct models of work
environments? More specifically, how
should OSHA select facility layouts to
model that are representative of typical
work environments in a particular
industry? Note that the considerations
should include variables such as work
area dimensions, production volumes
and ventilation rates in order to develop
models for both large and small scale
operations.
Models must undergo validation and
testing to determine if they provide an
accurate prediction of the physical
phenomenon under consideration, or in
this case, the concentrations of air
contaminants to which workers could
be potentially exposed. Sensitivity
analyses can be used to determine if
model outputs are consistent given
minor changes to grid cell size and time
step duration. Grid cell size refers to the
division of space according to nodes,
and time step refers to the value
attributed to the time variable to
numerically solve the equations with
reference to the nodes. Another method
for model evaluation is the comparison
between the solutions of different
models to the same problem in that a
similarity of findings across multiple
CFD models would provide greater
confidence in the results. Arguably, the
best performance evaluation is the
comparison of model results to those of
a field experiment that simulates on
different scales the actual work
environment.
This method of predicting workplace
exposures has some potential
advantages over traditional industrial
hygiene sampling methods. Patankar
(1980; Ex. #42) explains some of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
advantages of theoretical calculations,
in a general sense, to predict heat
transfer and fluid flow processes. Some
of these are:
• Low Cost: In many current and
future applications, the cost of a
computational method may be lower
than the corresponding sampling cost.
As mentioned above, the most resourceconsuming aspect of solid modeling is
simulating the geometry that resembles
actual physical space of work
environments.
• Speed: A numerical solution to
predict exposures can be obtained very
easily in a day. A user could manipulate
different configurations regarding
worker positioning and engineering
controls to find an optimal control
strategy.
• Complete information: A computer
solution provides the values of all
relevant variables throughout the
domain of interest. These variables
cover fluid flow patterns, areas in the
geometry with highest concentrations of
contamination, exposure values at any
point in the geometry, time profile of
contamination, and exposure results
based on different control
configurations. Traditional industrial
hygiene sampling does not allow for this
level of analysis as it measures results
based on a particular work environment,
and it cannot distinguish how each
independent variable (e.g., changes in
the workplace during sampling) affects
the exposure result.
• Ability to simulate realistic
conditions: A computer solution can
accommodate any environmental
condition and the values for all
variables that affect the solution can be
easily modified to fit a particular
scenario.
Patankar (1980; Ex. #42) also
discusses the disadvantages of
theoretical predictions to address heat
transfer and fluid flow processes, and
they are applicable to exposure
modeling. The solutions obtained
depend on the mathematical model
used to simulate the situation, the value
of the input parameters, and the
numerical method used to obtain a
solution. As Patankar notes, ‘‘a perfectly
satisfactory numerical technique can
produce worthless results if an
inadequate mathematical model is
employed’’. This is why it is imperative
that the mathematical model chosen
actually resembles the physical
phenomena under consideration.
The Agency also realizes that even if
an appropriate mathematical model and
numerical method are obtained to
describe contamination in a workplace,
the exposure modeling approach may
prove to be more resource-intensive
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61399
than traditional industrial hygiene
sampling for work environments with
complex geometries. In these situations,
OSHA would have to develop a site visit
protocol for gathering dimensions of the
work environment of interest. The
information to be collected includes the
dimensions of the physical space, the
ventilation system that affects airflow
patterns, and other details (such as
location and size of windows, doors,
and large obstructions).
Despite these limitations, modeling
promises to provide significant
advantages that could help OSHA
construct more robust technological
feasibility analyses while reducing the
considerable amount of resources the
Agency already expends on them. In
addition to CFD modeling, the Agency
will continue to investigate other
exposure modeling techniques and their
applicability in the rulemaking process.
Question IV.B.4: Should OSHA use
only models that have been validated?
If so, what criteria for model validation
should be employed?
Question IV.B.5: What exposure
models are you aware of that can be
useful for predicting workplace
exposures and help OSHA create
exposure profiles and in what
circumstances?
At this time, OSHA is primarily
examining the possibility of
incorporating CFD models to indoor
work operations. Most general industry
and some construction operations are
performed indoors. As the Agency
conducts more research on the
applicability of CFD models to predict
workplace exposures, outdoor models
will also be considered. As such, OSHA
is interested in obtaining input from
parties experienced in these models.
Question IV.B.6: Should OSHA
consider CFD models primarily for
indoor operations, outdoor operations,
or both? What limitations exist with
these two different types of models?
Various U.S. federal agencies have
used CFD modeling for projects related
to indoor air quality and/or
occupational health and safety.
Preliminary research indicates that this
CFD modeling work has been performed
mostly for academic and research
purposes. There is little information
available discussing the use of CFD
modeling for the purposes of litigation
and/or regulatory decision-making.
NIOSH has used CFD on a variety of
internal research initiatives that involve
evaluating and controlling airborne
exposures. Among other projects,
NIOSH has used CFD modeling to:
• Evaluate potential exposure
concentrations to hexavalent chromium
(CrVI), hexamethylene diisocyanate
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61400
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(HDI), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK),
and others with different ventilation
control configurations during spray
painting operations at a Navy aircraft
paint hangar. In this study, NIOSH also
tested and validated the predictive
value of CFD modelling against methods
of physical sampling by conducting
workplace air sampling and comparing
with model results. The project was
performed with assistance from the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC) and the Navy Medical Center
San Diego (NMCSD) (NIOSH, 2011a; Ex.
#43),
• Study the effectiveness of
ventilation systems for controlling
Tuberculosis (NIOSH, 2010; Ex. #44),
• Evaluate emission controls for mail
processing and handling facilities
(NIOSH, 2010; Ex. #44),
• Better understand the role airflow
and ventilation play in disease
transmission in commercial aircraft
cabins (NIOSH, 2010; Ex. #44),
• Simulate different air sampling
methods to better understand how
sampling methods can assess exposure
(NIOSH, 2010; Ex. #44), and
• Help better understand the
effectiveness of various forms of
exposure control technologies in the
manufacturing and transportation,
warehousing, and utilities in the
National Occupational Research Agenda
(NORA) Sectors (NIOSH, 2011b; Ex.
#45).
Additionally, NIOSH has also used
CFD models in mine safety research:
• NIOSH conducted a CFD study to
model the potential for spontaneous
heating in particular areas of
underground coal mines (Yuan, L. et al.,
2006; Ex. #46). The purpose of the
study was to provide insights into the
optimization of ventilation systems for
underground coal mines that face both
methane control and spontaneous
combustion issues.
• NIOSH looked at the rate of flame
spread along combustible materials in a
ventilated underground mine entry.
CFD models were used to estimate the
flame spreading rates of a mine fire
(Edwards, J. C., and Hwang, C. C., 2006;
Ex. #47).
• NIOSH has also used CFD modeling
to model inert gas injection and oxygen
depletion in sealed areas of
underground mines (Trevits, M. A., et
al., 2010; ; Ex. #48). CFD simulations
were created to model inert gas
injections that aim to eliminate
explosive atmospheres that form in
sealed mine areas. The CFD model was
able to quantify oxygen depletion and
gas leakage rates of the sealed area.
EPA has conducted a substantial
amount of work using CFD modeling to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
assess outdoor air quality. However
there is little information available on
EPA projects that have used CFD to
evaluate indoor air quality.
As part of the Labs21 program, EPA,
in conjunction with the Department of
Energy, has published a guidance
document for optimization of laboratory
ventilation rates (EPA & DOE, 2008; Ex
#49). The guidance is geared towards
architects, engineers, and facilities
managers, in order to provide
information about technologies and
practices to use in designing,
constructing, and operating safe,
sustainable, high-performance
laboratories. EPA advocates the use of
CFD simulations to determine the
airflow characteristics of a laboratory
space in order to improve ventilation
systems and increase safety and energy
efficiency.
The Building and Fire Research
Laboratory of National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
developed a CFD model to simulate the
transport of smoke and hot gases during
a fire in an enclosed space (NIST, 1997;
Ex. #50). The results of the study and an
extensive literature review indicated to
NIST that CFD can have significant
benefits in the study of indoor air
quality and ventilation. The report
resulting from this study provides a
thorough description of CFD and
provides recommendations for future
directions in CFD research.
The Building and Fire Research
Laboratory of NIST has also used CFD
to model the effects of outdoor gas
generator use on the air concentrations
of carbon monoxide inside nearby
buildings (NIST, 2009; Ex. #51). Using
CONTAM (a mathematical indoor air
quality model), coupled with CFD
simulations, the researchers were able to
determine factors (e.g., generator
positioning, wind direction) that
contributed to elevated carbon
monoxide accumulation in the building.
As OSHA continues to explore the
option of incorporating CFD modeling
into its technological feasibility
analyses, the Agency will conduct
further research on existing models.
b. The Potential Role of REACH in
Technological Feasibility
Similar to the evaluation of chemical
substances by the European Chemicals
Agency (ECHA) and the European
Commission before making a decision to
ban or restrict the use of a substance,
OSHA must evaluate information on
health effects, exposure levels, and
existing controls before setting a new or
revised PEL. However, ECHA requires
chemical manufacturers to generate the
information evaluated by government
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
decision-makers, while in the U.S.,
OSHA itself is responsible for
generating, researching, and evaluating
the relevant information.
As explained in more detail above,
OSHA creates industry profiles to
evaluate the technological feasibility of
a standard. The objective of these
profiles is to estimate the number of
workers potentially exposed to
occupational hazards. OSHA relies on
information from numerous sources
including the U.S. EPA, U.S. DOL, U.S.
Census Bureau, NIOSH, scientific
publications, and site visits to identify
specific industries where workers are
potentially exposed to hazards.
Acquiring data from these sources is
straightforward and usually achieved
through standard procedures. However,
these sources often contain data gaps or
inconclusive information. Thus, new
sources of information are needed to fill
existing data gaps and strengthen
OSHA’s analyses.
Since similar types of data are
currently being developed and
submitted by manufacturers and
importers under REACH, this
information could provide an additional
reference source for OSHA to utilize.
The incorporation of REACH data into
OSHA’s technological feasibility
analyses could greatly assist the Agency
in creating a more exhaustive, thorough,
and complete analysis. The information
developed during the REACH
registration process could help OSHA
better understand the industries, uses,
processes, and products in which a
chemical of concern is used, gain
knowledge about the risk management
measures and controls currently in
place, and develop scenarios where
exposure may be greatest. Exposure
information generated by manufacturers
in a chemical safety assessment could
be valuable for completing exposure
profiles on chemicals where current
references for field sampling analytical
data are limited. In addition, utilizing
information presented in exposure
scenarios that describe the conditions
under which a chemical can be used
safely (i.e., risk management measures
and operating conditions) could provide
insight on currently employed industry
control methods and their effectiveness.
While the benefits of incorporating
REACH data into OSHA’s technological
feasibility analyses seems promising,
challenges such as data access and data
validity have been identified as
potential drawbacks. Despite provisions
under REACH that require the public
availability of data and the sharing of
data with other government agencies,
the European Chemicals Agency, which
maintains the REACH databases, has not
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
yet made some of the information
available, including information
generated for and compiled in the
chemical safety assessment.
Additionally, some manufacturers and
importers may be prohibited from
sharing the data generated for REACH
directly with other entities for nonREACH purposes due to agreements
made among the members of groups
organized under REACH to more
efficiently share the information needed
for the registration of a chemical.
Question IV.B.7: How can exposure
information in REACH be incorporated
into OSHA’s technological feasibility
analysis?
c. Technological Feasibility Analysis
With a Focus on Industries With
Highest Exposures
OSHA’s technological feasibility
analysis is one of the most resourceintensive parts of the rulemaking
process. OSHA typically analyzes
exposures in all industries and job
categories within those industries that
show potential for exposures and
determine whether a proposed exposure
limit can be achieved in most operations
most of the time. These can range from
industries that are constantly
experiencing exposures in most job
categories above an existing PEL or the
regulatory alternatives, to industries
where only a few job categories have
shown elevated exposures. OSHA has
also utilized an application approach in
which it analyzed exposure associated
with a specific process across a number
of different industries.
The Agency is investigating whether
it is appropriate to focus future
technological feasibility analyses only
on job categories that have the highest
exposures. An analysis performed in
this manner may reduce the amount of
time and money OSHA has to expend to
prove feasibility. In many cases the
control methods applicable for one
industry may also be effective in
reducing exposures in other industries.
By determining the additional
engineering controls and work practices
necessary to reduce the most elevated
exposures to a level specified by a
regulatory alternative, the Agency could
propose that similar control strategies
(wherever applicable) would also be
effective in reducing lesser exposures to
that same level. In other words, by
making feasibility findings in the most
problematic industries, OSHA would
argue that all other industries would
also be able to comply with a regulatory
alternative. A related possibility is for
OSHA to make a feasibility
determination based on enforcement
activities of the proposed or lower PEL
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
in other geographic jurisdictions, e.g.,
other states.
Question IV.B.8: To what extent and
in what circumstances should OSHA
argue that feasibility for a regulatory
alternative can be established by
proving the feasibility of reducing the
highest exposures to the level proposed
by that regulatory alternative?
Question IV.B.9: To what extent and
in what circumstances can OSHA argue
that feasibility for a regulatory
alternative can be established by the
enforcement of a lower PEL [e.g., the
1989 PEL (See Appendix B)] by an
individual state or states?
Question IV.B.10: What are the
appropriate criteria that OSHA should
use to assess whether control strategies
implemented in a process from one
industry are applicable to a process
from another industry (e.g., similarity of
chemicals, type, extent and duration of
exposures, similar uses)?
Question IV.B.11: Regardless of the
industries involved, are there criteria
that OSHA should use to show that
control strategies implemented in a
process from one operation are
applicable to a process from another
operation? Please explain.
The Agency realizes that analyses
performed in this manner may have
some implications for smaller firms that
may find it harder to implement
resource intensive control strategies
than larger firms. Additionally, the
control strategies from the most
problematic industries may not be
similar to those that may be needed for
industries with lower exposures because
the processes and sources of exposure
require different control methods.
Question IV.B.12: How should OSHA
take into consideration the size of a
business of facility when determining
technological feasibility?
C. Economic Feasibility in Health
Standards
The purpose of this section is (1) to
discuss how and why OSHA currently
conducts its economic feasibility
analysis of health standards, and (2) to
examine approaches to economic
feasibility that might involve less time
and fewer resources.
1. OSHA’s Current Approach to
Economic Feasibility
The Agency’s existing approach to
economic feasibility rests directly on
relevant language in the OSH Act, as
interpreted by the courts, requiring
OSHA to establish that new standards
are economically feasible. OSHA also
conducts economic analysis of its
regulations in compliance with other
legislation and as a result of executive
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61401
orders that require analysis of the
benefits and costs of a regulation as a
whole, and in the case of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, some estimate of the
economic impacts on small entities.
However, the degree of industry detail
provided in OSHA’s economic analyses
is primarily a function of judicial
interpretation of the economic
feasibility requirements of the OSH Act.
The development of the law on
economic feasibility is discussed in
detail in Section III. Below we discuss
potential alternatives to current
methods of economic feasibility
analysis, and then follow with a brief
discussion on how the other analytical
requirements OSHA is required to meet
might be satisfied.
As guided by the courts, OSHA
develops economic feasibility analyses
that cover every affected industry and
process. OSHA has not always taken
this position. For example, in its
economic and technological feasibility
analysis of benzene, OSHA examined
only industries believed to be the worst
in terms of significant exposure to
benzene. Since then, however, OSHA
has attempted to cover all affected
industries in its feasibility analysis.
The courts have suggested that the
economic feasibility analysis must be
reasonably detailed. In the Air
Contaminants case, the court said:
Indeed, it would seem particularly
important not to aggregate disparate
industries when making a showing of
economic feasibility . . . [R]eliance on such
tools as average estimates of cost can be
extremely misleading in assessing the impact
of particular standards on individual
industries. AFL–CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962,
982 (11th Cir. 1992) (‘‘Air Contaminants’’).
(Ex. #8)
However, the court added:
We are not foreclosing the possibility that
OSHA could properly find and explain that
certain impacts and standards do apply to
entire sectors of an industry. Two-digit SICs
could be appropriate, but only if coupled
with a showing that there are no
disproportionately affected industries within
the group. Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982
n.28
In the hexavalent chromium case,
Public Citizen Health Research Group v.
United States Dep’t of Labor, 557 F.3d
165, 178 (3d Cir. 2009; Ex. #14), the
court recognized that OSHA had the
flexibility to demonstrate technological
feasibility on a process or activity rather
than industry-by-industry basis, if the
processes or activities are sufficiently
similar from industry to industry. The
court, however, did not address the
question of whether the same flexibility
applies to economic feasibility. OSHA,
especially in health standards, has tried
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61402
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
to provide the most detailed analysis of
industries and processes that resources
permit. For most recent health
standards, this has meant the use of the
lowest level industry codes for which
industry data are available, and where
more than one process is used in an
industry, consideration of each process
separately. Further, in order to assure
that a regulation does not alter the
competitive structure of an industry,
OSHA normally analyses three size
classes of employer within each
industry: All establishments, small
firms as defined by SBA, and small
firms with fewer than twenty employees
(always smaller than the SBA
definitions). For the typical OSHA
substance-specific health standard,
OSHA analyses each of the controls for
each of the many processes in which the
substance might appear, and then of
each industry in which any process
might appear, and then of three sizes of
establishment within the industry.
Finally, OSHA examines the varying
levels of exposure and controls within
an industry and develops analyses that
reflect these differences within an
industry. In terms of the form of the
analysis, OSHA has followed the advice
of the D.C. Circuit to ‘‘construct a
reasonable estimate of compliance costs
and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
that these costs will not threaten the
existence or competitive structure of an
industry.’’ United Steelworkers v.
Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir.
1980; Ex. #12) (‘‘Lead I’’).
In response to this guidance, OSHA
develops detailed estimates of the costs
of a health standard for each affected
industry, and by the three size
categories of establishment. The result is
that the economic analyses of health
standards routinely contain a series of
tables showing costs for each industry
by multiple size classes of firms within
the industry, and sometimes for more
than one process per industry. Each
entry in these tables is documented by
detailed explanations of how the costs
were estimated for each industry and
size class and level of exposure.
OSHA then makes a determination for
each industry whether or not these costs
are likely to threaten the existence or
competitive structure of that industry.
In order to do this, OSHA first
constructs a ‘‘screening analysis’’ for
each industry. For the purposes of this
screening analysis, OSHA combines its
estimates on the costs per establishment
of various sizes with statistical data on
the profits and revenues of the affected
establishment sizes, and then calculates
costs as a percentage of profits and
revenues. For most industries, the costs
in comparison to revenues and profits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
are so small that, in OSHA’s view, no
reasonable person could think that the
costs could possibly be expected to
threaten the existence or competitive
structure of an industry. Where the costs
are not this small, OSHA conducts a
variety of further economic analysis,
depending on the economic situation,
nature of the costs, the affected
industry, and the economic data
available.
This basic approach to economic
feasibility analysis has been used for
many health standards, and the
approach has generally been successful
in assuring that OSHA standards are
economically feasible. In the PELs
rulemaking, where OSHA tried a more
general approach, the court found the
level of detail inadequate. Similarly,
OSHA has encountered problems when
the Agency did not have an adequate
level of detail with respect to the
exposure profile and the technological
feasibility analysis, such as for dry-color
formulators of cadmium pigments.
OSHA’s eight lookback studies,
conducted under both Sections 610 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Section 5 of Executive Order 12866,
have not found any instance in which
subsequent study showed that a
standard had threatened the existence of
or brought about massive dislocation
within an industry.
OSHA can reasonably say that it has
found a methodology such that the
Agency’s determinations of economic
feasibility have both been considered
adequate by the courts and proven to be
accurate in determining regulations to
be feasible when re-evaluated by
retrospective analysis. However, the
resulting methodology is extremely
resource intensive and time-consuming
because OSHA always has to make
detailed cost estimates and provide
detailed statistical data for every single
process and industry affected. For this
reason, OSHA wants to consider
whether there may be methods that can
short-cut this process and still meet all
of OSHA’s legal requirements.
The remainder of this section
examines two kinds of alternative
approaches to accelerating the process
and reducing the resources needed to
produce health standards. One kind of
alternative involves formulating health
standards differently. The second kind
involves different kinds of analysis
OSHA might perform.
2. Alternative Approaches to
Formulating Health Standards That
Might Accelerate the Economic
Feasibility Analysis
One approach to simplifying,
speeding up, and making the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
development of standards less resource
intensive would be to have the
standards themselves address health
issues in a way that involves less
analysis for any given standard. Health
standards can be analyzed faster to the
extent that there are fewer processes
and/or fewer industries to analyze. It
would be less time consuming for
OSHA to analyze a health standard for
a single process rather than a single
substance that is found in dozens of
processes. OSHA already has a variety
of process-oriented standards that
partially address health hazards in such
areas as abrasive blasting, welding, and
electroplating. Control banding also
represents an approach that, following
the hazard assessment, examines
controls for specific processes. In
control banding, the hazards are generic,
but the controls are process specific.
Process-oriented approaches would be
most useful for processes widely used in
a variety of settings—abrasive blasting,
degreasing, welding, etc. Industry-byindustry economic feasibility analysis
for a process-oriented approach would
be enormously simplified by the fact the
controls and their costs would be very
similar across industries. As a result,
OSHA could develop more detailed and
more secure cost estimates, with full
opportunities for a variety of affected
parties to comment on those estimates.
This approach might also serve to
greatly simplify the technological
feasibility analysis. On the other hand,
since process-oriented standards
commonly involve multiple substances,
risk assessment issues might be more
complex.
A related approach to speeding up at
least portions of substance specific
health standards might be to regulate a
single substance process by process in
multiple rulemakings—for example,
regulate exposures to hexavalent
chromium in electroplating, then in
welding, and then painting. By
producing process standards in this
manner, rather than waiting until
analyses of all processes and industries
is completed, OSHA could potentially
address the most severe exposures much
more rapidly. This approach could also
allow OSHA to ignore processes where
the exposures are likely to be small and
the chance of exceeding a PEL minimal.
Though this approach might result in
portions of a substance-specific
standard being produced more quickly,
the approach would probably require
more resources for multiple hearings
and docket analyses. A major
disadvantage of this approach is that it
would result in the possibility that
workers in industries not yet regulated
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
would have to endure exposures higher
than those in regulated industries.
Another disadvantage might be that the
risk assessment would be subject to
multiple public hearings as each
industry or process was regulated.
3. Alternative Analytic Approaches to
Economic Feasibility of Health
Standards
A different approach to producing
less resource-intensive and timeconsuming economic feasibility
analyses would be to re-examine
whether OSHA’s basic approach of
estimating the costs of each process,
industry, size class, and possible level
of control is really necessary in all cases
given how the courts have defined
economic feasibility. The key to meeting
the legal requirements is to return to the
concept of economic feasibility. In the
Lead I decision, the court stated:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A standard is feasible if it does not threaten
‘‘massive dislocation’’ to . . . or imperil the
existence of the industry. No matter how
initially frightening the projected . . . costs
of compliance appear, a court must examine
those costs in relation to the financial health
and profitability of the industry and the
likely effect of such costs on unit consumer
prices. More specifically . . . the practical
question is whether the standard threatens
the competitive stability of an industry. Lead
I, 647 F.2d at 1265 (citations omitted). (Ex.
#12)
As the court recognized, this is a
strong criterion. In the real world,
industries are rarely eliminated or have
their competitive structure radically
altered for reasons related to changes in
their costs, and it is changes in costs
that courts recognized as the principle
reason a regulation might not be
economically feasible. Radical changes
in industries tend to come from two
major causes. Most are the result of
changes in demand such that the public
is no longer interested in the product or
service an industry provides, for such
reasons as technological obsolescence or
the existence of better substitutes. Some
radical changes in industries are the
result of foreign competition. However,
foreign competition applies largely, in
an OSHA context, to manufacturing, but
not to construction, utilities, domestic
transportation, or most services that
OSHA regulates.
OSHA is not aware of any instance in
which an OSHA regulation eliminated
or altered the competitive structure of
an industry—though in some cases, a
combination of liability-based concerns,
environmental regulations, and OSHA
regulation may have radically altered
the use of a product. For example,
asbestos is not used in many
applications where it was once
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
commonplace. Benzidine-based dyes
have disappeared from the U.S.
marketplace. However, these cases had
no effect on the viability of user
industries or their employment.
Insulation contractors still install
insulation—it just no longer contains
asbestos. Dyers continue to dye textiles
and leather all the colors benzidenebased dyes imparted, but without using
benzidene-based dyes. The chief effect
has been substitution away from a
substance. This has resulted in serious
economic impacts on a limited number
of producers of the substance but little
economic impact on the thousands of
users of the substance who simply
found a substitute. It would seem that
such substitution away from a substance
is not the kind of economic change that
would make a regulation economically
infeasible.
OSHA might be able to place major
emphasis on evidence that a significant
portion of an industry is already
meeting a standard. Such evidence is an
obvious indication that a standard is
both technologically and economically
feasible for that industry. After all, the
actual fact that a majority of employers
of all sizes in an industry is meeting a
standard, while remaining viable,
should be more convincing than a set of
cost estimates in an economic analysis
predicting that employers in a given
industry could meet the standard.
Actual empirical evidence of a
proposition is normally considered
superior to theoretical evidence for a
proposition. There are several reasons
why many or most employers in an
industry may already meet a standard—
these include ease of meeting the
standard, industry consensus standards,
and concern about liability.
Similarly, the fact that a state or other
jurisdiction has already implemented a
requirement and that firms within the
state are generally following the
requirement would represent very
strong evidence that a requirement is
economically and technologically
feasible. For example, twenty-two states
currently operate their own OSHA
programs that cover both private sector
and State and local government
employees, and five states cover public
employees only. Of the twenty-two
states that cover both private and public
sector employees, five states (South
Carolina, Minnesota, Tennessee,
Vermont and Washington) are still
enforcing the 1989 PELs, and did not
revert to the less protective PELs when
the Court remanded the Air
Contaminants rule. (Ex. #8) Michigan is
also enforcing the 1989 PELs in general
industry, but not in construction. Three
states (Connecticut, Illinois, and New
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61403
York) are enforcing the 1989 PELs in the
public sector only. California enforces
its own PELs which in many cases are
substantially lower than OSHA’s.
Situations in which most firms in a state
meet a potential requirement of a
standard are particularly convincing
because they show that employers are
not only able to carry out the
requirement, but can do so even in
competition with employers who are
not required to meet such a
requirement.
Nevertheless, OSHA is aware that
some care must be taken with evidence
that all or most firms in an industry or
in an industry within a state meet a
requirement. It is particularly important
to determine whether those who do not
meet the requirement might require
fundamentally different controls, have
different costs, or operate in a different
market in spite of being in the same
statistical industry. Consider a standard
addressing a specific metal. Most firms
in an industry may find the standard
easy to meet because they only use the
metal in alloys that call for a very small
percentage of the metal. However, those
firms that use alloys with high
percentages of the metal might be
unable to meet the standard. This would
not be apparent looking solely at
aggregate industry data. OSHA should
take reasonable steps to determine that
those that did not meet the standard do
not have important technological or
economic characteristics that are
different from those that did.
Under this approach, OSHA could
conclude that a standard is feasible
where a state already had such a
standard if it first determines that (1) the
standard is enforced; (2) employers in
the state in fact meet the standard; and
(3) which of the relevant industries and
technologies are represented within that
state.
However, in spite of these caveats, it
would frequently take OSHA less time
and fewer resources to demonstrate that
a standard is technologically and
economically feasible by showing that
employers in the industry already meet
the standard than by the full
identification of control technologies,
exposure levels achieved by those
technologies, the costs of the
technologies, and the economic impacts
of these technologies that OSHA now
undertakes.
As noted above, at one point in the
Lead I decision, the court suggested
OSHA develop a ‘‘reasonable estimate of
costs.’’ However at another point in this
decision the same court clarified:
[T]he court probably cannot expect hard
and precise estimates of costs. Nevertheless,
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61404
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the agency must of course provide a
reasonable assessment of the likely range of
costs of its standard, and the likely effects of
those costs on the industry . . . And OSHA
can revise any gloomy forecast that estimated
costs will imperil an industry by allowing for
the industry’s demonstrated ability to pass
through costs to consumers. Lead I, 647 F.2d
at 1266. (Ex. #12)
OSHA has made little use of the
concept of a likely range of costs or of
developing generic approaches to
determining a reasonable likelihood that
these costs will not threaten the
existence or competitive structure of an
industry.
OSHA could significantly reduce its
resource and time expenditures by
providing ranges of costs, given that the
upper end of the range provides ‘‘a
reasonable likelihood that these costs
will not threaten the existence or
competitive structure of an industry.’’
Such an approach would not only
reduce OSHA’s time and effort but also
that of the interested public. Too often
stakeholders devote significant time and
effort questioning cost estimates when
even the stakeholders’ alternative cost
estimate would have no effect on
whether the costs would threaten the
existence or competitive structure of an
industry. The simple fact is that both
OSHA and its stakeholders spend far too
much time examining the accuracy of
cost estimates even when the highest
cost estimates considered would have
little effect on the determination of
economic feasibility.
OSHA could also make more effort to
clarify historically the circumstances
under which regulations of any kind
have eliminated or altered the
competitive structure of an industry. As
noted above, OSHA has yet to find an
instance in which OSHA regulations
eliminated or altered the competitive
structure of an industry. A more
thorough exploration of past
experiences with OSHA regulations
might simplify OSHA analyses and
make it more empirically based in a
variety of situations.
OSHA believes that it may be able to
meet the requirements of Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act without the
kind of industry-by-industry detail that
OSHA now provides in its economic
analyses. The requirements of executive
orders for analysis of costs and benefits
do not include requirements that they
be made available on an industry-byindustry basis, and OIRA encourages the
reporting of ranges as opposed to
precise but possibly inaccurate point
estimates. OSHA believes that the
requirements of the executive orders
and for determining if a regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
flexibility analysis or Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) Panel is needed can, in most
cases, be met by focusing on those
sectors and size classes where the most
severe impacts are expected.
Question IV.C.1: Should OSHA
consider greater use of process oriented
regulations, such as regulations on
abrasive blasting, welding, or
degreasing, as an approach to health
standards? Should such an approach be
combined with a control banding
approach?
Question IV.C.2: Should OSHA
consider issuing substance-specific
standards in segments as the analysis of
a particular process or industry is
completed rather than waiting until
every process and industry using a
substance has been thoroughly
analyzed?
Question IV.C.3: To what extend and
in what circumstances can OSHA argue
that feasibility for a regulatory
alternative can be established by the
enforcement of a lower PEL (e. g., the
1989 PEL) by an individual state or
states?
4. Approaches to Economic Feasibility
Analysis for a Comprehensive PELs
Update
Following the Eleventh Circuit’s
direction in the Air Contaminants case
(956 F.2d at 980–82; Ex. #8) and in
Color Pigments Mfrs. Ass’n v. OSHA, 16
F.3d 1157, 1161–64 (11th Cir. 1994; Ex.
#13), OSHA has typically performed its
economic feasibility analyses on an
industry-by-industry basis using the
lowest level industry codes for which
industry data are available. While such
an approach best insures that the effect
of the standard on small industry
segments will be considered, it is very
resource intensive. If OSHA were
required to use of this approach to
address feasibility for a comprehensive
PELs update, which would require
addressing the feasibility of new PELs
for hundreds of chemicals in hundreds
of industry segments, it might require
more resources than the agency would
have available.
There are good reasons to think that
the OSH Act does not require such a
detailed level of economic analysis to
support a feasibility finding. The
purpose of the OSH Act is to assure all
workers ‘‘safe and healthful working
conditions,’’ and therefore it is unlikely
that Congress intended for OSHA to
meet such demanding analytical
requirements if it meant that the agency
could not issue a standard addressing
well-recognized hazards. See, e.g.,
Public Citizen Health Research Group v.
Dep’t of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 178–79 (3d
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cir. 2009; Ex. #14) (‘‘Hexchrome’’)
(rejecting interpretation that OSH Act
required OSHA to research all
workplace operations involving
hexavalent chromium exposure to prove
feasibility, which would ‘‘severely
hinder OSHA’s ability to regulate
exposure to common toxins’’); American
Dental Ass’n v. Martin, 984 F.2d 823,
827 (7th Cir. 1993; Ex. #53) (OSHA not
required to regulate ‘‘workplace by
workplace’’); Assoc. Bldrs & Contrs. Inc.
v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63, 68 (3d Cir. 1988;
Ex. #54) (‘‘A requirement that the
Secretary assess risk to workers and
need for disclosure with respect to each
substance in each industry would
effectively cripple OSHA’s performance
of the duty imposed on it by 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5); a duty to protect all
employees, to the maximum extent
feasible.’’).
Indeed, the requirement that an
OSHA standard not threaten ‘‘massive
dislocation’’ or ‘‘imperil the existence’’
of an industry is an outgrowth of the
idea that OSHA may adopt standards
that may cause marginal firms to go out
of business if they are only able to make
a profit by endangering their employees.
See Industrial Union Dep’t, AFL–CIO v.
Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467, 478 (XX Cir.
1974; Ex. #55). And the notion that the
determination must be made on an
industry basis arises from cases in
which OSHA attempted to do just that;
the statute does not require feasibility to
be evaluated in this way. See Lead I, 647
F.2d at 1301 (where OSHA attempted to
determine the feasibility of the lead
standard on an industry-by-industry
basis, noting that the parties did not
dispute that feasibility was to be
determined in that manner);
Hexchrome, 557 F.3d at 178 (‘‘nothing
in 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5) requires OSHA to
analyze employee groups by industry,
nor does the term ‘industry’ even
appear’’). The approach articulated by
the Air Contaminants court, which
places an affirmative duty on OSHA to
establish that proposed standards would
not threaten even the smallest industry
segments before adopting a standard,
creates a heavy analytical burden that is
not necessarily required by the statute.
As the Lead I court notes, in the case
of a standard requiring an employer to
adopt only those engineering and
administrative controls that are feasible,
what really is at stake in OSHA’s
feasibility determinations is whether
OSHA has justified creating a
presumption that the implementation of
such controls are feasible. 647 F.2d at
1269–70. Thus, OSHA need not ‘‘prove
the standard certainly feasible for all
firms at all times in all jobs.’’ 647 F.2d
at 1270. The court recognized that under
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
this approach, some employers might
not be able to comply with a standard,
but noted that the statute offers those
employers several alternatives:
requesting a variance, asserting a
feasibility defense in an enforcement
proceeding, or petitioning the agency to
revise the standard. 647 F.2d at 1270.
As noted above, most of OSHA’s
current PELs are over 40 years old, and
are based on science that is even older.
It seems unlikely that a statute enacted
to protect workers against chemical
health hazards would preclude OSHA
from updating hundreds of those PELs
unless it can show that each is feasible
in each of the smallest industry
segments in which the chemical is used.
The question, then, is what level of
analysis would be sufficient to justify a
presumption that the standard is
feasible, shifting the burden to the
employer as allowed by Lead I.
If OSHA moved forward with a global
PELs update, the Agency might consider
analyzing economic feasibility at a
higher level than it has typically
employed in substance specific health
standards. In order to do so, OSHA
would need to develop criteria as to
what chemicals are suited to be part of
a PELs rulemaking rather than subject to
a substance-specific rulemaking. For
example, if the rulemaking record
showed that, for a specific chemical
application group, generally available
exposure controls had not been
successful in achieving the proposed
PEL, then this chemical or at least the
application group would be transferred
from updated PELs rulemaking to being
a candidate for further study and
possible inclusion in a substancespecific rulemaking. The goal under this
approach would be to develop a
reasonable basis for believing that the
chemicals and application groups
remaining in a PELs-update rulemaking
are (1) likely to be economically
feasible; and (2) subject to relatively
simple and easily-costed controls that
are likely to be relatively homogenous
across industries.
As a result, rather than accumulating
data at the lowest industry level
available regarding exposures and
controls needed for each chemical for
which a new PEL would be adopted,
OSHA could consider a more general
approach. For example, OSHA might
conduct an economic feasibility analysis
at the industry level for which sufficient
exposure data are currently available. It
might use a control banding approach in
order to determine the types of controls
necessary to comply with a new PEL,
and validate models to implement each
type of control based on variables such
as establishment size and process type.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
The results of this analysis would be
used to build up costs at the industry
level. It is possible that the results of
such an analysis might be better
characterized in ranges, and of sufficient
precision to establish feasibility at a
level as low as the method that OSHA
typically uses. Under this approach, a
determination made in this way would
be presumptively sufficient to establish
feasibility in the absence of contrary
evidence provided by commenters. If
such evidence were presented, OSHA
would address it and incorporate it into
its feasibility analysis supporting the
final rule.
Question IV.C.4: Should OSHA
consider providing ranges of costs for
industries in situations where even the
upper range of the costs would
obviously not provide a threat to the
existence of competitive structure of an
industry?
Question IV.C.5: What peer-reviewed
economics literature should OSHA
consult when determining whether the
competitive structure of an industry
would be altered? Are there any
instances where an OSHA standard did
threaten the existence or competitive
structure of an industry? What were
they and what is the evidence that an
OSHA standard was the origin of the
difficulties?
Question IV.C.6: Should OSHA
consider and encourage substitution and
elimination of substances that cause
significant risk in workplaces even if
such substitution or elimination will
eliminate or alter the competitive
structure of the industry or industries
that produce the hazardous substance?
Question IV.C.7: Are there other
approaches OSHA could use that would
provide for more timely and less
resource-intensive economic feasibility
analyses?
Question IV.C.8: In determining the
level of industry detail at which OSHA
should conduct an economic feasibility
analysis for a comprehensive PELs
update, what considerations should
OSHA take into account? What level of
detail do you think is sufficient to
justify the presumption of feasibility for
such a standard? Please explain.
Question IV.C.9: Are the
methodologies suggested above
appropriate to establish economic
feasibility for a comprehensive PELs
update? Why or why not? What other
cost effective methods are available for
OSHA to establish economic feasibility
for such a rulemaking?
Question IV.C.10: What factors should
OSHA consider in determining whether
a chemical should be part of an overall
PELs update or subject to substancespecific rulemaking? Should OSHA
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61405
consider some application groups for a
given chemical as subject to a PELs
update rulemaking if some other
application groups present feasibility
issues that make them inadvisable
candidates for a PELs rulemaking?
V. Recent Developments and Potential
Alternative Approaches
Wide access to information on the
Internet and the development of a global
economy has shifted occupational safety
and health from a domestic to a global
concern. Countries often struggle with
similar experiences and challenges
related to exposure to hazardous
chemicals, and sharing information and
experiences across borders is a common
practice. Global data sharing allows for
the widespread and rapid dissemination
of available chemical information to
employers, employees, managers,
chemical suppliers and importers, risk
managers, or anyone with access to the
Internet. The development of hazard
assessment tools that take advantage of
readily available hazard information
make it possible for employers to
implement effective exposure control
strategies without the need to rely solely
on OELs.
Some of these resources for data and
tools that OSHA may use more
systematically in the future for
hazardous chemical identification
and/or assessment are addressed in
Section V.
A. Sources of Information About
Hazardous Chemicals
In order to design and implement
appropriate protective measures to
control chemical exposures in the
workplace, employers need reliable
information about the identities and
hazards associated with those
chemicals. OSHA is considering ways in
which recently developed data sources
could be used by the Agency and
employers to more effectively manage
chemical hazards in the workplace.
Developments in the use of structure—
activity data for grouping chemicals
having similar properties, the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemicals, OSHA’s Hazard
Communication standard and the
Globally Harmonized Hazard
Communication Standard, health hazard
banding, the European Union’s
Registration, Evaluation, Authorization,
and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH),
are discussed here. OSHA is interested
in stakeholders’ comments on how the
Agency may make use of any of these
data sources or other alternative data or
information sources not discussed here
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61406
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
to better manage workplace chemical
exposures.
1. EPA’s High Production Volume
Chemicals
One potential source of relevant and
timely information on chemicals that
OSHA may make better use of in the
future is the data on High Production
Volume chemicals that are being
collected by the EPA and the
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD). The OECD
program lists approximately 5,000
chemicals on its list, and OSHA has
determined that 290, or 62 percent of
the 470 substances with PELs are
included on the OECD list.
Under the HPV program, EPA has
identified over 2,000 chemicals that are
produced in quantities of one million
pounds a year or more in the United
States. It would appear that these
chemicals are thus economically
significant in the US, and there are
likely to be a large number of workers
exposed to them. Through the HPV
Challenge program, EPA encouraged
industry to make health and
environmental effects data on these HPV
chemicals publicly available. To date,
data on the properties of approximately
900 HPV chemicals has been made
available through the Agency’s High
Production Volume Information System
(HPVIS) (U.S. EPA, 2012a; Ex. #56). For
each HPV chemical, the database
includes information on up to 50
endpoints on physical/chemical
properties, environmental fate and
pathways, ecotoxicity, and mammalian
health effects. EPA has also used this
information to generate publicly
available chemical hazard
characterizations, which provide a
concise assessment of the raw technical
data on HPV chemicals and evaluate the
quality and completeness of the data
received from industry (U.S. EPA,
2013d; Ex. #63).
Data on HPV chemicals submitted
through the OECD’s program are
available through its Global Portal to
Information on Chemical Substances,
eChemPortal (OECD, 2013; Ex. #58). In
addition to searching data collected
through the EPA HPV and OECD HPV
programs, eChemPortal allows for
simultaneous searching of 26 databases
for existing publicly available data on
the properties of chemicals, including:
physical/chemical properties,
environmental fate and behavior,
ecotoxicity, and toxicity.
Question V.A.1. How might publicly
available information on the properties
and toxicity of HPV chemicals be
utilized by employers to identify
chemical hazards and protect workers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
from these hazards? OSHA is also
interested to hear from commenters who
may currently make use of these data in
their worker protection programs.
2. EPA’s CompTox and ToxCast
EPA has also launched an effort to
prioritize the tens of thousands
chemicals that are currently in use for
testing and exposure control. Through
its computational toxicology (CompTox)
research, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is working to
figure out how to change the current
approach used to evaluate the safety of
chemicals. CompTox research integrates
advances in biology, biotechnology,
chemistry, and computer science to
identify important biological processes
that may be disrupted by the chemicals
and trace those biological disruptions to
a related dose and human exposure. The
combined information helps prioritize
chemicals based on potential human
health risks. Using CompTox, thousands
of chemicals can be evaluated for
potential risk at a small cost in a very
short amount of time. A major part of
EPA’s CompTox research is the Toxicity
Forecaster (ToxCastTM). ToxCast is a
multiyear effort launched in 2007 that
uses automated chemical screening
technologies, called ‘‘highthroughput
screening assays,’’ to expose living cells
or isolated proteins to chemicals. The
cells or proteins then are screened for
changes in biological activity that may
suggest potential toxic effects.
These innovative methods have the
potential to limit the number of required
animal-based laboratory toxicity tests
while, quickly and efficiently screening
large numbers of chemicals. The first
phase of ToxCast, called ‘‘proof of
concept’’, was completed in 2009, and
it evaluated more than 300 well studied
chemicals (primarily pesticides) in more
than 500 high-throughput screening
assays. Because most of these chemicals
already have undergone extensive
animal-based toxicity testing, this
enables EPA researchers to compare the
results of the high-throughput assays
with those of the traditional animal
tests. (EPA, 2014a; Ex. #59)
Completed in 2013, the second phase
of ToxCast evaluated over 2,000
chemicals from a broad range of sources,
including industrial and consumer
products, food additives, and
potentially ‘‘green’’ chemicals that
could be safer alternatives to existing
chemicals. These chemicals were
evaluated in more than 700 highthroughput assays covering a range of
high-level cell responses and
approximately 300 signaling pathways.
ToxCast research is ongoing to
determine which assays, under what
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conditions, may lead to toxicological
responses. The results of this research
then can be used to suggest the context
in which decision makers can use the
data. The EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program already has begun
the scientific review process necessary
to begin using ToxCast data to prioritize
the thousands of chemicals that need to
be tested for potential endocrine-related
activity. Other potential uses include
prioritizing chemicals that need testing
under the Toxic Substances Control Act
and informing the Safe Drinking Water
Act’s contaminant candidate lists. (EPA,
2014b; Ex. #60) EPA contributes the
results of ToxCast to a Federal agency
collaboration called Toxicity Testing in
the 21st Century (Tox21). Tox21 pools
those results with chemical research,
data and screening tools from the
National Toxicology Program at the
National Institute of Environmental
Health Science, the National Institutes
of Health’s National Center for
Advancing Translational Sciences and
the Food and Drug Administration.
(EPA, 2014b; Ex. #60)
Thus far, Tox21 has compiled
highthroughput screening data on
nearly 10,000 chemicals. All ToxCast
chemical data are publicly available for
anyone to access and use through userfriendly Web applications called
interactive Chemical Safety for
Sustainability (iCSS) Dashboards at
https://actor.epa.gov/actor/faces/.
OSHA could use this publicly
available information on chemical
properties and toxicity as a part of the
Agency’s risk assessments that support
the revision and development of
permissible exposure limits. Tox21
could also be used by the Agency for
screening chemicals and prioritizing for
risk management.
Question V.A.2. How might the
information on the properties and
toxicity of chemicals generated by
CompTox, ToxCast, and/or Tox21 be
utilized by employers to identify
chemical hazards and protect workers
from these hazards? OSHA is also
interested to hear from commenters who
may currently make use of these data in
their worker protection programs.
3. Production and Use Data Under
EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting Rule
Under the EPA’s Chemical Data
Reporting (CDR) Rule, issued in 2011,
EPA collects screening-level, exposurerelated information on certain chemicals
included on the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance
Inventory and makes that information
publicly available to the extent possible.
The CDR rule amended the TSCA
Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
and significantly increased the type and
amount of information covered entities
are required to report. The 2012
submissions included data on more
chemicals and with more in-depth
information on manufacturing
(including import), industrial
processing and use, and consumer and
commercial use than data collected
under the IUR in 2006 (U.S. EPA, 2013a;
Ex. #1).
The expanded reporting on chemical
production and use information under
the CDR could help OSHA better
understand how workers are exposed to
chemicals and the industries and
occupations where exposures to
chemicals might occur.
4.Structure-Activity Data for Chemical
Grouping
Although toxicity testing for
chemicals has increased greatly since
the passage of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601–2629; Ex.
#62) in the United States, and with
similar legislation elsewhere, toxicity
data is only publicly available for a
fraction of industrial chemicals. Since
the enactment of TSCA and creation of
the TSCA Interagency Testing
Committee (U.S. EPA, 2013c; Ex. #57),
the ITC has recommended testing for
hundreds of chemicals, and chemical
producers have conducted more than
900 tests for these chemicals. However,
potentially thousands of industrial
chemicals have not been tested.
With the rapidly expanding
development of new chemical
substances and mixtures, the need for
toxicity information to inform chemical
safety management and public health
decisions in a timely manner has
exceeded the capacity of the
government programs to provide those
data. As a result, programs such as the
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development’s (OECD) Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS) and the U.S.
EPA High Production Volume (HPV)
Challenge programs were designed to
encourage the voluntary development of
data. However, even with the creation of
these non-statutory programs,
potentially thousands of non-HPV
industrial chemicals go untested.
Therefore, chemical prioritization for
screening and testing requires the
development and validation of standard
methods to predict the human and
environmental effects and potential fate
of chemicals. Where screening and
testing data are sparse, the use of
predictive models called structural
activity relations (SARs) or quantitative
structural activity relationships (QSARs)
can extend the use of limited toxicity
and safety data for some untested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
chemicals (Russom et al., 2003; Ex.
#64). QSARs are mathematical models
that are used to predict measures of
toxicity from physical characteristics of
the structure of chemicals, known as
molecular descriptors.
Other U.S. and international agencies
have explored the use of chemical
groupings to regulate chemicals in order
to fulfill their regulatory and statutory
authorities. Under the TSCA Work Plan,
the EPA announced in 2013 that it
would begin to assess 20 flame retardant
chemicals and three non-flame retardant
chemicals. EPA utilized a structurebased approach, grouping eight other
flame retardants with similar
characteristics together with the
chemicals targeted for full assessment in
three groupings. EPA will use the
information from these assessments to
better understand the other chemicals in
the group, which currently lack
sufficient data for a full risk assessment.
EPA uses chemical groupings to fill
data gaps in its New Chemical Program.
EPA’s New Chemical Program, also
under TSCA, requires anyone who plans
to manufacture or import a new
chemical substance into commerce to
provide EPA with notice before
initiating the activity. This is called a
pre-manufacture notification (PMN).
EPA received approximately 1,500 new
chemical notices each year and has
reviewed more than 45,000 from 1979
through 2005 (GAO, 2007; Ex. #65).
Because TSCA does not require testing
before submission of a PMN, SARs and
QSARs are often used to predict the
environmental fate and ecologic effects.
In addition, the EPA makes predictions
concerning chemical identity, physical/
chemical properties, environmental
transport and partitioning,
environmental fate, environmental
toxicity, engineering releases to the
environment, and environmental
concentrations. The agency uses a
variety of methods to make these
predictions that include SARs, nearestanalogue analysis, chemical class
analogy, mechanisms of toxicity, and
chemical industry survey data and the
collective professional judgment of
expert scientific staff, in the absence of
empirical data. The agency uses these
methods to fill data gaps in an
assessment and to validate submitted
data in notifications. Predictions are
also made by the U.S. EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
under TSCA (Zeeman., 1995; Ex. #66).
The OPPT has routinely used QSARs to
predict ecologic hazards, fate, and risks
of new industrial chemicals, as well as
to identify new chemical testing needs,
for more than two decades. OPPT SAR/
QSARs for physical/chemical properties
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61407
used for new chemical assessments are
publically available (U.S. EPA, 2012b;
Ex. #67).
In Europe, internationally agreedupon principles for the validation of
(Q)SARs were adopted by OECD
Member Countries and the Commission
in 2004. In 2007, the Inter-organization
Programme for the Sound Management
of Chemicals, a cooperative agreement
among United Nations Environmental
Program (UNEP); International Labor
Organization (ILO); Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO); World Health
Organization (WHO); United Nations
Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO), United Nations Institute for
Training and Research (UNITAR) and
Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) published
‘‘Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals’’
as part of an ongoing monograph series
on testing chemicals. REACH registrants
may rely on (Q)SAR data instead of
experimental data, provided the
registrants can provide adequate and
reliable documentation of the applied
method and document the validity of
the model. Validation focuses on the
relevance and reliability of a model
(ECHA, 2008; Ex. #68).
The EU Scientific Committee on
Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the
Environment (CSTEE) recommended, in
their general data requirements for
regulatory submission, that QSAR data
may be used as well as animal data. A
chemical category approach based on
the metal ion has been extensively used
for the classification and labeling of
metal compounds in the EU. Other
category entries are based on certain
anions of concern such as oxalates and
thiocyanates. For these EU
classifications the category approach
has often been applied to certain
endpoints of particular concern for the
compounds under consideration, but
has not necessarily been applied to all
endpoints of each individual compound
in the category of substances.
The Danish EPA has made extensive
use of QSARs and has developed a
QSAR database that contains predicted
data on more than 166,000 substances
(OSPAR Commission, 2000; Ex. #69). A
recent publication from the Danish EPA
reports the use of QSARs for
identification of potential persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and
very persistent and very
bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances from
among the HPV and mediumproduction volume chemicals in the EU.
OSHA is considering using a
combination of chemical group
approaches to evaluate multiple
chemicals with similar attributes
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61408
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
utilizing limited data that can be
extrapolated across categories. The
Agency invites comment on how such
grouping approaches have been used to
evaluate risks to worker populations.
Question V.A.3: Are QSAR, readacross, and trend analysis useful and
acceptable methods for developing
hazard information utilizing multiple
data sets for a specific group of
chemicals?
Question V.A.4: Are there other
acceptable methods that can be used to
develop hazard information for multiple
chemicals within a group?
Question V.A.5: What are the
advantages and disadvantages of each
method?
5. REACH: Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization, and Restriction of
Chemicals in the European Union (EU)
Safe chemical management is a
universal concern. The European Union,
recognizing the need for a more
integrated approach to chemical
management, adopted REACH
(Registration, Evaluation, Authorization,
and Restriction of Chemicals) to address
chemicals throughout their life cycle.
Although REACH applies to European
Union Member States, chemical
manufacturers in other countries
exporting to European countries also
have to comply with the REACH
requirements to sell their products in
Europe.
The REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/
2006 became effective on June 1, 2007,
and relies on the generation and
disclosure of data by manufacturers and
importers of chemicals in order to
protect human health and the
environment from chemical hazards.
The regulation also established the
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to
coordinate implementation (EC 1907/
2006, 2006; Ex. #70).
REACH establishes processes for the
Registration, Evaluation, Authorization,
and Restriction of Chemicals. REACH
requires manufacturers and importers to
register their chemicals and establish
procedures for collecting and assessing
information on the properties, hazards,
potential risks and uses of their
chemicals. The registration process,
which began in 2010, is being phasedin based on the tonnage and hazard
classification of the substances. For
existing chemicals, it is set to be
completed in June 2018.
For each chemical manufactured or
imported in quantities of 1 ton or more
per year, companies must register the
substance by providing a technical
dossier to ECHA. The technical dossier
includes information on: Substance
identity; physicochemical properties;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
mammalian toxicity; ecotoxicity;
environmental fate; manufacture and
use; and risk management measures
(ECHA, 2012b; Ex. #71). Nonconfidential information from the
technical dossiers is published on the
ECHA Web site (ECHA, 2012c; Ex. #72).
Companies manufacturing or
importing a chemical in quantities of 10
or more tons per year must also conduct
a chemical safety assessment. This
assessment includes the evaluation of:
(1) Human health hazards; (2)
physicochemical hazards; (3)
environmental hazards; and (4)
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
(PBT), and very persistent and very
bioaccumulative (vPvB) potential
(ECHA, 2012b; Ex. #71). If a substance
is determined to be hazardous or a PBT/
vPvB, registrants must then conduct an
exposure assessment, including the
development of exposure scenario(s)
(ES) and exposure estimation, and a risk
characterization that includes
development of a health effects
benchmark, such as the Derived No
Effect Level (DNEL).
An exposure scenario, the main
output of the exposure assessment
process, documents a set of operational
conditions and risk management
measures for a specific use of a
substance. A number of exposure
estimation models have been developed
in the EU to help the regulated
community create these exposure
scenarios. Exposure scenarios must also
be included in the Safety Data Sheets
(SDS) in order to communicate this
information down the supply chain.
When an extended SDS with exposure
scenarios is received by a chemical user,
the exposure scenarios must be
reviewed to determine if they are
applicable to the use situation in that
facility. If the exposure scenarios are
applicable, the user has 12 months to
implement them. If they are not, the
user has several options to choose from
to determine appropriate controls.
These options include: (1) User
informing supplier of their use, and user
convincing supplier to recognize it as an
‘‘identified use’’ on suppliers safety
assessment; (2) user implementing the
suppliers conditions of use described in
the exposure scenario of the original/
current safety assessment; (3) user
substituting the substance for another
substance that is covered in a preexisting safety assessment; (4) user
finding another supplier who does
provide an exposure scenario that
covers the use of the substance; or (5)
prepare a downstream user chemical
safety report. (ECHA, 2012c; Ex. #72).
After completing the exposure
assessment, registrants conduct a risk
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
characterization process to determine if
the operational conditions cause
exposures that require risk management
measures to ensure risks of the
substance are controlled. Risk
characterization consists of the
comparison of exposure values derived
from each exposure scenario with their
respective DNEL or an analogous health
benchmark such as Derived Minimal
Effect Level (DMEL) or Predicted No
Effect Concentration (PNEC)),
established by the registrant. Where no
health benchmark is available, a
qualitative risk characterization is
required (ECHA, 2009; Ex. #73).
Manufacturers and importers are
required to document the information
developed during the chemical safety
assessment in a chemical safety report,
which is submitted to ECHA. The report
then forms the basis for other REACH
processes, including substance
evaluation, authorization, and
restriction.
ECHA and the EU Member States then
evaluate the information submitted
during the registration process to
examine the testing proposals, check the
quality of the registration dossiers, and
evaluate whether a substance
constitutes a risk to human health or the
environment. Following the evaluation
process, registrants may be required to
comply with additional actions to
address concerns (i.e., submit further
information, proceed on restriction or
authorization procedures under REACH,
take actions under other legislation,
etc.). (ECHA, 2012d; Ex. #74).
As the implementation of REACH
continues, large amounts of information
will be generated by manufacturers,
importers, and downstream users
throughout the registration,
authorization, and restriction processes.
Some of this information is publicly
available on ECHA Web sites, and
includes toxicological information,
general exposure control
recommendations, and assessments of
the availability of alternatives. The
generation and availability of this
extensive data on chemicals can assist
OSHA, as well as U.S. employers and
workers, to further enhance chemical
safety and health management by
assisting in the assessment of hazards,
development of exposure control
recommendations, and selection of
substitutes to help drive the transition
to safer chemicals in the workplace.
As of July, 2013, the REACH database
of registered substances is comprised of
more than 9900 substances. The
database provides extensive information
to the public from dossiers prepared by
chemical manufacturers, importers, and
downstream users. OSHA is interested
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
in determining whether some
information developed and submitted
under REACH may be helpful to OSHA
in its own regulatory initiatives.
Information submitted under REACH’s
requirements to assess chemical risks in
workplaces may be useful in developing
task-based exposure control plans, or of
use in OSHA’s feasibility analyses.
OSHA is participating in high-level
discussions with the EU about the
feasibility of sharing these data.
Question V.A.6: OSHA is interested in
the experiences of companies that have
had to prepare chemical dossiers and
submit registration information to the
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
ECHA. In particular, how might the
approaches be used to support
occupational exposure assessments and
development of use-specific risk
management in the United States?
Question V.A.7: To what extent is
information developed under REACH
used by U.S. businesses to promote
product stewardship and ensure safe
use of substances and mixtures by
product users?
Question V.A.8: Should OSHA pursue
efforts to obtain data from ECHA that
companies are required to provide
under REACH?
B. Non-OEL Approaches to Chemical
Management
OSHA’s PELs and its corresponding
hierarchy of controls have been a major
focus in the fields of occupational
health and industrial hygiene for many
years. Undoubtedly, occupational
exposure limits (OELs), which help
reduce workers’ risk of adverse health
by establishing precise targets for
employers to follow, will always be an
essential part of controlling chemical
exposures in workplaces. However,
regardless of whether a more effective
process for updating OSHA’s PELs can
be established, the rapid development of
new chemical substances and mixtures
that will continue to leave workers
exposed to thousands of unregulated
substances make it impractical to solely
rely on OELs. Moreover, for many of the
chemicals and mixtures that have been
developed since the PELs were initially
promulgated, insufficient hazard
information exists to serve as a basis for
developing OELs. While OELs generally
focus on a single chemical, workers are
typically exposed to mixtures or
multiple substances in the workplace.
Mixed exposures may also result in
synergistic or antagonistic effects that
are rarely considered in developing
OELs.
Workplace risk assessments, and
corresponding risk management plans,
should be based on an evaluation of all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
hazards present—OELs established for a
few chemicals among the many in the
workplace environment have
diminished impact in these situations.
Unlike OELs, which are only useful in
protecting workers if regular
measurement and assessment of
compliance is completed, alternative
risk management approaches focus more
on determining what types of controls
are required to reduce exposures
without necessarily referring to
quantitative assessments of exposure to
evaluate success.
An important aspect of risk
assessment and risk management is
consideration of safer alternatives,
which can often result in a path forward
that is less hazardous, technically
feasible, and economically viable.
1. Informed Substitution to Safer
Chemicals and Processes
While establishing exposure limits for
hazardous chemicals helps to reduce
workers’ risk of adverse health effects,
the process is costly, time consuming,
and does not drive the development or
adoption of safer alternatives that could
best protect workers. OSHA recognizes
that ultimately, an approach to chemical
management that incentivizes and spurs
the transition to safer chemicals,
products, and processes in a thoughtful,
systematic way will most effectively
ensure safe and healthful conditions for
workers.
Informed substitution, the considered
transition from hazardous chemicals to
safer substances or non-chemical
alternatives, provides a way of moving
toward a more preventative chemical
management framework.
a. Substitution in Practice
Whenever a hazardous chemical is
regulated, there is always the potential
for the chemical to be replaced with a
substitute chemical or redesigned
product or process that poses new and
potentially greater hazards to workers,
consumers, or the environment or
results in risk-shifting from one group to
another. Regrettably, this potential has
been realized in a number of cases. For
example:
• The regulation of methylene
chloride by EPA, FDA, and OSHA
spurred the shift to 1-bromopropane, an
unregulated neurotoxicant and possible
carcinogen, in a variety of applications,
such as refrigeration, metal cleaning,
and vapor and immersion degreasing
applications, as well as in adhesive
resins (Kriebel et al., 2011; Ex. #75).
• Air quality regulations in California
created a market in the vehicle repair
industry for solvent products
formulated with n-hexane, a
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61409
neurotoxicant causing symptoms of
peripheral neuropathy, and hexaneacetone blends, which amplify the
neurotoxic effects of n-hexane, thus
resulting in risk-shifting from the
environment to workers (Wilson et al.,
2007; Ex. #76).
While regulatory processes lacking a
robust assessment of alternatives can
result in substitution that is equally
detrimental to human health or the
environment, regulatory efforts that
require planning processes and provide
guidance and technical assistance on
preferred alternatives can minimize risk
trade-offs and protect workers,
consumers, and the environment. For
example, in Massachusetts, facilities
using specific toxic chemicals in certain
quantities are required to undertake a
toxics use reduction planning process.
Agencies provide various resources to
encourage and facilitate the voluntary
adoption of alternatives. In the case of
trichloroethylene, the Massachusetts
Office of Technical Assistance and the
Toxics Use Reduction Institute provided
technical assistance, educational
workshops, a database of safer
alternatives, and performance
evaluations of alternatives (Toxics Use
Reduction Institute, 2011a; Ex. #78;
Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 2011b;
Ex. #79; Toxics Use Reduction Institute,
2011c; Ex. #80). Through these efforts,
Massachusetts companies reduced the
use of trichloroethylene by 77 percent
since 1990, moving to a number of safer
alternatives in the process (Toxics Use
Reduction Institute, 2011d; Ex. #81).
These cases demonstrate that the
transition to safer chemicals, materials,
products, and processes will be best
facilitated not through restrictions or
bans of chemicals, but rather through
the integration of informed substitution
and guidance on preferred alternatives
into regulatory efforts.
b. Benefits of a Preference for Primary
Prevention Strategies
The reduction or elimination of a
hazard at the source, as traditionally
embraced by health and safety
professionals, is not only the most
reliable and effective control approach,
but also provides a number of benefits
for workers and businesses.
Preferring primary prevention
strategies (i.e. elimination and
substitution) can result in the ‘‘total
elimination of exposure to hazardous
chemicals, less reliance on worker
compliance or equipment maintenance
for success, elimination of the potential
for accidental or non-routine
overexposures, prevention of dermal
exposures, and process and
environmental improvements not
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61410
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
related to worker health’’ (Roelofs et al.,
2003; Ex. #82).
Additionally, making process
improvements designed to reduce or
eliminate workers’ exposures to
hazardous chemicals often results in
significant business improvements or
savings. A 2008 study by the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
demonstrated the relationship between
the application of the hierarchy of
controls and financial benefits. The
study found that the greatest cost
savings and other benefits tended to be
associated with hazard elimination and
the elimination of personal protective
equipment (PPE) usage. It also
highlighted the ability of material
substitution to result in very large
payoffs due to the creation of
efficiencies throughout the business
process (American Industrial Hygiene
Association, 2008; Ex. #83). For
example:
• A foundry making automatic diesel
engine blocks enhanced and
aggressively enforced a purchasing
specification program to eliminate
supplied scrap metal contaminated with
lead. By eliminating lead from its
supply chain, the company not only
achieved high levels of employee
protection, but also enhanced the
quality of its products and realized
nearly $20 million in savings for the
facility.
• An aircraft manufacturing
company, struggling to comply with the
OSHA PEL for hexavalent chromium,
transitioned from chromate-based
primers to non-chromate based primers,
resulting not only in the elimination of
worker exposure to chromate dusts from
rework sanding, but also in quality
improvements of its products, increased
customer satisfaction, productivity
gains, avoidance of costly changes to
their exhaust ventilation system, and a
savings of $504,694 over the 5-year
duration of the project.
c. Informed Substitution
In order to truly protect workers from
chemical hazards, it is important that
OSHA not only develop health
standards for hazardous chemicals, but
also understand alternatives to regulated
chemicals and support a path forward
that is less hazardous, technically
feasible, and economically viable.
Informed substitution provides a
framework for meeting this goal.
As previously described, informed
substitution is the considered transition
from a potentially hazardous chemical,
material, product, or process to safer
chemical or non-chemical alternatives.
The goals of informed substitution are to
minimize the likelihood of unintended
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
consequences, which can result from a
precautionary switch away from a
hazardous chemical without fully
understanding the profile of potential
alternatives, and to enable a course of
action based on the best information
that is available or can be estimated.
Informed substitution approaches focus
on identifying alternatives and
evaluating their health, safety, and
environmental hazards, potential tradeoffs, and technical and economic
feasibility.
Substitution is not limited to
substitution of one chemical with
another. It can also occur at the
production process or product level. At
the product level, substitution may
involve a design change that takes
advantage of the characteristics of new
or different materials. A chemical
process design change may eliminate
several production steps thereby
avoiding or reducing the use of high
hazard chemicals. In some cases, a
particular chemistry or the function it
serves may be determined to be
unnecessary.
As implementation of chemical
substitution and product and process
changes can be quite complicated, a
variety of processes, tools, and methods
are critical to achieving informed
substitution.
Substitution planning, similar to
facility planning for pollution
prevention and source reduction,
establishes practical steps for evaluating
substitution as a workplace risk
reduction measure. This type of
planning process supports informed
substitution by encouraging chemical
users to: Systematically identify
hazardous chemicals; set goals and
priorities for the elimination or
reduction of hazardous chemicals;
evaluate alternatives; identify preferred
alternatives; and promote the adoption
of identified alternatives.
Alternatives assessment is a process
of identifying and comparing potential
chemical and non-chemical alternatives
that could replace chemicals or
technologies of concern on the basis of
their hazards, performance, and
economic viability. A variety of
alternatives assessment processes have
been developed to date (Lavoie et al.,
2010; Ex. #84; Toxics Use Reduction
Institute, 2006; Ex. #85; Rossi et al.,
2006; Ex. #86; Raphael et al., 2011; Ex.
#87). Various tools and methods have
been developed to evaluate hazard,
performance, and cost when assessing
alternatives. For example, comparative
chemicals hazard assessments compare
potential alternatives based on a variety
of hazard endpoints in order to select a
safer alternative. Some examples of
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comparative chemicals hazard
assessment tools include the
GreenScreen (Clean Production Action,
2012; Ex. #88) and Design for the
Environment (DfE) Safer Product
Labeling Program (U.S. EPA, 2011a; Ex.
#89). Other existing methods for
chemical comparison include the
¨
Column Model (Institut fur
Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen
Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung, 2011;
Ex. #90) and QuickScan (Netherlands
Ministry of Infrastructure and the
Environment, 2002; Ex. #91). Tools and
methods for evaluating performance and
cost attributes, while less well
developed, are also critical for the
selection of a preferred alternative.
d. Substitution at OSHA
Substitution is not new for OSHA.
Historically, OSHA attempted to
encourage substitution by setting a ‘‘no
occupational exposure level’’ for certain
potential carcinogens where suitable
substitutes that are less hazardous to
humans existed for particular uses (45
FR 5257–58; Ex. #92). Although this
requirement was never fully
implemented, the final rule detailed a
process for the Agency to analyze the
feasibility of substitutes, which required
the consideration of: (1) the safety of the
substitute, including the comparative
acute and chronic toxicity of the
carcinogenic chemical and the
substitute, and other relevant factors,
such as environmental factors; (2) the
technical feasibility of the substitute,
including its relative effectiveness; and
(3) the economic cost of substitution (45
FR 5258; Ex. #92, 29 CFR 1990.111(k);
Ex. #93, see also 1990.132(b)(6); Ex. #94,
1990.146(k); Ex. #95).
OSHA health standards also identify
substitution as a preferred exposure
control. For example, in the 1989 Air
Contaminants Standard, the Agency
refers to substitution, when properly
applied, as ‘‘a very effective control
technique’’ and ‘‘the quickest and most
effective means of reducing exposure’’
(54 FR 2727, 2789; Ex. #7). In addition,
the Agency’s respiratory protection
standard mandates the use of accepted
engineering control measures, including
the substitution of less toxic materials,
as far as feasible, before using
respirators to control occupational
diseases caused by breathing
contaminated air (29 CFR 1910.134(a);
Ex. #96). Despite this, when complying
with PELs and other health standards in
practice, employers are required to
select and implement administrative or
engineering controls before using
personal protective equipment, but are
not specifically required or encouraged
to consider elimination or substitution
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
before other engineering or
administrative controls. (See 29 CFR
1910.1000(e); Ex. #97). Thus,
substitution may be often overlooked in
favor of other approaches, such as
ventilation and isolation, when
employers are controlling exposures to
hazardous chemicals.
OSHA also considers substitution
during the development of PELs. While
OSHA does not solely rely on
substitution to make its required
feasibility findings (62 FR 1494, 1576;
Ex. #98; 71 FR 10099, 10260; Ex. #99),
the Agency, as part of PEL rulemaking
efforts, develops and evaluates
information about substitution in its
technological and economic feasibility
analysis, highlighting options available
for eliminating or reducing the regulated
chemical’s use in various industries and
applications. For example, the
feasibility analysis for methylene
chloride describes numerous substitute
chemicals and processes, including a
detailed table of substitute paint
removal methods for 16 applications,
and evaluates the relative risks for seven
of the more common substitutes for
methylene chloride (OSHA, 1996; Ex.
#100). However, the analysis of
substitutes has varied widely from
regulation to regulation. For example,
the feasibility analysis for hexavalent
chromium identifies specific substitute
chemicals and processes in many
industries, but does not discuss the
health or safety hazards of the
substitutes (OSHA, 2006a; Ex. #101),
while the feasibility analysis for
formaldehyde includes only a mention
of the availability of one identified
substitute for a few industry sectors
(OSHA, 1987; Ex. #102) and the
feasibility analysis for ethylene oxide
does not contain any discussion of
substitutes (OSHA, 1984; Ex. #103).
OSHA has also included information
on substitutes in a variety of nonregulatory documents. New information
about available substitutes and
substitution trends is included in
lookback reviews of existing standards
conducted by the Agency (e.g., lookback
review of the ethylene oxide standard,
lookback review of the methylene
chloride standard) (OSHA, 2005; Ex.
#104; OSHA, 2010; Ex. #105). In some
cases, OSHA has also developed
information on substitution, even where
a PEL has not been established. For
example, the OSHA guidance document
on the best practices for the safe use of
glutaraldehyde in health care includes
information about drop-in replacements
and alternative processes available to
reduce or eliminate the use of the
chemical (OSHA, 2006b; Ex. #106).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
In October 2013, OSHA launched an
effort to encourage employers, workers,
and unions to proactively reduce the
use of hazardous chemicals in the
workplace and achieve chemical use
that is safer for workers and better for
business. As part of this effort, the
Agency developed a web toolkit that
guides employers and workers in any
industry through a seven-step process
for transitioning to safer chemicals
(OSHA, 2013a; Ex. #107). Each step
contains information, resources,
methods, and tools that will help users
eliminate hazardous chemicals or make
informed substitution decisions in the
workplace by finding a safer chemical,
material, product, or process.
e. Possible Opportunities for Integrating
Informed Substitution Approaches Into
OSHA Activities
There are a variety of existing
regulatory and non-regulatory models
for incorporating informed substitution
into chemical management activities.
The following are some examples of
entities that have developed and
utilized informed substitution
approaches as part of regulatory efforts;
guidance and policy development;
education, training, and technical
assistance activities; and data
development and research efforts.
i. Models for Regulatory Approaches
Some regulations and voluntary
standards require risk reduction through
the implementation of a hierarchy of
controls that clearly delineates
elimination and substitution as
preferred options to be considered and
implemented, where feasible, before
other controls. For example, the ANSI/
AIHA Z10–2005 standard for
Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems, a voluntary
national consensus standard, requires
organizations to implement and
maintain a process for achieving feasible
risk reduction based upon the following
preferred order of controls: A.
Elimination; B. Substitution of less
hazardous materials, processes,
operations, or equipment; C.
Engineering controls; D. Warnings; E.
Administrative Controls; and F.
Personal protective equipment (ANSI/
AIHA Z10–2005, 2005; Ex. #108).
European Union Directives 98/24/EC
and 2004/37/EC require employers to
eliminate risks by substitution before
implementing other types of protection
and prevention measures (98/24/EC,
1998; Ex. #109, 2004/37/EC, 2004; Ex.
#110).
Some existing laws require firms to
undertake planning processes for the
reduction of identified hazardous
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61411
chemicals. For example, the
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Act requires entities that use listed
hazardous chemicals in certain
quantities to undertake a planning
process for reducing the use of those
chemicals (Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, n.d.; Ex.
#77).
Existing regulations in the European
Union place a duty on employers to
replace the use of certain hazardous
chemicals with safer substitutes, if
technically possible. For example,
Directive 2004/37/EC requires the
substitution of carcinogens and
mutagens with less harmful substances
where technically feasible (2004/37/EC,
2004) and Directive 98/24/EC requires
employers to ensure that risks from
hazardous chemical agents are
eliminated or reduced to a minimum,
preferably by substitution (98/24/EC,
1998; Ex. #109).
Other regulations require the use of
acceptable substitutes where the uses of
certain hazardous chemicals are phasedout. This type of approach is currently
implemented by U.S. EPA in the context
of phasing-out ozone depleting
substances. The Clean Air Act requires
that these substances be replaced by
others that reduce risks to human health
and the environment. Under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program, EPA identifies and
publishes lists of acceptable and
unacceptable substitutes for ozonedepleting substances (Safe Alternatives
Policy, 2011; Ex. #111).
Some chemical management
frameworks require the assessment of
substitutes before making decisions to
limit or restrict the use of a hazardous
chemical. For example, the European
Union REACH Regulation (Registration,
Evaluation, Authorization and
Restriction of Chemicals) requires that
an analysis of alternatives, the risks
involved in using any alternative, and
the technical and economic feasibility of
substitution be conducted during
applications of authorization for
substances of very high concern (EC
1907/2006, 2006; Ex. #70).
Other efforts to spur the transition to
safer chemicals, products, and processes
are based on the development of
criteria-based standards for functions or
processes that rely on hazardous
chemicals. For example, the EPA DfE
Safer Product Labeling Program is a
nonregulatory program that recognizes
safe products using established criteriabased standards. In order to receive DfE
recognition, all chemicals in a
formulated product must meet Master
Criteria (i.e., toxicological thresholds for
attributes of concern, including: acute
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61412
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
mammalian toxicity; carcinogenicity;
genetic toxicity; neurotoxicity; repeated
dose toxicity; reproductive and
developmental toxicity; respiratory
sensitization; skin sensitization;
environmental toxicity and fate; and
eutrophication), as well as relevant
functional-class criteria (i.e., additional
toxicological thresholds for attributes of
concern for surfactants, solvents, directrelease products, fragrances, and
chelating and sequestering agents),
established by the EPA (U.S. EPA,
2011a; Ex. #89).
While there are a number of ways in
which OSHA could consider integrating
substitution and alternatives assessment
into its regulatory efforts, the Agency, in
order to promulgate any such standard,
would need to make the significant risk,
technological feasibility, and economic
feasibility findings required under the
OSH Act. However, even without
regulation, it is important to consider
voluntary models for incorporating
informed substitution into chemical
management activities.
ii. Models for Guidance Development
Some entities have developed
guidance to promote the transition to
safer alternatives. The European Union,
in order to support legislative
substitution mandates, developed
guidance on the process of substitution,
including setting goals, identifying
priority chemicals, evaluating
substitutes, selecting safer alternatives,
and implementing chemical, material,
and process changes. The guidance
establishes and describes a seven step
substitution framework, providing
workplaces with a systematic process
for evaluating chemical risk and
identifying chemicals that could or
should be substituted (European
Commission, 2012; Ex. #113). The steps
include: Assessing the current level of
risk; deciding on risk reduction needs;
assessing the margins of change; looking
for alternatives; checking the
consequences of a change; deciding on
change; and deciding on how and when
to implement change.
Similarly, the German Federal
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (BAuA) established guidance to
support the employer’s duty, as
mandated in the German Hazardous
Substances Ordinance, to evaluate
substitutes to hazardous substances and
implement substitution where less
hazardous alternatives are identified
(German Federal Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 2011;
Ex. #114). The guidance, TRGS 600,
includes a framework for identifying
and evaluating substitutes and
establishes criteria for assessing and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
comparing the health risks,
physicochemical risks, and technical
suitability of identified alternatives
(German Federal Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 2008;
Ex. #115).
The German Environment Agency has
also developed guidance on sustainable
chemicals. The guide assists
manufacturers, formulators, and end
users of chemicals in the selection of
sustainable chemicals by providing
criteria to distinguish between
sustainable and non-sustainable
substances (German Environment
Agency, 2011; Ex. #116).
OSHA considered developing
guidance on safer substitutes to
accompany individual chemical
exposure limit standards in its 2010
regulatory review of methylene
chloride. Due to the increased use of
other hazardous substitutes after
methylene chloride was regulated in
1998, the Agency considered
establishing guidance recommending
that firms check the toxicity of
alternatives on the EPA and NIOSH Web
sites before using a substitute (OSHA,
2010; Ex. #105).
iii. Models for Education, Training, and
Technical Assistance
Other entities have developed
outreach, training, and technical
assistance efforts for substitution
planning and the assessment of
substitutes for regulated chemicals. The
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Act, which established a number of
structures to assist businesses, provides
a good example of such efforts. The
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance and Technology (OTA)
provides compliance assistance and onsite technical support that helps
facilities use less toxic processes and
boost economic performance. The
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Institute provides training, conducts
research, and performs alternatives
assessments in order to educate
businesses on the existence of safer
alternatives and promote the on-theground adoption of these alternatives.
Toxics Use Reduction Planners
(TURPs), certified by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
(MA DEP), prepare, write and certify the
required toxics use reduction plans and
are continually educated about best
practices in toxics use reduction. Taken
together, these services provide a robust
resource for regulated businesses on the
transition to safer alternatives
(Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, n.d.; Ex.
#77).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
iv. Models for Data Development
Several efforts, at both the federal and
international levels, attempt to support
the transition to safer alternatives
through research and data development.
For example, EPA, in collaboration with
the non-governmental organization
GreenBlue and industry stakeholders,
jointly developed a database of cleaning
product ingredient chemicals
(surfactants, solvents, fragrances, and
chelating agents) that meet identified
environmental and human health
criteria (GreenBlue, 2012; Ex. #117). In
Spain, the Institute of Work,
Environment, and Health (ISTAS) has
developed a database that is a repository
of information on substitute chemicals.
The database can be searched for
chemical substances, uses/products,
processes, or sectors to display
information on substitutes and hazards
associated with those substitutes
(ISTAS, 2012; Ex. #118). In addition, the
European Union SUBSPORT project has
begun to create a Substitution Support
Portal, a state-of-the-art resource on
safer alternatives to the use of hazardous
chemicals. The resource is intended to
provide not only information on
alternative substances and technologies,
but also tools and guidance for
substance evaluation and substitution
management (SUBSPORT, 2012; Ex.
#119).
Other efforts focus on the completion
of alternatives assessments for priority
chemicals and uses. Currently, EPA’s
Design for the Environment Program, as
well as the Massachusetts Toxics Use
Reduction Institute, has conducted
alternatives assessments for priority
chemicals and functional uses, making
this information publicly available in
the process (U.S. EPA, 2012c; Ex. #120;
Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 2006;
Ex. #85).
In addition, some research efforts
attempt to fill data gaps with regards to
the toxicological properties of existing
chemicals. While some efforts to
conduct toxicity testing for chemicals is
taking place at the federal level (U.S.
EPA, 2011b; Ex. #121, U.S. EPA, 2012d;
Ex. #122), there have not been
systematic efforts to conduct targeted
toxicology studies for specific
substitutes of interest.
Question V.B.1: To what extent do
you currently consider elimination and
substitution for controlling exposures to
chemical hazards?
Question V.B.2: What approaches
would most effectively encourage
businesses to consider substitution and
adopt safer substitutes?
Question V.B.3: What options would
be least burdensome to industry,
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
especially small businesses? What
options would be most burdensome?
Question V.B.4: What information and
support do businesses need to identify
and transition to safer alternatives?
What are the most effective means to
provide this information and support?
Question V.B.5: How could OSHA
leverage existing data resources to
provide necessary substitution
information to businesses?
v. Effectively Implementing Informed
Substitution Approaches
The goals of informed substitution
cannot be achieved without the
development and application of tools
and methods for identifying, comparing,
and selecting alternatives. Existing tools
and methods range in complexity, from
quick screening tools to detailed
comparative hazard assessment
methodologies to robust frameworks for
evaluating alternatives based on hazard,
performance, and economic feasibility.
Illustrative examples, which represent
the range of tools available, are
described below.
Some assessment tools provide
methods for rapid evaluation of
chemical hazards based on readily
available information. These types of
tools are critical for small and mediumsized businesses, which often lack
resources and expertise to evaluate and
compare chemical hazards. In the state
of Washington, the Department of
Ecology (DOE) has developed the Quick
Chemical Assessment Tool (QCAT) to
allow businesses to identify chemicals
that are not viable alternatives to a
chemical of concern by assigning an
appropriate grade for the chemical
based on nine high priority hazard
endpoints (Washington Department of
Ecology, 2012; Ex. #123). Similarly, the
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health of the German Federation of
Institutions for Statutory Accident
Insurance and Prevention (IFA)
developed the Column Model as a tool
for businesses to evaluate chemicals
based on six hazard categories using
information obtained from chemical
safety data sheets (IFA, 2011; Ex. #90).
Other existing tools provide more
detailed methodologies for conducting a
comparative hazard assessment, which
require greater expertise, data, and
resources to complete. The
GreenScreen, created by Clean
Production Action, provides a
methodology for evaluating and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
comparing the toxicity based on
nineteen human and environmental
hazard endpoints, assigning a level of
concern of high, moderate, or low for
each endpoint based on various
established criteria (Clean Production
Action, 2012; Ex. #88).
A number of robust frameworks have
also been developed to assess the
feasibility of adopting alternatives for
hazardous chemicals based on
environmental, performance, economic,
human health, and safety criteria. The
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Institute developed and implemented a
methodology for assessing alternatives
to hazardous chemicals based on
performance, technical, financial,
environmental, and human health
parameters (TURI, 2006; Ex. #85).
Similarly, the U.S. EPA DfE program has
also developed and implemented an
alternatives assessment framework to
characterize alternatives based on the
assessment of chemical hazards as well
as the evaluation of availability,
functionality, economic, and life cycle
considerations (Lavoie et al., 2010; Ex.
#84, U.S. EPA, 2012c; Ex. #120).
Although some tools and methods
exist, as discussed above, further
research and development in this area is
critical for the effective implementation
of informed substitution.
Question V.B.6: What tools or
methods could be used by OSHA and/
or employers to conduct comparative
hazard assessments? What criteria
should be considered when comparing
chemical hazards?
Question V.B.7: What tools or
methods could be used by OSHA and/
or employers to evaluate and compare
the performance and cost attributes of
alternatives? What criteria should be
considered when evaluating
performance and cost?
2. Hazard Communication and the
Globally Harmonized System (GHS)
OSHA promulgated its Hazard
Communication Standard (HCS) (29
CFR 1910.1200; Ex. #124) in 1983 to
require employers to obtain and provide
information to their employees on the
hazards associated with the chemicals
used in their workplaces. After thirty
years of implementation, the HCS has
resulted in extensive information being
disseminated in American workplaces
through labels on containers, safety data
sheets (SDSs), and worker training
programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61413
On March 26, 2012, OSHA published
major modifications to the HCS. (77 FR
17574–17896; Ex. #125). These
modifications are being phased in over
several years, and will be completely
implemented in June 2016. Referred to
as HazCom 2012, the revised rule
incorporates a new approach to
assessing the hazards of chemicals, as
well as conveying information about
them to employees. The revised rule is
based on the United Nations’ Globally
Harmonized System for the
Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
(GHS), which established an
international, harmonized approach to
hazard communication.
The original HCS was a performanceoriented rule that prescribed broad rules
for hazard communication but allowed
chemical manufacturers and importers
to determine how the information was
conveyed. In contrast, HazCom 2012 is
specification-oriented. Thus, while the
HCS requires chemical manufacturers
and importers to determine the hazards
of chemicals, and prepare labels and
safety data sheets (SDSs), HazCom 2012
goes further by specifying a detailed
scheme for hazard classification and
prescribing harmonized hazard
information on labels. In addition, SDSs
must follow a set order of information,
and the information to be provided in
each section is also specified.
Hazard classification means that a
chemical’s hazards are not only
identified, they are characterized in
terms of severity of the effect or weight
of evidence for the effect. Thus, the
assessment of the hazard involves
identifying the ‘‘hazard class’’ into
which a chemical falls (e.g., target organ
toxicity), as well as the ‘‘hazard
category’’—a further breakdown of the
hazardous effect generally based on
either numerical cut-offs, or an
assessment of the weight of the
evidence. For target organ toxicity, for
example, chemicals for which there is
human evidence of an effect are likely
to be classified under Category 1, the
most hazardous category, thus
indicating the highest classification for
the effect. If the only data available are
animal studies, the chemical may fall in
Category 2—still potentially hazardous
to humans, but lower in terms of the
weight of evidence for the effect. TableI illustrates how such a chemical hazard
classification may be assigned by hazard
class and hazard category
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
The process of classifying chemicals
under HazCom 2012 means that all
chemicals will be fully characterized as
to their hazards, as well as degree of
hazardous effect, using a standardized
process with objective criteria. Thus,
OSHA could use this system to select
certain hazard classes and categories to
set priorities. For example, the Agency
could decide to identify substances that
are characterized as Class 1 Carcinogens
or as Reproductive Toxicants as its
priorities. Then chemicals that fall into
those hazard categories could be further
investigated to determine other relevant
factors, such as numbers of employees
exposed, use of the chemical, risk
assessment, etc. The HazCom 2012
information could lead to a more
structured and consistent priority
system than previously attempted
approaches. (Ex. #126) OSHA could also
investigate whether the hazard
categories lend themselves to
establishing regulatory provisions for
hazard classes and categories rather
than for individual substances. The
availability of specific hazard
categorization for chemicals could allow
this to be done on a grouping basis—
either in regulation, or in guidance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Once a chemical is placed into a
hazard class and hazard category,
HazCom 2012 (and the GHS) specifies
the harmonized information that must
appear on the label. Referred to as ‘‘label
elements,’’ these include a pictogram,
signal word, hazard statement(s), and
precautionary statement(s). In addition,
the label must have a product identifier
and supplier contact information. The
use of standardized label elements will
help to ensure consistency and
comprehensibility of the information,
which will make HazCom 2012 more
effective in terms of conveying
information to employees and
employers. The approach taken in the
GHS strengthens the protections of the
OSHA HCS in several ways, and
introduces the possibility of the Agency
using the information generated under
HazCom 2012 to help frame a more
comprehensive approach to ensuring
occupational chemical safety and
health.
3. Health Hazard Banding
‘‘Health hazard banding’’ can be
defined as a qualitative framework to
develop occupational hazard
assessments given uncertainties caused
by limitations in the human health or
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
toxicology data for a chemical or other
agent. Health hazard banding presumes
it is possible to group chemicals or other
agents into categories of similar toxicity
or hazard characteristics.
Health hazard banding assigns
chemicals with similar toxicities into
hazard groups (or bands. The
occupational health professional can
use this classification or hazard band,
along with information on worker
exposures to the substance, to do
exposure risk assessment. Hazard
banding, along with exposure
information, is a useful risk assessment
tool, particularly in situations where
toxicity data are sparse. Hazard banding
can also aid in the prioritization and
hazard ranking of chemicals in the
workplace. NIOSH is working with
OSHA and a variety of stakeholder
groups (federal agencies, industry, labor
organizations, and professional
associations) to develop guidance on
establishing the technical criteria,
decision logic, and minimum dataset for
the hazard band process.
4. Occupational Exposure Banding
NIOSH has proposed an approach,
occupational exposure banding, which
would sort chemicals into five bands (A
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
EP10OC14.001
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61414
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
through E), with each band representing
a different hazard level. Chemicals with
the lowest toxicity would be grouped in
Band A, while the moist toxic chemicals
would be grouped in Band E. The
proposed process includes a three-tiered
evaluation system based on the
availability of toxicological data to
define a range of concentrations for
controlling chemical exposures. A Tier
1 evaluation relies on hazard codes and
categories from GHS, and intended for
chemicals for which little information
exists. Therefore, a chemical in Band D
or E in the Tier 1 process is a bad actor
and should be targeted for elimination
and or substitution. Tier 2 and 3 require
professional expertise. Once NIOSH
completes their validation work of the
three tiers, they plan to develop tools to
facilitate evaluating hazard data and
assigning chemicals to hazard bands as
well as educational materials for health
and safety professionals, managers, and
workers. (Exs. #127 & #128)
5. Control Banding
Control banding is a well-established
approach of using the hazard statements
from a label and/or safety data sheet
(SDS) to lead an employer to
recommended control measures. This
approach has been used successfully in
a number of countries, particularly in
Europe where such as system of hazard
classification has been in use for some
time. HazCom 2012 opens up the
possibility that control banding can be
further developed and refined in the
U.S., either as guidance or regulatory
provisions. It is a particularly useful
way to provide information for small
businesses to effectively control
chemicals without necessarily going
through the process of exposure
monitoring and other technical
approaches to ensuring compliance. It
also will give employers better
information to conduct risk assessments
of their own workplaces, and thus select
better control measures.
Health hazard banding can be used in
conjunction with control banding to use
the information available on the hazard
to guide the assessment and
management of workplace risks. In fact,
health hazard banding is the first step in
the control banding process. Control
banding determines a control measure
(for example dilution ventilation,
engineering controls, containment, etc.)
based on a range or ‘‘band’’ of hazards
(such as skin/eye irritant, very toxic,
carcinogenic, etc.), and exposures
(small, medium, or large exposure). This
approach is based on the fact that there
are a limited number of control
approaches, and that many chemical
exposure problems have been met and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
solved before. Control banding uses the
solutions that experts have developed
previously to control occupational
chemical exposures, and suggests them
for other tasks with similar exposure
situations. It focuses resources on
exposure controls, and describes how
strictly a risk needs to be managed.
Control banding is a more
comprehensive qualitative risk
characterization and management
strategy that goes further in assigning
prescribed control methods to address
chemical hazards. It is designed to allow
employers to evaluate the need for
exposure control in an operation and to
identify the appropriate control strategy
given the severity of the hazard present
and magnitude of exposure. The
strength of control banding is that it is
based on information readily available
to employers on safety data sheets
(SDSs), without the need for exposure
measurements or access to occupational
health expertise (except in certain
circumstances). Control banding
involves not only the grouping of
workplace substances into hazard bands
(based on combinations of hazard and
exposure information) but also links the
bands to a suite of control measures,
such as general dilution ventilation,
local exhaust ventilation, containment,
and use of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
Under control banding, one must
consider the chemical’s hazardous
properties, physical properties, and
exposure potential in order to determine
the level of exposure control desired.
The criteria used for categorizing
chemicals include hazard information
such as flammability, reactivity, and the
nature of known health effects. These
characteristics are associated with
defined hazard phrases (e.g., ‘‘Causes
severe skin burns and eye damage’’ or
‘‘Causes liver damage,’’ or
‘‘Reproductive hazard’’). These
standardized phrases have been familiar
in the EU as ‘‘R-phrases’’ and are found
on SDSs.
Different hazard bands exist along a
continuum ranging from less hazardous
chemicals to more hazardous chemicals.
Once the appropriate hazard group has
been determined from the hazard
statements (e.g., ‘‘Hazard Group B’’),
exposure potential is evaluated based on
the quantity in use, volatility (for
liquids), or particulate nature (for
solids). After evaluating these properties
and categorizing the chemical into
hazard and exposure bands, the
chemicals are matched, based on their
band categorization, to the appropriate
control strategy, with more stringent
controls applied for substances that are
placed in high-toxicity bands.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61415
The Control of Substances Hazardous
to Health (COSHH) guidance issued by
the Safety Executive (HSE) of the United
Kingdom is one model of control
banding (Health and Safety Executive,
2013; Ex. #129). Under the 2002 COSHH
regulation, employers must conduct a
risk assessment to decide how to
prevent employees from being exposed
to hazardous substances in the
workplace. COSHH principles first
require that exposure is prevented by
employers, to the extent possible, by
means of:
• Changing the way tasks are carried
out so that exposures aren’t necessary
anymore;
• Modifying processes to cut out
hazardous by-products or wastes; or
• Substituting a non-hazardous or
less hazardous substance for a
hazardous substance with new
substances (or use the same substance in
a different form) so that there is less risk
to health.
If exposures to hazardous substances
cannot be prevented entirely, then
COSHH requires employers to
adequately control them (Control of
Substances Hazardous to Health
Regulations, 2002; Ex. #130).
Recognizing that many small employers
may not have access to the required
expertise, and also to reduce the need
for a professional and to promote
consistency in the assessment process,
the HSE developed an approach to
assessment and control of chemical
hazards using control banding
methodologies spelled out in the 2002
regulation. This control banding
approach is described in detail in
COSHH Essentials. Employers may use
the guidance spelled out in the COSHH
Essentials guide to determine the
appropriate control approach for the
chemical hazard in question. Each
control approach covers a range of
actions that work together to reduce
exposure: (1) General Ventilation, (2)
Engineering Controls, (3) Containment,
and lastly, (4) Special—a scenario where
employers should seek expert advice to
select appropriate control measures.
The first step outlined under the
COSHH Essentials guidance is to
consult the safety data sheet for each
chemical in use. Employers must record
the date of assessment, the name of the
chemical being assessed, the supplier of
the chemical, and the task(s) for which
the chemical is used.
Step two involves the determination
of the health hazard. Employers
ascertain the hazard by assessing the
possible health effects from the hazard
statements provided on the SDS, the
amount in use, and the dustiness or
volatility of the chemical in use.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Employers reference the hazard
statements found on chemical safety
data sheets against a table of COSHH
hazard groups in order to categorize
them into the appropriate hazard group
(‘‘A’’ through ‘‘E’’, and possibly ‘‘S’’).
Chemicals in Group A tend to be
regarded as less harmful and may, for
example, cause temporary irritation.
Chemicals in Group E are the most
hazardous and include known
carcinogens. Group S encompasses
substances that have special
considerations for damage caused via
contact with the eyes or skin.
Additionally, Step two requires
employers to make some determinations
about the quantity and physical state of
chemicals in use. They must decide if
the amount of chemical in use would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
described as ‘‘small’’ (grams or
milliliters), ‘‘medium’’ (kilograms or
liters), or ‘‘large’’ (tons or cubic meters).
When in doubt, COSHH Essentials
principles encourage employers to err
on the side of the larger quantity in
making their determination.
Additionally, the physical state of
chemicals effect how likely they are to
get into the air and this affects the
control approach to be utilized. For
solids, COSHH Essentials guides
employers to make a determination of
either ‘‘Low’’, ‘‘Medium’’, or ‘‘High’’
dustiness based upon visible criteria
observed during the use of these
chemicals. Employers may also use
look-up tables provided in the COSHH
Essentials guide to make a
determination of whether liquids have
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
‘‘low’’, ‘‘medium’’, or ‘‘high’’ volatility
based upon the chemical’s boiling point
and ambient or process operating
temperatures.
In Step three of the COSHH Essentials
guide, employers identify the
appropriate control approach. Tables
provided by the COSHH Essentials
guide show the control approaches for
hazard groups ‘‘A’’ through ‘‘E’’
according to quantity of chemical in use
and its dustiness/volatility. Table-II
illustrates how the control approaches
are assigned. The control approaches
referred to by number in the table are:
1) General Ventilation, 2) Engineering
Control, 3) Containment, and 4) Special.
(Health and Safety Executive, 2009; Ex.
#131).
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
EP10OC14.002
61416
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, the COSHH Essentials
guide provides detailed control
guidance sheets for a range of common
tasks. Consultation of these task-specific
guidance sheets constitutes Step four
under COSHH Essentials. Step five of
COSHH Essentials involves the
employer deciding on how best to
implement control measures as
prescribed. COSHH Essentials
principles also stress the importance of
employers reviewing their assessments
regularly, especially if there is a
significant change in workplace
processes or environment. Employers
are encouraged to incorporate exposure
level monitoring, health surveillance,
and relevant training.
A number of European Union nations
(e.g., United Kingdom, Germany,
France, Netherlands, Norway, and
Belgium) and Asian nations (Singapore
and Korea) already utilize control
banding methods comparable to COSHH
Essential methods for management of a
variety of chemical exposures in the
workplace.
A number of studies have been
conducted to assess the validity of a
control banding model for control of
exposure to chemicals. Jones and Nicas
(2006; Ex. #132) reviewed the COSHH
Essentials model for hazard-banding in
vapor degreasing and bag-filling tasks.
Their study showed that the model did
not identify adequate controls in all
scenarios with approximately eighteen
percent of cases leaving workers
potentially under-protected. However,
in a similar study, Hashimoto et al.
(2007; Ex. #133) showed that hazardbanding tended to overestimate the level
of control and therefore was more
protective. In 2011, Lee et al. (Ex. #134)
found that for a paint manufacturing
facility using mixtures of chemicals
with different volatilities, exposure to
the chemicals with higher volatility had
a higher likelihood to exceed the
predicted hazard-band. Lee also
recommended further research for more
precise task identification to better
enable implementation of task-specific
control measures.
NIOSH provides a thorough review
and critical analysis of the concepts,
protective nature, and potential barriers
to implementation of control banding
programs (NIOSH, 2009; Ex. #135).
NIOSH concluded that control banding
can be used effectively for performing
workplace risk assessments and
implementing control solutions for
many, but not all occupational hazards.
Additionally, NIOSH found that while
in some situations in which control
banding cannot provide the precision
and accuracy necessary to protect
worker health, and in some cases
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
control banding will provide a higher
level of control than is necessary.
COSHH Essentials and other control
banding concepts developed in Europe
were based initially on the European
Union’s pre-GHS classification and
labeling system. Since the European
Union has adopted the GHS in its
classification and labeling rules, these
risk phrases will no longer be available.
Control banding approaches are now
based on the hazard statements in the
GHS. OSHA’s adoption of the GHS to
modify the HCS opens up the
opportunity to use a control banding
approach to chemical exposures in
American workplaces based on the
hazard classification system. This
would be an alternative to focusing on
PELs that could achieve the goal of risk
management for many chemicals and
operations in workplaces.
OSHA is interested in exploring how
it might employ these non-OEL
approaches in a regulatory framework to
address hazardous substances where the
available hazard information does not
yet provide a sufficient basis for the
Agency’s traditional approach of using
risk assessment to establish a PEL.
OSHA believes that a hazard banding
approach could allow the Agency to
establish specification requirements for
the control of chemical exposures more
efficiently, offering additional flexibility
to employers, while maintaining the
safety and health of the workforce.
Although health hazard banding and
control banding show some promise as
vehicles for providing guidance to
occupational health professionals for
controlling exposures to workers, their
use in a regulatory scheme presents
challenges. For example, the agency
would need to consider how, if it were
to require such approaches, the OSH
Act’s requirement that standards that
reduce significant risk to the extent
feasible might be satisfied.
OSHA is also interested in exploring
the development of voluntary guidelines
for incorporation of control banding into
safety and health management programs
in U.S. workplaces. These efforts might
include the development and
dissemination of compliance assistance
materials (publications, safety and
health topic Web pages, computer
software and smartphone apps, e-Tools)
as well as consultation services to assist
small businesses.
Question V.B.8: How could OSHA use
the information generated under
HazCom 2012 to pursue means of
managing and controlling chemical
exposures in an approach other than
substance-by-substance regulation?
Question V.B.9: How could such an
approach satisfy legal requirements to
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61417
reduce significant risk of material
impairment and for technological and
economic feasibility?
Question V.B.10.: Please describe
your experience in using health hazard
and/or control banding to address
exposures to chemicals in the
workplace.
Question V.B.11.: Are additional
studies available that have examined the
effectiveness of health hazard and
control banding strategies in protecting
workers?
Question V.B.12.: How can OSHA
most effectively use the concepts of
health hazard and control banding in
developing health standards?
V.B.13.: How might OSHA use
voluntary guidance approaches to assist
businesses (particularly small
businesses) with implementing the
principles of hazard banding in their
chemical safety plans? Could the GHS
chemical classifications be the starting
point for a useful voluntary hazard
banding scheme? What types of
information, tools, or other resources
could OSHA provide that would be
most effective to assist businesses,
unions, and other safety and health
stakeholders with operationalizing
hazard banding principles in the
workplace?
Question V.B.14.: Should OSHA
consider greater use of specification
standards or guidance as an approach to
developing health standards? If so, for
what kinds of operations are
specification approaches best suited?
6. Task-based Exposure Assessment and
Control Approaches
Job hazard analysis is a safety and
health management tool in which
certain jobs, tasks, processes or
procedures are evaluated for potential
hazards or risks, and controls are
implemented to protect workers from
injury and illness. Likewise, task-based
assessment and control is a system that
categorizes the task or job activity in
terms of exposure potential and
requirements for specific actions to
control the exposure are implemented,
regardless of occupational exposure
limits. Tasks are isolated from the
deconstruction of a larger process that is
in turn part of an overall operation or
project in an industrial setting. As
industrial engineering explores the
optimization of complex processes or
systems through an evaluation of the
integrated system of people, equipment,
materials, and other components, the
task-based system attempts to evaluate
work activities to define uniform
exposure scenarios and their variables
and establish targeted control strategies.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61418
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Task-based exposure potential can be
defined using readily available data
including process operating procedures,
task observation and analysis, job
activity description, chemical inventory
and toxicity information (hazard
communication), historical exposure
data, existing exposure databases,
employee surveys, and current exposure
data. Based on this exposure
assessment, the task is matched with
specific requirements for exposure
control. Control specifications can draw
on a broad inventory of exposure
controls and administrative tools to
reduce and prevent worker exposure to
the identified hazardous substances.
OSHA is interested in exploring taskbased control approaches as a technique
for developing specification standards
for the control of hazardous substances
in the workplace as an alternative or
supplement to PELs. Such an approach
may offer the advantage of providing
employers with specific guidance on
how to protect workers from exposure
and reduce or eliminate the need for
conducting regular exposure
assessments to evaluate the
effectiveness of exposure control
strategies. OSHA has developed
specification-oriented health standards
in the past, in particular, those for lead
and asbestos in construction.
More recently, OSHA developed a
control-specification-based approach for
controlling exposures to crystalline
silica dust in construction operations
(OSHA, 2009; Ex. #136, OSHA, 2013b;
Ex. #137). Construction operations are
particularly amenable to specification
standards due to the task-based nature
of the work. The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), the Center to Protect Workers’
Rights—a research arm of the Building
and Construction Trades Department,
AFL-CIO—has developed and used a
‘‘Task-Based Exposure Assessment
Model (T–BEAM)’’ for construction. The
characteristic elements of T–BEAM are:
(1) an emphasis on the identification,
implementation, and evaluation of
engineering and work practice controls;
and (2) use of experienced, specially
trained construction workers
(construction safety and health
specialists) in the exposure assessment
process. A task-based approach was
used because tasks, or specialized skills,
form the single greatest thread of
continuity in the dynamic environment
of construction (Susi et al., 2000; Ex.
#138).
A new American National Standards
Institute Standard (ANSI A10.49) based
on GHS health hazard categories and
utilizing a task-based approach is also
being developed to address chemical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
hazards in construction (ASSE, 2012;
Ex. #139). The standard requires
employers to first identify tasks
involving the use of chemicals and
create a hazard communication
inventory for these tasks. Then the
employer must determine the hazard
level and exposure level, and finally
develop a control plan based on the
hazard and exposure classifications. If
the chemicals used in the task are low
hazard and the task is low exposure,
then the control plan requires following
the SDS and label precautions. If,
however, the task involves greater than
minimal hazard or exposure, a more
protective control plan must be
developed.
However, developing specification
standards governing exposure to health
standards for general industry
operations presents a different
challenge. Given the diversity in the
nature of industrial operations across a
range of industry sectors that might be
affected by a chemical standard, OSHA
is concerned that it will be more
difficult to develop specification
standards for exposure controls that are
specific enough to clearly delineate
obligations of employers to protect
employees, and yet are general enough
to provide employers flexibility to
implement controls that are suitable for
their workplaces and that allow for
future innovation in control
technologies.
Question V.B.15: OSHA requests
comment on whether and how taskbased exposure control approaches
might be effectively used as a regulatory
strategy for health standards.
VI. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,
directed the preparation of this notice.
OSHA is issuing this notice under 29
U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 33 U.S.C. 941; 40
U.S.C. 3704 et seq.; Secretary of Labor’s
Order 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, 1/25/2012);
and 29 CFR Part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on September
30, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
Appendix A: History, Legal
Background, and Significant Court
Decisions
I. Background
Since the OSH Act was enacted in 1970,
OSHA has made significant achievements
toward improving the health and safety of
America’s workers. The OSH Act gave ‘‘every
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
working man and woman in the Nation’’ for
the first time, a legal right to ‘‘safe and
healthful working conditions.’’ OSH Act
§ 2(a); 29 U.S.C. 651. (Ex. #9) Congress
recognized that ‘‘the problem of assuring safe
and healthful workplaces for our men and
women ranks in importance with any that
engages the national attention today.’’ S. Rep.
91–1282 at 2 (1970; Ex. #17). Indeed, when
establishing the OSH Act, Congress was
concerned about protecting workers from
known hazards as well as from the numerous
new hazards entering the workplace:
Occupational diseases which first
commanded attention at the beginning of the
industrial revolution are still undermining
the health of workers. . . . Workers in dusty
trades still contract various respiratory
diseases. Other materials long in industrial
use are only now being discovered to have
toxic effects. In addition, technological
advances and new processes in American
industry have brought numerous new
hazards to the workplace. S. Rep. 91–1282 at
2.
Many of the occupational diseases first
discovered during the industrial revolution,
and which later spurred Congress to create
OSHA, still pose a significant harm to U.S.
workers. While the number of hazardous
chemicals to which workers are exposed has
increased exponentially due to new
formulations of chemical mixtures, OSHA
has not been successful in establishing
standards that adequately protect workers
from hazardous chemical exposures, even
from the older, more familiar chemicals.
OSHA’s PELs are mandatory limits for air
contaminants above which workers must not
be exposed. OSHA PELs generally refer to
differing amounts of time during which the
worker can be exposed: (1) Time weighted
averages (TWAs) which establish average
limits for eight-hour exposures; (2) short-term
limits (STELs) which establish limits for
short term exposures; and (3) ceiling limits,
which set never-to-be exceeded maximum
exposure levels.
OSHA’s PELs have existed nearly as long
as the agency itself. Most of OSHA’s current
PELs were adopted by the agency in 1971.
OSHA currently has PELs for approximately
470 hazardous substances, which are
included in the Z-Tables in general industry
at 29 CFR part 1910.1000 (Ex. #4) and in
three maritime subsectors: Part 1915.1000
(Shipyard Employment; Ex. #5); part 1917
(Marine Terminals; Ex. #140); and part 1918
(Longshoring; Ex. #141). Z-Tables that apply
in construction are found at part 1926.55 (Ex.
#6). There are inconsistencies in the PELs
that apply across industry sectors which
resulted from the regulatory history of each
divergent industry sector.
As discussed in further detail below, the
Agency attempted to update the general
industry PELs in 1989, but that revision was
vacated by judicial decision in 1992. As
such, the 1971 PELs remain the exposure
limits with which most U.S. workplaces are
required to comply. The Agency also
promulgates ‘‘comprehensive’’ substancespecific standards (e.g., lead, methylene
chloride) which, in addition to PELs, require
additional ancillary provisions such as
housekeeping, exposure monitoring, and
medical surveillance.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
II. OSHA’s Statutory Authority, Adoption of
the PELs in 1971, and the 1989 Attempted
Revision
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. The Purpose of the OSH Act and OSHA’s
Authority To Regulate Hazardous Chemicals
The OSH Act vests the Secretary of Labor
with the power to ‘‘promulgate, modify, or
revoke’’ mandatory occupational safety and
health standards. OSH Act section 6(b), 29
U.S.C. 655(b). An ‘‘occupational safety and
health standard,’’ as defined by section 3(8)
of the OSH Act, is a ‘‘standard which
requires conditions, or the adoption or use of
one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of
employment.’’ OSH Act section 3(8), 29
U.S.C. 652(8). (Ex. #9)
The OSH Act provides three separate
approaches for promulgating standards. The
first approach, in section 6(a) of the OSH Act,
provided OSHA with an initial two-year
window in which to adopt standards without
hearing or public comment. Additionally,
sections 6(b) and 6(c) provide methods
currently available to the agency for
promulgating health standards. Section 6(b)
allows OSHA to create and update standards
through notice and comment rulemaking,
and section 6(c) provides OSHA with the
authority to set emergency temporary
standards. OSHA has not successfully
adopted an emergency temporary standard
for over thirty years, and it is not discussed
further here.
B. The Adoption of the PELs Under Section
6(a)
Under section 6(a), OSHA was permitted to
adopt ‘‘any national consensus standard and
any established Federal standard’’ so long as
the standard ‘‘improved safety or health for
specifically designated employees.’’ 29
U.S.C. 655(a). The purpose of providing
OSHA with this two-year window ‘‘was to
establish as rapidly as possible national
occupational safety and health standards
with which industry is familiar.’’ S. Rep. 91–
1282 at 6. When establishing this fast track
to rulemaking, Congress emphasized the
temporary nature of the approach, noting that
these ‘‘standards may not be as effective or
up to date as is desirable, but they will be
useful for immediately providing a
nationwide minimum level of health and
safety.’’ S. Rep. 91–1282 at 6. (Ex. #17)
Establishing PELs was one of the first
actions taken by OSHA. Most of the PELs
contained in the Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–3
of 29 CFR 1910.1000 (Ex. #4) for general
industry, as well as those in construction and
maritime were adopted during the initial
two-year window under section 6(a). OSHA
adopted approximately 400 occupational
exposure limits for general industry that were
based on the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienist’s (ACGIH)
1968 list of Threshold Value Limits (TLVs).
In addition, about 25 additional exposure
limits recommended by the American
Standards Association (presently called the
American National Standards Institute)
(ANSI), were adopted as national consensus
standards. 36 FR 10466 (Ex. #142). Currently
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
the exposure limits that apply to construction
were derived from the 1970 ACGIH TLVs and
certain substance specific Sec. 6(b) standards.
The industry sector that is referred to today
as ‘‘Maritime’’ has a long and somewhat
confusing history. The Department of Labor
has had some authority since 1958 for the
maritime industry under the Longshore and
Harbor Workers Compensation Act (33 U.S.C.
901 et seq.). Specifically authority was
granted under Public Law 89–742 for the
Secretary of Labor to issue regulations to
protect the health and safety of
longshoremen, marine terminal workers, ship
repairers, shipbuilders, and ship breakers.
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the OSH Act, 33
U.S.C. 941 (Ex. #143) became OSHA
standards in 1971.
At that time, the Shipyard standards were
in three parts of 29 CFR; part 1915 for ship
repairing, part 1916 for shipbuilding and part
1917 for shipbreaking. In 1982 parts 1915,
1916 and 1917 were consolidated into a new
part 1915, Shipyards. As a consequence of
their history, the PELs applicable to the new
part 1915, Shipyards, are complex.
Depending upon the specific operation,
either the 1970 TLVs or 1971 PELS
(originally 1968 TLVs) apply. See §§ 1915.11,
1915.12, 1915.32 and 1915.33 (Ex. #144).
Additionally, several of the OSHA singlesubstance standards apply.
Pursuant to the Longshoremen and Harbor
Worker Compensation Acts of 1958
amendments, in 1960 OSHA issued
regulations protecting longshore employees,
along with marine terminal employees. These
regulations were adopted as OSHA standards
and later recodified. In 1983, OSHA issued
a final standard specifically covering marine
terminals (29 CFR part 1917) separately from
longshoring. The Marine Terminal Standard
basically requires that no employee be
exposed to air contaminants over the limits
set in the 1971 Z-Tables. See §§ 1917.2,
1917.22, 23, 25. (Ex. #140)
Longshoring operations continue to be
regulated by 29 CFR Part 1918 (Ex. #141).
OSHA has consistently interpreted that the
air contaminant exposure limits set forth in
1910.1000 (Ex. #4) are applicable pursuant to
1910.5(c) to longshoring because no
quantitative exposure limits are set forth for
air contaminants, other than carbon
monoxide.
As discussed above, the Agency was given
authority to adopt standards to provide
initial protections for workers from what the
Congress deemed to be the most dangerous
workplace threats. Congress felt that it was
‘‘essential that such standards be constantly
improved and replaced as new knowledge
and techniques are developed.’’ S. Rep. 91–
1282 at 6. (Ex. #17) However, because OSHA
has been unable to update the PELs, they
remain frozen at the levels at which they
were initially adopted. OSHA’s PELs are
largely based on acute health effects and do
not take into consideration newer research
regarding chronic effects occurring at lower
occupational exposures. Thus, although there
have been radical changes in our
understanding of airborne contaminants,
updates in technology, and changes to
industry practices, OSHA’s PELs are still
based on research performed during the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61419
1950s and 1960s. In contrast, the ACGIH
annually reviews chemical substances and
updates its list of TLVs®. Where OSHA
currently has PELs for approximately 470
chemical hazards, the ACGIH recommends
TLVs® for more than 700 chemical
substances and physical agents,
approximately 200 of which have been
updated since 1971. (FACOSH, 2012; Ex.
#145).
C. Section 6(b) Notice and Comment
Rulemaking
Section 6(b) of the OSH Act provides
OSHA with the authority to promulgate
health standards. OSHA promulgates two
main types of health standards: (i) PELs, and
(ii) comprehensive standards, which, as the
name implies, consist of provisions to protect
workers in addition to PELs. Section 6(b)(5)
imposes specific requirements governing the
adoption of health standards:
[T]he Secretary, in promulgating standards
dealing with toxic materials or harmful
physical agents under this subsection, shall
set the standard which most adequately
assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of
the best available evidence, that no employee
will suffer material impairment of health or
functional capacity even if such employee
has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with
by such standard for the period of his
working life. Development of standards
under this subsection shall be based upon
research, demonstrations, experiments, and
such other information as may be
appropriate. In addition to the attainment of
the highest degree of health and safety
protection for the employee, other
considerations shall be the latest available
scientific data in the field, the feasibility of
the standards, and experience gained under
this and other health and safety laws.
Whenever practicable, the standard
promulgated shall be expressed in terms of
objective criteria and of the performance
desired.
29 U.S.C. 655(6)(b)(5). (Ex. #9)
The courts have elaborated on the findings
OSHA must make before adopting a 6(b)(5)
standard. One such case, Industrial Union
Dept., AFL–CIO v. American Petroleum
Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (the Benzene
case; Ex. #10), has had a major impact on
OSHA rulemaking by establishing a
threshold requirement that before the agency
can promulgate a health standard it must
show that a significant risk of material
impairment exists, which can be eliminated
or lessened by a change in practices.
Additionally, the phrase ‘‘to the extent
feasible’’ in section 6(b)(5) has been
interpreted by the courts to require that
OSHA show that a standard is both
economically and technologically feasible.
American Textile v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490
(1981) (the Cotton Dust case; Ex. #15); United
Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189,
1264 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (the Lead I case; Ex.
#12). These cases will be discussed in greater
detail in Section III of this Appendix.
D. 1989 Air Contaminants Standard
In 1989, OSHA published the Air
Contaminants final rule, which remains the
Agency’s most significant attempt at
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61420
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
updating the PELs. Unlike typical substancespecific rulemakings, where OSHA develops
a comprehensive standard, the Air
Contaminants final rule was only intended to
update existing PELs and to add new PELs
for substances not currently regulated. As
such, the final rule did not include ancillary
provisions (e.g. exposure monitoring,
medical surveillance, requirements for
personal protective equipment, or labeling)
because OSHA determined that these
provisions would delay and unnecessarily
complicate the PELs update. Appendix B. to
this Request for Information contains the
table of PELs from the 1989 Air
Contaminants Final Rule. The table includes
both PELs originally adopted by OSHA in
1971 and the PELs established under the
1989 final rule.
In order to determine a starting point for
updating the general industry PELs for
chemicals on Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–3 of 29
CFR 1910.1000 (Ex. #4), and for creating new
PELs for some substances not listed in those
tables, OSHA analyzed existing databases
and lists of occupational exposure limits
(OELs) to determine the scope of the
rulemaking. After extensive review of all
available sources of OELs, including the
National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure
Levels (RELs), the American Conference of
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold
Limit Values (TLVs®), the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels
(WEELs), and limits from other countries,
OSHA ultimately selected the ACGIH’s 1987–
88 TLVs to identify the basis for which
substances and corresponding exposure
values that would be included in the
proposed rule. 53 FR 20977. The TLVs were
selected as a reference point because of the
number of substances they covered, the
availability of written documentation on how
the TLVs were selected, and the general
acceptance of the TLVs by industrial
hygienists, other occupational health
professionals, and industry. (53 FR 20967;
Ex. #18, 54 FR 2375; Ex. #7)
After determining the scope of hazardous
chemicals to be included in the rulemaking,
OSHA began the process of identifying the
most appropriate new PELs to be proposed.
OSHA considered both the ACGIH TLVs and
the NIOSH RELs as a starting point. (53 FR
20966–67; Ex. #18) When the TLV and REL
were similar, OSHA reviewed both the
ACGIH documentation and the NIOSH
recommendation. Where the TLV and REL
‘‘differed significantly,’’ OSHA reviewed the
studies and reasoning upon which the
NIOSH and ACGIH recommendations were
based to determine which was more
appropriate. OSHA presumed that a
significant difference did not exist between
the TLV and the REL for a chemical when:
(a) The TLV and REL values are the same;
(b) TLV and REL values differ by less than
10 percent;
(c) The TLV and REL Time Weighted
Averages (TWA) are the same, but there are
differences in the Short Term Exposure Limit
(STEL) or Ceiling (C); or
(d) The TWA in one data base is the same,
or one-half, the STEL/C in the other data
base. 53 FR 20977.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
In reviewing the evidence, OSHA first
determined whether the studies and analyses
were valid and of reasonable scientific
quality. Second, it determined, based on the
studies, if the published documentation of
the REL or TLV would meet OSHA’s legal
requirements for setting a PEL. Thus, OSHA
reviewed the evidence of significant risk at
the existing PEL or, if there was no PEL, at
exposures which might exist in the
workplace in the absence of any limit. Third,
OSHA reviewed the studies to determine if
the new PEL would lead to substantial
reduction in significant risk. 54 FR 2372.
OSHA’s determination of where the new
PEL should be set was based on its review
and analysis of the information found in
these sources. OSHA set the new PELs based
on a review of the available evidence. 54 FR
2402. Safety factors were applied on a caseby-case basis. (54 FR 2365, 2399; Ex. #7).
Based on the analysis discussed above,
OSHA summarized the health evidence for
each individual substance and determined
when and at what level a new limit was
necessary to substantially reduce a
significant risk of material impairment of
health or functional capacity among
American workers. The following example
illustrates the type of analysis that OSHA
conducted for each substance:
OSHA had no former limit for potassium
hydroxide. A ceiling limit of 2 mg/m(3) was
proposed by the Agency based on the ACGIH
recommendation, and NIOSH (Ex. 8–47,
Table N1) concurred with this proposal.
OSHA has concluded that this limit is
necessary to afford workers protection from
irritant effects and is establishing the 2-mg/
m(3) ceiling limit for potassium hydroxide in
the final rule.
[One commenter] (Ex. 3–830) commented
that there was no basis for establishing an
occupational limit for potassium hydroxide.
OSHA disagrees and notes that the irritant
effects of potassium hydroxide dusts, mists,
and aerosols have been documented (ACGIH
1986/Ex. 1–3, p. 495; Karpov 1971/Ex. 1–
1115). Although dose-response data are
lacking for this substance, it is reasonable to
expect potassium hydroxide to exhibit
irritant properties similar to those of sodium
hydroxide, a structurally related strong
alkali. In its criteria document, NIOSH
(1976k/Ex. 1–965) cites a personal
communication (Lewis 1974), which reported
that short-term exposures (2 to 15 minutes)
to 2 mg/m(3) sodium hydroxide caused
‘‘noticeable’’ but not excessive upper
respiratory tract irritation. Therefore, OSHA
finds that the 2-mg/m(3) ceiling limit will
provide workers with an environment that
minimizes respiratory tract irritation, which
the Agency considers to be material
impairment of health. To reduce these risks,
OSHA is establishing a ceiling limit of 2 mg/
m(3) for potassium hydroxide. (54 FR 2332
et seq.)
OSHA proposed making 212 PELs more
protective and setting new PELs for 164
substances not previously regulated by
OSHA. Substances for which the PEL was
already aligned with a newer TLV were not
included.
In order to determine whether the Air
Contaminants rule was feasible, OSHA
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prepared the regulatory impact analysis in
two phases. The first phase of its feasibility
analyses involved using secondary databases
to collect information on the chemicals to be
regulated and the industries in which they
were used. These databases provided
information on the toxicity and health effects
of exposure to chemicals covered by the
rulemaking, on engineering controls, and on
emergency response procedures. (54 FR 2725;
Ex. #7).
Two primary databases were used to
collect information on the nature and extent
of employee exposures to the substances
covered by the rule. One database was the
1982 NIOSH National Occupational Exposure
Survey (NOES), which collected information
from 4,500 businesses on the number of
workers exposed to hazardous substances.
The second database was OSHA’s Integrated
Management Information System (IMIS)
which contains air samples taken since 1979
by OSHA industrial hygienists during
compliance inspections. OSHA also
consulted industrial hygienists and engineers
who provided information about the
exposure controls in use, the number and
size of plants that would be impacted by the
rulemaking, and the estimated costs
associated with meeting the new PELs. (54
FR 2373, 2725, 2736; Ex. #7).
As part of the second phase of its
feasibility analyses, OSHA performed an
industry survey and site visits. The survey
was the largest survey ever conducted by
OSHA and included responses from 5,700
firms in industries believed to use chemicals
included in the scope of the Air
Contaminants proposal. It was designed to
focus on industry sectors that potentially had
the highest compliance costs, identified
through an analysis of existing exposure data
at the four-digit SIC (Standards Industrial
Classification) code level. 54 FR 2843. The
survey gathered data on chemicals,
processes, exposures and controls currently
in use, which ‘‘permitted OSHA to refine the
Phase I preliminary estimates of technical
and economic feasibility. Site visits to 90
firms were conducted to verify the data
collected on chemicals, processes, controls,
and employee exposures.’’ 54 FR 2725; see
also 54 FR 2736–39, 2768, 2843–69.
OSHA analyzed the data collected in
phases I and II to determine whether the
updated PELs were both technologically and
economically feasible for each industry
sector covered. 54 FR 2374.
For technological feasibility, OSHA
evaluated engineering controls and work
practices available within industry sectors to
reduce employee exposures to the new PELs.
In general, it found three types of controls
might be employed to reduce exposures:
Engineering controls, work practice and
administrative controls, and personal
protective equipment. Engineering controls
included local exhaust ventilation, general
ventilation, isolation of the worker and
enclosure of the source of the emission, and
product substitution. Work practice controls
included housekeeping, material handling
procedures, leak detection, training, and
personal hygiene. Personal protective
equipment included respirators, and where
the chemicals involved presented skin
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
hazards, protective gloves and clothing. 54
FR 2789–90, 2840.
OSHA found that many processes required
to reduce exposure were ‘‘relatively
standardized throughout industry and are
used [to control exposures] for a variety of
substances.’’ 54 FR 2373–74. It ‘‘examined
typical work processes found in a cross
section of industries’’ and had industry
experts identify the major processes that had
the potential for hazardous exposures above
the new PELs, requiring new controls. For
each affected industry group, OSHA
reviewed the data it had collected to
‘‘identify examples of successful application
of controls to these processes.’’ 54 FR 2790.
Based on its review OSHA found that
‘‘engineering controls and improved work
practices [were] available to reduce exposure
levels in almost all circumstances.’’ 54 FR
2727. In some cases, it found respirators or
other protective equipment was necessary. 54
FR 2727, 2813–15, 2840. For each relevant
industry sector (which was at the 2, 3, or 4
digit SIC code level, depending on the
processes involved). As the court explained
in Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 981 (Ex.
#8):
The SIC codes classify by type of activity
for purposes of promoting uniformity and
comparability in the presentation of data. As
the codes go from two and three digits to four
digits, the groupings become progressively
more specific. For example, SIC Code 28
represents ‘‘Chemicals and Allied Products,’’
SIC Code 281 represents ‘‘Industrial
Inorganic Chemicals,’’ and SIC Code 2812
includes only ‘‘Alkalies and Chlorine.’’
OSHA prepared a list of the processes
identified and the engineering controls and
personal protective equipment (PPE) required
to reach the new PELs. 54 FR 2814–39. In
almost all cases, the OSHA list showed that
the new PELs could be reached through a
combination of ventilation and enclosure
controls. 54 FR 2816–39. OSHA received and
addressed numerous comments on the
controls it proposed for use in various
industries. 54 FR 2790–2813. OSHA found
that ‘‘in the overwhelming majority of
situations where air contaminants [were]
encountered by workers, compliance [could]
be achieved by applying known engineering
control methods, and work practice
improvements.’’ 54 FR 2789.
To assess economic feasibility, OSHA
‘‘made estimates of the costs to reduce
exposure based on the scale of operations,
type of process, and degree of exposure
reduction needed’’ based primarily on the
results of the survey. 54 FR 2373, 2841–51.
For each survey respondent, OSHA identified
the processes employed at the plant and
made a determination about whether workers
would be exposed to a chemical in excess of
a new PEL. 54 FR 2843–47. For those
processes where the new PEL would be
exceeded, OSHA estimated the cost of
controls necessary to meet the PEL. 54 FR
2947–51. Process control costs were then
summed by establishment and costs ‘‘for the
survey establishment were then weighted (by
SIC and size) to represent compliance costs
for the universe of affected plants.’’ 54 FR
2851. OSHA received and addressed many
comments on its cost approach and
assumptions. (54 FR 2854–62; Ex. #7).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Based on the survey, OSHA determined
that 74 percent of establishments with
hazardous chemicals had no exposures in
excess of the new PELs and would incur no
costs, 22 percent would incur costs to
implement additional engineering controls,
and 4 percent would be required to provide
personal protective equipment only for
maintenance workers. 54 FR 2851. OSHA
estimated the total compliance cost to be
$788 million per year annualized over ten
years at a ten percent discount rate. 54 FR
2851. OSHA assessed the economic impact of
the standard on industry profits on the twodigit SIC level. Assuming industry would not
be able to pass the additional costs on to
customers, the average change in profits was
less than one percent, with the largest change
in SIC 30 (Rubber and Plastics) of 2.3
percent. 54 FR 2885, 2887. Alternatively,
assuming that industry could pass on all
costs associated with the rule to its
customers, OSHA determined that for no
industry sector would prices increase on
average more than half of a percent. 54 FR
2886, 2887. In neither case was the economic
impact significant, OSHA found, and the new
standard was therefore considered by the
Agency to be economically feasible. (54 FR
2733, 2887; Ex. #7)
The Air Contaminants final rule was
published on January 19, 1989. In the final
rule, OSHA summarized the health evidence
for each individual substance, discussed over
2,000 studies, reviewed and addressed all
major comments submitted to the record, and
provided a rationale for each new PEL
chosen. The final rule differed from the
proposal in a number of ways as OSHA
changed many of its preliminary assessments
presented in the proposal based on
comments submitted to the record.
Ultimately, the final rule adopted more
protective PELs for 212 previously regulated
substances, set new PELs for 164 previously
unregulated substances, and left unchanged
an additional 52 substances, for which lower
PELs were initially proposed. OSHA
estimated over 21 million employees were
potentially exposed to hazardous substances
in the workplace and over 4.5 million
employees were currently exposed to levels
above the old PELs or in the absence of a
PEL. OSHA projected the final rule would
result in potential reduction of over 55,000
lost workdays due to illnesses per year and
annual compliance with this final rule would
prevent an average of 683 fatalities annually
from exposures to hazardous substances. 54
FR 2725.
The update to the Air Contaminants
standard generally received wide support
from both industry and labor. However, there
was dissatisfaction on the part of some
industry representatives and union leaders,
who brought petitions for review challenging
the standard. For example, some industry
petitioners argued that OSHA’s use of generic
findings, the inclusion of so many substances
in one rulemaking, and the allegedly
insufficient time provided for comment by
interested parties created a record inadequate
to support the new set of PELs. In contrast,
the unions challenged the generic approach
used by OSHA to promulgate the standard
and argued that several PELs were not
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61421
protective enough. The unions also asserted
that OSHA’s failure to include any ancillary
provisions, such as exposure monitoring and
medical surveillance, prevented employers
from ensuring the exposure limits were not
exceeded and resulted in less-protective
PELs.
Fifteen of the twenty-five lawsuits were
settled; of the remaining suits, nine were
from industry groups challenging seven
specific exposure limits, and one was from
the unions challenging 16 substances.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), all petitions
for review were consolidated for disposition
and transferred to the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals. AFL–CIO v. OSHA, 965, F.2d
962, 981–82 (11th Cir. 1992) (Air
Contaminants). Although only 23 of the new
PELs were challenged, the court ultimately
decided to vacate the entire rulemaking,
finding that ‘‘OSHA [had] not sufficiently
explained or supported its threshold
determination that exposure to these
substances at previous levels posed a
significant risk of these material health
impairments or that the new standard
eliminates or reduces that risk to the extent
feasible.’’ Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 986–
987; Ex. #8.
After publishing the Air Contaminants
Final Rule for general industry, OSHA
proposed amending the PELs for the
maritime and construction industry sectors
and establishing PELs to cover the agriculture
industry sector. OSHA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 12,
1992, which included more protective
exposure limits for approximately 210
substances currently regulated in the
construction and maritime industries and
added new exposure limits for approximately
160 chemicals to protect these workers. (57
FR 26002; Ex. #146). The notice also
proposed approximately 220 PELs to cover
the agriculture industry. OSHA extended the
comment period indefinitely while it
considered possible responses to the Air
Contaminants court decision. Once it became
clear that an appeal would not be pursued,
the Agency halted work on the project.
III. Significant Court Decisions Shaping
OSHA’s Rulemaking Process and OSHA’s
Approach to Updating Its Permissible
Exposure Limits
OSHA’s Air Contaminants final rule is the
agency’s most significant attempt to move
away from developing individual, substancespecific standards. As discussed above in
Section II, this rule attempted to establish or
revise 376 exposure limits for chemicals in
a single rulemaking. OSHA’s efforts in
reducing occupational illnesses and the
mortality associated with hazardous
chemical exposure has largely been through
developing substance specific standards,
such as Hexavalent Chromium general
industry (29 CFR 1910.1026; Ex. #26),
shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1026), and
construction (29 CFR 1926.1026) and
Methylene Chloride (29 CFR 1910.1052; Ex.
#27). These standards, in addition to setting
PELs, establish other provisions to help
reduce risk to workers, such as requirements
to monitor exposure, train workers and
conduct medical surveillance, if appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61422
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
However, due to the associated time and
costs, promulgating comprehensive rules for
individual chemical hazards is an ineffective
approach to address all chemical hazard
exposures because of the sheer number of
chemicals and mixtures to which workers are
exposed on a daily basis. To date, only 30
comprehensive individual standards have
been successfully published by the Agency to
address hazardous chemicals in the
workplace.
The courts have had a significant impact
on OSHA’s rulemaking process by
articulating specific burdens OSHA must
meet before promulgating a standard. It was
because the Air Contaminants court found
that OSHA had failed to meet some of these
burdens that the court vacated OSHA’s
attempt to update the PELs. This section
discusses the important cases laying out
OSHA’s burdens under the OSH Act, and
summarizes the reasons the Air
Contaminants court gave for finding that
OSHA had not satisfied those burdens. These
cases influence what steps OSHA may take
in the future to update the PELs.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. The Substantial Evidence Test: OSHA’s
Burden of Proof for Promulgating Health
Standards
The test used by the courts to determine
whether OSHA has reached its burden of
proof is the ‘‘substantial evidence test.’’ This
test, which applies to policy decisions as
well as factual determinations, is set forth in
section 6(f) of the OSH Act, which states:
‘‘the determinations of the Secretary shall be
conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence in the record considered as a
whole.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(f). ‘‘Substantial
evidence’’ has been defined as ‘‘such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.’’ Cotton
Dust, 452 U.S. at 522; Ex. #15 (quoting
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S.
474, 477 (1951) Ex. #16).
Although the substantial evidence test
requires OSHA to show that the record as a
whole supports the final rule, OSHA is not
required to wait for ‘‘scientific certainty’’
before promulgating a health standard.
Benzene, 448 U.S. at 656 (Ex. #10). Rather,
to meet its burden of proof under the
‘‘substantial evidence test,’’ the agency need
only ‘‘identify relevant factual evidence, to
explain the logic and the policies underlying
any legislative choice, to state candidly any
assumptions on which it relies, and to
present its reasons for rejecting significant
contrary evidence and argument.’’ Lead I, 647
F.2d. at 1207; Ex. #12.
B. The Air Contaminants Case
OSHA published the Air Contaminants
final rule on January 19, 1989. As discussed
in Section II, the standard adopted more
protective PELs for 212 previously regulated
substances, set new PELs for 164 previously
unregulated substances, left unchanged the
PELs for 52 substances for which lower limits
had been proposed, and raised the PEL for
one substance. 54 FR 2332. The rule was
challenged by both industry and labor
groups, which both raised a series of issues
regarding the validity of the final rule.
The first issue addressed by the court was
whether OSHA’s ‘‘generic’’ approach to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
rulemaking used to update or create new
PELs for 376 chemicals in a single
rulemaking was permissible under the OSH
Act. Although the Eleventh Circuit
determined that the Air Contaminants final
rule did not fit within the classic definition
of a generic rulemaking, the court upheld the
format used by OSHA to update the PELs. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 972. The court, in
so holding, reasoned ‘‘nothing in the OSH
Act prevented OSHA from addressing
multiple substances in a single rulemaking.’’
Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 972. The court
also upheld OSHA’s statutory authority to
select the substances and determine the
parameters of its rules. However, the court
stated that even though OSHA was permitted
to promulgate multi-substance rules, each
substance was required to ‘‘stand
independently, i.e., . . . each PEL must be
supported by substantial evidence in the
record considered as a whole and
accompanied by adequate explanation.’’ Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 972; Ex. #8.
C. Significant Risk of a Material Impairment
1. The Benzene Case and Significant Risk
The significant risk requirement was first
articulated in 1980 in a plurality decision of
the Supreme Court in Benzene, 448 U.S. 607.
The petitioners in Benzene challenged
OSHA’s rule lowering its PEL for benzene
from 10 ppm to 1 ppm. In support of the new
PEL, OSHA found that benzene caused
leukemia and that the evidence did not show
that there was a safe threshold exposure level
below which no excess leukemia would
occur. Applying its policy to treat
carcinogens as posing a risk at any level of
exposure where such a threshold could not
be established, OSHA chose the new PEL of
1 ppm based on its finding that it was the
lowest feasible exposure level. This was
because Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act
requires standards to be set at the most
protective level that is feasible. See Benzene,
448 U.S. at 633–37; Ex. #10.
The Benzene Court rejected OSHA’s
approach. First, it found that the OSH Act
did not require employers to ‘‘eliminate all
risks of harm from their workplaces.’’ The
OSH Act defines ‘‘occupational safety and
health standard’’ to be standard that require
the adoption of practices which are
‘‘reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment and
places of employment’’. OSH Act § 3(8), 29
U.S.C. 652(8); Ex. #9.
Relying on this definition, the Court found
that the Act only required that employers
ensure that their workplaces are safe, that is,
that their workers are not exposed to
‘‘significant risk[s] of harm.’’ 448 U.S. at 642.
Second, the Court made clear that it is
OSHA’s burden to establish that a significant
risk is present at the current standard before
lowering a PEL. The burden of proof is
normally on the proponent, the Court noted,
and there was no indication in the OSH Act
that Congress intended to change this rule.
448 U.S. at 653, 655. Thus, the Court held
that, before promulgating a health standard,
OSHA is required to make a ‘‘threshold
finding that a place of employment is unsafe–
in the sense that significant risks are present
and can be eliminated or lessened by a
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
change in practices’’ before it can adopt a
new standard. Benzene, 448 U.S. at 642; Ex.
#10.
Although the Court declined to establish a
set test for determining whether a workplace
is unsafe, it did provide guidance on what
constitutes a significant risk. The Court
stated a significant risk was one that a
reasonable person would consider significant
and ‘‘take appropriate steps to decrease or
eliminate.’’ Benzene, 448 U.S. at 655 (Ex.
#10). For example, it said, a one in a 1,000
risk would satisfy the requirement. However,
this example was merely an illustration, not
a hard line rule. The Court made it clear that
determining whether a risk was ‘‘significant’’
was not a ‘‘mathematical straitjacket’’ and
did not require the Agency to calculate the
exact probability of harm. 448 U.S. at 655.
OSHA was not required to support a
significant risk finding ‘‘with anything
approaching scientific certainty’’ and was
free to use ‘‘conservative assumptions’’ in
interpreting the evidence. 448 U.S. at 656.
Still, because OSHA had not made a
significant risk finding at the 10 ppm level
(indeed, the Court characterized the evidence
of leukemia in the record at the 10 ppm level
as ‘‘sketch[y]’’), the Court vacated the new
PEL and remanded the matter to OSHA.
2. OSHA’s Post-Benzene Approach to
Significant Risk and Air Contaminants
In past rulemakings involving hazardous
chemicals, OSHA satisfied its requirement to
show that a significant risk of harm is present
by estimating the risk to workers subject to
a lifetime of exposure at various possible
exposure levels. These estimates have
typically been based on quantitative risk
assessments. As a general policy, OSHA has
considered a lifetime excess risk of one death
or serious illness per 1000 workers associated
with occupational exposure over a 45 year
working life as clearly representing a
significant risk. However, as noted above,
Benzene does not require OSHA to use such
a rigid or formulaic criterion. Nevertheless,
OSHA has taken a conservative approach and
has used the 1:1,000 example as a useful
benchmark for determining significant risk.
This approach has often involved the use of
the quantitative risk assessment models
OSHA has employed in developing
substance-specific health standards.
In the Air Contaminants rule, OSHA
departed from this approach. Rather, as noted
above, it looked at whether studies showed
excess effects of concern at concentrations
lower than allowed under OSHA’s existing
standard. Where they did, OSHA made a
significant risk finding and either set a PEL
(where none existed previously) or lowered
the existing PEL. These new PELs were based
on agency judgment, taking into account the
existing studies, and as appropriate, safety
factors. Both industry and union petitioners
challenged aspects of OSHA’s approach to
making its significant risk determinations.
The AFL–CIO argued that OSHA’s rule was
‘‘systematically under protective,’’ and
asserted that 16 of the exposure limits in the
final rule were too high. For example, the
AFL–CIO argued that OSHA had made a
policy determination not to lower the PELs
for carbon tetrachloride and vinyl bromide
even though the exposure limits chosen
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
would continue to pose a residual risk in
excess of 3.7 deaths per 1,000 workers
exposed over the course of their working
lifetime. The court agreed with the AFL–CIO,
finding that OSHA failed to provide adequate
evidence to support the higher PEL chosen
by the agency. The court found that some of
the PELs chosen by the Agency were at levels
that would continue to pose a significant risk
of material health impairment, and
concluded that OSHA’s decision was due to
time and resource constraints, rather than
legitimate considerations, such as feasibility.
Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 976–77; Ex.
#8.
Conversely, the American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI; Ex. #147) argued that OSHA
set the PELs for certain substances below the
level substantiated by the evidence. AISI
argued that OSHA failed to quantify the risk
of material health impairment at present
exposure levels posed by individual
substances and instead relied on assumptions
in order to select its updated PELs. The court
agreed with the AISI, finding that although
OSHA summarized the studies on health
effects in the final rule, it did not explain
why the ‘‘studies mandated a particular PEL
chosen.’’ Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 976.
Specifically, the court stated that OSHA
failed to quantify the risk from individual
substances and merely provided conclusory
statements that the new PEL would reduce a
significant risk of material health effects. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 975.
OSHA argued to the court that it relied on
safety factors in setting PELs. Safety or
uncertainty factors are used to ensure that
exposure limits for a hazardous substance are
set sufficiently below the levels at which
adverse effects have been observed to assure
adequate protection for all exposed
employees. As explained in the 1989 Air
Contaminants rule, regulators use safety
factors in this context to account for
statistical limitations in studies showing no
observed effects, the uncertainties in
extrapolating effects observed in animals to
humans, and variation in human responses.
The size of the proper safety factor is a matter
of professional judgment. 54 FR 2397–98
The Eleventh Circuit rejected OSHA’s use
of safety factors in the Air Contaminants rule,
however. While noting that the Benzene case
held that OSHA is permitted ‘‘to use
conservative assumptions in interpreting data
. . ., risking error on the side of
overprotection rather than under protection,’’
Benzene, 448 U.S. at 656, the Air
Contaminants court found that OSHA had
not adequately supported the use of safety
factors in this rule. The court observed that
‘‘the difference between the level shown by
the evidence and the final PEL is sometimes
substantial,’’ and assumed that though ‘‘it is
not expressly stated, that for each of those
substances OSHA applied a safety factor to
arrive at the final standard.’’ 965 F.2d at 978.
OSHA had not indicated ‘‘how the existing
evidence for individual substances was
inadequate to show the extent of risk for
these factors,’’ and ‘‘failed to explain the
method by which its safety factors were
determined.’’ Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at
978. ‘‘OSHA may use assumptions but only
to the extent that those assumptions have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
some basis in reputable scientific evidence,’’
the court concluded. Air Contaminants, 965
F.2d at 978–979. See Section IV. A. for
additional discussion of the use of safety
factors in risk assessment.
Ultimately, although the Eleventh Circuit
noted that OSHA ‘‘probably established that
most or all of the substances involved do
pose a significant risk at some level,’’ the
court determined that OSHA failed to
adequately explain or provide evidence to
support its conclusion that ‘‘exposure to
these substances at previous levels posed a
significant risk . . . or that the new standard
eliminates or reduces that risk to the extent
feasible.’’ Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 987.
Therefore, the court vacated the rule and
remanded it to the agency.
3. Material Impairment
Under section 6(b)(5), OSHA must set
standards to protect employees against
‘‘material impairment of health or functional
capacity.’’ This requirement was
uncontroversial in Benzene, since the effect
on which OSHA regulated was leukemia.
However, in Air Contaminants, AISI argued
that not all of the health effects addressed by
OSHA in the final rule were material health
effects. Specifically, AISI stated that the
category of ‘‘sensory irritation,’’ which OSHA
used as an endpoint to set PELs for 79
substances, failed to distinguish between
‘‘materially impairing sensory irritation and
the less serious sort.’’ AISI brief at page 24.
The court rejected AISI’s argument. It
accepted OSHA’s explanation that material
impairments may be any health effect,
permanent or transitory, that seriously
threatens the health or job performance of an
employee, and held that, ‘‘OSHA is not
required to state with scientific certainty or
precision the exact point at which each type
of sensory or physical irritation becomes a
material impairment.’’ Air Contaminants, 965
F.2d at 975. ‘‘Section 6(b)(5) of the [OSH] Act
charges OSHA with addressing all forms of
‘material impairment of health or functional
capacity,’’ and not exclusively those causing
‘death or serious physical harm’ or ‘grave
danger’ from exposure to toxic substances,
the court held. Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d
at 975; Ex. #8.
D. Technological and Economic Feasibility
Once OSHA makes its threshold finding
that a significant risk is present at the current
PEL or in the absence of a PEL and can be
reduced or eliminated by a standard, the
Agency considers feasibility. First, the
feasibility requirement that originated in
Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act requires that
the standard be ‘‘technologically feasible,’’
which generally means an industry has to be
able to develop the technology necessary to
comply with the requirements in the
standard. Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264–65; Ex.
#12.
Second, the standard must be
‘‘economically feasible,’’ meaning that an
industry as a whole must be able to absorb
the impact of the costs associated with
compliance with the standard. Id. at 1265.
OSHA has historically made determinations
on technological feasibility and economic
feasibility separately.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61423
1. Technological Feasibility
A standard is technologically feasible if ‘‘a
typical firm will be able to develop and
install engineering and work practice
controls that can meet the PEL in most
operations.’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272.
Standards are permitted to be ‘‘technology
forcing,’’ meaning that OSHA can require
industries to ‘‘develop new technology’’ or
‘‘impose a standard which only the most
technologically advanced plants in an
industry have been able to achieve, even if
only in some of their operations some of the
time.’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264; Ex. #12.
Technological feasibility analysis generally
focuses on demonstrating that PELs can be
achieved through engineering and work
practice controls. However, the concept of
technological feasibility applies to all aspects
of the standard, including air monitoring,
housekeeping, and respiratory protection
requirements. Some courts have required
OSHA to determine whether a standard is
technologically feasible on an industry-byindustry basis, Color Pigments Manufacturers
Assoc. v. OSHA, 16 F.3d 1157 (Ex. #13),
1162–63 (11th Cir. 1994); Air Contaminants,
965 F.2d at 981–82 (Ex. #8), while another
court has upheld technological feasibility
findings based on the nature of an activity
across many industries rather than on a pure
industry basis, Public Citizen Health
Research Group v. United States Department
of Labor, 557 F.3d 165,178–79 (3d Cir. 2009;
Ex. #14).
Regardless, OSHA must show the existence
of ‘‘technology that is either already in use
or has been conceived and is reasonably
capable of experimental refinement and
distribution within the standard’s
deadlines,’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d 1272. Where the
agency presents ‘‘substantial evidence that
companies acting vigorously and in good
faith can develop the technology,’’ the agency
is not bound to the technological status quo,
and ‘‘can require industry to meet PELs never
attained anywhere.’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d 1265;
Ex. #12.
OSHA usually demonstrates the
technological feasibility of a PEL by finding
establishments in which the PEL is already
being met and identifying the controls in use,
or by arguing that even if the PEL is not
currently being met in a given operation, the
PEL could be met with specific additional
controls. OSHA is also concerned with
determining whether the conditions under
which the PEL can be met in specific plants
are generalizable to an industry as whole.
This approach is very resource-intensive, as
it commonly requires gathering detailed
information on exposure levels and controls
for each affected operation and process in an
industry. OSHA’s inspection databases
usually do not record this information, and
consequently OSHA makes site visits for the
specific purpose of determining
technological feasibility. (See Section IV. of
this Request for Information for a detailed
discussion of how OSHA determines
technological feasibility and possible
alternatives to current methods.)
As noted above, in the Air Contaminants
rule, OSHA made its feasibility
determination by gathering information on
work processes that might expose workers
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61424
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
above the new PELs, and identifying controls
that had been successfully implemented to
reduce the exposure to the new limits. It
made these findings mainly at the two-digit
SIC level, but also at the three- and four-digit
level where appropriate given the processes
involved. The Air Contaminants court
rejected this approach, finding that OSHA
failed to make industry-specific findings or
identify the specific technologies capable of
meeting the proposed limit in industryspecific operations. Air Contaminants, 965
F.2d at 981. While OSHA had identified
primary air contaminant control methods:
engineering controls, administrative controls
and work practices and personal protective
equipment, the agency, ‘‘only provided a
general description of how the generic
engineering controls might be used in the
given sector.’’ Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at
981. Though noting that OSHA need only
provide evidence sufficient to justify a
‘‘general presumption of feasibility,’’ the
court held that this ‘‘does not grant OSHA
license to make overbroad generalities as to
feasibility or to group large categories of
industries together without some explanation
of why findings for the group adequately
represents the different industries in that
group.’’ Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 981–
82. Accordingly, the court held that OSHA
failed to establish the technological
feasibility of the new PELs in its final rule.
Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982. As noted
below, in a subsequent rulemaking the
reviewing court accepted OSHA’s approach
of grouping numbers of industries.
2. Economic Feasibility
With respect to economic feasibility, the
courts have stated ‘‘A standard is feasible if
it does not threaten ‘‘massive dislocation’’ to
. . . or imperil the existence of the industry.’’
United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d
1189, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Lead I,). In order
to show this, the same court suggested,
OSHA should ‘‘construct a reasonable
estimate of compliance costs and
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
these costs will not threaten the existence or
competitive structure of an industry.’’ The
same court noted, ‘‘[T]he court probably
cannot expect hard and precise estimates of
costs. Nevertheless, the agency must of
course provide a reasonable assessment of
the likely range of costs of its standard, and
the likely effects of those costs on the
industry.’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1265; Ex. #12.
Economic feasibility does not entail a costbenefit analysis of the level of protection
provided by the standard. As the Supreme
Court noted, Congress considered the costs of
creating a safe and healthful workplace to be
the cost of doing business. Cotton Dust, 452
U.S. at 514, 520; Ex. #15. Instead, standards
are economically feasible if the standard will
not substantially alter the industry’s
competitive structure. Forging Indus. Ass’n v.
Secretary of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1453 (4th
Cir. 1985; Ex. #148). In order to make a
determination of economic feasibility, OSHA
should ‘‘construct a reasonable estimate of
compliance costs and demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood that these costs will
not threaten the existence or competitive
structure of an industry,’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d at
1272, noting that such analyses will not
provide absolute certainty:
[T]he court probably cannot expect hard
and precise estimates of costs. Nevertheless,
the agency must of course provide a
reasonable assessment of the likely range of
costs of its standard, and the likely effects of
those costs on the industry . . . . And OSHA
can revise any gloomy forecast that estimated
costs will imperil an industry by allowing for
the industry’s demonstrated ability to pass
through costs to consumers. 647 F.2d at
1266–67.
Again, courts have required OSHA to
determine whether a standard is
economically feasible on an industry-byindustry basis. See Air Contaminants, 965
F.2d at 982 (Ex. #8). Both to meet
requirements for any Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) analysis and to assure
that standards do not threaten the
competitive structure of an industry, OSHA
also analyzes the economic impacts on
different size classes within an industry.
However, OSHA is not required to show that
all companies within an industry will be able
to bear the burden of compliance or
‘‘guarantee the continued existence of
individual employers.’’ Lead I, 647 F.2d at
1265 (Ex. #12) (quoting Industrial Union
Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467,
478 (D.C. Cir. 1974) Ex. #55)).
As discussed above, OSHA supported its
economic feasibility findings for the 1989 Air
Contaminants rule based primarily on the
results of a survey of over 5700 businesses,
summarizing the projected cost of
compliance at the two-digit SIC industry
sector level. It found that compliance costs
would average less than one percent of
profits, and, alternatively, that prices would
increase by less than one half percent.
Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit held that
OSHA had failed to meet its burden. The
court held that OSHA was required to show
that the rule was economically feasible on an
industry-by industry basis, and that OSHA
had not shown that its analyses at the twodigit SIC industry sector level were
appropriate to meet this burden. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982. OSHA argued
the generic nature of the rulemaking allowed
the agency ‘‘a great latitude in grouping
industries in order to estimate ‘average’
costs,’’ and that ‘‘the costs were sufficiently
low per sector to demonstrate feasibility not
only for each sector, but each sub-sector.’’ Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 983. However, the
court found that ‘‘average estimates of cost
can be extremely misleading in assessing the
impact of particular standards on individual
industries’’ and observed that ‘‘analyzing the
economic impact for an entire sector could
conceal particular industries laboring under
special disabilities and likely to fail as a
result of enforcement.’’ Air Contaminants,
965 F.2d at 982. The court allowed that
OSHA could ‘‘find and explain that certain
impacts and standards do apply to entire
sectors of an industry’’ if ‘‘coupled with a
showing that there are no disproportionately
affected industries within the group.’’ Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982 n.28. But in
this case, the court found, OSHA had not
explained why its use of such a ‘‘broad
grouping was appropriate.’’ Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 983; Ex. #8.
Ultimately, the court held that OSHA did
not sufficiently explain or support its
threshold determination that exposures
above the new PELs posed significant risks
of material health impairment, or that the
new PELs eliminated or reduced the risks to
the extent feasible. Finding that ‘‘OSHA’s
overall approach to this rulemaking is . . .
flawed,’’ the court vacated the entire Air
Contaminant rulemaking, rather than just the
23 chemicals that were contested by union
and industry representatives. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 987(Ex. #8).
The Eleventh Circuit denied OSHA’s
petition for rehearing. No longer having a
basis to enforce the 1989 PELs, OSHA
directed its compliance officers to stop
enforcing the updated limits through a
memo, which was followed by a Federal
Register Notice on June 30, 1993, revoking
the new limits. 58 FR 35338–35351; (Ex.
#19).
Appendix B: 1989 PELs Table
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
STEL
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ppm
Acetaldehyde ......................................................................
Acetic acid ..........................................................................
Acetic anhydride .................................................................
Acetone ..............................................................................
Acetonitrile ..........................................................................
2-Acetylamino-fluorine; see 1910.1014 ..............................
Acetylene dichloride; see 1,2-Dichloroethylene .................
Acetylene tetrabromide ......................................................
Acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin) ...............................................
Acrolein ...............................................................................
Acrylamide ..........................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Ceiling
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
270
................
................
24006
105
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
20
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.8
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
75–07–0 ...............
64–19–7 ...............
108–24–7 .............
67–64–1 ...............
75–05–8 ...............
53–96–3.
540–59–0.
79–27–6 ...............
50–78–2 ...............
107–02–8 .............
79–06–1 ...............
Frm 00042
mg/m3
100
10
................
750
40
1
................
0.1
................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ppm
mg/m3
180
25
................
1800
70
150
................
................
1000
60
14
5
0.25
0.03
................
................
0.3
................
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61425
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
STEL
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
................
................
................
10
6
44
18
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
X
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
2
0.2
................
10
................
................
35
................
................
................
27
20
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
100
125
2
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
525
650
8
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
0.05
................
................
................
................
0.2
................
5
0.2
0.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
10
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
94–36–0 ...............
100–44–7 .............
7440–41–7 ...........
92–52–4.
1304–82–1.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
1304–82–1 ...........
................
1
0.002
5
5
................
................
................
1.005
................
................
................
................
................
0.025
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
15
5
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1330–43–4 ...........
1303–96–4 ...........
12179–04–3 .........
1303–86–2.
Total dust .............
Respirable Fraction.
10294–33–4 .........
7637–07–2 ...........
314–40–9 .............
7726–95–6 ...........
7789–30–2 ...........
75–25–2 ...............
106–99–0.
106–97–8 .............
109–79–5.
78–93–3 ...............
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
10
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
0.1
0.1
0.5
................
................
10
0.7
0.7
5
................
................
................
0.3
................
................
................
................
................
2
................
................
1
1
................
................
................
................
10
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
800
1900
................
................
................
................
................
200
590
300
885
................
................
................
ppm
Acrylic acid .........................................................................
Acrylonitrile; see 1910.1045 ...............................................
Aldrin ..................................................................................
Allyl alcohol ........................................................................
Allyl chloride .......................................................................
Allyl glycidyl ether (AGE) ...................................................
Allyl propyl disulfide ............................................................
alpha-Alumina .....................................................................
Aluminum (as Al) Metal ......................................................
4-Aminodiphenyl; see 1910.1011 .......................................
2-Aminoethanol; see Ethanolamine ...................................
2-Aminopyridine ..................................................................
Amitrole ..............................................................................
Ammonia ............................................................................
Ammonium chloride fume ..................................................
Ammonium sulfamate .........................................................
n-Amyl acetate ...................................................................
Sec-Amyl acetate ...............................................................
Aniline and homologs .........................................................
Anisidine (o-, p-isomers) ....................................................
Antimony and compounds (as Sb) .....................................
ANTU (alpha naphthyl-thiourea) ........................................
Arsenic, organic compounds (as As) .................................
Arsenic, inorganic compounds (as As); see 1910.1018 ....
Arsine .................................................................................
Asbestos; see 1910.1001 ...................................................
Atrazine ..............................................................................
Azinphos-methyl .................................................................
Barium, soluble compounds ...............................................
Barium sulfate ....................................................................
Benomyl ..............................................................................
Benzene; see 1910.1028. See Table Z–2 for the limits
applicable in the operations or sectors excluded in
1910.1028.
Benzidine; see 1910.1010 ..................................................
p-Benzoquinone; see Quinone ...........................................
Benzo(a)pyrene; see Coal tar pitch volatiles
Benzoyl peroxide ................................................................
Benzyl chloride ...................................................................
Beryllium and beryllium compounds (as Be) .....................
Biphenyl; see Diphenyl .......................................................
Bismuth telluride, undoped .................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Bismuth telluride, Se-doped ...............................................
Borates, tetra, sodium salts:
Anhydrous ...................................................................
Decahydrate ................................................................
Penta-hydrate ..............................................................
Boron oxide ........................................................................
Boron tribromide .................................................................
Boron trifluoride ..................................................................
Bromacil ..............................................................................
Bromine ..............................................................................
Bromine pentafluoride ........................................................
Bromoform ..........................................................................
Butadiene (1,3- Butadiene); see 1910.1051 ......................
Butane ................................................................................
Butanethiol; see Butyl mercaptan ......................................
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone) ......................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Ceiling
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
79–10–7 ...............
107–13–1 .............
309–00–2 .............
107–18–6 .............
107–05–1 .............
106–92–3 .............
2179–59–1 ...........
1344–28–1 ...........
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7429–90–5.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
Pyro powders .......
Welding fumes .....
Soluble salts .........
Alkyls ....................
92–67–1.
141–43–5.
504–29–0 .............
61–82–5 ...............
7664–41–7 ...........
12125–02–9 .........
7773–06–0.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
628–63–7 .............
626–38–0 .............
62–53–3 ...............
29191–52–4 .........
7440–36–0 ...........
86–88–4 ...............
7440–38–2 ...........
Varies with compound.
7784–42–1 ...........
Varies ...................
1912–24–9 ...........
86–50–0 ...............
7440–39–3 ...........
7727–43–7.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
17804–35–2.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
71–43–2.
mg/m3
ppm
mg/m3
10
................
................
2
1
5
2
................
................
................
30
................
0.25
5
3
22
12
................
10
5
................
................
................
4
2
10
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
15
5
5
5
2
2
0.5
................
................
................
92–87–5.
106–51–4.
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61426
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
STEL
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
................
950
................
................
................
................
................
450
................
................
................
................
................
................
120
................
................
................
................
................
50
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
150
................
................
15
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
X
X
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
15
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
15
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
2
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
................
10,000
1
20
0.1
5
5
0.1
3.5
18,000
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
12
40
1.4
12.6
5
20
3
40
................
................
................
................
................
54,000
0
36
................
4
................
15
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
4
35
0.1
2
2
5
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
30,000
0
12
................
0.3
................
5
................
................
200
................
................
................
................
................
229
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.5
0.1
................
................
0.05
0.05
75
................
200
................
1000
................
................
15
5
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.3
................
................
0.3
0.2
350
................
1050
................
3500
1
0.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
0.3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
................
3
0.9
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.1
1
................
................
................
0.05
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.4
3
................
................
................
0.4
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
X
X
2
9.78
................
................
................
................
................
2
1000
0.1
10
6320
0.7
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
ppm
2-Butoxyethanol ..................................................................
n-Butyl-acetate ...................................................................
sec-Butyl acetate ................................................................
tert-Butyl acetate ................................................................
Butyl acrylate ......................................................................
n-Butyl alcohol ....................................................................
sec-Butyl alcohol ................................................................
tert-Butyl alcohol .................................................................
Butylamine ..........................................................................
tert-Butyl Chromate (as CrO3) ...........................................
n-Butyl glycidyl ether (BGE) ...............................................
n-Butyl lactate .....................................................................
Butyl mercaptan .................................................................
o-sec-Butylphenol ...............................................................
p-tert-Butyltoluene ..............................................................
Cadmium (all forms, as Cd); see 1910.1027 See Table
Z–2 for the limits applicable in the operations or sectors excluded in 1910.1027.
Calcium carbonate .............................................................
Calcium
Calcium
lated.
Calcium
Calcium
cyanamide ............................................................
hydroxide; see particulates not otherwise reguoxide .....................................................................
silicate ..................................................................
Calcium sulfate ...................................................................
Camphor, synthetic ............................................................
Camphor, synthetic ............................................................
Caprolactam .......................................................................
Captafol (Difolatan®) ..........................................................
Captan ................................................................................
Carbaryl (Sevin®) ...............................................................
Carbofuran (Furadan®) ......................................................
Carbon black ......................................................................
Carbon dioxide ...................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Carbon disulfide .................................................................
Carbon monoxide ...............................................................
Carbon tetrabromide ..........................................................
Carbon tetrachloride ...........................................................
Carbonyl fluoride ................................................................
Catechol (Pyrocatechol) .....................................................
Cellulose .............................................................................
Cesium hydroxide ...............................................................
Chlordane ...........................................................................
Chlorinated camphene .......................................................
Chlorinated diphenyl oxide .................................................
Chlorine ..............................................................................
Chlorine dioxide ..................................................................
Chlorine trifluoride ..............................................................
Chloro-acetaldehyde ..........................................................
alpha-Chloroaceto-phenone (Phenacy1 chloride) ..............
Chloroacetyl chloride ..........................................................
Chlorobenzene ...................................................................
o-Chloro-benzylidene malononitrile ....................................
Chloro-bromomethane ........................................................
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene; see beta-Chloroprene .................
Chloro-difluoromethane ......................................................
Chlorodiphenyl (42% Chlorine) (PCB) ...............................
Chlorodiphenyl (54% Chlorine) (PCB) ...............................
1-Chloro,2,3-epoxypropane; see Epichlorohydrin ..............
2-Chloroethanol; see Ethylene chlorohydrin ......................
Chloroethylene; see Vinyl chloride .....................................
Chloroform (Trichloro-methane) .........................................
bis(Chloro-methyl) ether; see 1910.1008 ...........................
Chloromethyl methyl ether; see 1910.1006 .......................
1-Chloro-l-nitropropane ......................................................
Chloropenta-fluoroethane ...................................................
Chloropicrin ........................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Ceiling
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
mg/m3
111–76–2 .............
123–86–4 .............
105–46–4 .............
540–88–5 .............
141–32–2 .............
71–36–3 ...............
78–92–2 ...............
75–65–0 ...............
109–73–9 .............
1189–85–1 ...........
2426–08–6 ...........
138–22–7 .............
109–79–5 .............
89–72–5 ...............
98–51–1 ...............
7440–43–9.
25
150
200
200
10
................
100
100
................
................
25
5
0.5
5
10
1317–65–3.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
156–62–7 .............
1305–62–0 ...........
1305–78–8 ...........
1344–95–2 ...........
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7778–18–9.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
76–22–2.
76–22–2 ...............
105–60–2.
Dust ......................
Vapor ....................
2425–06–1 ...........
133–06–2 .............
63–25–2 ...............
1563–66–2 ...........
1333–86–4 ...........
124–38–9 .............
75–15–0 ...............
630–08–0 .............
558–13–4 .............
56–23–5 ...............
353–50–4 .............
120–80–9 .............
9004–34–6.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
21351–79–1 .........
57–74–9 ...............
8001–35–2 ...........
55720–99–5 .........
7782–50–5 ...........
10049–04–4 .........
7790–91–2 ...........
107–20–0 .............
532–27–4 .............
79–04–9 ...............
108–90–7 .............
2698–41–1 ...........
74–97–5 ...............
126–99–8 .............
75–45–6 ...............
53469–21–9 .........
11097–69–1 .........
106–89–8.
107–07–3.
75–01–4.
67–66–3 ...............
542–88–1.
107–30–2.
600–25–9 .............
76–15–3 ...............
76–06–2 ...............
Frm 00044
ppm
mg/m3
120
710
950
950
55
................
305
300
................
................
135
25
1.5
30
60
................
200
................
................
................
................
................
150
................
................
................
................
................
................
20
................
................
................
................
15
5
0.5
5
................
................
................
................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61427
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
mg/m3
ppm
beta-Chloroprene ................................................................
o-Chlorostyrene ..................................................................
o-Chlorotoluene ..................................................................
2-Chloro-6-trichloro-methyl pyridine ...................................
Chlorpyrifos ........................................................................
Chromic acid and chromates (as CrO3); see 1910.1026.
See Table Z–2 for the exposure limit for any operations
or sectors where the exposure limit in 1910.1026 is
stayed or are otherwise not in effect.
Chromium (II) compounds (as Cr) .....................................
Chromium (III) compounds (as Cr) ....................................
Chromium metal and insoluble salts ..................................
Chrysene; see Coal tar pitch volatiles
Clopidol ...............................................................................
Coal dust (less than 5% Si02), quartz, respirable fraction
Coal dust (greater than or equal to 5% Si02) respirable
quartz fraction.
Coal tar pitch volatiles (benzene soluble fraction), anthracene, BaP, phenanthrene, acridine, chrysene, pyrene.
Cobalt metal, dust, and fume (as Co) ................................
Cobalt carbonyl (as Co) .....................................................
Cobalt hydrocarbonyl (as Co) ............................................
Coke oven emissions; See 1910.1029
Copper ................................................................................
Cotton dust, raw This 8-hour TWA applies to respirable
dust as measured by a vertical elutriator cotton dust or
equivalent instrument. The time-weighted average applies to the cotton waste processing operations of
waster recycling (sorting, blending, cleaning, and
willowing) and garnetting. See also 1910.1043 for cotton dust limits applicable to other sectors.
Crag herbicide (Sesone) ....................................................
Cresol, all isomers ..............................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Crotonaldehyde ..................................................................
Crufomate ...........................................................................
Cumene ..............................................................................
Cyanamide .........................................................................
Cyanides (as CN) ...............................................................
Cyanogen ...........................................................................
Cyanogen chloride .............................................................
Cyclohexane .......................................................................
Cyclohexanol ......................................................................
Cyclohexanone ...................................................................
Cyclohexene .......................................................................
Cyclohexylamine ................................................................
Cyclonite .............................................................................
Cyclopentadiene .................................................................
Cyclopentane ......................................................................
Cyhexatin ............................................................................
2,4–D (Dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid) .................................
Decaborane ........................................................................
Demeton-(Systox®) ............................................................
Diborane .............................................................................
Dichlorodiphenyltri-chloroethane (DDT) .............................
Dichlorvos (DDVP) .............................................................
Diacetone alcohol (4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone) ......
1,2-Diaminoethane; see Ethylenediamine .........................
Diazinon ..............................................................................
Diazomethane ....................................................................
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; see 1910.1044 ..................
2–N-Dibutylamino-ethanol ..................................................
Dibutyl phosphate ...............................................................
Dibutyl phthalate .................................................................
Dichloro-acetylene ..............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
STEL
Ceiling
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
126–99–8 .............
2039–87–4 ...........
95–49–8 ...............
1929–82–4.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
2921–88–2 ...........
Varies with compound.
ppm
mg/m3
10
50
50
35
285
250
................
75
................
................
428
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
15
5
0.2
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
0.5
................
................
................
................
................
Varies with compound.
Varies with compound.
7440–47–3 ...........
................
0.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
................
................
................
................
................
2971–90–6.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
N/A .......................
N/A .......................
................
................
................
................
15
5
2
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
8007–45–2 ...........
................
0.2
................
................
................
................
................
7440–48–4 ...........
10210–68–1 .........
16842–03–8 .........
................
................
................
0.05
0.1
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
7440–50–8.
Fume (as Cu) .......
Dusts and mists
(as Cu).
................
................
0.1
1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
10
5
22
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
2
6
................
................
................
................
................
50
................
................
10
................
300
50
25
300
10
................
75
600
................
................
0.05
................
0.1
................
................
50
5
245
2
5
20
................
1050
200
100
1015
40
1.5
200
1720
5
10
0.3
0.1
0.1
1
1
240
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.15
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.9
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.6
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
X
X
................
................
0.2
0.1
0.4
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
2
1
................
................
14
5
5
................
................
2
................
................
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
0.1
................
................
................
0.4
................
................
................
................
136–78–7.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
1319–77–3; 95–
48–7; 108–39–4;
106–44–5.
123–73–9; 4170–
30–3.
106–44–5 .............
98–82–8 ...............
420–04–2 .............
151–50–0 .............
460–19–5 .............
506–77–4 .............
110–82–7 .............
108–93–0 .............
108–94–1 .............
110–83–8 .............
108–91–8 .............
121–82–4 .............
542–92–7 .............
287–92–3 .............
13121–70–5 .........
94–75–7 ...............
17702–41–9 .........
8065–48–3 ...........
19207–45–7 .........
50–29–3 ...............
62–73–7 ...............
123–42–2 .............
107–15–3.
333–41–5 .............
334–88–3 .............
96–12–8.
102–81–8 .............
107–66–4 .............
84–74–2 ...............
7572–29–4 ...........
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61428
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
STEL
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
................
675
50
................
300
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
................
0.4
................
................
60
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
40
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
1
1000
................
5
5
6
7000
0.25
30
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
3
10
10
1
10
5
0.25
15
30
50
4
................
................
................
................
25
................
................
................
................
................
................
75
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
200
................
100
0.1
705
5
860
0.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
25
5
150
20
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
10
10
35
18
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
5
25
10
50
................
................
X
................
10
3
30
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
0.5
................
0.1
................
................
1
5
0.5
5
1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
X
................
X
................
................
25
................
0.2
................
0.2
1.5
90
0.2
1
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
X
X
................
................
100
50
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
600
235
0.5
5
2
0.1
10
10
50
150
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
900
................
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
2
................
10
5
0.1
0.1
8
0.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
X
X
3
8
6
15
................
................
................
ppm
o-Dichlorobenzene .............................................................
p-Dichlorobenzene .............................................................
3,3′-Dichloro-benzidine; see 1910.1007 ............................
Dichlorodifluoro-methane ...................................................
1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethyl hydantoin ...................................
1,1-Dichloroethane .............................................................
1,2-Dichloroethylene ...........................................................
Dichloroethyl ether .............................................................
Dichloro-methane; see Methylene chloride ........................
Dichloromono-fluoromethane .............................................
1,1-Dichloro- 1-nitroethane .................................................
1,2-Dichloropropane; see Propylene dichloride .................
1,3-Dichloropropene ...........................................................
2,2-Dichloro-propionic acid .................................................
Dichloro-tetrafluoroethane ..................................................
Dicrotophos ........................................................................
Dicyclo-pentadiene .............................................................
Dicyclo-pentadienyl iron .....................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Dieldrin ...............................................................................
Diethanolamine ...................................................................
Diethylamine .......................................................................
2-Diethylamino-ethanol .......................................................
Diethylene triamine .............................................................
Diethyl ether; see Ethyl ether .............................................
Diethyl ketone .....................................................................
Diethyl phthalate .................................................................
Difluorodibromo-methane ...................................................
Diglycidyl ether (DGE) ........................................................
Dihydroxy-benzene; see Hydroquinone .............................
Diisobutyl ketone ................................................................
Diisopropylamine ................................................................
4-Dimethylamino-azobenzene; see 1910.1015 ..................
Dimethoxy-methane; see Methylal .....................................
Dimethyl acetamide ............................................................
Dimethylamine ....................................................................
Dimethylamino-benzene; see Xylidine ...............................
Dimethylaniline (N,N-Dimethylaniline) ................................
Dimethyl-benzene; see Xylene ..........................................
Dimethyl-1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl phosphate ............
Dimethyl-formamide ...........................................................
2,6-Dimethyl-4-heptanone; see Diisobutyl ketone .............
1,1-Dimethyl-hydrazine .......................................................
Dimethyl-phthalate ..............................................................
Dimethyl sulfate ..................................................................
Dinitolmide (3,5-Dinitro-o-toluamide) ..................................
Dinitrobenzene (all isomers) ..............................................
Dinitro-o-cresol ...................................................................
Dinitrotoluene .....................................................................
Dioxane (Diethylene dioxide) .............................................
Dioxathion (Delnav) ............................................................
Diphenyl (Biphenyl) ............................................................
Diphenylamine ....................................................................
Diphenylmethane diisocyanate; see Methylene bisphenyl
isocyanate.
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether .........................................
Dipropyl ketone ..................................................................
Diquat .................................................................................
Di-sec octyl phthalate (Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate) .............
Disulfiram ............................................................................
Disulfoton ............................................................................
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol .....................................................
Diuron .................................................................................
Divinyl benzene ..................................................................
Emery .................................................................................
Endosulfan ..........................................................................
Endrin .................................................................................
Epichlorohydrin ...................................................................
EPN ....................................................................................
1,2-Epoxypropane; see Propylene oxide ...........................
2,3-Epoxy-l-propanol; see Glycidol ....................................
Ethanethiol; see Ethyl mercaptan ......................................
Ethanolamine ......................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Ceiling
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
95–50–1 ...............
106–46–7 .............
91–94–1.
75–71–8 ...............
118–52–5 .............
75–34–3 ...............
540–59–0 .............
111–44–4 .............
75–09–2.
75–43–4 ...............
594–72–9 .............
78–87–5.
542–75–6 .............
75–99–0 ...............
76–14–2 ...............
141–66–2 .............
77–73–6 ...............
102–54–5.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
60–57–1 ...............
111–42–2 .............
109–89–7 .............
100–37–8 .............
111–40–0 .............
60–29–7.
96–22–0 ...............
84–66–2 ...............
75–61–6 ...............
2238–07–5 ...........
123–31–9.
108–83–8 .............
108–18–9 .............
60–11–7.
109–87–5.
127–19–5 .............
124–40–3 .............
1300–73–8.
121–69–7 .............
Varies with isomer.
300–76–5 .............
68–12–2 ...............
108–83–8.
57–14–7 ...............
131–11–3 .............
77–78–1 ...............
148–01–6 .............
(alpha): 528–29–0
(meta): 99–65–0.
(para-): 100–25–4.
534–52–1 .............
121–14–2 .............
123–91–1 .............
78–34–2 ...............
92–52–4 ...............
122–39–4 .............
101–68–8.
34590–94–8 .........
123–19–3 .............
85–00–7 ...............
117–81–7 .............
97–77–8 ...............
298–04–4 .............
128–37–0 .............
330–54–1 .............
108–576 ...............
112–62–9.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
115–29–7 .............
72–20–8 ...............
106–89–8 .............
2104–64–5 ...........
75–56–9.
556–52–5.
75–08–1.
141–43–5 .............
Frm 00046
mg/m3
ppm
mg/m3
................
75
................
450
................
110
1000
................
100
200
5
4950
0.2
400
790
30
10
2
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61429
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
mg/m3
ppm
Ethion .................................................................................
2-Ethoxyethanol [In Process of 6(b) Rulemaking] .............
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate (Cellosolve acetate) [In Process of
6(b) Rulemaking].
Ethyl acetate .......................................................................
Ethyl acrylate ......................................................................
Ethyl alcohol (Ethanol) .......................................................
Ethylamine ..........................................................................
Ethyl amyl ketone (5-Methyl-3-heptanone) ........................
Ethyl benzene .....................................................................
Ethyl bromide .....................................................................
Ethyl butyl ketone (3-Heptanone) ......................................
Ethyl chloride ......................................................................
Ethyl ether ..........................................................................
Ethyl formate ......................................................................
Ethyl mercaptan .................................................................
Ethyl silicate .......................................................................
Ethylene chlorohydrin .........................................................
Ethylenediamine .................................................................
Ethylene dibromide; see Table Z–2 ...................................
Ethylene dichloride .............................................................
Ethylene glycol ...................................................................
Ethylene glycol dinitrate .....................................................
Ethylene glycol methyl acetate; see Methyl cellosolve acetate.
Ethyleneimine; see 1910.1012 ...........................................
Ethylene oxide; see 1910.1047 ..........................................
Ethylidene chloride; see 1,1-Dichloroethane .....................
Ethylidene norbornene .......................................................
N-Ethylmorpholine ..............................................................
Fenamiphos ........................................................................
Fensulfothion (Dasanit) ......................................................
Fenthion ..............................................................................
Ferbam ...............................................................................
Ferrovanadium dust ...........................................................
Fluorides (as F) ..................................................................
Fluorine ...............................................................................
Fluoro-trichloromethane (Trichlorofluoro-methane) ............
Fonofos ...............................................................................
Formaldehyde; see 1910.1048 ..........................................
Formamide .........................................................................
Formic acid .........................................................................
Furfural ...............................................................................
Furfuryl alcohol ...................................................................
Gasoline .............................................................................
Gemanium tetrahydride ......................................................
Glutaraldehyde ...................................................................
Glycerin (mist) ....................................................................
Glycidol ...............................................................................
Glycol monoethyl ether; see 2-Ethoxyethanol ...................
Grain dust (oat, wheat, barley) ..........................................
Graphite, natural respirable dust ........................................
Graphite, synthetic .............................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Guthion®; see Azinphos methyl .........................................
Gypsum ..............................................................................
Hafnium ..............................................................................
Heptachlor ..........................................................................
Heptane (n-Heptane) ..........................................................
Hexachloro-butadiene ........................................................
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene ..............................................
Hexa-chloroethane .............................................................
Hexachloro-naphthalene ....................................................
Hexafluoro-acetone ............................................................
n-Hexane ............................................................................
Hexane isomers .................................................................
2-Hexanone (Methyl n-butyl ketone) ..................................
Hexone (Methyl isobutyl ketone) ........................................
sec-Hexyl acetate ...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
STEL
Ceiling
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
ppm
mg/m3
563–12–2 .............
110–80–5.
111–15–9.
................
0.4
................
................
................
................
X
141–78–6 .............
140–88–5 .............
64–17–5 ...............
75–04–7 ...............
106–68–3 .............
100–41–4 .............
74–96–4 ...............
106–35–4 .............
75–00–3 ...............
60–29–7 ...............
109–94–4 .............
75–08–1 ...............
78–10–4 ...............
107–07–3 .............
107–15–3 .............
106–93–4.
107–06–2 .............
107–21–1 .............
628–96–6 .............
110–49–6.
400
5
1000
10
25
100
200
50
1000
400
100
0.5
10
................
10
1400
20
1900
18
130
435
890
230
2600
1200
300
1
85
................
25
................
25
................
................
................
125
250
................
................
500
................
................
................
................
................
................
100
................
................
................
545
1110
................
................
1500
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
3
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
1
................
................
4
................
................
2
................
................
8
................
0.1
................
50
................
................
125
................
................
................
X
................
5
................
................
................
................
23
0.1
0.1
0.2
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
25
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
X
................
................
................
................
10
5
1
2.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.1
................
................
0.2
................
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1000
................
................
5600
................
................
................
X
20
5
2
10
300
0.2
................
30
9
8
40
900
0.6
................
30
................
................
15
500
................
................
45
................
................
60
1500
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.2
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.8
................
................
X
X
................
................
................
................
................
25
10
5
75
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
2.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
400
0.02
0.01
1
................
0.1
50
500
15
5
0.5
0.5
1600
0.24
0.1
10
0.2
0.7
180
1800
................
................
................
................
500
................
................
................
................
................
................
1000
................
................
................
................
2000
................
................
................
................
................
................
3600
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
X
X
X
................
................
5
50
50
20
205
300
................
75
................
................
300
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
151–56–4.
75–21–8.
75–34–3.
16219–75–3 .........
100–74–3 .............
22224–92–6 .........
115–90–2 .............
55–38–9 ...............
14484–64–1.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
12604–58–9 .........
Varies with compound.
7782–41–4 ...........
75–69–4 ...............
944–22–9 .............
50–00–0.
75–12–7 ...............
64–18–6 ...............
98–01–1 ...............
98–00–0 ...............
8006–61–9 ...........
7782–65–2 ...........
111–30–8 .............
56–81–5.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
556–52–5 .............
110–80–5.
N/A .......................
7782–42–5 ...........
N/A.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
86–50–0.
7778–18–9.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7440–58–6 ...........
76–44–8 ...............
142–82–5 .............
87–68–3 ...............
77–47–4 ...............
67–72–1 ...............
1335–87–1 ...........
684–16–2 .............
110–54–3 .............
Varies with compound.
591–78–6 .............
108–10–1 .............
108–84–9 .............
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61430
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
STEL
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
................
21
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1.6
................
25
................
................
3
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.1
................
................
................
................
125
................
................
10
7
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
125
................
................
................
................
0.02
................
310
500
10
................
................
75
................
................
................
1.5
................
450
................
................
................
................
................
................
1185
1225
24
................
................
360
................
................
................
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
X
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
15
5
0.5
0.025
1800
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
15
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.25
................
................
................
................
10
5
1
................
1
0.1
1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
................
X
X
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
15
20
15
5
................
0.01
0.05
60
70
................
................
................
................
................
25
................
................
................
................
0.03
................
100
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
X
................
X
................
2.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
200
1000
1000
10
5
610
1650
1800
35
................
250
................
1250
................
................
760
................
2250
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
ppm
Hexylene glycol ..................................................................
Hydrazine ...........................................................................
Hydrogenated terphenyls ...................................................
Hydrogen bromide ..............................................................
Hydrogen chloride ..............................................................
Hydrogen cyanide ..............................................................
Hydrogen fluoride (as F) ....................................................
Hydrogen peroxide .............................................................
Hydrogen selenide (as Se) ................................................
Hydrogen sulfide ................................................................
Hydroquinone .....................................................................
2-Hydroxypropyl acrylate ....................................................
Indene .................................................................................
Indium and compounds (as In) ..........................................
Iodine ..................................................................................
Iodoform .............................................................................
Iron oxide (dust and fume as Fe) Total particulate ...........
Iron pentacarbonyl (as Fe) .................................................
Iron salts (soluble) (as Fe) .................................................
Isoamyl acetate ..................................................................
Isoamyl alcohol (primary and secondary) ..........................
Isobutyl acetate ..................................................................
Isobutyl alcohol ...................................................................
Isooctyl alcohol ...................................................................
Isophorone ..........................................................................
Isophorone diisocyanate ....................................................
2-Isopropoxy-ethanol ..........................................................
Isopropyl acetate ................................................................
Isopropyl alcohol ................................................................
Isopropylamine ...................................................................
N-Isopropylaniline ...............................................................
Isopropyl ether ....................................................................
Isopropyl glycidyl ether (IGE) .............................................
Kaolin ..................................................................................
Ketene ................................................................................
Lead inorganic (as Pb); see 1910.1025 .............................
Limestone ...........................................................................
Lindane ...............................................................................
Lithium hydride ...................................................................
L.P.G. (Liquefied petroleum gas) .......................................
Magnesite ...........................................................................
Magnesium oxide fume, total particulate ...........................
Malathion ............................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Maleic anhydride ................................................................
Manganese compounds (as Mn) .......................................
Manganese fume (as Mn) ..................................................
Manganese cyclopentadienyl tricarbonyl (as Mn) ..............
Manganese tetroxide (as Mn) ............................................
Marble .................................................................................
Mercury (aryl and inorganic) (as Hg) .................................
Mercury (organo) alkyl compounds (as Hg) ......................
Mercury (vapor) (as Hg) .....................................................
Mesityl oxide .......................................................................
Methacrylic acid ..................................................................
Methanethiol; see Methyl mercaptan .................................
Methomyl (Lannate) ...........................................................
Methoxychlor ......................................................................
2-Methoxyethanol; see Methyl cellosolve ..........................
4-Methoxyphenol ................................................................
Methyl acetate ....................................................................
Methyl acetylene (Propyne) ...............................................
Methyl acetylene-propadiene mixture (MAPP) ..................
Methyl acrylate ...................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Ceiling
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
107–41–5 .............
302–01–2 .............
61788–32–7 .........
10035–10–6 .........
7647–01–0 ...........
74–90–8 ...............
7664–39–3 ...........
7722–84–1 ...........
7783–07–5 ...........
7783–06–4 ...........
123–31–9 .............
999–61–1 .............
95–13–6 ...............
7440–74–6 ...........
7553–56–2 ...........
75–47–8 ...............
1309–37–1 ...........
13463–40–6 .........
Varies with compound.
123–92–2 .............
123–51–3 .............
110–19–0 .............
78–83–1 ...............
26952–21–6 .........
78–59–1 ...............
4098–71–9 ...........
109–59–1 .............
108–21–4 .............
67–63–0 ...............
75–31–0 ...............
768–52–5 .............
108–20–3 .............
4016–14–2 ...........
N/A.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
463–51–4 .............
7439–92–1.
1317–65–3.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
58–89–9 ...............
7580–67–8 ...........
68476–85–7 .........
546–93–0.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
1309–48–4.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
121–75–5.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
108–31–6 .............
7439–96–5 ...........
7439–96–5 ...........
12079–65–1 .........
1317–35–7 ...........
1317–65–3.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7439–97–6 ...........
7439–97–6 ...........
7439–97–6 ...........
141–79–7 .............
79–41–4 ...............
74–93–1.
16752–77–5 .........
72–43–5.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
109–86–4.
150–76–5 .............
79–20–9 ...............
74–99–7 ...............
...............................
96–33–3 ...............
Frm 00048
mg/m3
ppm
mg/m3
................
0.1
0.5
................
................
................
3
1
0.05
10
................
0.5
10
................
................
0.6
................
0.1
................
................
0.1
5
................
................
................
................
1.4
0.2
14
2
3
45
0.1
................
10
10
0.8
1
................
................
................
................
................
4.7
6
................
................
15
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.2
................
100
100
150
50
50
4
0.005
25
250
400
5
2
500
50
................
................
................
0.5
525
360
700
150
270
23
................
105
950
980
12
10
2100
240
................
10
5
0.9
................
................
................
................
1000
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61431
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
mg/m3
ppm
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Methyl-acrylonitrile ..............................................................
Methylal (Dimethoxy-methane) ..........................................
Methyl alcohol ....................................................................
Methylamine .......................................................................
Methyl amyl alcohol; see Methyl isobutyl carbinol .............
Methyl n-amyl ketone .........................................................
Methyl bromide ...................................................................
Methyl butyl ketone; see 2-Hexanone ...............................
Methyl cellosolve (2-Methoxyethanol) ................................
Methyl cellosolve acetate (2-Methoxyethyl acetate) ..........
Methyl chloride ...................................................................
Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) .........................
Methyl 2-cyanoacrylate ......................................................
Methyl cyclohexane ............................................................
Methyl-cyclohexanol ...........................................................
o-Methylcyclo-hexanone .....................................................
Methylcyclo-pentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (as Mn) ..
Methyl demeton ..................................................................
4,4′-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) ....................
Methylene bis(4-cyclo-hexylisocyanate) .............................
Methylene chloride; see 1910.1052 ...................................
Methylene-dianiline; see 1910.1050 ..................................
Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP) ...............................
Methyl formate ....................................................................
Methyl hydrazine (Monomethyl hydrazine) ........................
Methyl iodide ......................................................................
Methyl isoamyl ketone ........................................................
Methyl isobutyl carbinol ......................................................
Methyl isobutyl ketone; see Hexone ..................................
Methyl isocyanate ...............................................................
Methyl isopropyl ketone .....................................................
Methyl mercaptan ...............................................................
Methyl methacrylate ...........................................................
Methyl parathion .................................................................
Methyl propyl ketone; see 2-Pentanone ............................
Methyl silicate .....................................................................
alpha-Methyl styrene ..........................................................
Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI) ..............................
Metribuzin ...........................................................................
Mica; see Silicates .............................................................
Molybdenum (as Mo) .........................................................
Monocrotophos (Azodrin) ...................................................
Monomethyl aniline ............................................................
Morpholine ..........................................................................
Naphtha (Coal tar) ..............................................................
Naphthalene .......................................................................
alpha-Naphthylamine; see 1910.1004 ...............................
beta-Naphthylamine; see 1910.1009 .................................
Nickel carbonyl (as Ni) .......................................................
Nickel, metal and insoluble compounds (as Ni) ................
Nickel, soluble compounds (as Ni) ....................................
Nicotine ...............................................................................
Nitric acid ............................................................................
Nitric oxide ..........................................................................
p-Nitroaniline ......................................................................
Nitrobenzene ......................................................................
p-Nitrochloro-benzene ........................................................
4-Nitrodiphenyl; see 1910.1003 .........................................
Nitroethane .........................................................................
Nitrogen dioxide .................................................................
Nitrogen trifluoride ..............................................................
Nitroglycerin ........................................................................
Nitromethane ......................................................................
1-Nitropropane ....................................................................
2-Nitropropane ....................................................................
N-Nitrosodimethyl-amine; see 1910.1016 ..........................
Nitrotoluene ........................................................................
Nitrotrichloro-methane; see Chloropicrin ............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:11 Oct 09, 2014
STEL
Ceiling
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
126–98–7 .............
109–87–5 .............
67–56–1 ...............
74–89–5 ...............
108–11–2.
110–43–0 .............
74–83–9 ...............
591–78–6.
109–86–4 .............
110–49–6 .............
74–87–3 ...............
71–55–6 ...............
137–05–3 .............
108–87–2 .............
25639–42–3 .........
583–60–8 .............
12108–13–3 .........
8022–00–2 ...........
101–14–4 .............
5124–30–1 ...........
75–09–2.
101–77–9.
1338–23–4 ...........
107–31–3 .............
60–34–4 ...............
74–88–4 ...............
110–12–3 .............
108–11–2 .............
108–10–1.
624–83–9 .............
563–80–4 .............
74–93–1 ...............
80–62–6 ...............
298–00–0 .............
107–87–9.
681–84–5 .............
98–83–9 ...............
101–68–8 .............
21087–64–9 .........
N/A.
7439–98–7.
Soluble compounds.
Insoluble compounds total
dust.
Insoluble compounds.
Respirable fraction
6923–22–4 ...........
100–61–8 .............
110–91–8 .............
8030–30–6 ...........
91–20–3 ...............
134–32–7.
91–59–8.
13463–39–3 .........
7440–02–0 ...........
7440–02–0 ...........
54–11–5 ...............
7697–37–2 ...........
10102–43–9 .........
100–01–6 .............
98–95–3 ...............
100–00–5 .............
92–93–3.
79–24–3 ...............
10102–44–0 .........
7783–54–2 ...........
55–63–0 ...............
75–52–5 ...............
108–03–2 .............
79–46–9 ...............
62–75–9.
o-isomer 88–72–2
m-isomer 99–08–1
p-isomer 99–99–0.
76–06–2.
Frm 00049
ppm
mg/m3
1
1000
200
10
3
3100
260
12
................
................
250
................
................
................
325
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
X
................
100
5
465
20
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
25
25
50
350
2
400
50
50
................
................
0.02
................
80
120
105
1900
8
1600
235
230
0.2
0.5
0.22
................
................
................
100
450
4
................
................
75
................
................
................
................
................
................
210
2450
16
................
................
345
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.01
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.11
X
X
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
X
X
X
................
100
................
2
50
25
................
250
................
10
240
100
................
150
................
................
................
40
................
375
................
................
................
165
0.7
................
0.2
................
................
................
5
................
0.35
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
X
0.02
200
0.5
100
................
0.05
705
1
410
0.2
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
X
1
50
................
................
6
240
................
5
................
100
................
................
................
485
................
................
................
................
0.02
................
................
................
0.2
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.5
20
100
10
0.25
2
70
400
50
................
................
30
................
15
................
................
105
................
75
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
................
0.001
................
................
................
2
25
................
1
................
0.007
1
0.1
0.5
5
30
3
5
1
................
................
................
................
4
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
X
X
X
100
................
10
................
100
25
10
310
................
29
................
250
90
35
................
1
................
................
................
................
................
................
1.8
................
0.11
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
2
11
................
................
................
................
X
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61432
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
STEL
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
................
0.3
1800
................
0.006
2
................
0.6
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.05
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
................
0.015
................
................
................
................
0.03
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
10
5
1800
700
170
0.8
14
................
................
750
250
................
................
6
................
................
2250
875
................
................
28
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
400
5
................
................
1
1
15
5
1600
19
5
0.1
7
7
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
X
................
................
1
5
0.5
................
................
0.01
0.1
0.3
................
................
0.1
................
................
0.2
1
................
6
20
2
................
0.05
0.1
0.4
0.4
1
0.1
0.6
1
1
1.5
6
5
................
10
................
................
................
0.03
................
1
................
................
................
................
................
0.5
................
................
................
45
................
................
0.2
0.3
................
1
3
................
................
................
3
3
................
................
................
................
................
0.05
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.25
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
X
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
0.1
5
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
15
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
0.002
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1000
1
10
5
................
1800
2
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
2
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
10
................
200
200
25
75
0.05
100
30
0.5
840
500
105
350
0.3
360
................
................
250
250
40
110
................
150
................
................
1050
625
170
510
................
540
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
ppm
Nonane ...............................................................................
Octachloro-naphthalene .....................................................
Octane ................................................................................
Oil mist, mineral .................................................................
Osmium tetroxide (as Os) ..................................................
Oxalic acid ..........................................................................
Oxygen difluoride ...............................................................
Ozone .................................................................................
Paraffin wax fume ..............................................................
Paraquat, respirable dust ...................................................
Parathion ............................................................................
Particulates not otherwise regulated ..................................
Pentaborane .......................................................................
Pentachloro-naphthalene ...................................................
Pentachloro-phenol ............................................................
Pentaerythritol ....................................................................
Pentane ..............................................................................
2-Pentanone (Methyl propyl ketone) ..................................
Perchloro-ethylene (Tetrachloro-ethylene) .........................
Perchloromethyl mercaptan ...............................................
Perchloryl fluoride ...............................................................
Perlite.
Petroleum distillates (Naphtha) ..........................................
Phenol ................................................................................
Phenothiazine .....................................................................
p-Phenylene diamine ..........................................................
Phenyl ether, vapor ............................................................
Phenyl ether-biphenyl mixture, vapor ................................
Phenylethylene; see Styrene .............................................
Phenyl glycidyl ether (PGE) ...............................................
Phenylhydrazine .................................................................
Phenyl mercaptan ..............................................................
Phenylphosphine ................................................................
Phorate ...............................................................................
Phosdrin (Mevinphos®) ......................................................
Phosgene (Carbonyl chloride) ............................................
Phosphine ...........................................................................
Phosphoric acid ..................................................................
Phosphorus (yellow) ...........................................................
Phosphorus oxychloride .....................................................
Phosphorus pentachloride ..................................................
Phosphorus pentasulfide ....................................................
Phosphorus trichloride ........................................................
Phthalic anhydride ..............................................................
m-Phthalodinitrile ................................................................
Picloram ..............................................................................
Picric acid ...........................................................................
Piperazine dihydrochloride .................................................
Pindone (2-Pivalyl- 1,3-indandione) ...................................
Plaster of Paris ...................................................................
Platinum (as Pt) ..................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Portland cement .................................................................
Potassium hydroxide ..........................................................
Propane ..............................................................................
Propargyl alcohol ................................................................
beta-Propriolactone; see 1910.1013 ..................................
Propionic acid .....................................................................
Propoxur (Baygon) .............................................................
n-Propyl acetate .................................................................
n-Propyl alcohol ..................................................................
n-Propyl nitrate ...................................................................
Propylene dichloride ...........................................................
Propylene glycol dinitrate ...................................................
Propylene glycol monomethyl ether ...................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Oct 09, 2014
Ceiling
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
mg/m3
111–84–2 .............
2234–13–1 ...........
111–65–9 .............
8012–95–1 ...........
20816–12–0 .........
144–62–7 .............
7783–41–7 ...........
10028–15–6 .........
8002–74–2 ...........
4685–14–7 ...........
56–38–2 ...............
N/A.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
19624–22–7 .........
1321–64–8 ...........
87–86–5 ...............
115–77–5.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
109–66–0 .............
107–87–9 .............
127–18–4 .............
594–42–3 .............
7616–94–6 ...........
200
................
300
................
0.0002
................
................
0.1
................
................
................
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
8002–05–9 ...........
108–95–2 .............
92–84–2 ...............
106–50–3 .............
101–84–8 .............
N/A .......................
100–42–5.
122–60–1 .............
100–63–0 .............
108–98–5 .............
638–21–1 .............
298–02–2 .............
7786–34–7 ...........
75–44–5 ...............
7803–51–2 ...........
7664–38–2 ...........
7723–14–0 ...........
10025–87–3 .........
10026–13–8 .........
1314–80–3 ...........
7719–12–2 ...........
85–44–9 ...............
626–17–5 .............
1918–02–1.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
88–89–1 ...............
142–64–3 .............
83–26–1 ...............
7778–18–9.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7440–06–4.
Metal .....................
Soluble salts .........
65997–15–1.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
1310–58–3 ...........
74–98–6 ...............
107–19–7 .............
57–57–8.
79–09–4 ...............
114–26–1 .............
109–60–4 .............
71–23–8 ...............
627–13–4 .............
78–87–5 ...............
6423–43–4 ...........
107–98–2 .............
Frm 00050
ppm
mg/m3
1050
0.1
1450
5
0.002
1
................
0.2
2
0.1
0.1
................
................
375
................
0.0006
................
................
0.3
................
................
................
................
................
0.005
................
................
15
5
0.01
0.5
0.5
................
................
600
200
25
0.1
3
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61433
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
STEL
Ceiling
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
Cas No.
mg/m3
ppm
Propylene imine ..................................................................
Propylene oxide ..................................................................
Propyne; see Methyl acetylene ..........................................
Pyrethrum ...........................................................................
Pyridine ...............................................................................
Quinone ..............................................................................
Resorcinol ...........................................................................
Rhodium (as Rh), metal fume and insoluble compounds
Rhodium (as Rh), soluble compounds ...............................
Ronnel ................................................................................
Rosin core solder pyrolysis products, as formaldehyde ....
Rotenone ............................................................................
Rouge.
Selenium compounds (as Se) ............................................
Selenium hexafluoride (as Se) ...........................................
Silica, amorphous, precipitated and gel .............................
Silica, amorphous, diatomaceous earth, containing less
than 1% crystalline silica.
Silica, crystalline cristobalite respirable dust .....................
Silica, crystalline, quartz, respirable dust ...........................
Silica, crystalline tripoli (as quartz), respirable dust ..........
Silica, crystalline tridymite respirable dust .........................
Silica, fused, respirable dust ..............................................
ppm
mg/m3
75–55–8 ...............
75–56–9 ...............
74–99–7.
8003–34–7 ...........
110–86–1 .............
106–51–4 .............
108–46–3 .............
7440–16–6 ...........
7440–16–6 ...........
299–84–3 .............
...............................
83–79–4 ...............
2
20
5
50
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
5
0.1
10
................
................
................
................
................
5
15
0.4
45
0.1
0.001
10
0.1
5
................
................
................
20
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
90
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7782–49–2 ...........
7783–79–1 ...........
...............................
68855–54–9 .........
................
................
................
0.05
................
................
10
5
0.2
0.4
6
6
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
14464–46–1 .........
14808–60–7 .........
1317–95–9 ...........
15468–32–3 .........
60676–86–0 .........
................
................
................
................
................
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
Silicates (less than 1% crystalline silica)
Mica (respirable dust) .........................................................
Soapstone, total dust .........................................................
Soapstone, respirable dust ................................................
Talc (containing asbestos): Use asbestos limit; see
1910.1001.
Talc (containing no asbestos), respirable dust ..................
Tremolite;
asbestiform—see
1910.1001;
nonasbestiform—see 57 FR 24310, June 8, 1992.
Silicon .................................................................................
Silicon carbide ....................................................................
Silicon tetrahydride .............................................................
Silver, metal and soluble compounds (as Ag) ...................
Soapstone; see Silicates
Sodium azide ......................................................................
Sodium bisulfite ..................................................................
Sodium fluoroacetate .........................................................
Sodium hydroxide ...............................................................
Sodium metabisulfite ..........................................................
Starch .................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Stibine .................................................................................
Stoddard solvent ................................................................
Strychnine ...........................................................................
Styrene ...............................................................................
Subtilisins (Proteolytic enzymes) .......................................
Sucrose ..............................................................................
Sulfur dioxide ......................................................................
Sulfur hexafluoride .............................................................
Sulfuric acid ........................................................................
Sulfur monochloride ...........................................................
Sulfur pentafluoride ............................................................
Sulfur tetrafluoride ..............................................................
Sulfuryl fluoride ...................................................................
Sulprofos ............................................................................
Systox®; see Demeton .......................................................
2,4,5–T ...............................................................................
Talc; see Silicates.
Tantalum, metal and oxide dust .........................................
TEDP (Sulfotep) .................................................................
Tellurium and compounds (as Te) .....................................
Tellurium hexafluoride (as Te) ...........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
12001–26–2 .........
...............................
...............................
................
................
................
3
6
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
14807–96–6 .........
...............................
................
................
2
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
10
5
7
0.01
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
0.05
................
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.15
................
................
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.3
................
................
2
................
X
X
................
X
................
................
................
................
0.1
100
................
50
................
15
5
0.5
525
0.15
215
................
................
................
................
................
................
100
................
................
................
................
................
................
425
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0. 00006
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
2
1000
................
................
................
................
5
................
15
5
5
6000
1
................
................
................
20
1
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
................
10
................
................
................
13
................
................
................
................
................
40
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
0.01
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
6
0.1
0.4
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.02
5
0.2
0.1
0.2
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
7440–21–3.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
409–21–2.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7803–62–5 ...........
7440–22–4 ...........
26628–22–8.
(as HN3) ...............
(as NaN3 ) ............
7631–90–5 ...........
62–74–8 ...............
1310–73–2 ...........
7681–57–4 ...........
9005–25–8.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7803–52–3 ...........
8052–41–3 ...........
57–24–9 ...............
100–42–5 .............
1395–21–7 ...........
57–50–1.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7446–09–5 ...........
2551–62–4 ...........
7664–93–9 ...........
10025–67–9 .........
5714–22–7 ...........
7783–60–0 ...........
2699–79–8 ...........
35400–43–2 .........
8065–48–3.
93–76–5 ...............
7440–25–7 ...........
3689–24–5 ...........
13494–80–9 .........
7783–80–4 ...........
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61434
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
STEL
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.5
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
X
................
................
250
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
735
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
X
X
................
................
X
X
10
5
4
................
5
2
0.1
2
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
1
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
100
0.005
2
5
2
10
5
375
0.04
9
22
9
................
................
150
0.02
................
................
................
................
................
560
0.15
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
X
0.2
1
................
2.5
7
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
................
................
40
................
................
................
10
50
45
270
................
200
................
1080
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
10
1000
10
1000
0.005
10
25
2
5
60
7600
40
6100
0.04
24
125
10
................
................
1250
15
................
................
15
................
................
................
................
9500
60
................
................
36
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.5
0.1
5
3
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
................
................
5
................
10
................
................
................
................
1
................
3
................
................
................
100
560
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.05
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.2
................
0.6
................
................
................
50
175
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.05
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.05
................
................
................
................
................
................
15
................
................
................
................
................
ppm
Temephos ...........................................................................
TEPP ..................................................................................
Terphenyls ..........................................................................
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloro-2,2-difluoroethane ...............................
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro 1,2-difluoroethane ...............................
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-ethane .................................................
Tetrachoro-ethylene; see Perchloro-ethylene ....................
Tetrachloro-methane; see Carbon tetrachloride ................
Tetrachloro-naphthalene ....................................................
Tetraethyl lead (as Pb) .......................................................
Tetrahydrofuran ..................................................................
Tetramethyl lead (as Pb) ....................................................
Tetramethyl succinonitrile ...................................................
Tetranitro-methane .............................................................
Tetrasodium pyrophosphate ...............................................
Tetryl (2,4,6-Trinitro-phenyl-methyl-nitramine) ...................
Thallium, soluble compounds (as Tl) .................................
4,4′-Thiobis (6-tert-Butyl-m-cresol) .....................................
Thioglycolic acid .................................................................
Thionyl chloride ..................................................................
Thiram ................................................................................
Tin, inorganic compounds (except oxides) (as Sn) ...........
Tin, organic compounds (as Sn) ........................................
Tin oxide (as Sn) ................................................................
Titanium dioxide .................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Toluene ...............................................................................
Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate (TDI) ..........................................
m-Toluidine .........................................................................
o-Toluidine ..........................................................................
p-Toluidine ..........................................................................
Toxaphene; see Chlorinated camphene ............................
Tremolite; see Silicates ......................................................
Tributyl phosphate ..............................................................
Trichloroacetic acid ............................................................
1,2,4-Trichloro-benzene .....................................................
1,1,1-Trichloroethane; see Methyl chloroform ...................
1,1,2-Trichloroethane .........................................................
Trichloro-ethylene ...............................................................
Trichloro-methane; see Chloroform ...................................
Trichloro-naphthalene .........................................................
1,2,3-Trichloropropane .......................................................
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane ...................................
Triethylamine ......................................................................
Trifluorobromo-methane .....................................................
Trimellitic anhydride ...........................................................
Trimethylamine ...................................................................
Trimethyl benzene ..............................................................
Trimethyl phosphite ............................................................
2,4,6-Trinitrophenyl; see Picric acid ...................................
2,4,6-Trinitrophenylmethyl nitramine; see Tetryl ................
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) .................................................
Triorthocresyl phosphate ....................................................
Triphenyl amine ..................................................................
Triphenyl phosphate ...........................................................
Tungsten (as W) .................................................................
Turpentine ..........................................................................
Uranium (as U) ...................................................................
n-Valeraldehyde .................................................................
Vanadium ...........................................................................
Vegetable Oil Mist ..............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:11 Oct 09, 2014
Ceiling
Cas No.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
3383–96–8.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
107–49–3 .............
26140–60–3 .........
76–11–9 ...............
76–12–0 ...............
79–34–5 ...............
127–18–4.
56–23–5.
1335–88–2 ...........
78–00–2 ...............
109–99–9 .............
75–74–1 ...............
3333–52–6 ...........
509–14–8 .............
7722–88–5 ...........
479–45–8 .............
7440–28–0 ...........
96–69–5.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
68–11–1 ...............
7719–09–7 ...........
137–26–8 .............
7440–31–5 ...........
7440–31–5 ...........
7440–31–5 ...........
13463–67–7.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
108–88–3 .............
584–84–9 .............
108–44–1 .............
95–53–4 ...............
106–49–0 .............
8001–35–2.
N/A.
126–73–8 .............
76–03–9 ...............
120–82–1 .............
71–55–6.
79–00–5 ...............
79–01–6 ...............
67–66–3.
1321–65–9 ...........
96–18–4 ...............
76–13–1 ...............
121–44–8 .............
75–63–8 ...............
552–30–7 .............
75–50–3 ...............
25551–13–7 .........
121–45–9 .............
88–89–1.
479–45–8.
118–96–1 .............
78–30–8 ...............
603–34–9 .............
115–86–6 .............
7440–33–7.
Insoluble compounds.
Soluble compounds.
8006–64–2 ...........
7440–61–1.
Soluble compounds.
Insoluble compounds.
110–62–3 .............
1314–62–1.
Respirable Dust as
V205.
Fume (as V205) ...
N/A.
Total dust .............
Frm 00052
mg/m3
ppm
mg/m3
................
................
................
................
500
500
1
10
5
0.05
................
4170
4170
7
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
200
................
0.5
1
................
................
................
2
0.075
590
0.075
3
8
5
0.1
0.1
................
................
1
................
................
................
................
................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61435
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE Z–1–A—LIMITS FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued
[From the vacated 1989 final rule—Ex. #149]
TWA
Substance
mg/m3
ppm
Vinyl acetate .......................................................................
Vinyl benzene; see Styrene ...............................................
Vinyl bromide ......................................................................
Vinyl chloride; see 1910.1017 ............................................
Vinyl cyanide; see Acrylonitrile ..........................................
Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide ..................................................
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloro-ethylene) .......................
Vinyl toluene .......................................................................
VM & P Naphtha ................................................................
Warfarin ..............................................................................
Welding fumes (total particulate)* ......................................
Wood dust, all soft and hard woods, except Western red
cedar.
Wood dust, western red cedar ...........................................
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-isomers) ................................................
m-Xylene alpha, alpha’ diamine .........................................
Xylidine ...............................................................................
Yttrium ................................................................................
Zinc chloride fume ..............................................................
Zinc chromate (as CrO3); see 910.1026. See Table Z–2
for the exposure limit for any operations or sectors
where the exposure limit in 1910.1026 is stayed or are
otherwise not in effect.
Zinc oxide fume ..................................................................
Zinc oxide ...........................................................................
Zinc stearate .......................................................................
Zirconium compounds (as Zr) ............................................
1(30
Ceiling
Respirable fraction
108–05–4 .............
100–42–5.
593–60–2 .............
75–01–4.
107–13–1.
106–87–6 .............
75–35–4 ...............
25013–15–4 .........
8032–32–4 ...........
81–81–2 ...............
N/A .......................
N/A .......................
ppm
mg/m3
ppm
mg/m3
Skin
Designation
................
10
5
30
................
20
................
60
................
................
................
................
................
................
5
20
................
................
................
................
................
10
1
100
300
................
................
................
60
4
480
1350
0.1
5
5
................
................
................
400
................
................
................
................
................
................
1800
................
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
X
................
................
................
................
................
................
N/A .......................
1330–20–7 ...........
1477–55–0 ...........
1300–73–8 ...........
7440–65–5 ...........
7646–85–7 ...........
Varies with compound.
................
100
................
2
................
................
2.5
435
................
10
1
1
................
150
................
................
................
................
................
655
................
................
................
2
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
0.1
................
................
................
................
................
X
X
................
................
1314–13–2 ...........
1314–13–2.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
557–05–1.
Total dust .............
Respirable fraction
7440–67–7 ...........
................
5
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10
5
5
................
................
................
................
................
10
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
minutes).
References by Exhibit Number
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
STEL
Cas No.
Ex. #1: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2013a). 2012 Chemical Data
Reporting Results. Retrieved from: https://
epa.gov/cdr/pubs/guidance/cdr_
factsheets.html.
Ex. #2: Hogue, C. (2007). Point/Counterpoint:
The Future of U.S. Chemical Regulation.
Chemical and Engineering News, 85(2),
34–38.
Ex. #3: European Chemicals Agency. (2013).
Registered Substances. Retrieved from:
https://echa.europa.eu/information-onchemicals/registered-substances.
Ex. #4: Air Contaminants, Tables Z–1, Z–2,
and Z–3, 29 CFR 1910.1000 (2012).
Ex. #5: Air Contaminants, 29 CFR 1915.1000
(2012).
Ex. #6: Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and
mists, 29 CFR 1926.55 (2012).
Ex. #7: Air Contaminants, 54 FR 2332 (Jan.
19, 1989).
Ex. #8: AFL–CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962
(11th Cir. 1992) (‘‘Air Contaminants’’).
Ex. #9: Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651, 652(8), 655(a),
655(b)(5), 655(f) (2006).
Ex. #10: Industrial Union Dept., AFL–CIO v.
American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S.
607 (1980) (‘‘Benzene’’).
Ex. #11: Occupational Exposure to
Formaldehyde Final Rule, 52 FR 46168
(December 4, 1987).
Ex. #12: United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647
F.2d 1189 at 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (‘‘Lead
I’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Ex. #13: Color Pigments Manufacturers
Assoc. v. OSHA, 16 F.3d 1157, 1162–63
(11th Cir. 1994).
Ex. #14: Public Citizen Health Research
Group v. United States Department of
Labor, 557 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2009).
Ex. #15: American Textile v. Donovan, 452
U.S. 490 (1981) (‘‘Cotton Dust’’).
Ex. #16: Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB,
340 U.S. 474 (1951).
Ex. #17: Senate Report (Labor and Pubic
Welfare Committee) S. REP. 91–1282
(1970).
Ex. #18: Air Contaminants Proposed Rule, 53
FR 20960 (Jun. 7, 1988).
Ex. #19: Air Contaminants Final Rule, 58 FR
35338 (Jun. 30, 1993).
Ex. #20: Unified Agenda, The Regulatory
Plan, DOL–OSHA, Permissible Exposure
Limits (PELS) for Air Contaminants, 60
FR 59628 (Nov. 28, 1995).
Ex. #21: Notice of Public Meeting on
Updating Permissible Exposure Limits
(PELs) for Air Contaminants, 61 FR 1947
(Jan. 24, 1996).
Ex. #22: Unified Agenda, The Regulatory
Plan, DOL–OSHA, Permissible Exposure
Limits (PELS) for Air Contaminants, 66
FR 61882 (Dec. 3, 2001).
Ex. #23: National Research Council. (2012).
Exposure science in the 21st century: a
vision and a strategy. Retrieved from:
https://nap.edu/catalog.php?record_
id=13507.
Ex. #24: National Research Council. (2009).
Science and decisions: advancing risk
assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.
nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12209.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Ex. #25: National Research Council. (2007).
Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a
vision and a strategy. Retrieved from:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_
id=11970.
Ex. #26: Occupational Exposure to
Hexavalent Chromium, 71 FR 10099
(Feb. 28, 2006).
Ex. #27: Occupational Exposure to Methylene
Chloride, 62 FR 1494 (Jan. 10, 1997).
Ex. #28: National Research Council. (1983).
Risk assessment in the federal
government: managing the process.
Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu/
openbook.php?isbn=0309033497.
Ex. #29: Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment
and disease: association or causation?
Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Medicine, 58(5), 295–300.
Ex. #30: Rothman, K.J., Greenland, S. Modern
Epidemiology. Philadelphia, Pa.:
Lippincott, 1998.
Ex. #31: Environmental Protection Agency—
Integrated Risk Information System
(1994) Methods for derivation of
inhalation reference concentrations and
applications of inhalation dosimetry.
Washington, DC (EPA/600/8–90/066f).
Ex. #32: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2005). Guidelines for
carcinogen risk assessment (EPA/630/P–
03/001F).
Ex. #33: European Chemicals Bureau (ECB).
(2003). Technical guidance on risk
assessment. Retrieved from: https://
publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/
handle/111111111/5619?mode=full.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
61436
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Ex. #34: Presidential/Congressional
Commission on Risk Assessment and
Risk Management (PCRARM). (1997).
Risk assessment and risk management in
regulatory decision-making. Retrieved
from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
pcrarm.cfm.
Ex. #35: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2002). A review of the reference
dose and reference concentration
processes (EPA/630/P–02–002F).
Ex. #36: International Programme on
Chemical Safety (IPCS). (2005).
Chemical-specific adjustment factors for
interspecies differences and human
variability: guidance document for use of
data in dose/concentration-response
assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.
inchem.org/documents/harmproj/
harmproj/harmproj2.pdf.
Ex. #37: European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA). (2012a). Guidance on
information requirements and chemical
safety assessment, chapter R.8:
characterization of dose [concentration]response for human health. Retrieved
from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/
10162/13632/information_requirements_
r8_en.pdf.
Ex. #38: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2011). Guidance for applying
quantitative data to develop data-derived
extrapolation factors for interspecies and
intraspecies extrapolation (EPA/100/J–
11/001). Retrieved from: https://www.epa.
gov/raf/files/ddef-external-review-draft
05-11-11.pdf.
Ex. #39: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
(2007). Guidance on grouping of
chemicals. (ENV/JM/MONO (2007) 28).
Retrieved from: https://search.oecd.org/
officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/
?doclanguage=en&cote=env/jm/mono
%282007%2928.
Ex. #40: National Toxicology Program (NTP).
(2013). High Throughput Screening
Initiative. Retrieved from: https://ntp.
niehs.nih.gov/go/28213.
Ex. #41: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2013b). NexGen: Advancing the
Next Generation of Risk Assessment.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/risk/
nexgen.
Ex. #42: Patankar, S.V., Numerical Heat
Transfer and Fluid Flow. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Ex. #43: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. (2011a). Experimental
and Numerical Research on the
Performance of Exposure Control
Measures for Aircraft Painting
Operations, Part I (EPHB Report No.
329–12a).
Ex. #44: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. (2010). Workplace
Safety & Health Topics: Aerosols.
Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/
niosh/topics/aerosols/internal_
research.html.
Ex. #45: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. (2011b). NORA
Manufacturing Sector Strategic Goals.
Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/
niosh/programs/manuf/noragoals/
projects/921Z6KR.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Ex. #46: Yuan, L., Smith, A.C., and Brune,
J.F. (2006). Computational Fluid
Dynamics Study on the Ventilation Flow
Paths in Longwall Gobs. Proceedings of
the 11th U.S./North American Mine
Ventilation Symposium, University Park,
Pennsylvania.
Ex. #47: Edwards, J.C. and Hwang, C.C.
(2006). CFD Modeling of Fire Spread
Along Combustibles in a Mine Entry.
Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/
niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/
cmofs.pdf.
Ex. #48: Trevits, M.A., Yuan, L., Thibou, M.,
Hatch, G. (2010). Use of CFD Modeling
to Study Inert Gas Injection into a Sealed
Mine Area. SME Annual Meeting,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Ex. #49: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and U.S. Department of Energy.
(2008). Laboratories for the 21st Century:
Best Practice Guide.
Ex. #50: National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). (1997). Use of
Computational Fluid Dynamics to
Analyze Indoor Air Quality Issues
(NISTIR 5997).
Ex. #51: National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). (2009). NIST
Technical Note 1637: Modeling the
Effects of Outdoor Gasoline Powered
Generator Use on Indoor Carbon
Monoxide Exposures.
Ex. #53: American Dental Ass’n v. Martin,
984 F.2d 823 (7th Cir. 1993).
Ex. #54: Assoc. Bldrs & Contrs. Inc. v. Brock,
862 F.2d 63 (3d Cir. 1988).
Ex. #55: Industrial Union Dep’t, AFL–CIO v.
Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Ex. #56: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2012a). High Production
Volume Information System (HPVIS).
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/
chemrtk/hpvis/.
Ex. #57: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2013c). TSCA Interagency
Testing Committee (ITC). Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/oppt/itc/index.htm.
Ex. #58: Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD).
(2013). eChemPortal. Retrieved from:
https://www.echemportal.org/
echemportal/index?pageID=0&request_
locale=en.
Ex. #59: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2014a). Computational
Toxicology Research. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/.
Ex. #60: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2014). ToxCastTM Advancing
the next generation of chemical safety
evaluation. Retrieved from: https://
www.epa.gov/ncct/.
Ex. #61: REACH Fact Sheet: Safety Data
Sheets and Exposure Scenarios.
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
(2011). REACH Fact Sheet: Safety Data
Sheets and Exposure Scenarios. ECHA–
11–FS–02.1–EN.
Ex. #62: Toxic Substances Control Act, 15
U.S.C. 2601–2629 (2011).
Ex. #63: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2013d). HPV Chemical Hazard
Characterizations. Retrieved from: https://
iaspub.epa.gov/oppthpv/hpv_hc_
characterization.get_report?doctype=2.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Ex. #64: Russom, C.L., Breton, R.L., Walker,
J.D., & Bradbury, S.P. (2003). An
overview of the use of quantitative
structure-activity relationships for
ranking and prioritizing large chemical
inventories for environmental risk
assessments. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry, 22(8), 1810–1821.
Ex. #65: U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO). (2007). Chemical
regulation: comparison of U.S. and
recently enacted European Union
approaches to protect against the risks of
toxic chemicals (GAO–07–825).
Ex. #66: Zeeman, M. (1995). EPA’s
framework for ecological effects
assessment. In Office of Technology
Assessment, Screening and Testing
Chemicals in Commerce (pp. 169–178)
(OTA–BP–ENV–166).
Ex. #67: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2012b). Ecological Structure
Activity Relationships (ECOSAR).
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/
oppt/newchems/tools/21ecosar.htm.
Ex. #68: European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA). Guidance on information
requirements and chemical safety
assessment. Chapter R.6: QSARS and
grouping of chemicals. May 2008
Ex. #69: OSPAR Commission. (2000).
Briefing document of the work of
DYNAMEC and the DYNAMEC
Mechanism for the selection and
prioritization of hazardous substances.
Retrieved from: https://www.ospar.org/
documents/dbase/publications/p00104/
p00104_briefing%20doc%20on%20
dynamec.pdf.
Ex. #70: Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council
Concerning the Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation and Restriction of
Chemicals (REACH), EC No. 1907/2006
(2006).
Ex. #71: European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA). (2012b). Information
Requirements. Retrieved from: https://
echa.europa.eu/web/guest/regulations/
reach/substance-registration/
information-requirements.
Ex. #72: European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA). (2012c). Information on
Chemicals. Retrieved from: https://
echa.europa.eu/web/guest/informationon-chemicals.
Ex. #73: European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA). (2009). Guidance in a nutshell:
Chemical Safety Assessment.
Ex. #74: European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA). (2012d). Evaluation. Retrieved
from: https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/
reach/evaluation.
Ex. #75: Kriebel, D., Jacobs, M. M.,
Markkanen, P., & Tickner, J. (2011).
Lessons learned: Solutions for workplace
safety and health. Lowell, MA: Lowell
Center for Sustainable Production.
Retrieved from: https://
www.sustainableproduction.org/
downloads/LessonsLearnedFullReport.pdf.
Ex. #76: Wilson, M.P., Hammond, S.K.,
Nicas, M., & Hubbard, A.E. (2007).
Worker exposure to volatile organic
compounds in the vehicle repair
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
industry. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, 4, 301–310.
Ex. #77: Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. (n.d.). Toxics
Use Reduction Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/
toxicsus.htm.
Ex. #78: Toxics Use Reduction Institute.
(2011a). About TUR plans and planning.
Retrieved from: https://www.turi.org/Our_
Work/Training/TUR_Planner_Program/
About_TUR_Plans_and_Planning.
Ex. #79: Toxics Use Reduction Institute.
(2011b). Trichloroethylene and
chlorinated solvents reduction. Retrieved
from: https://www.turi.org/Our_Work/
Green_Cleaning_Lab/How_We_Can_
Help/Cleaning_Research_Projects/
Trichloroethylene-and-ChlorinatedSolvents-Reduction.
Ex. #80: Toxics Use Reduction Institute.
(2011c). CleanerSolutions database.
Retrieved from: https://www.turi.org/Our_
Work/Green_Cleaning_Lab/Does_It_
Clean/CleanerSolutions_Database.
Ex. #81: Toxics Use Reduction Institute.
(2011d). TCE facts: Use nationally and in
Massachusetts. Retrieved from: https://
www.turi.org/About/Library/TURIPublications/Massachusetts_Chemical_
Fact_Sheets/Trichloroethylene_TCE_
Fact_Sheet/TCE_Facts/Use_Nationally_
and_in_Massachusetts.
Ex. #82: Roelofs, C.R., Barbeau, E.M.,
Ellenbecker, M.J., & Moure-Eraso, R.
(2003). Prevention strategies in industrial
hygiene: A critical literature review.
AIHA Journal, 64(1), 62–67.
Ex. #83: American Industrial Hygiene
Association. (2008). Demonstrating the
business value of industrial hygiene:
Methods and findings from the value of
the industrial hygiene profession study.
Retrieved from: https://www.aiha.org/
votp_new/pdf/votp_report.pdf.
Ex. #84: Lavoie, E.T., Heine, L.G., Holder, H.,
Rossi, M.S., Lee II, R.E., Connor, E.A.,
. . . Davies, C.L. (2010). Chemical
alternatives assessment: Enabling
substitution to safer chemicals.
Environmental Science & Technology,
44(24), 9244–9249.
Ex. #85: Toxics Use Reduction Institute.
(2006). Five chemicals alternatives
assessment study. Retrieved from:
https://www.turi.org/About/Library/TURIPublications/2006_Five_Chemicals_
Alternatives_Assessment_Study.
Ex. #86: Rossi, M., Tickner, J., & Geiser, K.
(2006). Alternatives assessment
framework of the Lowell Center for
Sustainable Production. Lowell, MA:
Lowell Center for Sustainable
Production. Retrieved from: https://
www.chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/
FinalAltsAssess06.pdf.
Ex. #87: Raphael, D.O. & Geiger, C.A. (2011).
Precautionary policies in local
government: Green chemistry and safer
alternatives. New Solutions, 21(3), 345–
358.
Ex. #88: Clean Production Action. (2012).
GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals v1.2.
Retrieved from: https://
www.cleanproduction.org/
Greenscreen.v1-2.php.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Ex. #89: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2011a). DfE’s standard and
criteria for safer chemical ingredients.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/dfe/
pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#.
¨
Ex. #90: Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der
Deutschen Gesetzlichen
Unfallversicherung (IFA). (2011). The
GHS Column Model: An aid to substitute
assessment. Berlin, Germany: Deutsche
Gesetzliche Unfallversicheung e.V.
(DGUV).
Ex. #91: Netherlands Ministry of
Infrastructure and the Environment.
(2002). Implementation strategy on
management of substances: 2nd progress
report. Retrieved from: https://
www.subsport.eu/images/stories/pdf_
archive/substitution_tools/15_quick_
scan_en.pdf.
Ex. #92: Identification, Classification, and
Regulation of Potential Occupational
Carcinogens, 45 FR 5258 (Jan. 22, 1980).
Ex. #93: OSHA Cancer Policy, 29 CFR
1990.111(k) (2011).
Ex. #94: OSHA Cancer Policy, 29 CFR
1990.132(b)(6) (2011).
Ex. #95: OSHA Cancer Policy, 29 CFR
1990.146(k) (2011).
Ex. #96: Respiratory Protection, 29 CFR
1910.134(a) (2011).
Ex. #97: Air Contaminants, 29 CFR
1910.1000(e) (2011).
Ex. #98: Occupational Exposure to Methylene
Chloride, 62 FR 1494 (Jan. 10, 1997).
Ex. #99: Occupational Exposure to
Hexavalent Chromium, 71 FR 10099
(Feb. 28, 2006).
Ex. #100: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (1996). Final economic
and regulatory flexibility analysis for
OSHA’s standard for occupational
exposure to methylene chloride.
Ex. #101: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (2006a). Final economic
and regulatory flexibility analysis for
OSHA’s final standard for occupational
exposure to hexavalent chromium.
Ex. #102: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (1987). Regulatory
impact and regulatory flexibility analysis
of the formaldehyde standard.
Ex. #103: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (1984). Regulatory
impact and regulatory flexibility analysis
of the final standard for ethylene oxide.
Ex. #104: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (2005). Regulatory
Review of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration’s Ethylene Oxide
Standard [29 CFR 1910.1047].
Ex. #105: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (2010). Regulatory
Review of 29 CFR 1910.1052: Methylene
chloride.
Ex. #106: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (2006b). Best practices
for the safe use of glutaraldehyde in
health care (OSHA 3254–08N 2006).
Ex. #107: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (2013a). Transitioning to
safer chemicals: a toolkit for employers
and workers. Retrieved from: https://
www.osha.gov/dsg/safer_chemicals/.
Ex. #108: American National Standard for
Occupational Health and Safety
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61437
Management Systems, ANSI/AIHA Z10–
2005 (2005).
Ex. #109: Council Directive on the Protection
of the Health and Safety of Workers from
the Risks Related to Chemical Agents at
Work, 98/24/EC (1998).
Ex. #110: Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the
Protection of Workers from the Risks
Related to Exposure to Carcinogens or
Mutagens at Work, 2004/37/EC (2004).
Ex. #111: Safe Alternatives Policy, 42 U.S.C.
7671K (2011).
Ex. #113: European Commission. (2012).
Minimising chemical risk to workers’
health and safety through substitution.
Retrieved from: https://osha.europa.eu/
en/news/eu-minimising-chemical-risk-toworkers-health-and-safety-throughsubstitution.
Ex. #114: German Federal Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA),
Hazardous Substances Ordinance
(Gefahrstoffverordnung—GefStoffV) (July
28, 2011).
Ex. #115: German Federal Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA),
Technical Rule on Hazardous Substances
(TRGS) 600 (Aug. 2008).
Ex. #116: German Environment Agency
(Umweltbundesamt). (2011). Guide on
sustainable chemicals: A decision tool
for substance manufacturers,
formulators, and end users of chemicals.
Retrieved from: https://
www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/
fpdf-l/4169.pdf.
Ex. #117: GreenBlue. (2012). CleanGredients.
Retrieved from: https://
www.cleangredients.org/home.
Ex. #118: Institute of Work, Environment,
and Health (ISTAS). (2012). RISCTOX.
Retrieved from: https://www.istas.net/
risctox/en/.
Ex. #119: SUBSPORT. (2012). Substitution
Support Portal. Retrieved from: https://
www.subsport.eu/about-the-project.
Ex. #120: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2012c). Alternatives
assessments. Retrieved from: https://
www.epa.gov/dfe/alternative_
assessments.html.
Ex. #121: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2011b). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
strategic plan for evaluating the toxicity
of chemicals. Retrieved from: https://
www.epa.gov/spc/toxicitytesting/.
Ex. #122: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (2012d). Overview of National
Research Council toxicity testing
strategy. Retrieved from: https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/nrctoxtesting.html.
Ex. #123: Washington Department of Ecology.
(2012). Ecology Quick Chemical
Assessment Tool 1.2 Methodology.
Retrieved from: https://www.ecy.wa.gov/
programs/hwtr/ChemAlternatives/
documents/QCAT2012-03-20final.pdf.
Ex. #124: Hazard Communication, 29 CFR
1910.1200 (2012).
Ex. #125: Hazard Communication, 77 FR
17574 (Mar. 26, 2012).
Ex. #126: National Safety Council,
Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
61438
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(2012) ed. Plog, B.A. and Quinlan, P. J.
Chapter 31, International Developments
in Occupational Safety and Health, Silk,
J. and Brigandi, P.
Ex. #127: Taylor-McKernan, L. and Seaton M.
(2014) The Banding Marches On, NIOSH
Proposes a New Process for Occupational
Exposure Banding. The Synergist, May,
p. 44–46.
Ex. #128: Laszcz-Davis, C., Maier, A.,
Perkins, J. (2014) The Hierarchy of OELs,
A New Organizing Principle for
Occupational Risk Assessment, The
Synergist, March, p. 27–30.
Ex. #129: Health and Safety Executive.
(2013). COSHH Essentials. Retrieved
from: https://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/
essentials/.
Ex. #130: Control of Substances Hazardous to
Health Regulations, 2002 No. 2677
(2002).
Ex. #131: Health and Safety Executive.
(2009). The technical basis for COSHH
essentials: easy steps to control
chemicals. Retrieved from: https://coshhessentials.org.uk/assets/live/CETB.pdf.
Ex. #132: Jones, R.M., Nicas, M., (2006)
Evaluation of COSHH Essentials for
vapor degreasing and bag filling
operations. Annals of Occupational
Hygiene, 50(2), 137–147.
Ex. #133: Hashimoto, H., Toshiaki, G.,
Nakachi, N., Suzuki, H., Takebayashi, T.,
Kajiki, S., Mori, K. (2007) Evaluation of
the Control Banding Method—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
Comparison with Measurement-based
Comprehensive Risk Assessment.
Journal of Occupational Health, 49, 482–
492.
Ex. #134: Lee, E.G., Slaven, J., Bowen, R.B.,
Harper, M. (2011). Evaluation of the
COSHH Essentials Model with a Mixture
of Organic Chemicals at a Medium-Sized
Paint Producer. Annals of Occupational
Hygiene, 55(1), 16–29.
Ex. #135: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2009).
Qualitative risk characterization and
management of occupational hazards:
control banding (CB), a literature review
and critical analysis (DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 2009–152).
Ex. #136: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (2009). Controlling silica
exposures in construction (OSHA 3362–
05 2009).
Ex. #137: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. (2013b). Notice of
proposed rulemaking for occupational
exposure to respirable crystalline silica.
Ex. 138: Susi, et. al. (2000). The use of a taskbased exposure assessment model (T–
BEAM) for assessment of metal fume
exposures during welding and thermal
cutting. Applied Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, 15(1): 26–38.
Ex. #139: Burg, F. (2012). Standards insider.
Professional Safety, 57(3), 24–25.
Ex. #140: Marine Terminals, 29 CFR 1917.2,
1917.22, 1917.23, 1917.25 (2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
Ex. #141: Safety and Health Regulations for
Longshoring. 29 CFR 1918 (2012).
Ex. #142: National Consensus Standards and
Established Federal Standards, 36 FR
10466 (May 29, 1971).
Ex. #143: Longshore and Harbor Workers’
Compensation, 33 U.S.C. 901–950
(2006).
Ex. #144: Occupational Safety and Health
Standards for Shipyard Employment, 29
CFR 1915.11, 1915.12, 1915.32, 1915.33
(2012).
Ex. #145: Federal Advisory Committee on
Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH). (2012). Recommendations for
Consideration by the U.S. Secretary of
Labor on the Adoption and Use of
Occupational Exposure Limits by
Federal Agencies.
Ex. #146: Air Contaminants Proposed Rule,
57 FR 26002 (Jun. 12, 1992).
Ex. #147: American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI). (1990). On Petition for Review of
Final Rule of Occupational Safety and
Health Administration: Industry
Petitioners’ Joint Procedural Brief.
Ex. #148: Forging Indus. Ass’n v. Secretary of
Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1453 (4th Cir.
1985).
Ex. #149: 1989 PELs Table. 54 FR 2332,
2923–2959.
[FR Doc. 2014–24009 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61383-61438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24009]
[[Page 61383]]
Vol. 79
Friday,
No. 197
October 10, 2014
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, et al.
Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs); Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61384]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926
[Docket No. OSHA 2012-0023]
RIN 1218-AC74
Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is reviewing its overall approach to managing chemical
exposures in the workplace and seeks stakeholder input about more
effective and efficient approaches that addresses challenges found with
the current regulatory approach. This review involves considering
issues related to updating permissible exposure limits (PELs), as well
as examining other strategies that could be implemented to address
workplace conditions where workers are exposed to chemicals. The notice
details the role of past court decisions on the Agency's current
approach to chemical management for the purpose of informing
stakeholders of the legal framework in which the Agency must operate.
It then describes possible modifications of existing processes, along
with potential new sources of data and alternative approaches the
Agency may consider. The Agency is particularly interested in
information about how it may take advantage of newer approaches, given
its legal requirements. This RFI is concerned primarily with chemicals
that cause adverse health effects from long-term occupational exposure,
and is not related to activities being conducted under Executive Order
13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
Hard copy: must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by April 8, 2015.
Electronic transmission or facsimile: must be submitted by April 8,
2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronically: Submit comments electronically at:
www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
Fax: Submissions no longer than 10-pages (including attachments)
may be faxed to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail, or messenger or courier service:
Copies must be submitted in triplicate (3) to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA-2012-0023, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand,
express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the
Department of Labor and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15
a.m. to 4:45 p.m. (E.T.).
Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (i.e. OSHA-2012-0023). Submissions, including any
personal information provided, are placed in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at: www.regulations.gov. OSHA
cautions against the inclusion of personally identifiable information
(e.g., social security number, birth dates).
If you submit scientific or technical studies or other results of
scientific research, OSHA requests that you also provide the following
information where it is available: (1) Identification of the funding
source(s) and sponsoring organization(s) of the research; (2) the
extent to which the research findings were reviewed by a potentially
affected party prior to publication or submission to the docket, and
identification of any such parties; and (3) the nature of any financial
relationships (e.g., consulting agreements, expert witness support, or
research funding) between investigators who conducted the research and
any organization(s) or entities having an interest in the rulemaking.
If you are submitting comments or testimony on the Agency's scientific
and technical analyses, OSHA requests that you disclose: (1) The nature
of any financial relationships you may have with any organization(s) or
entities having an interest in the rulemaking; and (2) the extent to
which your comments or testimony were reviewed by an interested party
prior to its submission. Disclosure of such information is intended to
promote transparency and scientific integrity of data and technical
information submitted to the record. This request is consistent with
Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011, which instructs
agencies to ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological
information used to support their regulatory actions. OSHA emphasizes
that all material submitted to the rulemaking record will be considered
by the Agency to develop the final rule and supporting analyses.
Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket go to: www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the index;
however, some information (e.g. copyrighted materials) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press
inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications, U.
S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-1999; email
meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. Technical information: Ms. Lyn Penniman,
Office of Physical Hazards, OSHA, Room N-3718, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-1950; email
penniman.lyn@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Purpose
II. Legal Requirements for OSHA Standards
A. Significant Risk of a Material Impairment: The Benzene Case
B. Technological and Economic Feasibility
C. The Substantial Evidence Test
III. History of OSHA's Efforts To Establish PELs
A. Adopting the PELs in 1971
B. The 1989 PELs Update
C. The 1989 PELs Update is Vacated
D. Revising OSHA's PELs in the Wake of the Eleventh Circuit
Decision
IV. Reconsideration of Current Rulemaking Processes
A. Considerations for Risk Assessment Methods
1. Current Quantitative Risk Assessment Methods Typically Used
by OSHA To Support 6(b) Single Substance Rulemaking
2. Proposed Tiered Approach to Risk Assessment in Support of
Updating PELs for Chemical Substances
a. General Description and Rationale of Tiered Approach
b. Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Analysis in the
Observed Range
c. Derivation of Low-End Toxicity Exposure (LETE)
d. Margin of Exposure (MOE) as a Decision Tool for Low Dose
Extrapolation
e. Extrapolation Below the Observed Range
3. Chemical Grouping for Risk Assessment
a. Background on Chemical Grouping
b. Methods of Gap Analysis and Filling
i. Read-Across Method
ii. Trend Analysis
iii. QSAR
iv. Threshold of Toxicological Concern
4. Use of Systems Biology and Other Emerging Test Data in Risk
Assessment
B. Considerations for Technological Feasibility
[[Page 61385]]
1. Legal Background of Technological Feasibility
2. Current Methodology of the Technological Feasibility
Requirement
3. Role of Exposure Modeling in Technological Feasibility
a. Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling To Predict Workplace
Exposures
b. The Potential Role of REACH in Technological Feasibility
c. Technological Feasibility Analysis With a Focus on Industries
with Highest Exposures
C. Economic Feasibility for Health Standards
1. OSHA's Current Approach to Economic Feasibility
2. Alternative Approaches to Formulating Health Standards that
Might Accelerate the Economic Feasibility Analysis
3. Alternative Analytical Approaches to Economic Feasibility in
Health Standards
4. Approaches to Economic Feasibility Analysis for a
Comprehensive PELs Update
V. Recent Developments and Potential Alternative Approaches
A. Sources of Information About Chemical Hazards
1. EPA's High Production Volume Chemicals
2. EPA's CompTox and ToxCast
3. Production and Use Data Under EPA's Chemical Data Reporting
Rule
4. Structure-Activity Data for Chemical Grouping
5. REACH: Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and
Restriction of Chemicals in the European Union (EU)
B. Non-OEL Approaches to Chemical Management
1. Informed Substitution
2. Hazard Communication and the Globally Harmonized System (GHS)
3. Health Hazard Banding
4. Occupational Exposure Bands
5. Control Banding
6. Task-based Exposure Assessment and Control Approaches
VI. Authority and Signature
Appendix A: History, Legal Background and Significant Court
Decisions
Appendix B: 1989 PELs Table
List of References by Exhibit Number
List of Acronyms: Request for Information on Chemical Management and
Permissible Exposure Limits
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ADI Allowable Daily Intake
AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association
AISI American Iron and Steel Institute
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APHA American Public Health Association
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry
BAuA Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Germany)
BMD Benchmark Dose
BMDL Benchmark Dose Low
BMR Benchmark Response
CDR Chemical Data Reporting
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (U.K.)
CrVI Hexavalent Chromium
CSTEE Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the
Environment (E.U.)
CT Control Technology
DfE Design for the Environment (EPA)
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services (U.S.)
DMEL Derived Minimal Effect Level
DNEL Derived No Effect Level
DOE Washington Department of Ecology
DOL Department of Labor (U.S.)
ECB European Chemicals Bureau (E.U.)
ECHA European Chemicals Agency (E.U.)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
ES Exposure Scenario
EU European Union
FDA Food and Drug Administration (U.S.)
GAO Government Accountability Office (U.S.)
GHS Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labeling
of Chemicals
HazCom 2012 Revised OSHA Hazard Communication Standard
HCS Hazard Communication Standard (OSHA)
HHE Health Hazard Evaluation (NIOSH)
HPV High Production Volume (EPA)
HPVIS High Production Volume Information System (EPA)
HSE Health and Safety Executive (U.K.)
HTS High Throughput Screening
IFA Federation of Institutions for Statutory Accident Insurance and
Prevention (Germany)
IMIS Integrated Management Information System (OSHA)
IPCS World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical
Safety
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System (EPA)
ISTAS Institute of Work, Environment, and Health (Spain)
ITC Interagency Testing Committee (EPA TSCA)
IUR Inventory Update Reporting
LETE Low-end Toxicity Exposure
LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
LOD Limit of Detection
LTFE Lowest Technologically Feasible Exposure
MA DEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MIBK Methyl isobutyl ketone
MOA Modes of Action
MOE Margin of Exposure
MRL Minimal Risk Level
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NCGC National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (U.S.)
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (U.S.)
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.)
NMCSD Navy Medical Center San Diego
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NOES National Occupational Exposure Survey
NORA National Occupational Research Agenda (NIOSH)
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (OSHA)
NRC National Research Council (U.S., private)
NTP National Toxicology Program (U.S.)
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (multiple
countries, private)
OEL Occupational Exposure Limit
OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (EPA)
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OTA Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance and Technology
PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic
PBZ Personal Breathing Zone
PCRARM (EPA) Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk
Assessment and Risk Management
PEL Permissible Exposure Limits
PMN Pre-manufacture Notification (EPA)
PNEC Predicted No Effect Concentration
POD Point of Departure
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
PPM Parts Per Million
QCAT Quick Chemical Assessment Tool (DOE)
QSAR Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship
REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of
Chemicals (E.U.)
REL Recommended Exposure Level
RfC Reference Concentration
RFI Request for Information
SAR Structural Activity Relation
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (U.S.)
SDS Safety Data Sheet
SEP Special Emphasis Program
SIC Standards Industrial Classification
SIDS Screening Information Data Set (OECD)
STEL Short-term Exposure Limit
TLV Threshold Value Limit (ACGIH)
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act (EPA)
TTC Threshold of Toxicological Concern
TWA Time-weighted Average
vPvB Very Persistent and Very Bioaccumulative
WEEL Workplace Environmental Exposure Level (AIHA)
I. Purpose
The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to present
background information and request comment on a number of technical
issues related to aspects of OSHA's rulemaking process for chemical
hazards in the workplace. In particular, the purpose of the RFI is to:
Review OSHA's current approach to chemical regulation in
its historical context;
Describe and explore other possible approaches that may be
relevant to future strategies to reduce and control exposure to
chemicals in the workplace; and
Inform the public and obtain public input on the best
approaches for the
[[Page 61386]]
Agency to advance the development and implementation of approaches to
reduce or eliminate harmful chemical exposures in the 21st century
workplace.
By all estimates, the number of chemicals found in workplaces today
far exceeds the number which OSHA regulates, and is growing rapidly.
There is no single source recording all chemicals available in
commerce. Through its Chemical Data Reporting Rule, EPA collects
information on chemicals manufactured or imported at a single site at
25,000 pounds or greater; currently this number exceeds 7,674 chemicals
(U.S. EPA, 2013a; Ex. #1)
The American Chemistry Council estimates that approximately 8,300
chemicals (or about 10 percent of the 87,000 chemicals in the TSCA
inventory) are actually in commerce in significant amounts (Hogue,
2007; Ex. #2). By contrast the European Chemicals Agency database
contains 10,203 unique substances (as of 9/12/2013) (ECHA, 2013; Ex.
#3). Of these, OSHA has occupational exposure limits for only about 470
substances. Most of these are listed as simple limits and appear in
tables (referred to as ``Z-tables'') in 29 CFR 1910.1000, Air
Contaminants, Subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances; Ex. #4.
Approximately 30 have been adopted by OSHA as a part of a comprehensive
standard, and include a number of additional requirements such as
regulated areas, air sampling, medical monitoring, and training
However, with few exceptions, OSHA's permissible exposure limits,
(PELs), which specify the amount of a particular chemical substance
allowed in workplace air, have not been updated since they were
established in 1971 under expedited procedures available in the short
period after the OSH Act's adoption (see 29 CFR 1910.1000; Ex. #4,
1915.1000; Ex. #5, and 1926.55; Ex. #6). Yet, in many instances,
scientific evidence has accumulated suggesting that the current limits
are not sufficiently protective. Although OSHA has attempted to update
its PELs, the Agency has not been successful, except through the
promulgation of a relatively few substance-specific health standard
rulemakings (e.g., benzene, cadmium, lead, and asbestos).
The most significant effort to update the PELs occurred in 1989
when OSHA tried to update many of its outdated PELs and to create new
PELs for other substances in a single rulemaking covering general
industry PELs. After public notice and comment, the Agency published a
general industry rule that lowered PELs for 212 chemicals and added new
PELs for 164 more (54 FR 2332; Ex. #7). Appendix B to this Request for
Information contains the table of PELs from the 1989 Air Contaminants
Final Rule. The table includes both the PELs originally adopted by OSHA
in 1971 and the PELs established under the 1989 final rule. While the
Agency presented analyses of the risks associated with these chemicals,
as well as the analyses of the economic and technological feasibility
of the proposed limits for these chemicals, these analyses were not as
detailed as those OSHA would have prepared for individual rulemakings.
The final rule was challenged by both industry and labor groups. The
1989 PEL update was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
because it found that OSHA had not made sufficiently detailed findings
that each new PEL would eliminate significant risk and would be
feasible in each industry in which the chemical was used. (AFL-CIO v.
OSHA, 965 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1992) (the Air Contaminants case; Ex.
#8). This decision is discussed further below and in Appendix A.
Despite these challenges, health professionals and labor and
industry groups have continued to support addressing PELs which may be
outdated and or inconsistent with the best available current science.
The 1989 Air Contaminants rulemaking effort was supported by the
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and the American Public
Health Association (APHA), among many other professional organizations
and associations representing both industry and labor. In an October
2012 survey, members of the AIHA identified updating OSHA PELs as their
number one policy priority. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a letter
dated April 8, 2011 to then Deputy Secretary of Labor, Seth Harris,
also supported updating OSHA's PELs.
Much has changed in the world since the OSH Act was signed in 1970.
However, workers are essentially covered by the same PELs as they were
forty years ago. And while OSHA has been given no new tools or
increased resources to control workplace exposures, it has had to
conduct increasingly complex analyses, which has effectively slowed the
process. The purpose of this RFI is for OSHA to solicit information as
to the best approach(es) for the Agency to help employers and employees
devise and implement risk management strategies to reduce or eliminate
chemical exposures in the 21st century workplace environment. This is
likely to involve a multi-faceted plan that may include changing or
improving OSHA policies and procedures regarding the derivation and
implementation of PELs, as well as pursuing new strategies to improve
chemical management in the workplace. The Agency is publishing this
notice to inform the public of its consideration of these issues, as
well as solicit public input that can be used to inform further
deliberations, and the determination of an appropriate approach.
II. Legal Requirements for OSHA Standards
In the past, OSHA has received many suggestions for updating its
PELs, but these suggestions often do not take account of the
requirements imposed by the OSH Act, and thus have been of limited
value to OSHA. OSHA is providing an overview of its legal requirements
for setting standards in order to help commenters responding to this
RFI to provide suggestions that can satisfy these requirements. This
section summarizes OSHA's legal requirements, which are discussed in
greater detail in Appendix A. The next section provides an overview of
OSHA's previous attempts to update the PELs.
Section 6(b) of the OSH Act (Ex. #9) provides OSHA with the
authority to promulgate health standards. It specifies procedures that
OSHA must use to promulgate, modify, or revoke its standards, including
publishing the proposed rule in the Federal Register, providing
interested persons an opportunity to comment, and holding a public
hearing upon request. However, much of the labor and analysis that goes
into the final rule starts before the publication of the proposal.
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act specifies:
The Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic
materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall
set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent
feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no
employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional
capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard
dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life.
Development of standards under this subsection shall be based upon
research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as
may be appropriate. In addition to the attainment of the highest
degree of health and safety protection for the employee, other
considerations shall be the latest available scientific data in the
field, the feasibility of the standards, and experience gained under
this and other health and safety laws. Whenever practicable, the
standard promulgated shall be expressed in terms of objective
criteria and of the performance desired.
In general, as this provision has been construed by the courts, any
workplace
[[Page 61387]]
health standard adopted by OSHA must meet the following requirements:
(1) The standard must substantially reduce a significant risk of
material harm.
(2) Compliance with the standard must be technically feasible. This
means that the protective measures required by the standard currently
exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can
be created with technology that can reasonably be developed.
(3) Compliance with the standard must be economically feasible.
This means that the standard will not threaten the industry's long term
profitability or substantially alter its competitive structure.
(4) It must reduce risk of adverse health to workers to the extent
feasible.
(5) The standard must be supported by substantial evidence in the
record, consistent with prior agency practice or is supported by some
justification for departing from that practice.
The significant risk, economic and technological feasibility, and
substantial evidence requirements are of particular relevance in
setting PELs, and are discussed further below.
A. Significant Risk of a Material Impairment: The Benzene Case
The significant risk requirement was first articulated in a
plurality decision of the Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department,
AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980), commonly
referred to as the Benzene case. The petitioners challenged OSHA's rule
lowering the PEL for benzene from 10 ppm to 1 ppm. In support of the
new PEL, OSHA found that benzene caused leukemia and that the evidence
did not show that there was a safe threshold exposure level below which
no excess leukemia would occur; OSHA chose the new PEL of 1 ppm as the
lowest feasible exposure level. The Benzene Court rejected OSHA's
approach, finding that the OSH Act only required that employers ensure
that their workplaces are safe, that is, that their workers are not
exposed to ``significant risk[s] of harm.'' 448 U.S. at 642 (Ex. #10).
The Court also made it clear that it is OSHA's burden to establish that
a significant risk is present at the current standard before lowering a
PEL, stating that the burden of proof is normally on the proponent.
Thus, the Court held, before promulgating a health standard, OSHA is
required to make a ``threshold finding that a place of employment is
unsafe--in the sense that significant risks are present and can be
eliminated or lessened by a change in practices'' before it can adopt a
new standard. Id.
Although the Court declined to establish a set test for determining
whether a workplace is unsafe, it did state that a significant risk was
one that a reasonable person would consider significant and ``take
appropriate steps to decrease or eliminate.'' 448 U.S. at 655. For
example, it said, a one in a 1,000 risk would satisfy the requirement.
However, this example was merely an illustration, not a hard line rule.
The Court made it clear that determining whether a risk was
``significant'' was not a ``mathematical straitjacket'' and did not
require the Agency to calculate the exact probability of harm. Id. The
1 ppm PEL was vacated because OSHA had not made a significant risk
finding at the 10 ppm level.
Following the Benzene case, OSHA has satisfied the significant risk
requirement by estimating the risk to workers subject to a lifetime of
exposure at various possible exposure levels. These estimates have
typically been based on quantitative risk assessments in which OSHA, as
a general policy, has considered an excess risk of one death per 1000
workers over a 45-year working lifetime as clearly representing a
significant risk. However, the Benzene case does not require OSHA to
use such a benchmark. In the past, OSHA has stated that a lower risk of
death could be considered significant. See, e.g., Preamble to
Formaldehyde Standard, 52 FR 46168, 46234 (suggesting that risk
approaching six in a million could be viewed as significant). (Ex. #11)
B. Technological and Economic Feasibility
Under section 6(b)(5) of the Act, a standard must protect against
significant risk, ``to the extent feasible, and feasibility is
understood to have both technological and economic aspects. A standard
is technologically feasible if ``a typical firm will be able to develop
and install engineering and work practice controls that can meet the
PEL in most operations.'' United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d
1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (``Lead I''; Ex. #12). OSHA must show the
existence of ``technology that is either already in use or has been
conceived and is reasonably capable of experimental refinement and
distribution within the standard's deadlines.'' Id. Where the Agency
presents ``substantial evidence that companies acting vigorously and in
good faith can develop the technology,'' the Agency is not bound to the
technological status quo, and ``can require industry to meet PELs never
attained anywhere.'' Id. at 1264-65.
Some courts have required OSHA to determine whether a standard is
technologically feasible on an industry-by-industry basis, Color
Pigments Manufacturers Assoc. v. OSHA, 16 F.3d 1157, 1162-63 (11th Cir.
1994; Ex. #13); AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965, F.2d 962, 981-82 (11th Cir. 1992)
(Air Contaminants; Ex. #8). However, another court has upheld
technological feasibility findings based on the nature of an activity
across many industries rather than on an industry-by-industry basis,
Public Citizen Health Research Group v. United States Department of
Labor, 557 F.3d 165,178-79 (3d Cir. 2009; Ex. #14).
With respect to economic feasibility, the courts have stated ``A
standard is feasible if it does not threaten massive dislocation to . .
. or imperil the existence of the industry.'' Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1265
(Ex. #12). In order to show this, OSHA should ``construct a reasonable
estimate of compliance costs and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
that these costs will not threaten the existence or competitive
structure of an industry.'' Id. at 1266. However, ``[T]he court
probably cannot expect hard and precise estimates of costs.
Nevertheless, the agency must of course provide a reasonable assessment
of the likely range of costs of its standard, and the likely effects of
those costs on the industry.'' Id.
While OSHA is not required to show that all companies within an
industry will be able to bear the burden of compliance, at least one
court has held that OSHA is required to show that the rule is
economically feasible on an industry-by-industry basis. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982, 986. (Ex. #8)
C. The Substantial Evidence Test
The ``substantial evidence test'' is used by the courts to
determine whether OSHA has reached its burden of proof for policy
decisions and factual determinations. ``Substantial evidence'' is
defined as ``such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.'' American Textile Mfrs. Inst.,
Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 522 (1981; Ex. #15) (quoting Universal
Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951); Ex. #16). The
substantial evidence test does not require ``scientific certainty''
before promulgating a health standard (AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum
Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 656 (1980); Ex. 10), but the test does require
OSHA to ``identify relevant factual evidence, to explain the logic and
the policies underlying any legislative choice, to state candidly any
[[Page 61388]]
assumptions on which it relies, and to present its reasons for
rejecting significant contrary evidence and argument.'' Lead I, 647
F.2d. at 1207. (Ex. #12)
III. History of OSHA's Efforts To Establish PELs
The history of OSHA's PELs has three stages. First, OSHA adopted
its current PELs in 1971, shortly after coming into existence. Second,
OSHA attempted to update its PELs wholesale in 1989, but that effort
was rejected by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992. Third,
OSHA has made subsequent, smaller efforts to update certain PELs, but
those efforts have never come to fruition. This history is summarized
below, and discussed in further detail in Appendix A.
A. Adopting the PELs in 1971
Under section 6(a), OSHA was permitted an initial two-year window
after the passage of the OSH Act to adopt ``any national consensus
standard and any established Federal standard'' 29 U.S.C 655(6)(a).
OSHA used this authority in 1971 to establish PELs that were adopted
from federal health standards originally set by the Department of Labor
through the Walsh-Healy Act, in which approximately 400 occupational
exposure limits were selected based on ACGIH's 1968 list of Threshold
Limit Values (TLVs). In addition, about 25 additional exposure limits
recommended by the American Standards Association (now called the
American National Standards Institute) (ANSI), were adopted as national
consensus standards.
These standards were intended to provide initial protections for
workers from what the Congress deemed to be the most dangerous
workplace threats. Congress found it was ``essential that such
standards be constantly improved and replaced as new knowledge and
techniques are developed.'' S. Rep. 91-1282 at 6. (Ex. #17) However,
because OSHA has been unable to update the PELs, they remain frozen at
the levels at which they were initially adopted. OSHA's PELs are also
largely based on acute health effects and do not take into
consideration newer research regarding chronic health effects occurring
at lower occupational exposures.
B. The 1989 PELs Update
In 1989, OSHA published the Air Contaminants final rule, which
remains the Agency's most significant attempt at updating the PELs (54
FR 2332). (Ex. #7) Unlike typical substance-specific rulemakings, where
OSHA develops a comprehensive standard, the Air Contaminants final rule
was only intended to update existing PELs or to add PELs for substances
within established boundaries. After extensive review of all available
sources of occupational exposure limits (OELs), OSHA selected the
ACGIH's 1987-88 TLVs as the boundaries for identifying the substances
that would be included in the proposed rule. OSHA proposed 212 more
protective PELs and new PELs for 164 substances not previously
regulated. In general, rather than performing a quantitative risk
assessment for each chemical, the agency looked at whether studies
showed excess effects of concern at concentrations lower than allowed
under the existing standard. Where they did, OSHA made a significant
risk finding and either set a PEL (where none existed previously) or
lowered the existing PEL. These new PELs were based on Agency judgment,
taking into account the existing studies and, as appropriate, safety
factors. Safety factors (also called uncertainty factors) are applied
to the lowest level an effect is seen or to a level where no effects
are seen to derive a PEL.
In order to determine whether the Air Contaminants rule was
feasible, OSHA prepared the regulatory impact analysis. As part of the
analysis, OSHA performed an industry survey as well as site visits. The
survey was the largest survey ever conducted by OSHA and included
responses from 5,700 firms in industries believed to use chemicals
addressed in the scope of the Air Contaminants proposal. (Ex. #18) It
was designed to focus on industry sectors that potentially had the
highest compliance costs, identified through an analysis of existing
exposure data at the four-digit SIC (Standards Industrial
Classification) code level. OSHA analyzed the data collected to
determine whether the updated PELs were both technologically and
economically feasible for each industry sector covered.
For technological feasibility, OSHA found that ``in the
overwhelming majority of situations where air contaminants [were]
encountered by workers, compliance [could] be achieved by applying
known engineering control methods, and work practice improvements.'' 54
FR at 2789; Ex. #7. For economic feasibility, OSHA assessed the
economic impact of the standard on industry profits at the two-digit
SIC code level, and found the economic impact not to be significant,
and the new standard therefore economically feasible.
In the Air Contaminants final rule, OSHA summarized the health
evidence for each individual substance, discussed over 2,000 studies,
reviewed and addressed all major comments submitted to the record, and
provided a rationale for each new PEL chosen. OSHA estimated that over
21 million employees were potentially exposed to hazardous substances
in the workplace and over 4.5 million employees were exposed to levels
above the applicable exposure limits. OSHA projected that the final
rule would result in a potential reduction of over 55,000 lost workdays
due to illnesses per year and that annual compliance with this final
rule would prevent an average of 683 fatalities annually from exposures
to hazardous substances.
C. The 1989 PELs Update Is Vacated by the Court of Appeals
The update to the Air Contaminants standard generally received
widespread support from both industry and labor. However, there was
dissatisfaction on the part of some industry representatives and union
leaders, who brought petitions for review challenging the standard. For
example, some industry petitioners argued that OSHA's use of generic
findings, the inclusion of so many substances in one rulemaking, and
the allegedly insufficient time provided for comment by interested
parties created a record inadequate to support the new set of PELs. In
contrast, the unions challenged the approach used by OSHA to promulgate
the standard and argued that several PELs were not protective enough.
The unions also asserted that OSHA's failure to include any ancillary
provisions, such as exposure monitoring and medical surveillance,
prevented employers from ensuring the exposure limits were not
exceeded, and resulted in less-protective PELs.
Although only 23 of the 428 PELs were challenged, the court
ultimately decided to vacate the entire rulemaking, finding that ``OSHA
[had] not sufficiently explained or supported its threshold
determination that exposure to these substances at previous levels
posed a significant risk of these material health impairments or that
the new standard eliminates or reduces that risk to the extent
feasible.'' Air Contaminants 965 F.2d at 986-987; Ex. #8
With respect to significant risk, the court held that OSHA had
failed to ``explain why the studies mandated a particular PEL chosen.''
Id. at 976. Specifically, the court stated that OSHA failed to quantify
the risk from individual substances and merely provided conclusory
statements that the new PEL would reduce a significant risk
[[Page 61389]]
of material health effects.'' Id. at 975. Further, the court rejected
OSHA's argument that it had relied on safety factors in setting the new
PELs, stating that OSHA had not adequately supported their use. The
court observed that ``the difference between the level shown by the
evidence and the final PEL is sometimes substantial.'' Id. at 978. It
said that OSHA had not indicated ``how the existing evidence for
individual substances was inadequate to show the extent of risk for
these factors'' and that the agency had ``failed to explain the method
by which its safety factors were determined.'' Id. ``OSHA may use
assumptions but only to the extent that those assumptions have some
basis in reputable scientific evidence,'' the court concluded. Id. at
978-79.
The Eleventh Circuit court also rejected OSHA's technological
feasibility findings. The Agency had made these findings mainly at the
two-digit SIC level, but also at the three- and four- digit level where
appropriate given the processes involved. The court rejected this
approach, finding that OSHA failed to make industry-specific findings
or identify the specific technologies capable of meeting the proposed
limit in industry-specific operations. Id. at 981. While OSHA had
identified primary air contaminant control methods: Engineering
controls, administrative controls and work practices and personal
protective equipment, the agency, ``only provided a general description
of how the generic engineering controls might be used in the given
sector.'' Id. Though noting that OSHA need only provide evidence
sufficient to justify a ``general presumption of feasibility,'' the
court held that this ``does not grant OSHA license to make overbroad
generalities as to feasibility or to group large categories of
industries together without some explanation of why findings for the
group adequately represents the different industries in that group.''
Id. at 981-82.
The court rejected OSHA's economic feasibility findings for similar
reasons. As discussed above, OSHA supported its economic feasibility
findings for the 1989 Air Contaminants rule based primarily on the
results of a survey of over 5700 businesses, summarizing the projected
cost of compliance at the two-digit SIC industry sector level. The
court held that OSHA was required to show that the rule was
economically feasible on an industry-by industry basis, and that OSHA
had not shown that its analyses at the two-digit SIC industry sector
level were appropriate to meet this burden. Id. at 982. ``[A]verage
estimates of cost can be extremely misleading in assessing the impact
of particular standards on individual industries'' the court said, and
``analyzing the economic impact for an entire sector could conceal
particular industries laboring under special disabilities and likely to
fail as a result of enforcement.'' Id. While OSHA might ``find and
explain that certain impacts and standards do apply to entire sectors
of an industry'' if ``coupled with a showing that there are no
disproportionately affected industries within the group,'' OSHA had not
explained why its use of such a ``broad grouping was appropriate.'' Id.
at 982 n.28, 983.
D. Revising OSHA's PELs in the Wake of the Eleventh Circuit Decision
In the wake of the Eleventh Circuit's decision, OSHA has generally
pursued a conservative course in satisfying its judicially imposed
analytical burdens. The set of resulting analytical approaches OSHA has
engaged in is highly resource-intensive and has constrained OSHA's
ability to prioritize its regulatory efforts based on risk of harm to
workers. In 1995, OSHA made its first attempt following the Air
Contaminants ruling to update a smaller number of PELs using a more
rigorous analysis of risk, workplace exposures, and technological and
economic feasibility. (Ex. #20) OSHA and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted preliminary research
on health risks associated with exposure and extent of occupational
exposure. Sixty priority substances were identified for further
examination and twenty of the sixty substances were selected to form a
priority list. Early in 1996, the Agency announced its plans for a
stakeholder meeting, and identified the twenty priority substances, as
well as several risk-related discussion topics. (Ex. #21) During the
meeting, almost all stakeholders from industry and labor agreed that
the PELs needed to be updated; however, not one group completely
supported OSHA's suggested approach. Overall, many of the stakeholders
did not support the development of a list of priority chemicals
targeted for potential regulation and felt there was a lack of
transparency in the process for selecting the initial chemicals.
In response to stakeholder input and OSHA's research, the agency
selected seven of the 20 substances discussed at the stakeholder
meeting for detailed analysis of risks and feasibility. The chemicals
selected were: (i) Glutaraldehyde, (ii) carbon disulfide, (iii)
hydrazine, (iv) perchloroethylene, (v) manganese, (vi) trimellitic
anhydride, and (vii) chloroprene. Quantitative risk assessments were
performed in-house, and research (including site visits) was undertaken
to collect detailed data on uses, worker exposures, exposure control
technology effectiveness, and economic characteristics of affected
industries.
The research and analysis were carried out over several years,
after which OSHA decided not to proceed with rulemaking. (Ex. #22) This
decision was influenced by findings that (i) prevalence and intensity
of worker exposures for some of the substances (e.g., carbon disulfide
and hydrazine) had declined substantially since the 1989 rule was
promulgated; (ii) industry had voluntarily implemented controls to
reduce the exposure to safe levels; and (iii) for others, substantial
Agency resources would have been required to fully assess technological
and economic impacts.
In 1997, OSHA held another meeting with industry and labor on the
proposed PEL development process. Although the project did not result
in a rulemaking to revise the PELs, OSHA gained valuable experience in
developing useful approaches for quantifying non-cancer health risks
through collaboration with external reviewers in scientific peer
reviews of its risk analyses. OSHA is now examining ways to better
address chemical exposures given current resource constraints and
regulatory limitations.
For readers who are interested in a more detailed account of the
legislation and court decisions that shaped OSHA's current regulatory
framework, Appendix A to this Request for Information, History, Legal
Background and Significant Court Decisions, provides additional
information. Readers may want to consult Appendix A as they frame
responses to the questions posed in this Request for Information.
IV. Reconsideration of Current Rulemaking Processes
As reviewed in Section II (Legal Requirements for OSHA Standards)
and Section III (History of OSHA's Efforts to Establish PELs), OSHA has
to use the best available evidence to make findings of significant
risk, substantial reductions in risk, and technological and economic
feasibility under the Act. This section reviews how interpretation of
6(b)(5) and subsequent case law has resulted in the methods it uses
when developing risk, technical feasibility, and economic findings as
well as the evidence OSHA has used in the past to make these findings
(i.e., OSHA's use of
[[Page 61390]]
formal risk assessment modeling to evaluate significant risk, and the
Agency's use of worker exposure data and exposure control effectiveness
data to evaluate technical feasibility and costs of compliance).
This section also reviews developments in science and technology
and how these new advancements may improve the scientific basis for
making findings of significant risk, technical feasibility, and
economic feasibility. As an example, the National Academies of Science
has released extensive reviews of advances in science, toxicology, and
risk and exposure assessment and evaluated how the Federal government
can potentially utilize these advancements in its decision-making
processes (NRC, 2012; Ex. #23, NRC, 2009; Ex. #24, NRC, 2007; Ex. #25).
While new technologies will advance the public's understanding in these
critical areas, the Agency has obligations under the OSH Act to make
certain findings under 6(b)(5), as discussed above in Section III. How
OSHA might utilize these new developments to meet the Agency's
evidentiary burden will be discussed in this section.
A. Considerations for Risk Assessment Methods
1. Current Quantitative Risk Assessment Methods Typically Used by OSHA
To Support 6(b) Single Substance Rulemaking
As discussed in Section III, the Supreme Court requires OSHA to
determine that a significant risk exists before adopting an
occupational safety and health standard. While the Court did not
stipulate a means to distinguish significant from insignificant risks,
it broadly described the range of risks OSHA might determine to be
significant:
It is the Agency's responsibility to determine in the first
instance what it considers to be a ``significant'' risk. Some risks
are plainly acceptable and others are plainly unacceptable. If, for
example, the odds are one in a billion that a person will die from
cancer by taking a drink of chlorinated water, the risk clearly
could not be considered significant. On the other hand, if the odds
are one in a thousand that regular inhalation of gasoline vapors
that are 2 percent benzene will be fatal, a reasonable person might
well consider the risk significant and take the appropriate steps to
decrease or eliminate it. (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 655). (Ex. #10),
OSHA has interpreted the Court's example to mean that a 1 in 1000
risk of serious illness is significant, and has used this measure to
guide its significance of risk determinations. For example, OSHA's risk
assessment for hexavalent chromium estimated that a 45-year
occupational exposure at the PEL of 5[micro]g/m\3\ would lead to more
than 10 lung cancer cases per 1000 workers exposed. Because this risk
exceeds the value of one case of lung cancer per 1000 exposed workers,
OSHA found it to be significant. The significance of risk
determinations of other rules since the Benzene decision have typically
followed a similar logic.
Over the three decades since the Benzene decision, OSHA has
gradually built up a highly rigorous approach to derive quantitative
estimates of risk such as those found in the hexavalent chromium
preamble. First, the Agency reviews the available exposure-response
data for a chemical of interest. It evaluates the available data sets
and identifies those best suited for quantitative analysis. Using the
best available data, the Agency then conducts extensive statistical
analyses to develop an exposure-response model that is able to
extrapolate probability of disease at exposures below the observed
data. Once the model is developed, OSHA conducts further analyses to
evaluate the sensitivity of the model to error and uncertainties in the
modeling inputs and approach. The exposure-response model is used to
generate estimates of risk associated with a working lifetime of
occupational exposure to the chemical of interest over a range of PEL
options that often include exposure levels below those considered to be
technologically feasible. The entire risk assessment has always been
subject to peer review, from choice of data set(s) through generation
of lifetime risk estimates.When the proposed rule is released for
comment, it receives additional scrutiny from the scientific community,
stakeholders, and the general public. The Agency uses the feedback of
the peer review panel and public comment at the time of proposal to
further test and develop the risk analysis.
This model-based approach to risk assessment has a number of
important advantages. The quantitative risk estimates can be easily
compared with the level of 1 in 1000 that the Court cited as an example
of significant risk. Sometimes, the best available data come from
worker or animal populations with exposure levels far above the
technologically feasible levels for which OSHA must evaluate risk, and
a risk model is used to extrapolate from high to low exposures. When
large, high-quality exposure-response data sets are available, a
rigorous quantitative analysis can yield robust and fairly precise risk
estimates to inform public understanding and debate about the health
benefits of a new or revised regulation. However, there are also
drawbacks to the model-based approach, and there are situations where a
modeling analysis may not be necessary or appropriate for OSHA to make
the significance of risk determination to support a new or revised
regulation. Model-based risk analyses tend to require a great deal of
Agency time and resources.
In some cases, the model-based approach is essential to OSHA's
significant risk determination, because it is not evident prior to a
modeling analysis whether there is significant risk at current and
technologically-feasible exposures. In other cases, however, it may be
evident from the scientific literature or other readily available
evidence that risk at the existing PEL is clearly significant and that
it can be substantially reduced by a more stringent regulation without
the need for quantitative estimates extrapolated from an exposure-
response model. In addition to reducing significant risk of harm, the
OSH Act also directs the Agency to determine that health standards for
toxic chemicals are feasible. At times, it is evident without extensive
analysis that the most stringent PEL feasible can only reduce, not
eliminate, significant risk. In such cases, the value of a model-based
quantitative risk assessment may not warrant the Agency time and
resources that model-based risk assessment requires.
In situations described above where the PEL may be set at the
lowest feasible level, OSHA believes that it can establish significant
risk more efficiently instead of relying on probabilistic estimates
from dose-response modeling as described above. OSHA is exploring a
number of more flexible, scientifically accepted approaches that may
streamline the risk assessment process and increase the capacity to
address a greater number of chemicals.
Question IV.A.1: OSHA seeks input on the risk assessment process
described above. When is a model-based analysis necessary or
appropriate to determine significance of risk and to select a new or
revised PEL? When should simpler approaches be employed? Are there
specific approaches OSHA should consider using when a model-based
analysis is not required? To the extent possible, please provide
detailed explanation and examples of situations when a model-based risk
analysis is or is not necessary to determine significance of risk and
to develop a new standard.
[[Page 61391]]
2. Proposed Tiered Approach to Risk Assessment in Support of Updating
PELs for Chemical Substances
a. General Description and Rationale of Tiered Approach
OSHA is considering a tiered process to exposure-response
assessment that may enable the agency to more efficiently make the
significant risk findings needed to establish acceptable PELs for
larger numbers of workplace chemicals. The approach involves three
stages: dose-response analysis in the observed range, margin of
exposure determination, and exposure-response extrapolation (if
needed). The process overlaps with the risk-based methodologies
employed by EPA IRIS, NIOSH, the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease
Registry (ATSDR), the European Union Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program, and other
organizations that recommend chemical toxicity values or exposure
levels protective of human health. The first step is dose-response
analysis in the observed range. During this step, OSHA analyzes
exposures (or doses) and adverse outcomes from human studies or animal
bioassays, particularly at the lower end of the exposure range. This
involves the derivation of a ``low-end toxicity exposure'' (LETE),
which is discussed further in section IV.A.2.c. below.
The second step is margin of exposure determination, where LETEs
are compared with the range of possible exposure limits that OSHA
believes to be feasible for the new or proposed standard. Typically,
there is a close and ongoing dialogue between those OSHA technical
staff and management responsible for the risk assessment and their
counterparts responsible for the feasibility analyses as the separate
determinations are being simultaneously developed. Feasibility
analyses, in particular, can take years of research, including site
visits and industry surveys. In many of OSHA's rulemakings, the lowest
feasible PEL can only reduce, not eliminate, significant risk. Thus,
OSHA sets many PELs at the lowest feasible level, and not at a level of
occupational exposure considered to be without significant risk. This
significant risk orientation differs from other Federal Agencies, such
as EPA and ATSDR that set environmental exposure levels determined to
be health protective without consideration of feasibility.
OSHA is considering using a margin of exposure (MOE) approach to
compare the LETE with the range of feasible exposure limits. If the MOE
indicates the range of feasible exposures is in close proximity to the
exposures where toxicity is observed (i.e., a low MOE) then it may not
be necessary to extrapolate exposure-response below the observed range
in order to establish significant risk. In this situation, OSHA would
set the PEL at the exposure level it determines to be feasible and the
dose-response analysis in the observed range should be sufficient to
support Agency significant risk findings. The PEL is set at the lowest
feasible level, with the understanding that significant risk of adverse
health outcomes remains at the new PEL. In the traditional risk
assessment approach described previously, OSHA uses quantitative
exposure-response modeling to estimate risks below the range of
observed exposure, without regard to whether such exposures are
considered to be technologically feasible. If the lowest
technologically feasible workplace exposures are determined to be far
below the LETE (i.e., a high MOE), an exposure-response model would be
needed to determine significant risk at exposures below the observed
range and to set the appropriate PEL.
If there is a high MOE, then the Agency would move onto the final
stage of the tiered approach, which is exposure-response extrapolation,
where the dose-response relationship is extrapolated outside the
observed range. Many regulatory agencies, such as EPA, choose to
extrapolate outside the observed range for non-cancer health outcomes
by applying a series of extrapolation factors, also called uncertainty
factors, to an observed low-end toxicity value, referred to as a point
of departure (POD). The POD is very similar to the LETE described
above. The distinction between these toxicity values is discussed later
in the subsection. The extrapolation factors are further explained
below.
In many instances, EPA does not use the extrapolation factor
approach for cancer effects. Rather, EPA uses dose-response modeling in
the observed range and a linear extrapolation below the observed range
to derive a unit risk (i.e., risk per unit of exposure). As described
previously, OSHA also uses dose-response modeling to extrapolate risk
below the observed range for carcinogens as was done for hexavalent
chromium (71 FR 10174-10221; Ex. #26) and methylene chloride (62 FR
1516-1560; Ex. #27). There is a reasonable body of scientific evidence
that genotoxic carcinogens, and perhaps other carcinogenic modes of
action, display linear, non-threshold behavior at very low dose levels.
OSHA also uses dose-response modeling to extrapolate risk below the
observed range for carcinogens. As mentioned earlier, the Agency
develops appropriate exposure-response models (linear or non-linear)
that best fit the existing data and are consistent with available
information on mode of action. The models can be used to extrapolate
risk associated with a working lifetime at occupational exposures below
the observed range.
In some situations, the LETE is further adjusted to calculate
worker equivalent exposures and to account for how the chemical is
absorbed, distributed, and metabolized, and interacts with target
tissues in the body. These features and other important issues related
to the tiered approach to exposure-response assessment are discussed
below. OSHA believes that there are a number of potential advantages to
using a tiered risk assessment framework including opportunities to
rely more heavily on peer-reviewed risk assessments already prepared by
other Federal agencies.
b. Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Analysis in the Observed
Range
Hazard identification is the first step in the Federal risk
assessment framework as laid out by the National Research Council's
`red book' in 1983 (NRC, 1983; Ex. #28). In conducting a hazard
identification, OSHA evaluates individual study quality and determines
the weight of evidence from epidemiological, experimental, and
supporting data. Study quality favors strong methodology,
characterization of exposure during critical periods, adequate sample
size/statistical power, and relevance to the workplace population. OSHA
gives weight to both positive and negative studies according to study
quality when the Agency evaluates the association between chemical
agent and an adverse health effect. OSHA determines causality based on
criteria developed by Bradford Hill (Hill, 1965; Ex. #29, Rothman &
Greenland, 1998; Ex. #30). In its review of the available evidence,
OSHA assesses the chemical's modes of action (MOA) and the key
molecular, biological, pathological, and clinical endpoints that
contribute to the health effects of concern.
The Mode of Action (MOA) is a sequence of key events and processes
starting with the interaction of the agent with a molecular or cellular
target(s) and proceeding through operational and anatomical changes
that result in an adverse health effect(s) of concern. The key events
are empirically measurable molecular or pathological endpoints and
outcomes in experimental systems. These represent necessary precursor
[[Page 61392]]
steps or biologically-based markers along the progression to frank
illness and injury.
MOA informs selection of appropriate toxicity-related endpoints and
models for dose-response analysis. OSHA then conducts a dose-response
analysis for critical health effects determined to be associated with a
chemical, provided there are suitable data available. Dose-response
analysis requires quantitative measures of both exposure and toxicity-
related endpoints. OSHA gives preference to studies with relevant
occupational routes that display a well-defined dose-related change in
response with adequate power to detect effects at the exposure levels
of interest. The Agency generally prefers high quality epidemiologic
studies for dose-response analysis over experimental animal models,
provided there is adequate exposure information and confounding factors
are appropriately controlled. OSHA may only adopt standards for
exposure to ``toxic materials and harmful physical agents'' that causes
``material impairment of health and loss of functional capacity even if
such employee has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such
standard for the period of his working life.'' OSH Act Sec. 6(b)(5)
(Ex. #9) Therefore, its dose-response analysis considers those
biological endpoints and health outcomes that can lead to adverse
physiological or clinical harm caused by continued exposure over a
working lifetime. This includes key molecular and cellular biomarkers
established as necessary precursor events along a critical disease
pathway. It is important that the toxicity-related endpoints observed
in experimental animals selected for dose-response analysis have
relevance to humans and are not unique to the test species.
In the past, OSHA, for the most part, has undertaken an independent
evaluation of the evidence in its identification of hazards and
selection of critical studies and toxicity-related endpoints for dose-
response analysis. However, other Federal agencies use the same risk
assessment framework with similar hazard identification and dose-
response selection procedures. EPA, ATSDR, NIOSH and others have active
risk assessment programs and have recently evaluated many chemicals of
interest to OSHA. These assessments undergo scientific peer review and
are subject to public comment. The Agency is considering ways to reduce
the time and resources needed to independently evaluate the available
study data by placing greater reliance on the efforts of other credible
scientific organizations. Although some organizations use their study
evaluations to support non-occupational risk assessments, OSHA believes
that, in most cases, these evaluations can be adapted to the
occupational context.
Question IV.A.2: If there is no OSHA PEL for a particular substance
used in your facility, does your company/firm develop and/or use
internal occupational exposure limits (OELs)? If so, what is the basis
and process for establishing the OEL? Do you use an authoritative
source, or do you conduct a risk assessment? If so, what sources and
risk assessment approaches are applied? What criteria do facilities/
firms consider when deciding which authoritative source to use? For
example, is rigorous scientific peer review of the OEL an important
factor? Is transparency of how the OEL was developed important?
Question IV.A.3: OSHA is considering greater reliance on peer-
reviewed toxicological evaluations by other Federal agencies, such as
NIOSH, EPA, ATSDR, NIEHS and NTP for hazard identification and dose-
response analysis in the observed range. What advantages and
disadvantages would result from this approach and could it be used in
support of the PEL update process?
c. Derivation of Low-End Toxicity Exposure (LETE)
An important aspect of the dose-response analysis is the
determination of exposures that can result in adverse outcomes of
interest. For most studies, response rates ranging from 1 to 10 percent
represent the low end of the observed range. Epidemiologic studies
generally are larger and can show a lower observed response rate than
animal studies, which typically have fewer test subjects. EPA, ATSDR
and EU REACH also derive an estimated dose at the low end of the
observed range (i.e., LETE) as part of their dose-response assessments.
This dose is referred to as the POD (`point of departure') because it
is used as a starting point for low dose extrapolation or the
application of uncertainty factors as described above to derive
toxicity values. EPA, ATSDR and EU REACH use the POD/extrapolation
factor approach to determine Reference Concentrations (RfC), Minimal
Risk Levels (MRL) and Derived No Effect Levels (DNELs), respectively.
OSHA believes the LETE is an exposure where studies may have
demonstrated significant risk. However, OSHA does not intend to use the
LETE as the point of extrapolation for determining a ``safe'' exposure
level in the manner used by the aforementioned agencies. OSHA may use
the LETE in calculating an MOE to evaluate the need for low dose
extrapolation as described in the next section.
Traditionally, either the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
(LOAEL) or No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAEL) has served as
easily obtainable LETE descriptors. More recently, the Benchmark Dose
(BMD) methodology has increasingly been applied to derive an LETE. The
BMD approach uses a standard set of empirical models to determine the
dose associated with a pre-selected benchmark response (BMR) level. An
example is the dose associated with a 10 percent incidence (i.e.,
BMD10) and the statistical lower confidence limit (i.e.,
BMDL10). Selection of an appropriate BMR considers biologic
as well as statistical factors and a lower BMR is typically applied for
clinically serious outcomes (e.g., lung or heart disease) than for less
serious adverse effects (e.g., preclinical loss of neurological or
pulmonary function). In some cases, more sophisticated models can be
used in the LETE determination, based on physiologically-based
toxicokinetics, toxicodynamics, or dosimetry models that relate the
administered dose to a more toxicologically relevant dose metric at a
biological target site, if sufficient data is available and the models
are appropriately validated. This is discussed further below.
Question IV.A.4: OSHA is considering using the Point of Departure
(POD) (e.g., BMD, LOAEL, NOAEL), commonly employed by other
authoritative organizations for carrying out non-cancer risk
assessments as a suitable descriptor of the Low End Toxicity Exposure
(LETE) level that represents a significant risk of harm. Is this an
appropriate application of the POD by OSHA? Are there other exposure
values that OSHA should consider for its LETE?
In many situations, the LETE must be adjusted to represent a
typical worker exposure. The most common adjustments are to correct for
the standard occupational exposure conditions of eight hours a day/five
days a week and/or respiratory volume during work activity. OSHA and
NIOSH have used a standard ventilation rate of 10 m\3\ of air per 8-
hour work shift for a typical worker undergoing light physical work
activity.
Allometric scaling (i.e., BW3/4) is recommended by some
Federal authorities when scaling animal doses to human equivalents to
account for toxicokinetic differences in rates of absorption,
metabolism, and excretion when more specific data is lacking.
Allometric scaling refers to scaling
[[Page 61393]]
physiological rates and quantities to mass or volume of one animal
species to another animal species. The relationship is generally
dependent on body weight (BW), often in the form of
y=BW[agr] where y is the physiological measure and [alpha]
is the scaling component. Many physiological and biochemical processes
(such as heart rate, basal metabolic rate, and respiration rate have
been found to have a scaling component of 0.75.
Allometric scaling is most applicable when the toxicologically
relevant dose is a parent compound or stable metabolite whose
absorption rate and clearance from the target site is controlled
primarily by first order processes. Allometric scaling is less well
suited for portal-of-entry effects or when toxicity is a consequence of
a highly reactive compound or metabolite. Portal of entry refers to the
tissue or organ of first contact between the biological system and the
agent. This is nasal, respiratory tract and pulmonary tissues for
inhalation; skin for dermal contact, and mouth and digestive tract for
oral exposure.
In the case of respiratory tract effects from inhalation, EPA
recommends adjusting inhalation doses based on generic dosimetry
modeling that depends on the form of the chemical (e.g., particle of
gas) and site of toxicity (e.g., portal of entry or systemic) (EPA,
1994; Ex. #31). For example, the human equivalent for a reactive gas
that exerts its toxic effect on the respiratory tract is scaled based
on animal to human differences in ventilation rate and regional surface
area of the respiratory tract. On the other hand, the dosimetry model
adjustment for an insoluble gas that exerts its effect in a tissue
remote from the lung is scaled by species differences in the blood: gas
partition coefficient. The generic dosimetry models can accommodate
specific chemical data, if available. The models are only intended to
account for human-to-animal differences in bioavailability and further
allometric or extrapolation factors may be needed to account for
species differences in metabolic activation and toxicodynamics (i.e.,
target site sensitivity to an equivalent delivered dose).
Question IV.A.5: Several methodologies have been utilized to adjust
critical study exposures to a worker equivalent under representative
occupational exposure conditions including standard ventilation rates,
allometric scaling, and toxicokinetic modeling. What are reasonable and
acceptable methods to determine worker equivalent exposure
concentrations, especially from studies in animals or other
experimental systems?
The worker-adjusted LETE that is derived from dose-response
analysis in the observed range should be regarded as a chemical
exposure level that leads to significant risk of harm. In most cases,
the LETE is expected to elicit a toxic response in 1 to 10 percent of
the worker population. This approximates an excess risk of 10 to 100
cases of impairment per 1000 exposed workers over a duration that is
typically less than a 45-year working life. This degree of risk would
exceed the 1 per 1000 probability that OSHA historically regards as a
clearly significant risk.
d. Margin of Exposure (MOE) as a Decision Tool for Low Dose
Extrapolation
As discussed previously, OSHA's statutory and legal obligations
dictate that PELs be set at the level that eliminates significant risk,
if feasible, or if not, at the lowest feasible level. Therefore, Agency
risk assessments are directed at determining significant risk at these
feasible exposures. Because of the feasibility constraints, low dose
extrapolation is not always needed to make the required risk findings.
The OSHA significant risk orientation differs from other Federal
Agencies, such as EPA and ATSDR. The risk-based EPA RfCs and ATSDR MRLs
are intended as environmental exposure levels determined to be health
protective without consideration of feasibility. NIOSH also develops
workplace exposure limits. These recommended exposure limits (RELs) are
based on risk evaluations using human or animal health effects data.
The exposure levels that can be achieved by engineering controls and
measured by analytical techniques are considered in the development of
RELs, but the recommended levels are often below what OSHA regards as
technologically feasible.
A MOE approach can assist in determining the need to extrapolate
risk below the observed range. The appropriate MOE for use as a
decision tool for low dose extrapolation is the LETE divided by an
estimate of the lowest technologically feasible exposure (LTFE). A
large MOE (i.e., LETE/LTFE ratio) means the LTFE is considerably below
exposures observed to cause adverse outcomes along a critical toxicity
pathway. This situation would require low-dose risk extrapolation to
determine whether technologically feasible exposures lead to
significant risk. A small MOE means the LTFE estimate is reasonably
close to the observed toxic exposures indicating the LTFE likely leads
to significant risk of harm. In this situation, OSHA would set the PEL
at the exposure level it determines to be feasible and the dose-
response analysis in the observed range should be sufficient to support
Agency significant risk findings.
There are several factors that OSHA would need to consider in order
to find that the MOE is adequate to avoid low-dose risk extrapolation.
These include the nature of the adverse outcome, the magnitude of the
effect, the methodological designs and experimental models of the
selected studies, the exposure metric associated with the outcome, and
the exposure period over which the outcome was studied. OSHA may regard
a larger MOE as acceptable to avoid the need for low-dose extrapolation
for serious clinical effects than a less serious subclinical outcome. A
larger MOE may also be found acceptable for irreversible health
outcomes that continue to progress with continued exposure and respond
poorly to treatment than reversible health outcomes that do not
progress with further exposure. Health outcomes that relate to
cumulative exposures would tolerate higher MOEs than similar outcomes
unrelated to cumulative exposure, especially in short-term studies. In
some instances, an adverse outcome observed in experimental animals
would tolerate higher MOEs than the same response in a human study that
more closely resembles the occupational situation.
Other Federal agencies apply the MOE approach as part of the risk
assessment process. EPA has included MOE calculations in risk
characterizations of environmental exposure scenarios to assist in risk
management decisions (EPA, 2005; Ex. #32). The EU has also applied a
very similar Margin of Safety analysis to characterize results of risk
assessment conclusions (ECB, 2003; Ex. #33). In its report on the
appropriate uses of risk assessment and risk management in federal
regulatory programs, the Presidential Commission on Risk Assessment and
Risk Management recommended MOE as an approach that provides a common
metric for comparing health risks across different toxicities and
public health programs (PCRARM, 1997; Ex. #34).
Question IV.A.6: OSHA is considering a Margin of Exposure approach
that compares the LETE with the Lowest Technologically Feasible
Exposure (LTFE) as a decision tool for low dose extrapolation. Is this
a reasonable means of determining if further low dose extrapolation
methods are needed to meet agency significant risk findings?
[[Page 61394]]
What other approaches should be considered?
e. Extrapolation Below the Observed Range
The last step in the tiered approach is extrapolation of risk below
the observed range. This low-dose extrapolation would only be needed if
the MOE is sufficiently high to warrant further dose-response analysis.
This situation occurs when technologically feasible exposures are far
below the LETE and quantitative estimates of risk could be highly
informative in the determination of significant risk. As described in
subsection A.1, OSHA has historically used probabilistic risk modeling
to quantitatively estimate risks at exposure levels below the observed
range. Depending on the nature of the exposure-response data, the
Agency has relied on a wide range of different models that have
included linear relative risk (e.g., hexavalent chromium/lung cancer),
logistic regression (e.g., cadmium/kidney dysfunction), and
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (e.g., methylene chloride/cancer)
approaches.
Probabilistic risk models can require considerable time and
resources to construct, parameterize, and statistically verify against
appropriate study data, especially for a large number of chemical
substances. As mentioned previously, several government authorities
responsible for managing the risk to human populations posed by
hazardous chemicals commonly use the computationally less complex
uncertainty factor approach to extrapolate dose-response below the
observed range. The uncertainty factors account for variability in
response within the human population, uncertainty with regard to the
differences between experimental animals and humans, and uncertainty
associated with various other data inferences made in the assessment.
For each of these considerations, a numerical value is assigned and the
point of departure is divided by the product of all applied uncertainty
factors. The result is an exposure level considered to be without
appreciable risk. OSHA attempted to apply uncertainty factors in the
1989 Air Contaminants Rule to ensure that new PELs were set at levels
that were sufficiently below exposures observed to cause health
effects. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that OSHA had failed to show how
uncertainty factors addressed the extent of risk posed by individual
substances and that similarly, OSHA failed to explain the method it
used to derive the safety factors. Air Contaminants 965 F.2d at 978.(
Ex. #8) Since the court ruling, the uncertainty factor approach has
undergone considerable refinement. The scientific considerations for
applying individual factors have been carefully articulated by EPA and
other scientific authorities in various guidance materials (EPA, 2002;
Ex. #35, IPCS, 2005; Ex. #36, ECHA, 2012a; Ex. #37). For some factors
under certain circumstances, it is being proposed that standard
`default' values can be replaced with `data-driven' values (EPA, 2011;
Ex. #38). However, the type and magnitude of the uncertainty factor
employed for any individual substance still requires a degree of
scientific judgment. The methodology does not provide quantitative
exposure-specific estimates of risk, such as one in a thousand, that
can readily be compared to the significant risk probabilities discussed
in the Benzene decision.
The National Research Council's Science and Decisions report
recently advocated a dose-response framework that provides quantitative
risk estimates by applying distributions instead of `single value'
factors (NRC, 2009; Ex. #24). The critical extrapolation factors, such
as species differences in toxic response at equivalent target doses and
inter-individual variability in the human population are defined by
lognormal distribution with an estimated standard deviation. This
allows the human equivalent LETE to be derived in terms of a median and
statistical lower confidence bound. The distributional nature of the
analysis facilitates extrapolation in terms of a probabilistic
projection of average and upper bound risk at specific exposures, such
as X number of individuals projected to develop disease out of 1000
workers exposed to Z level of a toxic substance within some confidence
level Y. The NRC report describes several different conceptual models
with case examples and extrapolation factor distribution calculations
(NRC, 2009; Ex. #24).
Question IV.A.7: Can the uncertainty factor methodology for
extrapolating below the observed range for non-cancer effects be
successfully adapted by OSHA to streamline its risk assessment process
for the purpose of setting updated PELs? Why or why not? Are there
advantages and disadvantages to applying extrapolation factor
distributions rather than single uncertainty factor values? Please
explain your reasoning.
3. Chemical Grouping for Risk Assessment
OSHA is also considering the use of one or more chemical grouping
approaches to expedite the risk assessment process. In certain cases,
it may be appropriate to extrapolate data about one chemical across a
group or category of similar chemicals. These approaches are discussed
below.
a. Background on Chemical Grouping
The term `grouping' or `chemical grouping' describes the general
approach to assessing more than one chemical at the same time. It can
include formation of a chemical category or identification of a
chemical analogue (OECD, 2007; Ex. #39). Chemical categories or
analogues can be based on the structural relationship between the
chemicals being grouped.
Structure-activity relationships (SAR) are relationships between a
compound's chemical structure and physicochemical properties and its
biological effects (e.g., cancer) on living systems. Structurally
diverse chemicals can sometimes be grouped for risk analysis based on a
common mechanism/mode of action or metabolic activation pathway (i.e.,
mechanism/mode of action clustering). Endpoint information for one
chemical is used to predict the same endpoint for another chemical,
which is considered to be ``similar'' in some way (usually on the basis
of structural similarity and similar properties and/or activities).
A chemical category is a group of chemicals whose physical-
chemical, human health, environmental, toxicological, and/or
environmental fate properties are likely to be similar or follow a
regular pattern as a result of structural similarity, structural
relationship, or other characteristic(s). A chemical category is
selected based on the hypothesis that the properties of a series of
chemicals with common features will show coherent trends in their
physical-chemical properties, and more importantly, in their
toxicological effects (OECD, 2007; Ex. #39).
The use of a category approach means that it is possible to
identify chemical properties which are common to at least some members
of the category. This approach provides a basis for establishing trends
in properties across that category and extends the measured data (e.g.,
toxicological endpoint) to similar untested chemicals.
In the category approach, not every chemical in a group needs to
have exposure-response data in order to be evaluated. Rather, the
overall data for the category as a whole must prove adequate to support
a risk assessment.
[[Page 61395]]
The overall data set must allow for an assessment of risk for the
compounds and adverse outcomes that lack adequate study. Chemicals may
be grouped for risk assessment based on the following:
Common functional group (e.g., aldehyde, epoxide, ester,
specific metal ion);
Common constituents or chemical classes, similar carbon
range numbers;
Incremental and constant change across the category (e.g.,
a chain-length category);
The likelihood of common precursors and/or breakdown
products, via physical or biological processes, which result in
structurally similar chemicals (e.g., the metabolic pathway approach of
examining related chemicals such as acid/ester/salt).
Within a chemical category, data gaps may be filled by read-across,
trend analysis and Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships
(QSARs) and threshold of toxicological concern. In some cases, an
effect can be present for some but not all members of the category. An
example is the glycol ethers, where the lower carbon chain length
members of the category indicate reproductive toxicity but the higher
carbon chain length members of the category do not. In other cases, the
category may show a consistent trend where the resulting potencies lead
to different classifications (OECD, 2007; Ex. #39).
b. Methods of Gap Analysis and Filling
As a result of grouping chemicals based on similarities determined
when employing the various techniques as described above, data gap
filling in a chemical category can be carried out by applying one or
more of the following procedures: read-across, trend analysis,
quantitative (Q)SARs and threshold of toxicological concern (TTC).
i. Read-Across Method
The read-across approach uses endpoint information for one chemical
(the source chemical) to predict the same endpoint for another chemical
(the target chemical), which is considered to be ``similar'' in some
way (usually on the basis of structural similarity or on the basis of
the same mode or mechanisms of action). Read-across methods have been
used to assess physicochemical properties and toxicity in a qualitative
or quantitative manner. The main application for qualitative read-
across is in hazard identification.
ii. Trend Analysis
Chemical category members are often related by a trend (e.g.,
increasing, decreasing or constant) for any specific endpoint. The
relationship of the categorical trend could be molecular mass, carbon
chain length, or to some other physicochemical property.
The observation of a trend (increasing, decreasing or constant) in
the experimental data for a given endpoint across chemicals can be used
as the basis for interpolation and possibly also extrapolation to fill
data gaps for chemicals with little to no data. Interpolation is the
estimation of a value for a member using measured values from other
members on ``both sides'' of that member within the defined category
spectrum, whereas extrapolation refers to the estimation of a value for
a member that is near or at the category boundary using measured values
from internal category members (OECD, 2007; Ex. #39).
iii. QSAR
A Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) is a
quantitative relationship between a numerical measure of chemical
structure, and/or a physicochemical property, and an effect/activity.
QSARs use mathematical calculations to make predictions of effects/
activities that are either on a continuous scale or on a categorical
scale. ``Quantitative'' refers to the nature of the relationship
between structurally related chemicals, not the endpoint being
predicted. Most often QSARs have been used for determining aquatic
toxicity or genotoxicity but can be used for evaluating other endpoints
as well (OECD, 2007; Ex. #39).
Question IV.A.8: Are QSAR, read-across, and trend analysis
acceptable methods for developing risk assessments for a category of
chemicals with similar structural alerts (chemical groupings known to
be associated with a particular type of toxic effect, e.g.,
mutagenicity) or other toxicologically-relevant physiochemical
attributes? Why or why not? Are there other suitable approaches?
iv. Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC)
The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) refers to the
establishment of an exposure level for a group of chemicals below which
there would be no appreciable risk to human health. The original
concept proposed that a low level of exposure with a negligible risk
can be identified for many chemicals, including those of unknown
toxicity, based on knowledge of their chemical structures. The TTC
approach is a form of risk characterization in which uncertainties
arising from the use of data on other compounds are balanced against
the low level of exposure. The approach was initially developed by the
FDA for migration of chemicals from consumer packaging into food
products and used a single threshold value of 1.5[micro]g/day (referred
to as the threshold of regulation).
The TTC principle extends the concept used in setting acceptable
daily allowable intakes (ADIs) by proposing that a de minimis value can
be identified for chemicals with little to no toxicity data utilizing
information from structurally related chemicals with known toxicities.
A decision tree can be developed to apply the TTC principle for
risk assessment decisions:
[[Page 61396]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC14.000
For OSHA purposes the TTC approach could be adapted to develop an
endpoint-specific LETE value for chemicals in a specific category where
little to no toxicity data exist utilizing source chemicals within the
category where toxicity data is available.
4. Use of Systems Biology and Other Emerging Test Data in Risk
Assessment
Toxicity testing is undergoing transformation from an approach
primarily based on pathological outcomes in experimental animal studies
to a more predictive paradigm that characterizes critical molecular/
cellular perturbations in toxicity pathways using in vitro test
systems. The paradigm shift is being largely driven by the
technological advances in molecular systems biology such as the use of
high throughput screening (HTS) assays, new computational methods to
predict chemical properties, and computer models able to associate
molecular events with a biological response. The vision, strategies,
and frameworks for applying the new toxicity data to risk-based
decision making are laid out in landmark reports by the National
Research Council (NRC, 2009; Ex. #24, NRC, 2007; Ex. #25). A
collaborative Federal initiative known as ``Tox21'' has been
established between the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the EPA
Office of Research and Development, the NIH Chemical Genomics Center
(NCGC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to collaborate on
development, validation, and translation of innovative HTS methods to
characterize key steps in toxicity pathways (NTP, 2013; Ex. #40). Tox21
has already screened over a 1000 compounds in more than 50 quantitative
HTS assays that have been made available to the scientific community
through publically accessible databases (e.g., EPA ACToR, NTP CEBS).
EPA has launched a program, known as ``NexGen'', to implement the NRC
vision and advance the next generation of risk assessment (EPA, 2013b;
Ex. #41). NexGen is a partnership among EPA, NTP, NCGC, AND FDA, along
with ATSDR and California's EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment. The objectives of NexGen are to pilot the new NRC risk
assessment framework, refine existing bioinformatics systems, and
develop specific prototype health risk assessments. These objectives
are expected to be achieved through an iterative development process
that includes discussion with scientists, risk managers, and
stakeholders.
Question IV.A.9: How should OSHA utilize the new molecular-based
toxicity data, high throughput and computer-based computational
approaches being generated on many workplace chemicals and the updated
NRC risk-based decision making framework to inform future Agency risk
assessments?
B. Considerations for Technological Feasibility
Before adopting a particular regulatory alternative, the Agency
must demonstrate that it is technologically feasible. As OSHA currently
performs it, a technological feasibility analysis is often one of the
most resource-intensive
[[Page 61397]]
aspects of the rulemaking process. The Agency must identify all of the
industries that are potentially affected and compile the available
information on current worker exposure and existing controls for each
industry. On occasion, the best information available for technological
feasibility analyses comes from sparse and incomplete data sets. Rather
than rely exclusively on such variable information, OSHA is considering
the use of exposure modeling, such as computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) modeling, for a more complete picture of worker exposures and the
potential effectiveness of different control strategies. Additionally,
OSHA is looking at other sources of information, such as the REACH
initiative from the European Union, that may help the Agency to better
characterize industries or jobs where there is little to no data on
worker exposures and control technologies.
1. Legal Background of Technological Feasibility
OSHA must demonstrate that a PEL, as well as any ancillary
provisions, to the extend they are being adopted, are feasible. In
general, OSHA determines that a regulatory alternative is
technologically feasible when it has evidence that demonstrates the
alternative is achievable in most operations most of the time. The
Agency must also show that sampling and analytical methods can measure
exposures at the proposed PEL within an acceptable degree of accuracy.
OSHA makes these determinations in the technological feasibility
analysis, which is made available to the public in the OSHA rulemaking
docket.
2. Current Methodology of the Technological Feasibility Requirement
To develop its technological feasibility analysis, the Agency must
first collect the information about the industries that are affected by
a particular hazard, the sources of exposure, the frequency of the
exposure, the number of workers exposed to various levels, what control
measures or other efforts are being made to reduce exposure to the
hazard, and what sampling and analytical methods are available.
This information is typically obtained from numerous sources
including:
Published literature,
OSHA Special Emphasis Program (SEP) reports,
NIOSH reports, such as health hazard evaluations (HHE),
control technology (CT) assessments, surveys, recommendations for
exposure control, and engineering control feasibility studies,
Site visits, conducted by OSHA, NIOSH, or supporting
contractors,
Information from other stakeholders, such as federal and
state agencies, labor organizations, industry associations, and
consensus standards,
Unpublished information, such as personal communications,
meetings, and presentations, and
OSHA Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) data.
With this information, OSHA creates profiles that identify the
industries where exposures occur, what operations lead to exposures,
and what engineering controls and work practices are being implemented
to mitigate exposures. A technological feasibility analysis is
typically organized by industry sector or group of sectors that
performs a unique activity involving similar activities. OSHA
identifies the operations that lead to exposures in all of these
industries, and eventually determines the feasibility of a PEL by
analyzing whether the PEL can be achieved in most operations most of
the time, as an aggregate across all industries affected. OSHA has also
utilized an application approach that evaluates the feasibility of
controls for a specific type of process used across a number of
industry sectors, such as welding, rather than on an industry-by-
industry basis.
OSHA develops detailed descriptions of how the substance is used in
different industries, the work activities during which workers are
exposed, and the primary sources of exposure. The Agency also
constructs exposure profiles for each industry, or by job category,
based on operations performed. The Agency classifies workers by job
categories within those industries, based on how similar work processes
are, and to what extent similar engineering controls can be applied to
control exposures in those processes.
Each exposure profile contains a list of affected job categories,
summary statistics for each job category and subcategories (such as the
mean, median, and range of exposures), and the distribution of worker
exposures using increments based on the regulatory alternatives.
OSHA's technological feasibility analyses for PEL-setting standards
have traditionally relied on full-shift, personal breathing zone (PBZ)
samples to create exposure profiles. A PBZ sample is the best sample
type to quantify the inhalation exposure of a worker. Area samples are
typically not used to construct exposure profiles but are useful to
characterize how much airborne contamination is present in a work
environment and to evaluate the effectiveness of engineering and other
process control measures.
Exposure profiles are used to establish the baseline exposure
conditions for every job category in affected industries. Baseline
conditions are developed to allow the Agency to estimate the extent to
which additional controls will be required to achieve a level specified
by a regulatory alternative.
Next, the technological feasibility analysis describes the
additional controls necessary to achieve the regulatory alternatives.
OSHA relies on its traditional hierarchy of controls when demonstrating
the feasibility of control technology. The traditional hierarchy of
controls includes, in order of preference: Substitution, local exhaust
ventilation, dust suppression, process enclosures, work practices, and
housekeeping. OSHA considers use of personal protective equipment, such
as respirators, to be is the least effective method for controlling
employee exposure, and therefore, personal protective equipment is
considered only for limited situations in which all feasible
engineering controls have been implemented, but do not effectively
reduce exposure to below the permissible exposure limit. To identify
what additional controls are feasible, the Agency conducts a detailed
investigation of the controls used in different industries based
primarily on case studies.
OSHA develops preliminary conclusions regarding feasibility of
regulatory alternatives, by identifying the lowest levels of exposure
that are technologically feasible in workplaces. To determine whether
an alternative is feasible throughout the spectrum of affected
industries, OSHA studies whether the regulatory alternative is
achievable in most operations most of the time by a typical firm. OSHA
may also determine whether a specific process used across a number of
different industries can be effectively controlled.
3. Role of Exposure Modeling in Technological Feasibility
In many situations, the Agency has found it difficult to develop
comprehensive exposure profiles and determine additional controls
because of limitations associated with the available exposure data.
These information gaps could be filled by incorporating exposure
modeling into the technological feasibility process. The limitations
associated with the data collected include:
Limited number of exposure samples: On occasions, an
exposure
[[Page 61398]]
profile for a job category may be built on a limited number of full-
shift exposure samples, and the Agency has to judge whether the samples
available are representative of the actual exposure distribution for
that industry.
Limit of Detection (LOD) issues: Because only a few
exposure samples may be available for a job category, the analysis may
include samples reported as ``less than'' values, high LODs, or
adjusted LOD values. This causes inconsistency in the use of LOD
samples and may cause the Agency to under- or over-estimate the actual
exposure distribution.
Lack of information on controls associated with data:
Information regarding working conditions and control strategies
associated with exposure samples may not be available. This makes it
difficult for the Agency to determine the impact of the control
strategies for various sources of exposure. Additionally, it is common
that the data does not include information about the exact nature of
the task performed during the sampling period. Sometimes, samples may
not exactly correspond to the job category to which OSHA assigns it in
the analysis because the job activities performed are not adequately
described.
Limitations of traditional industrial hygiene sampling:
Traditional industrial hygiene practices require a ``before and after''
data set to gauge the effectiveness of control strategies implemented,
and changes that occur in the working environment during the sampling
periods. The exact impact of control strategies and environmental
conditions cannot be determined easily with only one set of samples
obtained at a discrete moment in time. It is often the case that OSHA
does not have the luxury of ``before and after'' data sets and must
determine how the sample set fits into the exposure profile.
IMIS data limitations: Since the Agency may lack exposure
data for a particular job category or operation, it sometimes relies on
IMIS data. OSHA does not usually rely on IMIS data in its exposure
profiles unless there are no other exposure data available because the
IMIS data can have some significant limitations, which include the
following:
[cir] Insufficient information to determine if a hazard is present
in the work area in significant amounts as to be relevant for an
exposure profile. For example, an analyst cannot tell from the
information available in the IMIS database if a sample was targeted for
the hazard in question, or if it was part of a larger metal screening
process (if the hazard is a metal), which typically includes up to 16
different metals whether they are thought to be present in the sampling
environment or not.
[cir] Use of SIC codes in historic IMIS data, which do not
translate directly into the NAICS codes currently used in the analyses.
[cir] There is no information in the database on the end product
being developed, the action performed to produce it, or the materials
being used when the sample is taken. This limits the interpretation of
the data, since an analyst is not able to attribute the exposure to any
particular practice or process, and cannot recommend engineering
controls.
Generally, OSHA has had the most success using IMIS data to
identify and collect enforcement case files for further review. Case
files from OSHA inspections contain more detailed information on worker
activities and exposure controls observed at the time an exposure
sample is taken. Thus, use of case files to a large extent mitigates
the limitations of using IMIS data.
For most health standards, OSHA does not have the resources to
conduct site visits to obtain the necessary exposure information at
firms that are representative of all the affected industries. In an
effort to develop more robust exposure profiles, the Agency is
considering the use of exposure modeling, such as computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) modeling, to complement the exposure information that is
already available from literature, site visits, NIOSH and similar field
investigations, and employer-provided data. This technique would
potentially allow OSHA to better estimate workplace exposures in those
environments were data are limited.
Question IV.B.1: OSHA described how it obtains information
necessary to conduct its industry profiles. Are there additional or
better sources of information on the industries where exposures are
likely, the numbers of workers and current exposure levels that OSHA
could use?
a. Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling To Predict Workplace Exposures
OSHA is considering the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
to model workplace exposure. CFD is a discipline of fluid mechanics
that uses computer modeling to solve complex problems involving fluid
flows. Fluid flow is the physical behavior of fluids, either liquids or
gases, and it is represented by systems of partial differential
equations that describe conservation of energy, mass, and momentum. For
some physical phenomena, such as the laminar flow of a fluid through a
cylindrical pipe, these equations can be solved mathematically. Such
solutions describe how a fluid will move through the specified area, or
geometry, as a function of time. For more complex physical phenomena,
such as turbulent flow of a fluid through a complex geometry, numerical
approaches are used to solve the governing differential equations. As
such, CFD modeling uses mathematical models and numerical methods to
determine how fluids will behave according to a particular set of
variables and parameters. A mathematical model simulates the physical
phenomena under consideration (i.e. governing equations of energy,
mass, and momentum) and, in turn, a numerical method solves that model.
Overall, CFD modeling enables scientists and engineers to perform
computer simulations in order to make better qualitative and
quantitative predictions of fluid flows.
Some modeling techniques, such as CFD, allow a user to create a
virtual geometry to simulate actual work environments using appropriate
mathematical models and computational methods. The solutions predict
exposures at any given time and in any point in the space of the
geometry established. A model developed with this technique allows the
user to evaluate exposures in a worker's personal breathing zone and
identify areas in the work space that present high concentrations of
the contaminant. Because the exposure concentration can be solved as a
function of time, the user can observe how concentration increases or
decreases with time or other changes in the model input parameters.
This allows the user to consider administrative controls such as
limiting the time of the operation, the quantity of material emitted by
the process, or determining how long after an operation a worker can
safely enter a previously contaminated area. In some cases, work tasks
and processes that are time-varying can be communicated to the CFD
model through time-varying boundary conditions.
Models require a defined geometry (i.e., work space), and this step
in the model building may be resource intensive. To construct
geometries of complex work environments, OSHA would need to gather the
necessary information to model the work environment. This includes
taking measurements of the work area, machinery, engineering control
specifications (e.g., exhaust face velocities, spray systems flow
rates),
[[Page 61399]]
and any other objects or activities that may affect the air flow in the
area of interest. Moreover, gathering site-specific information for
building CFD models can be integrated with traditional industrial
hygiene survey activities. OSHA is interested in identifying ways to
reduce the time and money that may be spent recreating work
environments. One alternative is to import facility layouts in an
electronic format (such as CAD) into the modeling software. If an
establishment has its facility layout in this format, then the model
designer would not have to take physical measurements and recreate the
work area by 3-D modeling.
Question IV.B.2: In cases where there is no exposure information
available, to what degree should OSHA rely on modeling results to
develop exposure profiles and feasible control strategies? Please
explain why or why not.
Question IV.B.3: What partnerships should OSHA seek to obtain
information required to most efficiently construct models of work
environments? More specifically, how should OSHA select facility
layouts to model that are representative of typical work environments
in a particular industry? Note that the considerations should include
variables such as work area dimensions, production volumes and
ventilation rates in order to develop models for both large and small
scale operations.
Models must undergo validation and testing to determine if they
provide an accurate prediction of the physical phenomenon under
consideration, or in this case, the concentrations of air contaminants
to which workers could be potentially exposed. Sensitivity analyses can
be used to determine if model outputs are consistent given minor
changes to grid cell size and time step duration. Grid cell size refers
to the division of space according to nodes, and time step refers to
the value attributed to the time variable to numerically solve the
equations with reference to the nodes. Another method for model
evaluation is the comparison between the solutions of different models
to the same problem in that a similarity of findings across multiple
CFD models would provide greater confidence in the results. Arguably,
the best performance evaluation is the comparison of model results to
those of a field experiment that simulates on different scales the
actual work environment.
This method of predicting workplace exposures has some potential
advantages over traditional industrial hygiene sampling methods.
Patankar (1980; Ex. #42) explains some of the advantages of theoretical
calculations, in a general sense, to predict heat transfer and fluid
flow processes. Some of these are:
Low Cost: In many current and future applications, the
cost of a computational method may be lower than the corresponding
sampling cost. As mentioned above, the most resource-consuming aspect
of solid modeling is simulating the geometry that resembles actual
physical space of work environments.
Speed: A numerical solution to predict exposures can be
obtained very easily in a day. A user could manipulate different
configurations regarding worker positioning and engineering controls to
find an optimal control strategy.
Complete information: A computer solution provides the
values of all relevant variables throughout the domain of interest.
These variables cover fluid flow patterns, areas in the geometry with
highest concentrations of contamination, exposure values at any point
in the geometry, time profile of contamination, and exposure results
based on different control configurations. Traditional industrial
hygiene sampling does not allow for this level of analysis as it
measures results based on a particular work environment, and it cannot
distinguish how each independent variable (e.g., changes in the
workplace during sampling) affects the exposure result.
Ability to simulate realistic conditions: A computer
solution can accommodate any environmental condition and the values for
all variables that affect the solution can be easily modified to fit a
particular scenario.
Patankar (1980; Ex. #42) also discusses the disadvantages of
theoretical predictions to address heat transfer and fluid flow
processes, and they are applicable to exposure modeling. The solutions
obtained depend on the mathematical model used to simulate the
situation, the value of the input parameters, and the numerical method
used to obtain a solution. As Patankar notes, ``a perfectly
satisfactory numerical technique can produce worthless results if an
inadequate mathematical model is employed''. This is why it is
imperative that the mathematical model chosen actually resembles the
physical phenomena under consideration.
The Agency also realizes that even if an appropriate mathematical
model and numerical method are obtained to describe contamination in a
workplace, the exposure modeling approach may prove to be more
resource-intensive than traditional industrial hygiene sampling for
work environments with complex geometries. In these situations, OSHA
would have to develop a site visit protocol for gathering dimensions of
the work environment of interest. The information to be collected
includes the dimensions of the physical space, the ventilation system
that affects airflow patterns, and other details (such as location and
size of windows, doors, and large obstructions).
Despite these limitations, modeling promises to provide significant
advantages that could help OSHA construct more robust technological
feasibility analyses while reducing the considerable amount of
resources the Agency already expends on them. In addition to CFD
modeling, the Agency will continue to investigate other exposure
modeling techniques and their applicability in the rulemaking process.
Question IV.B.4: Should OSHA use only models that have been
validated? If so, what criteria for model validation should be
employed?
Question IV.B.5: What exposure models are you aware of that can be
useful for predicting workplace exposures and help OSHA create exposure
profiles and in what circumstances?
At this time, OSHA is primarily examining the possibility of
incorporating CFD models to indoor work operations. Most general
industry and some construction operations are performed indoors. As the
Agency conducts more research on the applicability of CFD models to
predict workplace exposures, outdoor models will also be considered. As
such, OSHA is interested in obtaining input from parties experienced in
these models.
Question IV.B.6: Should OSHA consider CFD models primarily for
indoor operations, outdoor operations, or both? What limitations exist
with these two different types of models?
Various U.S. federal agencies have used CFD modeling for projects
related to indoor air quality and/or occupational health and safety.
Preliminary research indicates that this CFD modeling work has been
performed mostly for academic and research purposes. There is little
information available discussing the use of CFD modeling for the
purposes of litigation and/or regulatory decision-making.
NIOSH has used CFD on a variety of internal research initiatives
that involve evaluating and controlling airborne exposures. Among other
projects, NIOSH has used CFD modeling to:
Evaluate potential exposure concentrations to hexavalent
chromium (CrVI), hexamethylene diisocyanate
[[Page 61400]]
(HDI), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and others with different
ventilation control configurations during spray painting operations at
a Navy aircraft paint hangar. In this study, NIOSH also tested and
validated the predictive value of CFD modelling against methods of
physical sampling by conducting workplace air sampling and comparing
with model results. The project was performed with assistance from the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the Navy Medical
Center San Diego (NMCSD) (NIOSH, 2011a; Ex. #43),
Study the effectiveness of ventilation systems for
controlling Tuberculosis (NIOSH, 2010; Ex. #44),
Evaluate emission controls for mail processing and
handling facilities (NIOSH, 2010; Ex. #44),
Better understand the role airflow and ventilation play in
disease transmission in commercial aircraft cabins (NIOSH, 2010; Ex.
#44),
Simulate different air sampling methods to better
understand how sampling methods can assess exposure (NIOSH, 2010; Ex.
#44), and
Help better understand the effectiveness of various forms
of exposure control technologies in the manufacturing and
transportation, warehousing, and utilities in the National Occupational
Research Agenda (NORA) Sectors (NIOSH, 2011b; Ex. #45).
Additionally, NIOSH has also used CFD models in mine safety
research:
NIOSH conducted a CFD study to model the potential for
spontaneous heating in particular areas of underground coal mines
(Yuan, L. et al., 2006; Ex. #46). The purpose of the study was to
provide insights into the optimization of ventilation systems for
underground coal mines that face both methane control and spontaneous
combustion issues.
NIOSH looked at the rate of flame spread along combustible
materials in a ventilated underground mine entry. CFD models were used
to estimate the flame spreading rates of a mine fire (Edwards, J. C.,
and Hwang, C. C., 2006; Ex. #47).
NIOSH has also used CFD modeling to model inert gas
injection and oxygen depletion in sealed areas of underground mines
(Trevits, M. A., et al., 2010; ; Ex. #48). CFD simulations were created
to model inert gas injections that aim to eliminate explosive
atmospheres that form in sealed mine areas. The CFD model was able to
quantify oxygen depletion and gas leakage rates of the sealed area.
EPA has conducted a substantial amount of work using CFD modeling
to assess outdoor air quality. However there is little information
available on EPA projects that have used CFD to evaluate indoor air
quality.
As part of the Labs21 program, EPA, in conjunction with the
Department of Energy, has published a guidance document for
optimization of laboratory ventilation rates (EPA & DOE, 2008; Ex #49).
The guidance is geared towards architects, engineers, and facilities
managers, in order to provide information about technologies and
practices to use in designing, constructing, and operating safe,
sustainable, high-performance laboratories. EPA advocates the use of
CFD simulations to determine the airflow characteristics of a
laboratory space in order to improve ventilation systems and increase
safety and energy efficiency.
The Building and Fire Research Laboratory of National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) developed a CFD model to simulate the
transport of smoke and hot gases during a fire in an enclosed space
(NIST, 1997; Ex. #50). The results of the study and an extensive
literature review indicated to NIST that CFD can have significant
benefits in the study of indoor air quality and ventilation. The report
resulting from this study provides a thorough description of CFD and
provides recommendations for future directions in CFD research.
The Building and Fire Research Laboratory of NIST has also used CFD
to model the effects of outdoor gas generator use on the air
concentrations of carbon monoxide inside nearby buildings (NIST, 2009;
Ex. #51). Using CONTAM (a mathematical indoor air quality model),
coupled with CFD simulations, the researchers were able to determine
factors (e.g., generator positioning, wind direction) that contributed
to elevated carbon monoxide accumulation in the building.
As OSHA continues to explore the option of incorporating CFD
modeling into its technological feasibility analyses, the Agency will
conduct further research on existing models.
b. The Potential Role of REACH in Technological Feasibility
Similar to the evaluation of chemical substances by the European
Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Commission before making a
decision to ban or restrict the use of a substance, OSHA must evaluate
information on health effects, exposure levels, and existing controls
before setting a new or revised PEL. However, ECHA requires chemical
manufacturers to generate the information evaluated by government
decision-makers, while in the U.S., OSHA itself is responsible for
generating, researching, and evaluating the relevant information.
As explained in more detail above, OSHA creates industry profiles
to evaluate the technological feasibility of a standard. The objective
of these profiles is to estimate the number of workers potentially
exposed to occupational hazards. OSHA relies on information from
numerous sources including the U.S. EPA, U.S. DOL, U.S. Census Bureau,
NIOSH, scientific publications, and site visits to identify specific
industries where workers are potentially exposed to hazards.
Acquiring data from these sources is straightforward and usually
achieved through standard procedures. However, these sources often
contain data gaps or inconclusive information. Thus, new sources of
information are needed to fill existing data gaps and strengthen OSHA's
analyses.
Since similar types of data are currently being developed and
submitted by manufacturers and importers under REACH, this information
could provide an additional reference source for OSHA to utilize. The
incorporation of REACH data into OSHA's technological feasibility
analyses could greatly assist the Agency in creating a more exhaustive,
thorough, and complete analysis. The information developed during the
REACH registration process could help OSHA better understand the
industries, uses, processes, and products in which a chemical of
concern is used, gain knowledge about the risk management measures and
controls currently in place, and develop scenarios where exposure may
be greatest. Exposure information generated by manufacturers in a
chemical safety assessment could be valuable for completing exposure
profiles on chemicals where current references for field sampling
analytical data are limited. In addition, utilizing information
presented in exposure scenarios that describe the conditions under
which a chemical can be used safely (i.e., risk management measures and
operating conditions) could provide insight on currently employed
industry control methods and their effectiveness.
While the benefits of incorporating REACH data into OSHA's
technological feasibility analyses seems promising, challenges such as
data access and data validity have been identified as potential
drawbacks. Despite provisions under REACH that require the public
availability of data and the sharing of data with other government
agencies, the European Chemicals Agency, which maintains the REACH
databases, has not
[[Page 61401]]
yet made some of the information available, including information
generated for and compiled in the chemical safety assessment.
Additionally, some manufacturers and importers may be prohibited from
sharing the data generated for REACH directly with other entities for
non-REACH purposes due to agreements made among the members of groups
organized under REACH to more efficiently share the information needed
for the registration of a chemical.
Question IV.B.7: How can exposure information in REACH be
incorporated into OSHA's technological feasibility analysis?
c. Technological Feasibility Analysis With a Focus on Industries With
Highest Exposures
OSHA's technological feasibility analysis is one of the most
resource-intensive parts of the rulemaking process. OSHA typically
analyzes exposures in all industries and job categories within those
industries that show potential for exposures and determine whether a
proposed exposure limit can be achieved in most operations most of the
time. These can range from industries that are constantly experiencing
exposures in most job categories above an existing PEL or the
regulatory alternatives, to industries where only a few job categories
have shown elevated exposures. OSHA has also utilized an application
approach in which it analyzed exposure associated with a specific
process across a number of different industries.
The Agency is investigating whether it is appropriate to focus
future technological feasibility analyses only on job categories that
have the highest exposures. An analysis performed in this manner may
reduce the amount of time and money OSHA has to expend to prove
feasibility. In many cases the control methods applicable for one
industry may also be effective in reducing exposures in other
industries. By determining the additional engineering controls and work
practices necessary to reduce the most elevated exposures to a level
specified by a regulatory alternative, the Agency could propose that
similar control strategies (wherever applicable) would also be
effective in reducing lesser exposures to that same level. In other
words, by making feasibility findings in the most problematic
industries, OSHA would argue that all other industries would also be
able to comply with a regulatory alternative. A related possibility is
for OSHA to make a feasibility determination based on enforcement
activities of the proposed or lower PEL in other geographic
jurisdictions, e.g., other states.
Question IV.B.8: To what extent and in what circumstances should
OSHA argue that feasibility for a regulatory alternative can be
established by proving the feasibility of reducing the highest
exposures to the level proposed by that regulatory alternative?
Question IV.B.9: To what extent and in what circumstances can OSHA
argue that feasibility for a regulatory alternative can be established
by the enforcement of a lower PEL [e.g., the 1989 PEL (See Appendix B)]
by an individual state or states?
Question IV.B.10: What are the appropriate criteria that OSHA
should use to assess whether control strategies implemented in a
process from one industry are applicable to a process from another
industry (e.g., similarity of chemicals, type, extent and duration of
exposures, similar uses)?
Question IV.B.11: Regardless of the industries involved, are there
criteria that OSHA should use to show that control strategies
implemented in a process from one operation are applicable to a process
from another operation? Please explain.
The Agency realizes that analyses performed in this manner may have
some implications for smaller firms that may find it harder to
implement resource intensive control strategies than larger firms.
Additionally, the control strategies from the most problematic
industries may not be similar to those that may be needed for
industries with lower exposures because the processes and sources of
exposure require different control methods.
Question IV.B.12: How should OSHA take into consideration the size
of a business of facility when determining technological feasibility?
C. Economic Feasibility in Health Standards
The purpose of this section is (1) to discuss how and why OSHA
currently conducts its economic feasibility analysis of health
standards, and (2) to examine approaches to economic feasibility that
might involve less time and fewer resources.
1. OSHA's Current Approach to Economic Feasibility
The Agency's existing approach to economic feasibility rests
directly on relevant language in the OSH Act, as interpreted by the
courts, requiring OSHA to establish that new standards are economically
feasible. OSHA also conducts economic analysis of its regulations in
compliance with other legislation and as a result of executive orders
that require analysis of the benefits and costs of a regulation as a
whole, and in the case of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, some estimate
of the economic impacts on small entities. However, the degree of
industry detail provided in OSHA's economic analyses is primarily a
function of judicial interpretation of the economic feasibility
requirements of the OSH Act. The development of the law on economic
feasibility is discussed in detail in Section III. Below we discuss
potential alternatives to current methods of economic feasibility
analysis, and then follow with a brief discussion on how the other
analytical requirements OSHA is required to meet might be satisfied.
As guided by the courts, OSHA develops economic feasibility
analyses that cover every affected industry and process. OSHA has not
always taken this position. For example, in its economic and
technological feasibility analysis of benzene, OSHA examined only
industries believed to be the worst in terms of significant exposure to
benzene. Since then, however, OSHA has attempted to cover all affected
industries in its feasibility analysis.
The courts have suggested that the economic feasibility analysis
must be reasonably detailed. In the Air Contaminants case, the court
said:
Indeed, it would seem particularly important not to aggregate
disparate industries when making a showing of economic feasibility .
. . [R]eliance on such tools as average estimates of cost can be
extremely misleading in assessing the impact of particular standards
on individual industries. AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962, 982 (11th
Cir. 1992) (``Air Contaminants''). (Ex. #8)
However, the court added:
We are not foreclosing the possibility that OSHA could properly
find and explain that certain impacts and standards do apply to
entire sectors of an industry. Two-digit SICs could be appropriate,
but only if coupled with a showing that there are no
disproportionately affected industries within the group. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982 n.28
In the hexavalent chromium case, Public Citizen Health Research
Group v. United States Dep't of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 178 (3d Cir. 2009;
Ex. #14), the court recognized that OSHA had the flexibility to
demonstrate technological feasibility on a process or activity rather
than industry-by-industry basis, if the processes or activities are
sufficiently similar from industry to industry. The court, however, did
not address the question of whether the same flexibility applies to
economic feasibility. OSHA, especially in health standards, has tried
[[Page 61402]]
to provide the most detailed analysis of industries and processes that
resources permit. For most recent health standards, this has meant the
use of the lowest level industry codes for which industry data are
available, and where more than one process is used in an industry,
consideration of each process separately. Further, in order to assure
that a regulation does not alter the competitive structure of an
industry, OSHA normally analyses three size classes of employer within
each industry: All establishments, small firms as defined by SBA, and
small firms with fewer than twenty employees (always smaller than the
SBA definitions). For the typical OSHA substance-specific health
standard, OSHA analyses each of the controls for each of the many
processes in which the substance might appear, and then of each
industry in which any process might appear, and then of three sizes of
establishment within the industry. Finally, OSHA examines the varying
levels of exposure and controls within an industry and develops
analyses that reflect these differences within an industry. In terms of
the form of the analysis, OSHA has followed the advice of the D.C.
Circuit to ``construct a reasonable estimate of compliance costs and
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that these costs will not threaten
the existence or competitive structure of an industry.'' United
Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980; Ex. #12)
(``Lead I'').
In response to this guidance, OSHA develops detailed estimates of
the costs of a health standard for each affected industry, and by the
three size categories of establishment. The result is that the economic
analyses of health standards routinely contain a series of tables
showing costs for each industry by multiple size classes of firms
within the industry, and sometimes for more than one process per
industry. Each entry in these tables is documented by detailed
explanations of how the costs were estimated for each industry and size
class and level of exposure.
OSHA then makes a determination for each industry whether or not
these costs are likely to threaten the existence or competitive
structure of that industry. In order to do this, OSHA first constructs
a ``screening analysis'' for each industry. For the purposes of this
screening analysis, OSHA combines its estimates on the costs per
establishment of various sizes with statistical data on the profits and
revenues of the affected establishment sizes, and then calculates costs
as a percentage of profits and revenues. For most industries, the costs
in comparison to revenues and profits are so small that, in OSHA's
view, no reasonable person could think that the costs could possibly be
expected to threaten the existence or competitive structure of an
industry. Where the costs are not this small, OSHA conducts a variety
of further economic analysis, depending on the economic situation,
nature of the costs, the affected industry, and the economic data
available.
This basic approach to economic feasibility analysis has been used
for many health standards, and the approach has generally been
successful in assuring that OSHA standards are economically feasible.
In the PELs rulemaking, where OSHA tried a more general approach, the
court found the level of detail inadequate. Similarly, OSHA has
encountered problems when the Agency did not have an adequate level of
detail with respect to the exposure profile and the technological
feasibility analysis, such as for dry-color formulators of cadmium
pigments. OSHA's eight lookback studies, conducted under both Sections
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order
12866, have not found any instance in which subsequent study showed
that a standard had threatened the existence of or brought about
massive dislocation within an industry.
OSHA can reasonably say that it has found a methodology such that
the Agency's determinations of economic feasibility have both been
considered adequate by the courts and proven to be accurate in
determining regulations to be feasible when re-evaluated by
retrospective analysis. However, the resulting methodology is extremely
resource intensive and time-consuming because OSHA always has to make
detailed cost estimates and provide detailed statistical data for every
single process and industry affected. For this reason, OSHA wants to
consider whether there may be methods that can short-cut this process
and still meet all of OSHA's legal requirements.
The remainder of this section examines two kinds of alternative
approaches to accelerating the process and reducing the resources
needed to produce health standards. One kind of alternative involves
formulating health standards differently. The second kind involves
different kinds of analysis OSHA might perform.
2. Alternative Approaches to Formulating Health Standards That Might
Accelerate the Economic Feasibility Analysis
One approach to simplifying, speeding up, and making the
development of standards less resource intensive would be to have the
standards themselves address health issues in a way that involves less
analysis for any given standard. Health standards can be analyzed
faster to the extent that there are fewer processes and/or fewer
industries to analyze. It would be less time consuming for OSHA to
analyze a health standard for a single process rather than a single
substance that is found in dozens of processes. OSHA already has a
variety of process-oriented standards that partially address health
hazards in such areas as abrasive blasting, welding, and
electroplating. Control banding also represents an approach that,
following the hazard assessment, examines controls for specific
processes. In control banding, the hazards are generic, but the
controls are process specific. Process-oriented approaches would be
most useful for processes widely used in a variety of settings--
abrasive blasting, degreasing, welding, etc. Industry-by-industry
economic feasibility analysis for a process-oriented approach would be
enormously simplified by the fact the controls and their costs would be
very similar across industries. As a result, OSHA could develop more
detailed and more secure cost estimates, with full opportunities for a
variety of affected parties to comment on those estimates. This
approach might also serve to greatly simplify the technological
feasibility analysis. On the other hand, since process-oriented
standards commonly involve multiple substances, risk assessment issues
might be more complex.
A related approach to speeding up at least portions of substance
specific health standards might be to regulate a single substance
process by process in multiple rulemakings--for example, regulate
exposures to hexavalent chromium in electroplating, then in welding,
and then painting. By producing process standards in this manner,
rather than waiting until analyses of all processes and industries is
completed, OSHA could potentially address the most severe exposures
much more rapidly. This approach could also allow OSHA to ignore
processes where the exposures are likely to be small and the chance of
exceeding a PEL minimal. Though this approach might result in portions
of a substance-specific standard being produced more quickly, the
approach would probably require more resources for multiple hearings
and docket analyses. A major disadvantage of this approach is that it
would result in the possibility that workers in industries not yet
regulated
[[Page 61403]]
would have to endure exposures higher than those in regulated
industries. Another disadvantage might be that the risk assessment
would be subject to multiple public hearings as each industry or
process was regulated.
3. Alternative Analytic Approaches to Economic Feasibility of Health
Standards
A different approach to producing less resource-intensive and time-
consuming economic feasibility analyses would be to re-examine whether
OSHA's basic approach of estimating the costs of each process,
industry, size class, and possible level of control is really necessary
in all cases given how the courts have defined economic feasibility.
The key to meeting the legal requirements is to return to the concept
of economic feasibility. In the Lead I decision, the court stated:
A standard is feasible if it does not threaten ``massive
dislocation'' to . . . or imperil the existence of the industry. No
matter how initially frightening the projected . . . costs of
compliance appear, a court must examine those costs in relation to
the financial health and profitability of the industry and the
likely effect of such costs on unit consumer prices. More
specifically . . . the practical question is whether the standard
threatens the competitive stability of an industry. Lead I, 647 F.2d
at 1265 (citations omitted). (Ex. #12)
As the court recognized, this is a strong criterion. In the real
world, industries are rarely eliminated or have their competitive
structure radically altered for reasons related to changes in their
costs, and it is changes in costs that courts recognized as the
principle reason a regulation might not be economically feasible.
Radical changes in industries tend to come from two major causes. Most
are the result of changes in demand such that the public is no longer
interested in the product or service an industry provides, for such
reasons as technological obsolescence or the existence of better
substitutes. Some radical changes in industries are the result of
foreign competition. However, foreign competition applies largely, in
an OSHA context, to manufacturing, but not to construction, utilities,
domestic transportation, or most services that OSHA regulates.
OSHA is not aware of any instance in which an OSHA regulation
eliminated or altered the competitive structure of an industry--though
in some cases, a combination of liability-based concerns, environmental
regulations, and OSHA regulation may have radically altered the use of
a product. For example, asbestos is not used in many applications where
it was once commonplace. Benzidine-based dyes have disappeared from the
U.S. marketplace. However, these cases had no effect on the viability
of user industries or their employment. Insulation contractors still
install insulation--it just no longer contains asbestos. Dyers continue
to dye textiles and leather all the colors benzidene-based dyes
imparted, but without using benzidene-based dyes. The chief effect has
been substitution away from a substance. This has resulted in serious
economic impacts on a limited number of producers of the substance but
little economic impact on the thousands of users of the substance who
simply found a substitute. It would seem that such substitution away
from a substance is not the kind of economic change that would make a
regulation economically infeasible.
OSHA might be able to place major emphasis on evidence that a
significant portion of an industry is already meeting a standard. Such
evidence is an obvious indication that a standard is both
technologically and economically feasible for that industry. After all,
the actual fact that a majority of employers of all sizes in an
industry is meeting a standard, while remaining viable, should be more
convincing than a set of cost estimates in an economic analysis
predicting that employers in a given industry could meet the standard.
Actual empirical evidence of a proposition is normally considered
superior to theoretical evidence for a proposition. There are several
reasons why many or most employers in an industry may already meet a
standard--these include ease of meeting the standard, industry
consensus standards, and concern about liability.
Similarly, the fact that a state or other jurisdiction has already
implemented a requirement and that firms within the state are generally
following the requirement would represent very strong evidence that a
requirement is economically and technologically feasible. For example,
twenty-two states currently operate their own OSHA programs that cover
both private sector and State and local government employees, and five
states cover public employees only. Of the twenty-two states that cover
both private and public sector employees, five states (South Carolina,
Minnesota, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington) are still enforcing the
1989 PELs, and did not revert to the less protective PELs when the
Court remanded the Air Contaminants rule. (Ex. #8) Michigan is also
enforcing the 1989 PELs in general industry, but not in construction.
Three states (Connecticut, Illinois, and New York) are enforcing the
1989 PELs in the public sector only. California enforces its own PELs
which in many cases are substantially lower than OSHA's. Situations in
which most firms in a state meet a potential requirement of a standard
are particularly convincing because they show that employers are not
only able to carry out the requirement, but can do so even in
competition with employers who are not required to meet such a
requirement.
Nevertheless, OSHA is aware that some care must be taken with
evidence that all or most firms in an industry or in an industry within
a state meet a requirement. It is particularly important to determine
whether those who do not meet the requirement might require
fundamentally different controls, have different costs, or operate in a
different market in spite of being in the same statistical industry.
Consider a standard addressing a specific metal. Most firms in an
industry may find the standard easy to meet because they only use the
metal in alloys that call for a very small percentage of the metal.
However, those firms that use alloys with high percentages of the metal
might be unable to meet the standard. This would not be apparent
looking solely at aggregate industry data. OSHA should take reasonable
steps to determine that those that did not meet the standard do not
have important technological or economic characteristics that are
different from those that did.
Under this approach, OSHA could conclude that a standard is
feasible where a state already had such a standard if it first
determines that (1) the standard is enforced; (2) employers in the
state in fact meet the standard; and (3) which of the relevant
industries and technologies are represented within that state.
However, in spite of these caveats, it would frequently take OSHA
less time and fewer resources to demonstrate that a standard is
technologically and economically feasible by showing that employers in
the industry already meet the standard than by the full identification
of control technologies, exposure levels achieved by those
technologies, the costs of the technologies, and the economic impacts
of these technologies that OSHA now undertakes.
As noted above, at one point in the Lead I decision, the court
suggested OSHA develop a ``reasonable estimate of costs.'' However at
another point in this decision the same court clarified:
[T]he court probably cannot expect hard and precise estimates of
costs. Nevertheless,
[[Page 61404]]
the agency must of course provide a reasonable assessment of the
likely range of costs of its standard, and the likely effects of
those costs on the industry . . . And OSHA can revise any gloomy
forecast that estimated costs will imperil an industry by allowing
for the industry's demonstrated ability to pass through costs to
consumers. Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1266. (Ex. #12)
OSHA has made little use of the concept of a likely range of costs
or of developing generic approaches to determining a reasonable
likelihood that these costs will not threaten the existence or
competitive structure of an industry.
OSHA could significantly reduce its resource and time expenditures
by providing ranges of costs, given that the upper end of the range
provides ``a reasonable likelihood that these costs will not threaten
the existence or competitive structure of an industry.'' Such an
approach would not only reduce OSHA's time and effort but also that of
the interested public. Too often stakeholders devote significant time
and effort questioning cost estimates when even the stakeholders'
alternative cost estimate would have no effect on whether the costs
would threaten the existence or competitive structure of an industry.
The simple fact is that both OSHA and its stakeholders spend far too
much time examining the accuracy of cost estimates even when the
highest cost estimates considered would have little effect on the
determination of economic feasibility.
OSHA could also make more effort to clarify historically the
circumstances under which regulations of any kind have eliminated or
altered the competitive structure of an industry. As noted above, OSHA
has yet to find an instance in which OSHA regulations eliminated or
altered the competitive structure of an industry. A more thorough
exploration of past experiences with OSHA regulations might simplify
OSHA analyses and make it more empirically based in a variety of
situations.
OSHA believes that it may be able to meet the requirements of
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
without the kind of industry-by-industry detail that OSHA now provides
in its economic analyses. The requirements of executive orders for
analysis of costs and benefits do not include requirements that they be
made available on an industry-by-industry basis, and OIRA encourages
the reporting of ranges as opposed to precise but possibly inaccurate
point estimates. OSHA believes that the requirements of the executive
orders and for determining if a regulatory flexibility analysis or
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Panel is
needed can, in most cases, be met by focusing on those sectors and size
classes where the most severe impacts are expected.
Question IV.C.1: Should OSHA consider greater use of process
oriented regulations, such as regulations on abrasive blasting,
welding, or degreasing, as an approach to health standards? Should such
an approach be combined with a control banding approach?
Question IV.C.2: Should OSHA consider issuing substance-specific
standards in segments as the analysis of a particular process or
industry is completed rather than waiting until every process and
industry using a substance has been thoroughly analyzed?
Question IV.C.3: To what extend and in what circumstances can OSHA
argue that feasibility for a regulatory alternative can be established
by the enforcement of a lower PEL (e. g., the 1989 PEL) by an
individual state or states?
4. Approaches to Economic Feasibility Analysis for a Comprehensive PELs
Update
Following the Eleventh Circuit's direction in the Air Contaminants
case (956 F.2d at 980-82; Ex. #8) and in Color Pigments Mfrs. Ass'n v.
OSHA, 16 F.3d 1157, 1161-64 (11th Cir. 1994; Ex. #13), OSHA has
typically performed its economic feasibility analyses on an industry-
by-industry basis using the lowest level industry codes for which
industry data are available. While such an approach best insures that
the effect of the standard on small industry segments will be
considered, it is very resource intensive. If OSHA were required to use
of this approach to address feasibility for a comprehensive PELs
update, which would require addressing the feasibility of new PELs for
hundreds of chemicals in hundreds of industry segments, it might
require more resources than the agency would have available.
There are good reasons to think that the OSH Act does not require
such a detailed level of economic analysis to support a feasibility
finding. The purpose of the OSH Act is to assure all workers ``safe and
healthful working conditions,'' and therefore it is unlikely that
Congress intended for OSHA to meet such demanding analytical
requirements if it meant that the agency could not issue a standard
addressing well-recognized hazards. See, e.g., Public Citizen Health
Research Group v. Dep't of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 178-79 (3d Cir. 2009;
Ex. #14) (``Hexchrome'') (rejecting interpretation that OSH Act
required OSHA to research all workplace operations involving hexavalent
chromium exposure to prove feasibility, which would ``severely hinder
OSHA's ability to regulate exposure to common toxins''); American
Dental Ass'n v. Martin, 984 F.2d 823, 827 (7th Cir. 1993; Ex. #53)
(OSHA not required to regulate ``workplace by workplace''); Assoc.
Bldrs & Contrs. Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63, 68 (3d Cir. 1988; Ex. #54)
(``A requirement that the Secretary assess risk to workers and need for
disclosure with respect to each substance in each industry would
effectively cripple OSHA's performance of the duty imposed on it by 29
U.S.C. 655(b)(5); a duty to protect all employees, to the maximum
extent feasible.'').
Indeed, the requirement that an OSHA standard not threaten
``massive dislocation'' or ``imperil the existence'' of an industry is
an outgrowth of the idea that OSHA may adopt standards that may cause
marginal firms to go out of business if they are only able to make a
profit by endangering their employees. See Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-
CIO v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467, 478 (XX Cir. 1974; Ex. #55). And the
notion that the determination must be made on an industry basis arises
from cases in which OSHA attempted to do just that; the statute does
not require feasibility to be evaluated in this way. See Lead I, 647
F.2d at 1301 (where OSHA attempted to determine the feasibility of the
lead standard on an industry-by-industry basis, noting that the parties
did not dispute that feasibility was to be determined in that manner);
Hexchrome, 557 F.3d at 178 (``nothing in 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5) requires
OSHA to analyze employee groups by industry, nor does the term
`industry' even appear''). The approach articulated by the Air
Contaminants court, which places an affirmative duty on OSHA to
establish that proposed standards would not threaten even the smallest
industry segments before adopting a standard, creates a heavy
analytical burden that is not necessarily required by the statute.
As the Lead I court notes, in the case of a standard requiring an
employer to adopt only those engineering and administrative controls
that are feasible, what really is at stake in OSHA's feasibility
determinations is whether OSHA has justified creating a presumption
that the implementation of such controls are feasible. 647 F.2d at
1269-70. Thus, OSHA need not ``prove the standard certainly feasible
for all firms at all times in all jobs.'' 647 F.2d at 1270. The court
recognized that under
[[Page 61405]]
this approach, some employers might not be able to comply with a
standard, but noted that the statute offers those employers several
alternatives: requesting a variance, asserting a feasibility defense in
an enforcement proceeding, or petitioning the agency to revise the
standard. 647 F.2d at 1270.
As noted above, most of OSHA's current PELs are over 40 years old,
and are based on science that is even older. It seems unlikely that a
statute enacted to protect workers against chemical health hazards
would preclude OSHA from updating hundreds of those PELs unless it can
show that each is feasible in each of the smallest industry segments in
which the chemical is used. The question, then, is what level of
analysis would be sufficient to justify a presumption that the standard
is feasible, shifting the burden to the employer as allowed by Lead I.
If OSHA moved forward with a global PELs update, the Agency might
consider analyzing economic feasibility at a higher level than it has
typically employed in substance specific health standards. In order to
do so, OSHA would need to develop criteria as to what chemicals are
suited to be part of a PELs rulemaking rather than subject to a
substance-specific rulemaking. For example, if the rulemaking record
showed that, for a specific chemical application group, generally
available exposure controls had not been successful in achieving the
proposed PEL, then this chemical or at least the application group
would be transferred from updated PELs rulemaking to being a candidate
for further study and possible inclusion in a substance-specific
rulemaking. The goal under this approach would be to develop a
reasonable basis for believing that the chemicals and application
groups remaining in a PELs-update rulemaking are (1) likely to be
economically feasible; and (2) subject to relatively simple and easily-
costed controls that are likely to be relatively homogenous across
industries.
As a result, rather than accumulating data at the lowest industry
level available regarding exposures and controls needed for each
chemical for which a new PEL would be adopted, OSHA could consider a
more general approach. For example, OSHA might conduct an economic
feasibility analysis at the industry level for which sufficient
exposure data are currently available. It might use a control banding
approach in order to determine the types of controls necessary to
comply with a new PEL, and validate models to implement each type of
control based on variables such as establishment size and process type.
The results of this analysis would be used to build up costs at the
industry level. It is possible that the results of such an analysis
might be better characterized in ranges, and of sufficient precision to
establish feasibility at a level as low as the method that OSHA
typically uses. Under this approach, a determination made in this way
would be presumptively sufficient to establish feasibility in the
absence of contrary evidence provided by commenters. If such evidence
were presented, OSHA would address it and incorporate it into its
feasibility analysis supporting the final rule.
Question IV.C.4: Should OSHA consider providing ranges of costs for
industries in situations where even the upper range of the costs would
obviously not provide a threat to the existence of competitive
structure of an industry?
Question IV.C.5: What peer-reviewed economics literature should
OSHA consult when determining whether the competitive structure of an
industry would be altered? Are there any instances where an OSHA
standard did threaten the existence or competitive structure of an
industry? What were they and what is the evidence that an OSHA standard
was the origin of the difficulties?
Question IV.C.6: Should OSHA consider and encourage substitution
and elimination of substances that cause significant risk in workplaces
even if such substitution or elimination will eliminate or alter the
competitive structure of the industry or industries that produce the
hazardous substance?
Question IV.C.7: Are there other approaches OSHA could use that
would provide for more timely and less resource-intensive economic
feasibility analyses?
Question IV.C.8: In determining the level of industry detail at
which OSHA should conduct an economic feasibility analysis for a
comprehensive PELs update, what considerations should OSHA take into
account? What level of detail do you think is sufficient to justify the
presumption of feasibility for such a standard? Please explain.
Question IV.C.9: Are the methodologies suggested above appropriate
to establish economic feasibility for a comprehensive PELs update? Why
or why not? What other cost effective methods are available for OSHA to
establish economic feasibility for such a rulemaking?
Question IV.C.10: What factors should OSHA consider in determining
whether a chemical should be part of an overall PELs update or subject
to substance-specific rulemaking? Should OSHA consider some application
groups for a given chemical as subject to a PELs update rulemaking if
some other application groups present feasibility issues that make them
inadvisable candidates for a PELs rulemaking?
V. Recent Developments and Potential Alternative Approaches
Wide access to information on the Internet and the development of a
global economy has shifted occupational safety and health from a
domestic to a global concern. Countries often struggle with similar
experiences and challenges related to exposure to hazardous chemicals,
and sharing information and experiences across borders is a common
practice. Global data sharing allows for the widespread and rapid
dissemination of available chemical information to employers,
employees, managers, chemical suppliers and importers, risk managers,
or anyone with access to the Internet. The development of hazard
assessment tools that take advantage of readily available hazard
information make it possible for employers to implement effective
exposure control strategies without the need to rely solely on OELs.
Some of these resources for data and tools that OSHA may use more
systematically in the future for hazardous chemical identification and/
or assessment are addressed in Section V.
A. Sources of Information About Hazardous Chemicals
In order to design and implement appropriate protective measures to
control chemical exposures in the workplace, employers need reliable
information about the identities and hazards associated with those
chemicals. OSHA is considering ways in which recently developed data
sources could be used by the Agency and employers to more effectively
manage chemical hazards in the workplace. Developments in the use of
structure--activity data for grouping chemicals having similar
properties, the Environmental Protection Agency's High Production
Volume (HPV) Chemicals, OSHA's Hazard Communication standard and the
Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard, health hazard
banding, the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, Authorization,
and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), are discussed here. OSHA is
interested in stakeholders' comments on how the Agency may make use of
any of these data sources or other alternative data or information
sources not discussed here
[[Page 61406]]
to better manage workplace chemical exposures.
1. EPA's High Production Volume Chemicals
One potential source of relevant and timely information on
chemicals that OSHA may make better use of in the future is the data on
High Production Volume chemicals that are being collected by the EPA
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The OECD program lists approximately 5,000 chemicals on its list, and
OSHA has determined that 290, or 62 percent of the 470 substances with
PELs are included on the OECD list.
Under the HPV program, EPA has identified over 2,000 chemicals that
are produced in quantities of one million pounds a year or more in the
United States. It would appear that these chemicals are thus
economically significant in the US, and there are likely to be a large
number of workers exposed to them. Through the HPV Challenge program,
EPA encouraged industry to make health and environmental effects data
on these HPV chemicals publicly available. To date, data on the
properties of approximately 900 HPV chemicals has been made available
through the Agency's High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS)
(U.S. EPA, 2012a; Ex. #56). For each HPV chemical, the database
includes information on up to 50 endpoints on physical/chemical
properties, environmental fate and pathways, ecotoxicity, and mammalian
health effects. EPA has also used this information to generate publicly
available chemical hazard characterizations, which provide a concise
assessment of the raw technical data on HPV chemicals and evaluate the
quality and completeness of the data received from industry (U.S. EPA,
2013d; Ex. #63).
Data on HPV chemicals submitted through the OECD's program are
available through its Global Portal to Information on Chemical
Substances, eChemPortal (OECD, 2013; Ex. #58). In addition to searching
data collected through the EPA HPV and OECD HPV programs, eChemPortal
allows for simultaneous searching of 26 databases for existing publicly
available data on the properties of chemicals, including: physical/
chemical properties, environmental fate and behavior, ecotoxicity, and
toxicity.
Question V.A.1. How might publicly available information on the
properties and toxicity of HPV chemicals be utilized by employers to
identify chemical hazards and protect workers from these hazards? OSHA
is also interested to hear from commenters who may currently make use
of these data in their worker protection programs.
2. EPA's CompTox and ToxCast
EPA has also launched an effort to prioritize the tens of thousands
chemicals that are currently in use for testing and exposure control.
Through its computational toxicology (CompTox) research, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to figure out how to
change the current approach used to evaluate the safety of chemicals.
CompTox research integrates advances in biology, biotechnology,
chemistry, and computer science to identify important biological
processes that may be disrupted by the chemicals and trace those
biological disruptions to a related dose and human exposure. The
combined information helps prioritize chemicals based on potential
human health risks. Using CompTox, thousands of chemicals can be
evaluated for potential risk at a small cost in a very short amount of
time. A major part of EPA's CompTox research is the Toxicity Forecaster
(ToxCastTM). ToxCast is a multiyear effort launched in 2007
that uses automated chemical screening technologies, called
``highthroughput screening assays,'' to expose living cells or isolated
proteins to chemicals. The cells or proteins then are screened for
changes in biological activity that may suggest potential toxic
effects.
These innovative methods have the potential to limit the number of
required animal-based laboratory toxicity tests while, quickly and
efficiently screening large numbers of chemicals. The first phase of
ToxCast, called ``proof of concept'', was completed in 2009, and it
evaluated more than 300 well studied chemicals (primarily pesticides)
in more than 500 high-throughput screening assays. Because most of
these chemicals already have undergone extensive animal-based toxicity
testing, this enables EPA researchers to compare the results of the
high-throughput assays with those of the traditional animal tests.
(EPA, 2014a; Ex. #59)
Completed in 2013, the second phase of ToxCast evaluated over 2,000
chemicals from a broad range of sources, including industrial and
consumer products, food additives, and potentially ``green'' chemicals
that could be safer alternatives to existing chemicals. These chemicals
were evaluated in more than 700 high-throughput assays covering a range
of high-level cell responses and approximately 300 signaling pathways.
ToxCast research is ongoing to determine which assays, under what
conditions, may lead to toxicological responses. The results of this
research then can be used to suggest the context in which decision
makers can use the data. The EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program already has begun the scientific review process necessary to
begin using ToxCast data to prioritize the thousands of chemicals that
need to be tested for potential endocrine-related activity. Other
potential uses include prioritizing chemicals that need testing under
the Toxic Substances Control Act and informing the Safe Drinking Water
Act's contaminant candidate lists. (EPA, 2014b; Ex. #60) EPA
contributes the results of ToxCast to a Federal agency collaboration
called Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (Tox21). Tox21 pools those
results with chemical research, data and screening tools from the
National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental
Health Science, the National Institutes of Health's National Center for
Advancing Translational Sciences and the Food and Drug Administration.
(EPA, 2014b; Ex. #60)
Thus far, Tox21 has compiled highthroughput screening data on
nearly 10,000 chemicals. All ToxCast chemical data are publicly
available for anyone to access and use through user-friendly Web
applications called interactive Chemical Safety for Sustainability
(iCSS) Dashboards at https://actor.epa.gov/actor/faces/.
OSHA could use this publicly available information on chemical
properties and toxicity as a part of the Agency's risk assessments that
support the revision and development of permissible exposure limits.
Tox21 could also be used by the Agency for screening chemicals and
prioritizing for risk management.
Question V.A.2. How might the information on the properties and
toxicity of chemicals generated by CompTox, ToxCast, and/or Tox21 be
utilized by employers to identify chemical hazards and protect workers
from these hazards? OSHA is also interested to hear from commenters who
may currently make use of these data in their worker protection
programs.
3. Production and Use Data Under EPA's Chemical Data Reporting Rule
Under the EPA's Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule, issued in 2011,
EPA collects screening-level, exposure-related information on certain
chemicals included on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical
Substance Inventory and makes that information publicly available to
the extent possible. The CDR rule amended the TSCA Inventory Update
Reporting (IUR) rule
[[Page 61407]]
and significantly increased the type and amount of information covered
entities are required to report. The 2012 submissions included data on
more chemicals and with more in-depth information on manufacturing
(including import), industrial processing and use, and consumer and
commercial use than data collected under the IUR in 2006 (U.S. EPA,
2013a; Ex. #1).
The expanded reporting on chemical production and use information
under the CDR could help OSHA better understand how workers are exposed
to chemicals and the industries and occupations where exposures to
chemicals might occur.
4.Structure-Activity Data for Chemical Grouping
Although toxicity testing for chemicals has increased greatly since
the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601-2629;
Ex. #62) in the United States, and with similar legislation elsewhere,
toxicity data is only publicly available for a fraction of industrial
chemicals. Since the enactment of TSCA and creation of the TSCA
Interagency Testing Committee (U.S. EPA, 2013c; Ex. #57), the ITC has
recommended testing for hundreds of chemicals, and chemical producers
have conducted more than 900 tests for these chemicals. However,
potentially thousands of industrial chemicals have not been tested.
With the rapidly expanding development of new chemical substances
and mixtures, the need for toxicity information to inform chemical
safety management and public health decisions in a timely manner has
exceeded the capacity of the government programs to provide those data.
As a result, programs such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development's (OECD) Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) and the
U.S. EPA High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge programs were designed
to encourage the voluntary development of data. However, even with the
creation of these non-statutory programs, potentially thousands of non-
HPV industrial chemicals go untested. Therefore, chemical
prioritization for screening and testing requires the development and
validation of standard methods to predict the human and environmental
effects and potential fate of chemicals. Where screening and testing
data are sparse, the use of predictive models called structural
activity relations (SARs) or quantitative structural activity
relationships (QSARs) can extend the use of limited toxicity and safety
data for some untested chemicals (Russom et al., 2003; Ex. #64). QSARs
are mathematical models that are used to predict measures of toxicity
from physical characteristics of the structure of chemicals, known as
molecular descriptors.
Other U.S. and international agencies have explored the use of
chemical groupings to regulate chemicals in order to fulfill their
regulatory and statutory authorities. Under the TSCA Work Plan, the EPA
announced in 2013 that it would begin to assess 20 flame retardant
chemicals and three non-flame retardant chemicals. EPA utilized a
structure-based approach, grouping eight other flame retardants with
similar characteristics together with the chemicals targeted for full
assessment in three groupings. EPA will use the information from these
assessments to better understand the other chemicals in the group,
which currently lack sufficient data for a full risk assessment.
EPA uses chemical groupings to fill data gaps in its New Chemical
Program. EPA's New Chemical Program, also under TSCA, requires anyone
who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance into
commerce to provide EPA with notice before initiating the activity.
This is called a pre-manufacture notification (PMN). EPA received
approximately 1,500 new chemical notices each year and has reviewed
more than 45,000 from 1979 through 2005 (GAO, 2007; Ex. #65). Because
TSCA does not require testing before submission of a PMN, SARs and
QSARs are often used to predict the environmental fate and ecologic
effects. In addition, the EPA makes predictions concerning chemical
identity, physical/chemical properties, environmental transport and
partitioning, environmental fate, environmental toxicity, engineering
releases to the environment, and environmental concentrations. The
agency uses a variety of methods to make these predictions that include
SARs, nearest-analogue analysis, chemical class analogy, mechanisms of
toxicity, and chemical industry survey data and the collective
professional judgment of expert scientific staff, in the absence of
empirical data. The agency uses these methods to fill data gaps in an
assessment and to validate submitted data in notifications. Predictions
are also made by the U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) under TSCA (Zeeman., 1995; Ex. #66). The OPPT has routinely used
QSARs to predict ecologic hazards, fate, and risks of new industrial
chemicals, as well as to identify new chemical testing needs, for more
than two decades. OPPT SAR/QSARs for physical/chemical properties used
for new chemical assessments are publically available (U.S. EPA, 2012b;
Ex. #67).
In Europe, internationally agreed-upon principles for the
validation of (Q)SARs were adopted by OECD Member Countries and the
Commission in 2004. In 2007, the Inter-organization Programme for the
Sound Management of Chemicals, a cooperative agreement among United
Nations Environmental Program (UNEP); International Labor Organization
(ILO); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO);
World Health Organization (WHO); United Nations Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO), United Nations Institute for Training and
Research (UNITAR) and Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) published ``Guidance on Grouping of Chemicals'' as
part of an ongoing monograph series on testing chemicals. REACH
registrants may rely on (Q)SAR data instead of experimental data,
provided the registrants can provide adequate and reliable
documentation of the applied method and document the validity of the
model. Validation focuses on the relevance and reliability of a model
(ECHA, 2008; Ex. #68).
The EU Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the
Environment (CSTEE) recommended, in their general data requirements for
regulatory submission, that QSAR data may be used as well as animal
data. A chemical category approach based on the metal ion has been
extensively used for the classification and labeling of metal compounds
in the EU. Other category entries are based on certain anions of
concern such as oxalates and thiocyanates. For these EU classifications
the category approach has often been applied to certain endpoints of
particular concern for the compounds under consideration, but has not
necessarily been applied to all endpoints of each individual compound
in the category of substances.
The Danish EPA has made extensive use of QSARs and has developed a
QSAR database that contains predicted data on more than 166,000
substances (OSPAR Commission, 2000; Ex. #69). A recent publication from
the Danish EPA reports the use of QSARs for identification of potential
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and
very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances from among the HPV and medium-
production volume chemicals in the EU.
OSHA is considering using a combination of chemical group
approaches to evaluate multiple chemicals with similar attributes
[[Page 61408]]
utilizing limited data that can be extrapolated across categories. The
Agency invites comment on how such grouping approaches have been used
to evaluate risks to worker populations.
Question V.A.3: Are QSAR, read-across, and trend analysis useful
and acceptable methods for developing hazard information utilizing
multiple data sets for a specific group of chemicals?
Question V.A.4: Are there other acceptable methods that can be used
to develop hazard information for multiple chemicals within a group?
Question V.A.5: What are the advantages and disadvantages of each
method?
5. REACH: Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of
Chemicals in the European Union (EU)
Safe chemical management is a universal concern. The European
Union, recognizing the need for a more integrated approach to chemical
management, adopted REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and
Restriction of Chemicals) to address chemicals throughout their life
cycle. Although REACH applies to European Union Member States, chemical
manufacturers in other countries exporting to European countries also
have to comply with the REACH requirements to sell their products in
Europe.
The REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 became effective on June 1,
2007, and relies on the generation and disclosure of data by
manufacturers and importers of chemicals in order to protect human
health and the environment from chemical hazards. The regulation also
established the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to coordinate
implementation (EC 1907/2006, 2006; Ex. #70).
REACH establishes processes for the Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals. REACH requires
manufacturers and importers to register their chemicals and establish
procedures for collecting and assessing information on the properties,
hazards, potential risks and uses of their chemicals. The registration
process, which began in 2010, is being phased-in based on the tonnage
and hazard classification of the substances. For existing chemicals, it
is set to be completed in June 2018.
For each chemical manufactured or imported in quantities of 1 ton
or more per year, companies must register the substance by providing a
technical dossier to ECHA. The technical dossier includes information
on: Substance identity; physicochemical properties; mammalian toxicity;
ecotoxicity; environmental fate; manufacture and use; and risk
management measures (ECHA, 2012b; Ex. #71). Non-confidential
information from the technical dossiers is published on the ECHA Web
site (ECHA, 2012c; Ex. #72).
Companies manufacturing or importing a chemical in quantities of 10
or more tons per year must also conduct a chemical safety assessment.
This assessment includes the evaluation of: (1) Human health hazards;
(2) physicochemical hazards; (3) environmental hazards; and (4)
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), and very persistent and
very bioaccumulative (vPvB) potential (ECHA, 2012b; Ex. #71). If a
substance is determined to be hazardous or a PBT/vPvB, registrants must
then conduct an exposure assessment, including the development of
exposure scenario(s) (ES) and exposure estimation, and a risk
characterization that includes development of a health effects
benchmark, such as the Derived No Effect Level (DNEL).
An exposure scenario, the main output of the exposure assessment
process, documents a set of operational conditions and risk management
measures for a specific use of a substance. A number of exposure
estimation models have been developed in the EU to help the regulated
community create these exposure scenarios. Exposure scenarios must also
be included in the Safety Data Sheets (SDS) in order to communicate
this information down the supply chain. When an extended SDS with
exposure scenarios is received by a chemical user, the exposure
scenarios must be reviewed to determine if they are applicable to the
use situation in that facility. If the exposure scenarios are
applicable, the user has 12 months to implement them. If they are not,
the user has several options to choose from to determine appropriate
controls. These options include: (1) User informing supplier of their
use, and user convincing supplier to recognize it as an ``identified
use'' on suppliers safety assessment; (2) user implementing the
suppliers conditions of use described in the exposure scenario of the
original/current safety assessment; (3) user substituting the substance
for another substance that is covered in a pre-existing safety
assessment; (4) user finding another supplier who does provide an
exposure scenario that covers the use of the substance; or (5) prepare
a downstream user chemical safety report. (ECHA, 2012c; Ex. #72).
After completing the exposure assessment, registrants conduct a
risk characterization process to determine if the operational
conditions cause exposures that require risk management measures to
ensure risks of the substance are controlled. Risk characterization
consists of the comparison of exposure values derived from each
exposure scenario with their respective DNEL or an analogous health
benchmark such as Derived Minimal Effect Level (DMEL) or Predicted No
Effect Concentration (PNEC)), established by the registrant. Where no
health benchmark is available, a qualitative risk characterization is
required (ECHA, 2009; Ex. #73).
Manufacturers and importers are required to document the
information developed during the chemical safety assessment in a
chemical safety report, which is submitted to ECHA. The report then
forms the basis for other REACH processes, including substance
evaluation, authorization, and restriction.
ECHA and the EU Member States then evaluate the information
submitted during the registration process to examine the testing
proposals, check the quality of the registration dossiers, and evaluate
whether a substance constitutes a risk to human health or the
environment. Following the evaluation process, registrants may be
required to comply with additional actions to address concerns (i.e.,
submit further information, proceed on restriction or authorization
procedures under REACH, take actions under other legislation, etc.).
(ECHA, 2012d; Ex. #74).
As the implementation of REACH continues, large amounts of
information will be generated by manufacturers, importers, and
downstream users throughout the registration, authorization, and
restriction processes. Some of this information is publicly available
on ECHA Web sites, and includes toxicological information, general
exposure control recommendations, and assessments of the availability
of alternatives. The generation and availability of this extensive data
on chemicals can assist OSHA, as well as U.S. employers and workers, to
further enhance chemical safety and health management by assisting in
the assessment of hazards, development of exposure control
recommendations, and selection of substitutes to help drive the
transition to safer chemicals in the workplace.
As of July, 2013, the REACH database of registered substances is
comprised of more than 9900 substances. The database provides extensive
information to the public from dossiers prepared by chemical
manufacturers, importers, and downstream users. OSHA is interested
[[Page 61409]]
in determining whether some information developed and submitted under
REACH may be helpful to OSHA in its own regulatory initiatives.
Information submitted under REACH's requirements to assess chemical
risks in workplaces may be useful in developing task-based exposure
control plans, or of use in OSHA's feasibility analyses. OSHA is
participating in high-level discussions with the EU about the
feasibility of sharing these data.
Question V.A.6: OSHA is interested in the experiences of companies
that have had to prepare chemical dossiers and submit registration
information to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) ECHA. In
particular, how might the approaches be used to support occupational
exposure assessments and development of use-specific risk management in
the United States?
Question V.A.7: To what extent is information developed under REACH
used by U.S. businesses to promote product stewardship and ensure safe
use of substances and mixtures by product users?
Question V.A.8: Should OSHA pursue efforts to obtain data from ECHA
that companies are required to provide under REACH?
B. Non-OEL Approaches to Chemical Management
OSHA's PELs and its corresponding hierarchy of controls have been a
major focus in the fields of occupational health and industrial hygiene
for many years. Undoubtedly, occupational exposure limits (OELs), which
help reduce workers' risk of adverse health by establishing precise
targets for employers to follow, will always be an essential part of
controlling chemical exposures in workplaces. However, regardless of
whether a more effective process for updating OSHA's PELs can be
established, the rapid development of new chemical substances and
mixtures that will continue to leave workers exposed to thousands of
unregulated substances make it impractical to solely rely on OELs.
Moreover, for many of the chemicals and mixtures that have been
developed since the PELs were initially promulgated, insufficient
hazard information exists to serve as a basis for developing OELs.
While OELs generally focus on a single chemical, workers are typically
exposed to mixtures or multiple substances in the workplace. Mixed
exposures may also result in synergistic or antagonistic effects that
are rarely considered in developing OELs.
Workplace risk assessments, and corresponding risk management
plans, should be based on an evaluation of all hazards present--OELs
established for a few chemicals among the many in the workplace
environment have diminished impact in these situations. Unlike OELs,
which are only useful in protecting workers if regular measurement and
assessment of compliance is completed, alternative risk management
approaches focus more on determining what types of controls are
required to reduce exposures without necessarily referring to
quantitative assessments of exposure to evaluate success.
An important aspect of risk assessment and risk management is
consideration of safer alternatives, which can often result in a path
forward that is less hazardous, technically feasible, and economically
viable.
1. Informed Substitution to Safer Chemicals and Processes
While establishing exposure limits for hazardous chemicals helps to
reduce workers' risk of adverse health effects, the process is costly,
time consuming, and does not drive the development or adoption of safer
alternatives that could best protect workers. OSHA recognizes that
ultimately, an approach to chemical management that incentivizes and
spurs the transition to safer chemicals, products, and processes in a
thoughtful, systematic way will most effectively ensure safe and
healthful conditions for workers.
Informed substitution, the considered transition from hazardous
chemicals to safer substances or non-chemical alternatives, provides a
way of moving toward a more preventative chemical management framework.
a. Substitution in Practice
Whenever a hazardous chemical is regulated, there is always the
potential for the chemical to be replaced with a substitute chemical or
redesigned product or process that poses new and potentially greater
hazards to workers, consumers, or the environment or results in risk-
shifting from one group to another. Regrettably, this potential has
been realized in a number of cases. For example:
The regulation of methylene chloride by EPA, FDA, and OSHA
spurred the shift to 1-bromopropane, an unregulated neurotoxicant and
possible carcinogen, in a variety of applications, such as
refrigeration, metal cleaning, and vapor and immersion degreasing
applications, as well as in adhesive resins (Kriebel et al., 2011; Ex.
#75).
Air quality regulations in California created a market in
the vehicle repair industry for solvent products formulated with n-
hexane, a neurotoxicant causing symptoms of peripheral neuropathy, and
hexane-acetone blends, which amplify the neurotoxic effects of n-
hexane, thus resulting in risk-shifting from the environment to workers
(Wilson et al., 2007; Ex. #76).
While regulatory processes lacking a robust assessment of
alternatives can result in substitution that is equally detrimental to
human health or the environment, regulatory efforts that require
planning processes and provide guidance and technical assistance on
preferred alternatives can minimize risk trade-offs and protect
workers, consumers, and the environment. For example, in Massachusetts,
facilities using specific toxic chemicals in certain quantities are
required to undertake a toxics use reduction planning process. Agencies
provide various resources to encourage and facilitate the voluntary
adoption of alternatives. In the case of trichloroethylene, the
Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance and the Toxics Use
Reduction Institute provided technical assistance, educational
workshops, a database of safer alternatives, and performance
evaluations of alternatives (Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 2011a; Ex.
#78; Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 2011b; Ex. #79; Toxics Use
Reduction Institute, 2011c; Ex. #80). Through these efforts,
Massachusetts companies reduced the use of trichloroethylene by 77
percent since 1990, moving to a number of safer alternatives in the
process (Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 2011d; Ex. #81).
These cases demonstrate that the transition to safer chemicals,
materials, products, and processes will be best facilitated not through
restrictions or bans of chemicals, but rather through the integration
of informed substitution and guidance on preferred alternatives into
regulatory efforts.
b. Benefits of a Preference for Primary Prevention Strategies
The reduction or elimination of a hazard at the source, as
traditionally embraced by health and safety professionals, is not only
the most reliable and effective control approach, but also provides a
number of benefits for workers and businesses.
Preferring primary prevention strategies (i.e. elimination and
substitution) can result in the ``total elimination of exposure to
hazardous chemicals, less reliance on worker compliance or equipment
maintenance for success, elimination of the potential for accidental or
non-routine overexposures, prevention of dermal exposures, and process
and environmental improvements not
[[Page 61410]]
related to worker health'' (Roelofs et al., 2003; Ex. #82).
Additionally, making process improvements designed to reduce or
eliminate workers' exposures to hazardous chemicals often results in
significant business improvements or savings. A 2008 study by the
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) demonstrated the
relationship between the application of the hierarchy of controls and
financial benefits. The study found that the greatest cost savings and
other benefits tended to be associated with hazard elimination and the
elimination of personal protective equipment (PPE) usage. It also
highlighted the ability of material substitution to result in very
large payoffs due to the creation of efficiencies throughout the
business process (American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2008; Ex.
#83). For example:
A foundry making automatic diesel engine blocks enhanced
and aggressively enforced a purchasing specification program to
eliminate supplied scrap metal contaminated with lead. By eliminating
lead from its supply chain, the company not only achieved high levels
of employee protection, but also enhanced the quality of its products
and realized nearly $20 million in savings for the facility.
An aircraft manufacturing company, struggling to comply
with the OSHA PEL for hexavalent chromium, transitioned from chromate-
based primers to non-chromate based primers, resulting not only in the
elimination of worker exposure to chromate dusts from rework sanding,
but also in quality improvements of its products, increased customer
satisfaction, productivity gains, avoidance of costly changes to their
exhaust ventilation system, and a savings of $504,694 over the 5-year
duration of the project.
c. Informed Substitution
In order to truly protect workers from chemical hazards, it is
important that OSHA not only develop health standards for hazardous
chemicals, but also understand alternatives to regulated chemicals and
support a path forward that is less hazardous, technically feasible,
and economically viable. Informed substitution provides a framework for
meeting this goal.
As previously described, informed substitution is the considered
transition from a potentially hazardous chemical, material, product, or
process to safer chemical or non-chemical alternatives. The goals of
informed substitution are to minimize the likelihood of unintended
consequences, which can result from a precautionary switch away from a
hazardous chemical without fully understanding the profile of potential
alternatives, and to enable a course of action based on the best
information that is available or can be estimated. Informed
substitution approaches focus on identifying alternatives and
evaluating their health, safety, and environmental hazards, potential
trade-offs, and technical and economic feasibility.
Substitution is not limited to substitution of one chemical with
another. It can also occur at the production process or product level.
At the product level, substitution may involve a design change that
takes advantage of the characteristics of new or different materials. A
chemical process design change may eliminate several production steps
thereby avoiding or reducing the use of high hazard chemicals. In some
cases, a particular chemistry or the function it serves may be
determined to be unnecessary.
As implementation of chemical substitution and product and process
changes can be quite complicated, a variety of processes, tools, and
methods are critical to achieving informed substitution.
Substitution planning, similar to facility planning for pollution
prevention and source reduction, establishes practical steps for
evaluating substitution as a workplace risk reduction measure. This
type of planning process supports informed substitution by encouraging
chemical users to: Systematically identify hazardous chemicals; set
goals and priorities for the elimination or reduction of hazardous
chemicals; evaluate alternatives; identify preferred alternatives; and
promote the adoption of identified alternatives.
Alternatives assessment is a process of identifying and comparing
potential chemical and non-chemical alternatives that could replace
chemicals or technologies of concern on the basis of their hazards,
performance, and economic viability. A variety of alternatives
assessment processes have been developed to date (Lavoie et al., 2010;
Ex. #84; Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 2006; Ex. #85; Rossi et al.,
2006; Ex. #86; Raphael et al., 2011; Ex. #87). Various tools and
methods have been developed to evaluate hazard, performance, and cost
when assessing alternatives. For example, comparative chemicals hazard
assessments compare potential alternatives based on a variety of hazard
endpoints in order to select a safer alternative. Some examples of
comparative chemicals hazard assessment tools include the GreenScreen
(Clean Production Action, 2012; Ex. #88) and Design for the Environment
(DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program (U.S. EPA, 2011a; Ex. #89). Other
existing methods for chemical comparison include the Column Model
(Institut f[uuml]r Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen
Unfallversicherung, 2011; Ex. #90) and QuickScan (Netherlands Ministry
of Infrastructure and the Environment, 2002; Ex. #91). Tools and
methods for evaluating performance and cost attributes, while less well
developed, are also critical for the selection of a preferred
alternative.
d. Substitution at OSHA
Substitution is not new for OSHA. Historically, OSHA attempted to
encourage substitution by setting a ``no occupational exposure level''
for certain potential carcinogens where suitable substitutes that are
less hazardous to humans existed for particular uses (45 FR 5257-58;
Ex. #92). Although this requirement was never fully implemented, the
final rule detailed a process for the Agency to analyze the feasibility
of substitutes, which required the consideration of: (1) the safety of
the substitute, including the comparative acute and chronic toxicity of
the carcinogenic chemical and the substitute, and other relevant
factors, such as environmental factors; (2) the technical feasibility
of the substitute, including its relative effectiveness; and (3) the
economic cost of substitution (45 FR 5258; Ex. #92, 29 CFR 1990.111(k);
Ex. #93, see also 1990.132(b)(6); Ex. #94, 1990.146(k); Ex. #95).
OSHA health standards also identify substitution as a preferred
exposure control. For example, in the 1989 Air Contaminants Standard,
the Agency refers to substitution, when properly applied, as ``a very
effective control technique'' and ``the quickest and most effective
means of reducing exposure'' (54 FR 2727, 2789; Ex. #7). In addition,
the Agency's respiratory protection standard mandates the use of
accepted engineering control measures, including the substitution of
less toxic materials, as far as feasible, before using respirators to
control occupational diseases caused by breathing contaminated air (29
CFR 1910.134(a); Ex. #96). Despite this, when complying with PELs and
other health standards in practice, employers are required to select
and implement administrative or engineering controls before using
personal protective equipment, but are not specifically required or
encouraged to consider elimination or substitution
[[Page 61411]]
before other engineering or administrative controls. (See 29 CFR
1910.1000(e); Ex. #97). Thus, substitution may be often overlooked in
favor of other approaches, such as ventilation and isolation, when
employers are controlling exposures to hazardous chemicals.
OSHA also considers substitution during the development of PELs.
While OSHA does not solely rely on substitution to make its required
feasibility findings (62 FR 1494, 1576; Ex. #98; 71 FR 10099, 10260;
Ex. #99), the Agency, as part of PEL rulemaking efforts, develops and
evaluates information about substitution in its technological and
economic feasibility analysis, highlighting options available for
eliminating or reducing the regulated chemical's use in various
industries and applications. For example, the feasibility analysis for
methylene chloride describes numerous substitute chemicals and
processes, including a detailed table of substitute paint removal
methods for 16 applications, and evaluates the relative risks for seven
of the more common substitutes for methylene chloride (OSHA, 1996; Ex.
#100). However, the analysis of substitutes has varied widely from
regulation to regulation. For example, the feasibility analysis for
hexavalent chromium identifies specific substitute chemicals and
processes in many industries, but does not discuss the health or safety
hazards of the substitutes (OSHA, 2006a; Ex. #101), while the
feasibility analysis for formaldehyde includes only a mention of the
availability of one identified substitute for a few industry sectors
(OSHA, 1987; Ex. #102) and the feasibility analysis for ethylene oxide
does not contain any discussion of substitutes (OSHA, 1984; Ex. #103).
OSHA has also included information on substitutes in a variety of
non-regulatory documents. New information about available substitutes
and substitution trends is included in lookback reviews of existing
standards conducted by the Agency (e.g., lookback review of the
ethylene oxide standard, lookback review of the methylene chloride
standard) (OSHA, 2005; Ex. #104; OSHA, 2010; Ex. #105). In some cases,
OSHA has also developed information on substitution, even where a PEL
has not been established. For example, the OSHA guidance document on
the best practices for the safe use of glutaraldehyde in health care
includes information about drop-in replacements and alternative
processes available to reduce or eliminate the use of the chemical
(OSHA, 2006b; Ex. #106).
In October 2013, OSHA launched an effort to encourage employers,
workers, and unions to proactively reduce the use of hazardous
chemicals in the workplace and achieve chemical use that is safer for
workers and better for business. As part of this effort, the Agency
developed a web toolkit that guides employers and workers in any
industry through a seven-step process for transitioning to safer
chemicals (OSHA, 2013a; Ex. #107). Each step contains information,
resources, methods, and tools that will help users eliminate hazardous
chemicals or make informed substitution decisions in the workplace by
finding a safer chemical, material, product, or process.
e. Possible Opportunities for Integrating Informed Substitution
Approaches Into OSHA Activities
There are a variety of existing regulatory and non-regulatory
models for incorporating informed substitution into chemical management
activities. The following are some examples of entities that have
developed and utilized informed substitution approaches as part of
regulatory efforts; guidance and policy development; education,
training, and technical assistance activities; and data development and
research efforts.
i. Models for Regulatory Approaches
Some regulations and voluntary standards require risk reduction
through the implementation of a hierarchy of controls that clearly
delineates elimination and substitution as preferred options to be
considered and implemented, where feasible, before other controls. For
example, the ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 standard for Occupational Health and
Safety Management Systems, a voluntary national consensus standard,
requires organizations to implement and maintain a process for
achieving feasible risk reduction based upon the following preferred
order of controls: A. Elimination; B. Substitution of less hazardous
materials, processes, operations, or equipment; C. Engineering
controls; D. Warnings; E. Administrative Controls; and F. Personal
protective equipment (ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005, 2005; Ex. #108). European
Union Directives 98/24/EC and 2004/37/EC require employers to eliminate
risks by substitution before implementing other types of protection and
prevention measures (98/24/EC, 1998; Ex. #109, 2004/37/EC, 2004; Ex.
#110).
Some existing laws require firms to undertake planning processes
for the reduction of identified hazardous chemicals. For example, the
Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act requires entities that use
listed hazardous chemicals in certain quantities to undertake a
planning process for reducing the use of those chemicals (Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, n.d.; Ex. #77).
Existing regulations in the European Union place a duty on
employers to replace the use of certain hazardous chemicals with safer
substitutes, if technically possible. For example, Directive 2004/37/EC
requires the substitution of carcinogens and mutagens with less harmful
substances where technically feasible (2004/37/EC, 2004) and Directive
98/24/EC requires employers to ensure that risks from hazardous
chemical agents are eliminated or reduced to a minimum, preferably by
substitution (98/24/EC, 1998; Ex. #109).
Other regulations require the use of acceptable substitutes where
the uses of certain hazardous chemicals are phased-out. This type of
approach is currently implemented by U.S. EPA in the context of
phasing-out ozone depleting substances. The Clean Air Act requires that
these substances be replaced by others that reduce risks to human
health and the environment. Under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program, EPA identifies and publishes lists of acceptable
and unacceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (Safe
Alternatives Policy, 2011; Ex. #111).
Some chemical management frameworks require the assessment of
substitutes before making decisions to limit or restrict the use of a
hazardous chemical. For example, the European Union REACH Regulation
(Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals)
requires that an analysis of alternatives, the risks involved in using
any alternative, and the technical and economic feasibility of
substitution be conducted during applications of authorization for
substances of very high concern (EC 1907/2006, 2006; Ex. #70).
Other efforts to spur the transition to safer chemicals, products,
and processes are based on the development of criteria-based standards
for functions or processes that rely on hazardous chemicals. For
example, the EPA DfE Safer Product Labeling Program is a nonregulatory
program that recognizes safe products using established criteria-based
standards. In order to receive DfE recognition, all chemicals in a
formulated product must meet Master Criteria (i.e., toxicological
thresholds for attributes of concern, including: acute
[[Page 61412]]
mammalian toxicity; carcinogenicity; genetic toxicity; neurotoxicity;
repeated dose toxicity; reproductive and developmental toxicity;
respiratory sensitization; skin sensitization; environmental toxicity
and fate; and eutrophication), as well as relevant functional-class
criteria (i.e., additional toxicological thresholds for attributes of
concern for surfactants, solvents, direct-release products, fragrances,
and chelating and sequestering agents), established by the EPA (U.S.
EPA, 2011a; Ex. #89).
While there are a number of ways in which OSHA could consider
integrating substitution and alternatives assessment into its
regulatory efforts, the Agency, in order to promulgate any such
standard, would need to make the significant risk, technological
feasibility, and economic feasibility findings required under the OSH
Act. However, even without regulation, it is important to consider
voluntary models for incorporating informed substitution into chemical
management activities.
ii. Models for Guidance Development
Some entities have developed guidance to promote the transition to
safer alternatives. The European Union, in order to support legislative
substitution mandates, developed guidance on the process of
substitution, including setting goals, identifying priority chemicals,
evaluating substitutes, selecting safer alternatives, and implementing
chemical, material, and process changes. The guidance establishes and
describes a seven step substitution framework, providing workplaces
with a systematic process for evaluating chemical risk and identifying
chemicals that could or should be substituted (European Commission,
2012; Ex. #113). The steps include: Assessing the current level of
risk; deciding on risk reduction needs; assessing the margins of
change; looking for alternatives; checking the consequences of a
change; deciding on change; and deciding on how and when to implement
change.
Similarly, the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (BAuA) established guidance to support the employer's duty, as
mandated in the German Hazardous Substances Ordinance, to evaluate
substitutes to hazardous substances and implement substitution where
less hazardous alternatives are identified (German Federal Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, 2011; Ex. #114). The guidance, TRGS
600, includes a framework for identifying and evaluating substitutes
and establishes criteria for assessing and comparing the health risks,
physicochemical risks, and technical suitability of identified
alternatives (German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, 2008; Ex. #115).
The German Environment Agency has also developed guidance on
sustainable chemicals. The guide assists manufacturers, formulators,
and end users of chemicals in the selection of sustainable chemicals by
providing criteria to distinguish between sustainable and non-
sustainable substances (German Environment Agency, 2011; Ex. #116).
OSHA considered developing guidance on safer substitutes to
accompany individual chemical exposure limit standards in its 2010
regulatory review of methylene chloride. Due to the increased use of
other hazardous substitutes after methylene chloride was regulated in
1998, the Agency considered establishing guidance recommending that
firms check the toxicity of alternatives on the EPA and NIOSH Web sites
before using a substitute (OSHA, 2010; Ex. #105).
iii. Models for Education, Training, and Technical Assistance
Other entities have developed outreach, training, and technical
assistance efforts for substitution planning and the assessment of
substitutes for regulated chemicals. The Massachusetts Toxics Use
Reduction Act, which established a number of structures to assist
businesses, provides a good example of such efforts. The Massachusetts
Office of Technical Assistance and Technology (OTA) provides compliance
assistance and on-site technical support that helps facilities use less
toxic processes and boost economic performance. The Massachusetts
Toxics Use Reduction Institute provides training, conducts research,
and performs alternatives assessments in order to educate businesses on
the existence of safer alternatives and promote the on-the-ground
adoption of these alternatives. Toxics Use Reduction Planners (TURPs),
certified by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MA DEP), prepare, write and certify the required toxics use reduction
plans and are continually educated about best practices in toxics use
reduction. Taken together, these services provide a robust resource for
regulated businesses on the transition to safer alternatives
(Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, n.d.; Ex. #77).
iv. Models for Data Development
Several efforts, at both the federal and international levels,
attempt to support the transition to safer alternatives through
research and data development. For example, EPA, in collaboration with
the non-governmental organization GreenBlue and industry stakeholders,
jointly developed a database of cleaning product ingredient chemicals
(surfactants, solvents, fragrances, and chelating agents) that meet
identified environmental and human health criteria (GreenBlue, 2012;
Ex. #117). In Spain, the Institute of Work, Environment, and Health
(ISTAS) has developed a database that is a repository of information on
substitute chemicals. The database can be searched for chemical
substances, uses/products, processes, or sectors to display information
on substitutes and hazards associated with those substitutes (ISTAS,
2012; Ex. #118). In addition, the European Union SUBSPORT project has
begun to create a Substitution Support Portal, a state-of-the-art
resource on safer alternatives to the use of hazardous chemicals. The
resource is intended to provide not only information on alternative
substances and technologies, but also tools and guidance for substance
evaluation and substitution management (SUBSPORT, 2012; Ex. #119).
Other efforts focus on the completion of alternatives assessments
for priority chemicals and uses. Currently, EPA's Design for the
Environment Program, as well as the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Institute, has conducted alternatives assessments for priority
chemicals and functional uses, making this information publicly
available in the process (U.S. EPA, 2012c; Ex. #120; Toxics Use
Reduction Institute, 2006; Ex. #85).
In addition, some research efforts attempt to fill data gaps with
regards to the toxicological properties of existing chemicals. While
some efforts to conduct toxicity testing for chemicals is taking place
at the federal level (U.S. EPA, 2011b; Ex. #121, U.S. EPA, 2012d; Ex.
#122), there have not been systematic efforts to conduct targeted
toxicology studies for specific substitutes of interest.
Question V.B.1: To what extent do you currently consider
elimination and substitution for controlling exposures to chemical
hazards?
Question V.B.2: What approaches would most effectively encourage
businesses to consider substitution and adopt safer substitutes?
Question V.B.3: What options would be least burdensome to industry,
[[Page 61413]]
especially small businesses? What options would be most burdensome?
Question V.B.4: What information and support do businesses need to
identify and transition to safer alternatives? What are the most
effective means to provide this information and support?
Question V.B.5: How could OSHA leverage existing data resources to
provide necessary substitution information to businesses?
v. Effectively Implementing Informed Substitution Approaches
The goals of informed substitution cannot be achieved without the
development and application of tools and methods for identifying,
comparing, and selecting alternatives. Existing tools and methods range
in complexity, from quick screening tools to detailed comparative
hazard assessment methodologies to robust frameworks for evaluating
alternatives based on hazard, performance, and economic feasibility.
Illustrative examples, which represent the range of tools available,
are described below.
Some assessment tools provide methods for rapid evaluation of
chemical hazards based on readily available information. These types of
tools are critical for small and medium-sized businesses, which often
lack resources and expertise to evaluate and compare chemical hazards.
In the state of Washington, the Department of Ecology (DOE) has
developed the Quick Chemical Assessment Tool (QCAT) to allow businesses
to identify chemicals that are not viable alternatives to a chemical of
concern by assigning an appropriate grade for the chemical based on
nine high priority hazard endpoints (Washington Department of Ecology,
2012; Ex. #123). Similarly, the Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health of the German Federation of Institutions for Statutory Accident
Insurance and Prevention (IFA) developed the Column Model as a tool for
businesses to evaluate chemicals based on six hazard categories using
information obtained from chemical safety data sheets (IFA, 2011; Ex.
#90).
Other existing tools provide more detailed methodologies for
conducting a comparative hazard assessment, which require greater
expertise, data, and resources to complete. The GreenScreen, created by
Clean Production Action, provides a methodology for evaluating and
comparing the toxicity based on nineteen human and environmental hazard
endpoints, assigning a level of concern of high, moderate, or low for
each endpoint based on various established criteria (Clean Production
Action, 2012; Ex. #88).
A number of robust frameworks have also been developed to assess
the feasibility of adopting alternatives for hazardous chemicals based
on environmental, performance, economic, human health, and safety
criteria. The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute developed
and implemented a methodology for assessing alternatives to hazardous
chemicals based on performance, technical, financial, environmental,
and human health parameters (TURI, 2006; Ex. #85). Similarly, the U.S.
EPA DfE program has also developed and implemented an alternatives
assessment framework to characterize alternatives based on the
assessment of chemical hazards as well as the evaluation of
availability, functionality, economic, and life cycle considerations
(Lavoie et al., 2010; Ex. #84, U.S. EPA, 2012c; Ex. #120).
Although some tools and methods exist, as discussed above, further
research and development in this area is critical for the effective
implementation of informed substitution.
Question V.B.6: What tools or methods could be used by OSHA and/or
employers to conduct comparative hazard assessments? What criteria
should be considered when comparing chemical hazards?
Question V.B.7: What tools or methods could be used by OSHA and/or
employers to evaluate and compare the performance and cost attributes
of alternatives? What criteria should be considered when evaluating
performance and cost?
2. Hazard Communication and the Globally Harmonized System (GHS)
OSHA promulgated its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR
1910.1200; Ex. #124) in 1983 to require employers to obtain and provide
information to their employees on the hazards associated with the
chemicals used in their workplaces. After thirty years of
implementation, the HCS has resulted in extensive information being
disseminated in American workplaces through labels on containers,
safety data sheets (SDSs), and worker training programs.
On March 26, 2012, OSHA published major modifications to the HCS.
(77 FR 17574-17896; Ex. #125). These modifications are being phased in
over several years, and will be completely implemented in June 2016.
Referred to as HazCom 2012, the revised rule incorporates a new
approach to assessing the hazards of chemicals, as well as conveying
information about them to employees. The revised rule is based on the
United Nations' Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and
Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), which established an international,
harmonized approach to hazard communication.
The original HCS was a performance-oriented rule that prescribed
broad rules for hazard communication but allowed chemical manufacturers
and importers to determine how the information was conveyed. In
contrast, HazCom 2012 is specification-oriented. Thus, while the HCS
requires chemical manufacturers and importers to determine the hazards
of chemicals, and prepare labels and safety data sheets (SDSs), HazCom
2012 goes further by specifying a detailed scheme for hazard
classification and prescribing harmonized hazard information on labels.
In addition, SDSs must follow a set order of information, and the
information to be provided in each section is also specified.
Hazard classification means that a chemical's hazards are not only
identified, they are characterized in terms of severity of the effect
or weight of evidence for the effect. Thus, the assessment of the
hazard involves identifying the ``hazard class'' into which a chemical
falls (e.g., target organ toxicity), as well as the ``hazard
category''--a further breakdown of the hazardous effect generally based
on either numerical cut-offs, or an assessment of the weight of the
evidence. For target organ toxicity, for example, chemicals for which
there is human evidence of an effect are likely to be classified under
Category 1, the most hazardous category, thus indicating the highest
classification for the effect. If the only data available are animal
studies, the chemical may fall in Category 2--still potentially
hazardous to humans, but lower in terms of the weight of evidence for
the effect. Table-I illustrates how such a chemical hazard
classification may be assigned by hazard class and hazard category
[[Page 61414]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC14.001
The process of classifying chemicals under HazCom 2012 means that
all chemicals will be fully characterized as to their hazards, as well
as degree of hazardous effect, using a standardized process with
objective criteria. Thus, OSHA could use this system to select certain
hazard classes and categories to set priorities. For example, the
Agency could decide to identify substances that are characterized as
Class 1 Carcinogens or as Reproductive Toxicants as its priorities.
Then chemicals that fall into those hazard categories could be further
investigated to determine other relevant factors, such as numbers of
employees exposed, use of the chemical, risk assessment, etc. The
HazCom 2012 information could lead to a more structured and consistent
priority system than previously attempted approaches. (Ex. #126) OSHA
could also investigate whether the hazard categories lend themselves to
establishing regulatory provisions for hazard classes and categories
rather than for individual substances. The availability of specific
hazard categorization for chemicals could allow this to be done on a
grouping basis--either in regulation, or in guidance.
Once a chemical is placed into a hazard class and hazard category,
HazCom 2012 (and the GHS) specifies the harmonized information that
must appear on the label. Referred to as ``label elements,'' these
include a pictogram, signal word, hazard statement(s), and
precautionary statement(s). In addition, the label must have a product
identifier and supplier contact information. The use of standardized
label elements will help to ensure consistency and comprehensibility of
the information, which will make HazCom 2012 more effective in terms of
conveying information to employees and employers. The approach taken in
the GHS strengthens the protections of the OSHA HCS in several ways,
and introduces the possibility of the Agency using the information
generated under HazCom 2012 to help frame a more comprehensive approach
to ensuring occupational chemical safety and health.
3. Health Hazard Banding
``Health hazard banding'' can be defined as a qualitative framework
to develop occupational hazard assessments given uncertainties caused
by limitations in the human health or toxicology data for a chemical or
other agent. Health hazard banding presumes it is possible to group
chemicals or other agents into categories of similar toxicity or hazard
characteristics.
Health hazard banding assigns chemicals with similar toxicities
into hazard groups (or bands. The occupational health professional can
use this classification or hazard band, along with information on
worker exposures to the substance, to do exposure risk assessment.
Hazard banding, along with exposure information, is a useful risk
assessment tool, particularly in situations where toxicity data are
sparse. Hazard banding can also aid in the prioritization and hazard
ranking of chemicals in the workplace. NIOSH is working with OSHA and a
variety of stakeholder groups (federal agencies, industry, labor
organizations, and professional associations) to develop guidance on
establishing the technical criteria, decision logic, and minimum
dataset for the hazard band process.
4. Occupational Exposure Banding
NIOSH has proposed an approach, occupational exposure banding,
which would sort chemicals into five bands (A
[[Page 61415]]
through E), with each band representing a different hazard level.
Chemicals with the lowest toxicity would be grouped in Band A, while
the moist toxic chemicals would be grouped in Band E. The proposed
process includes a three-tiered evaluation system based on the
availability of toxicological data to define a range of concentrations
for controlling chemical exposures. A Tier 1 evaluation relies on
hazard codes and categories from GHS, and intended for chemicals for
which little information exists. Therefore, a chemical in Band D or E
in the Tier 1 process is a bad actor and should be targeted for
elimination and or substitution. Tier 2 and 3 require professional
expertise. Once NIOSH completes their validation work of the three
tiers, they plan to develop tools to facilitate evaluating hazard data
and assigning chemicals to hazard bands as well as educational
materials for health and safety professionals, managers, and workers.
(Exs. #127 & #128)
5. Control Banding
Control banding is a well-established approach of using the hazard
statements from a label and/or safety data sheet (SDS) to lead an
employer to recommended control measures. This approach has been used
successfully in a number of countries, particularly in Europe where
such as system of hazard classification has been in use for some time.
HazCom 2012 opens up the possibility that control banding can be
further developed and refined in the U.S., either as guidance or
regulatory provisions. It is a particularly useful way to provide
information for small businesses to effectively control chemicals
without necessarily going through the process of exposure monitoring
and other technical approaches to ensuring compliance. It also will
give employers better information to conduct risk assessments of their
own workplaces, and thus select better control measures.
Health hazard banding can be used in conjunction with control
banding to use the information available on the hazard to guide the
assessment and management of workplace risks. In fact, health hazard
banding is the first step in the control banding process. Control
banding determines a control measure (for example dilution ventilation,
engineering controls, containment, etc.) based on a range or ``band''
of hazards (such as skin/eye irritant, very toxic, carcinogenic, etc.),
and exposures (small, medium, or large exposure). This approach is
based on the fact that there are a limited number of control
approaches, and that many chemical exposure problems have been met and
solved before. Control banding uses the solutions that experts have
developed previously to control occupational chemical exposures, and
suggests them for other tasks with similar exposure situations. It
focuses resources on exposure controls, and describes how strictly a
risk needs to be managed.
Control banding is a more comprehensive qualitative risk
characterization and management strategy that goes further in assigning
prescribed control methods to address chemical hazards. It is designed
to allow employers to evaluate the need for exposure control in an
operation and to identify the appropriate control strategy given the
severity of the hazard present and magnitude of exposure. The strength
of control banding is that it is based on information readily available
to employers on safety data sheets (SDSs), without the need for
exposure measurements or access to occupational health expertise
(except in certain circumstances). Control banding involves not only
the grouping of workplace substances into hazard bands (based on
combinations of hazard and exposure information) but also links the
bands to a suite of control measures, such as general dilution
ventilation, local exhaust ventilation, containment, and use of
personal protective equipment (PPE).
Under control banding, one must consider the chemical's hazardous
properties, physical properties, and exposure potential in order to
determine the level of exposure control desired. The criteria used for
categorizing chemicals include hazard information such as flammability,
reactivity, and the nature of known health effects. These
characteristics are associated with defined hazard phrases (e.g.,
``Causes severe skin burns and eye damage'' or ``Causes liver damage,''
or ``Reproductive hazard''). These standardized phrases have been
familiar in the EU as ``R-phrases'' and are found on SDSs.
Different hazard bands exist along a continuum ranging from less
hazardous chemicals to more hazardous chemicals. Once the appropriate
hazard group has been determined from the hazard statements (e.g.,
``Hazard Group B''), exposure potential is evaluated based on the
quantity in use, volatility (for liquids), or particulate nature (for
solids). After evaluating these properties and categorizing the
chemical into hazard and exposure bands, the chemicals are matched,
based on their band categorization, to the appropriate control
strategy, with more stringent controls applied for substances that are
placed in high-toxicity bands.
The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) guidance
issued by the Safety Executive (HSE) of the United Kingdom is one model
of control banding (Health and Safety Executive, 2013; Ex. #129). Under
the 2002 COSHH regulation, employers must conduct a risk assessment to
decide how to prevent employees from being exposed to hazardous
substances in the workplace. COSHH principles first require that
exposure is prevented by employers, to the extent possible, by means
of:
Changing the way tasks are carried out so that exposures
aren't necessary anymore;
Modifying processes to cut out hazardous by-products or
wastes; or
Substituting a non-hazardous or less hazardous substance
for a hazardous substance with new substances (or use the same
substance in a different form) so that there is less risk to health.
If exposures to hazardous substances cannot be prevented entirely,
then COSHH requires employers to adequately control them (Control of
Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, 2002; Ex. #130).
Recognizing that many small employers may not have access to the
required expertise, and also to reduce the need for a professional and
to promote consistency in the assessment process, the HSE developed an
approach to assessment and control of chemical hazards using control
banding methodologies spelled out in the 2002 regulation. This control
banding approach is described in detail in COSHH Essentials. Employers
may use the guidance spelled out in the COSHH Essentials guide to
determine the appropriate control approach for the chemical hazard in
question. Each control approach covers a range of actions that work
together to reduce exposure: (1) General Ventilation, (2) Engineering
Controls, (3) Containment, and lastly, (4) Special--a scenario where
employers should seek expert advice to select appropriate control
measures.
The first step outlined under the COSHH Essentials guidance is to
consult the safety data sheet for each chemical in use. Employers must
record the date of assessment, the name of the chemical being assessed,
the supplier of the chemical, and the task(s) for which the chemical is
used.
Step two involves the determination of the health hazard. Employers
ascertain the hazard by assessing the possible health effects from the
hazard statements provided on the SDS, the amount in use, and the
dustiness or volatility of the chemical in use.
[[Page 61416]]
Employers reference the hazard statements found on chemical safety data
sheets against a table of COSHH hazard groups in order to categorize
them into the appropriate hazard group (``A'' through ``E'', and
possibly ``S''). Chemicals in Group A tend to be regarded as less
harmful and may, for example, cause temporary irritation. Chemicals in
Group E are the most hazardous and include known carcinogens. Group S
encompasses substances that have special considerations for damage
caused via contact with the eyes or skin.
Additionally, Step two requires employers to make some
determinations about the quantity and physical state of chemicals in
use. They must decide if the amount of chemical in use would be
described as ``small'' (grams or milliliters), ``medium'' (kilograms or
liters), or ``large'' (tons or cubic meters). When in doubt, COSHH
Essentials principles encourage employers to err on the side of the
larger quantity in making their determination. Additionally, the
physical state of chemicals effect how likely they are to get into the
air and this affects the control approach to be utilized. For solids,
COSHH Essentials guides employers to make a determination of either
``Low'', ``Medium'', or ``High'' dustiness based upon visible criteria
observed during the use of these chemicals. Employers may also use
look-up tables provided in the COSHH Essentials guide to make a
determination of whether liquids have ``low'', ``medium'', or ``high''
volatility based upon the chemical's boiling point and ambient or
process operating temperatures.
In Step three of the COSHH Essentials guide, employers identify the
appropriate control approach. Tables provided by the COSHH Essentials
guide show the control approaches for hazard groups ``A'' through ``E''
according to quantity of chemical in use and its dustiness/volatility.
Table-II illustrates how the control approaches are assigned. The
control approaches referred to by number in the table are: 1) General
Ventilation, 2) Engineering Control, 3) Containment, and 4) Special.
(Health and Safety Executive, 2009; Ex. #131).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC14.002
[[Page 61417]]
Additionally, the COSHH Essentials guide provides detailed control
guidance sheets for a range of common tasks. Consultation of these
task-specific guidance sheets constitutes Step four under COSHH
Essentials. Step five of COSHH Essentials involves the employer
deciding on how best to implement control measures as prescribed. COSHH
Essentials principles also stress the importance of employers reviewing
their assessments regularly, especially if there is a significant
change in workplace processes or environment. Employers are encouraged
to incorporate exposure level monitoring, health surveillance, and
relevant training.
A number of European Union nations (e.g., United Kingdom, Germany,
France, Netherlands, Norway, and Belgium) and Asian nations (Singapore
and Korea) already utilize control banding methods comparable to COSHH
Essential methods for management of a variety of chemical exposures in
the workplace.
A number of studies have been conducted to assess the validity of a
control banding model for control of exposure to chemicals. Jones and
Nicas (2006; Ex. #132) reviewed the COSHH Essentials model for hazard-
banding in vapor degreasing and bag-filling tasks. Their study showed
that the model did not identify adequate controls in all scenarios with
approximately eighteen percent of cases leaving workers potentially
under-protected. However, in a similar study, Hashimoto et al. (2007;
Ex. #133) showed that hazard-banding tended to overestimate the level
of control and therefore was more protective. In 2011, Lee et al. (Ex.
#134) found that for a paint manufacturing facility using mixtures of
chemicals with different volatilities, exposure to the chemicals with
higher volatility had a higher likelihood to exceed the predicted
hazard-band. Lee also recommended further research for more precise
task identification to better enable implementation of task-specific
control measures.
NIOSH provides a thorough review and critical analysis of the
concepts, protective nature, and potential barriers to implementation
of control banding programs (NIOSH, 2009; Ex. #135). NIOSH concluded
that control banding can be used effectively for performing workplace
risk assessments and implementing control solutions for many, but not
all occupational hazards. Additionally, NIOSH found that while in some
situations in which control banding cannot provide the precision and
accuracy necessary to protect worker health, and in some cases control
banding will provide a higher level of control than is necessary.
COSHH Essentials and other control banding concepts developed in
Europe were based initially on the European Union's pre-GHS
classification and labeling system. Since the European Union has
adopted the GHS in its classification and labeling rules, these risk
phrases will no longer be available. Control banding approaches are now
based on the hazard statements in the GHS. OSHA's adoption of the GHS
to modify the HCS opens up the opportunity to use a control banding
approach to chemical exposures in American workplaces based on the
hazard classification system. This would be an alternative to focusing
on PELs that could achieve the goal of risk management for many
chemicals and operations in workplaces.
OSHA is interested in exploring how it might employ these non-OEL
approaches in a regulatory framework to address hazardous substances
where the available hazard information does not yet provide a
sufficient basis for the Agency's traditional approach of using risk
assessment to establish a PEL. OSHA believes that a hazard banding
approach could allow the Agency to establish specification requirements
for the control of chemical exposures more efficiently, offering
additional flexibility to employers, while maintaining the safety and
health of the workforce. Although health hazard banding and control
banding show some promise as vehicles for providing guidance to
occupational health professionals for controlling exposures to workers,
their use in a regulatory scheme presents challenges. For example, the
agency would need to consider how, if it were to require such
approaches, the OSH Act's requirement that standards that reduce
significant risk to the extent feasible might be satisfied.
OSHA is also interested in exploring the development of voluntary
guidelines for incorporation of control banding into safety and health
management programs in U.S. workplaces. These efforts might include the
development and dissemination of compliance assistance materials
(publications, safety and health topic Web pages, computer software and
smartphone apps, e-Tools) as well as consultation services to assist
small businesses.
Question V.B.8: How could OSHA use the information generated under
HazCom 2012 to pursue means of managing and controlling chemical
exposures in an approach other than substance-by-substance regulation?
Question V.B.9: How could such an approach satisfy legal
requirements to reduce significant risk of material impairment and for
technological and economic feasibility?
Question V.B.10.: Please describe your experience in using health
hazard and/or control banding to address exposures to chemicals in the
workplace.
Question V.B.11.: Are additional studies available that have
examined the effectiveness of health hazard and control banding
strategies in protecting workers?
Question V.B.12.: How can OSHA most effectively use the concepts of
health hazard and control banding in developing health standards?
V.B.13.: How might OSHA use voluntary guidance approaches to assist
businesses (particularly small businesses) with implementing the
principles of hazard banding in their chemical safety plans? Could the
GHS chemical classifications be the starting point for a useful
voluntary hazard banding scheme? What types of information, tools, or
other resources could OSHA provide that would be most effective to
assist businesses, unions, and other safety and health stakeholders
with operationalizing hazard banding principles in the workplace?
Question V.B.14.: Should OSHA consider greater use of specification
standards or guidance as an approach to developing health standards? If
so, for what kinds of operations are specification approaches best
suited?
6. Task-based Exposure Assessment and Control Approaches
Job hazard analysis is a safety and health management tool in which
certain jobs, tasks, processes or procedures are evaluated for
potential hazards or risks, and controls are implemented to protect
workers from injury and illness. Likewise, task-based assessment and
control is a system that categorizes the task or job activity in terms
of exposure potential and requirements for specific actions to control
the exposure are implemented, regardless of occupational exposure
limits. Tasks are isolated from the deconstruction of a larger process
that is in turn part of an overall operation or project in an
industrial setting. As industrial engineering explores the optimization
of complex processes or systems through an evaluation of the integrated
system of people, equipment, materials, and other components, the task-
based system attempts to evaluate work activities to define uniform
exposure scenarios and their variables and establish targeted control
strategies.
[[Page 61418]]
Task-based exposure potential can be defined using readily
available data including process operating procedures, task observation
and analysis, job activity description, chemical inventory and toxicity
information (hazard communication), historical exposure data, existing
exposure databases, employee surveys, and current exposure data. Based
on this exposure assessment, the task is matched with specific
requirements for exposure control. Control specifications can draw on a
broad inventory of exposure controls and administrative tools to reduce
and prevent worker exposure to the identified hazardous substances.
OSHA is interested in exploring task-based control approaches as a
technique for developing specification standards for the control of
hazardous substances in the workplace as an alternative or supplement
to PELs. Such an approach may offer the advantage of providing
employers with specific guidance on how to protect workers from
exposure and reduce or eliminate the need for conducting regular
exposure assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of exposure control
strategies. OSHA has developed specification-oriented health standards
in the past, in particular, those for lead and asbestos in
construction.
More recently, OSHA developed a control-specification-based
approach for controlling exposures to crystalline silica dust in
construction operations (OSHA, 2009; Ex. #136, OSHA, 2013b; Ex. #137).
Construction operations are particularly amenable to specification
standards due to the task-based nature of the work. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Center to
Protect Workers' Rights--a research arm of the Building and
Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO--has developed and used a
``Task-Based Exposure Assessment Model (T-BEAM)'' for construction. The
characteristic elements of T-BEAM are: (1) an emphasis on the
identification, implementation, and evaluation of engineering and work
practice controls; and (2) use of experienced, specially trained
construction workers (construction safety and health specialists) in
the exposure assessment process. A task-based approach was used because
tasks, or specialized skills, form the single greatest thread of
continuity in the dynamic environment of construction (Susi et al.,
2000; Ex. #138).
A new American National Standards Institute Standard (ANSI A10.49)
based on GHS health hazard categories and utilizing a task-based
approach is also being developed to address chemical hazards in
construction (ASSE, 2012; Ex. #139). The standard requires employers to
first identify tasks involving the use of chemicals and create a hazard
communication inventory for these tasks. Then the employer must
determine the hazard level and exposure level, and finally develop a
control plan based on the hazard and exposure classifications. If the
chemicals used in the task are low hazard and the task is low exposure,
then the control plan requires following the SDS and label precautions.
If, however, the task involves greater than minimal hazard or exposure,
a more protective control plan must be developed.
However, developing specification standards governing exposure to
health standards for general industry operations presents a different
challenge. Given the diversity in the nature of industrial operations
across a range of industry sectors that might be affected by a chemical
standard, OSHA is concerned that it will be more difficult to develop
specification standards for exposure controls that are specific enough
to clearly delineate obligations of employers to protect employees, and
yet are general enough to provide employers flexibility to implement
controls that are suitable for their workplaces and that allow for
future innovation in control technologies.
Question V.B.15: OSHA requests comment on whether and how task-
based exposure control approaches might be effectively used as a
regulatory strategy for health standards.
VI. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation
of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under 29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657; 33 U.S.C. 941; 40 U.S.C. 3704 et seq.; Secretary of Labor's Order
1-2012 (77 FR 3912, 1/25/2012); and 29 CFR Part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on September 30, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Appendix A: History, Legal Background, and Significant Court Decisions
I. Background
Since the OSH Act was enacted in 1970, OSHA has made significant
achievements toward improving the health and safety of America's
workers. The OSH Act gave ``every working man and woman in the
Nation'' for the first time, a legal right to ``safe and healthful
working conditions.'' OSH Act Sec. 2(a); 29 U.S.C. 651. (Ex. #9)
Congress recognized that ``the problem of assuring safe and
healthful workplaces for our men and women ranks in importance with
any that engages the national attention today.'' S. Rep. 91-1282 at
2 (1970; Ex. #17). Indeed, when establishing the OSH Act, Congress
was concerned about protecting workers from known hazards as well as
from the numerous new hazards entering the workplace:
Occupational diseases which first commanded attention at the
beginning of the industrial revolution are still undermining the
health of workers. . . . Workers in dusty trades still contract
various respiratory diseases. Other materials long in industrial use
are only now being discovered to have toxic effects. In addition,
technological advances and new processes in American industry have
brought numerous new hazards to the workplace. S. Rep. 91-1282 at 2.
Many of the occupational diseases first discovered during the
industrial revolution, and which later spurred Congress to create
OSHA, still pose a significant harm to U.S. workers. While the
number of hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed has
increased exponentially due to new formulations of chemical
mixtures, OSHA has not been successful in establishing standards
that adequately protect workers from hazardous chemical exposures,
even from the older, more familiar chemicals.
OSHA's PELs are mandatory limits for air contaminants above
which workers must not be exposed. OSHA PELs generally refer to
differing amounts of time during which the worker can be exposed:
(1) Time weighted averages (TWAs) which establish average limits for
eight-hour exposures; (2) short-term limits (STELs) which establish
limits for short term exposures; and (3) ceiling limits, which set
never-to-be exceeded maximum exposure levels.
OSHA's PELs have existed nearly as long as the agency itself.
Most of OSHA's current PELs were adopted by the agency in 1971. OSHA
currently has PELs for approximately 470 hazardous substances, which
are included in the Z-Tables in general industry at 29 CFR part
1910.1000 (Ex. #4) and in three maritime subsectors: Part 1915.1000
(Shipyard Employment; Ex. #5); part 1917 (Marine Terminals; Ex.
#140); and part 1918 (Longshoring; Ex. #141). Z-Tables that apply in
construction are found at part 1926.55 (Ex. #6). There are
inconsistencies in the PELs that apply across industry sectors which
resulted from the regulatory history of each divergent industry
sector.
As discussed in further detail below, the Agency attempted to
update the general industry PELs in 1989, but that revision was
vacated by judicial decision in 1992. As such, the 1971 PELs remain
the exposure limits with which most U.S. workplaces are required to
comply. The Agency also promulgates ``comprehensive'' substance-
specific standards (e.g., lead, methylene chloride) which, in
addition to PELs, require additional ancillary provisions such as
housekeeping, exposure monitoring, and medical surveillance.
[[Page 61419]]
II. OSHA's Statutory Authority, Adoption of the PELs in 1971, and the
1989 Attempted Revision
A. The Purpose of the OSH Act and OSHA's Authority To Regulate
Hazardous Chemicals
The OSH Act vests the Secretary of Labor with the power to
``promulgate, modify, or revoke'' mandatory occupational safety and
health standards. OSH Act section 6(b), 29 U.S.C. 655(b). An
``occupational safety and health standard,'' as defined by section
3(8) of the OSH Act, is a ``standard which requires conditions, or
the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.'' OSH
Act section 3(8), 29 U.S.C. 652(8). (Ex. #9)
The OSH Act provides three separate approaches for promulgating
standards. The first approach, in section 6(a) of the OSH Act,
provided OSHA with an initial two-year window in which to adopt
standards without hearing or public comment. Additionally, sections
6(b) and 6(c) provide methods currently available to the agency for
promulgating health standards. Section 6(b) allows OSHA to create
and update standards through notice and comment rulemaking, and
section 6(c) provides OSHA with the authority to set emergency
temporary standards. OSHA has not successfully adopted an emergency
temporary standard for over thirty years, and it is not discussed
further here.
B. The Adoption of the PELs Under Section 6(a)
Under section 6(a), OSHA was permitted to adopt ``any national
consensus standard and any established Federal standard'' so long as
the standard ``improved safety or health for specifically designated
employees.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(a). The purpose of providing OSHA with
this two-year window ``was to establish as rapidly as possible
national occupational safety and health standards with which
industry is familiar.'' S. Rep. 91-1282 at 6. When establishing this
fast track to rulemaking, Congress emphasized the temporary nature
of the approach, noting that these ``standards may not be as
effective or up to date as is desirable, but they will be useful for
immediately providing a nationwide minimum level of health and
safety.'' S. Rep. 91-1282 at 6. (Ex. #17)
Establishing PELs was one of the first actions taken by OSHA.
Most of the PELs contained in the Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR
1910.1000 (Ex. #4) for general industry, as well as those in
construction and maritime were adopted during the initial two-year
window under section 6(a). OSHA adopted approximately 400
occupational exposure limits for general industry that were based on
the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist's
(ACGIH) 1968 list of Threshold Value Limits (TLVs). In addition,
about 25 additional exposure limits recommended by the American
Standards Association (presently called the American National
Standards Institute) (ANSI), were adopted as national consensus
standards. 36 FR 10466 (Ex. #142). Currently the exposure limits
that apply to construction were derived from the 1970 ACGIH TLVs and
certain substance specific Sec. 6(b) standards.
The industry sector that is referred to today as ``Maritime''
has a long and somewhat confusing history. The Department of Labor
has had some authority since 1958 for the maritime industry under
the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.). Specifically authority was granted under Public Law 89-742
for the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations to protect the
health and safety of longshoremen, marine terminal workers, ship
repairers, shipbuilders, and ship breakers. Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the OSH Act, 33 U.S.C. 941 (Ex. #143) became OSHA standards in 1971.
At that time, the Shipyard standards were in three parts of 29
CFR; part 1915 for ship repairing, part 1916 for shipbuilding and
part 1917 for shipbreaking. In 1982 parts 1915, 1916 and 1917 were
consolidated into a new part 1915, Shipyards. As a consequence of
their history, the PELs applicable to the new part 1915, Shipyards,
are complex. Depending upon the specific operation, either the 1970
TLVs or 1971 PELS (originally 1968 TLVs) apply. See Sec. Sec.
1915.11, 1915.12, 1915.32 and 1915.33 (Ex. #144). Additionally,
several of the OSHA single-substance standards apply.
Pursuant to the Longshoremen and Harbor Worker Compensation Acts
of 1958 amendments, in 1960 OSHA issued regulations protecting
longshore employees, along with marine terminal employees. These
regulations were adopted as OSHA standards and later recodified. In
1983, OSHA issued a final standard specifically covering marine
terminals (29 CFR part 1917) separately from longshoring. The Marine
Terminal Standard basically requires that no employee be exposed to
air contaminants over the limits set in the 1971 Z-Tables. See
Sec. Sec. 1917.2, 1917.22, 23, 25. (Ex. #140)
Longshoring operations continue to be regulated by 29 CFR Part
1918 (Ex. #141). OSHA has consistently interpreted that the air
contaminant exposure limits set forth in 1910.1000 (Ex. #4) are
applicable pursuant to 1910.5(c) to longshoring because no
quantitative exposure limits are set forth for air contaminants,
other than carbon monoxide.
As discussed above, the Agency was given authority to adopt
standards to provide initial protections for workers from what the
Congress deemed to be the most dangerous workplace threats. Congress
felt that it was ``essential that such standards be constantly
improved and replaced as new knowledge and techniques are
developed.'' S. Rep. 91-1282 at 6. (Ex. #17) However, because OSHA
has been unable to update the PELs, they remain frozen at the levels
at which they were initially adopted. OSHA's PELs are largely based
on acute health effects and do not take into consideration newer
research regarding chronic effects occurring at lower occupational
exposures. Thus, although there have been radical changes in our
understanding of airborne contaminants, updates in technology, and
changes to industry practices, OSHA's PELs are still based on
research performed during the 1950s and 1960s. In contrast, the
ACGIH annually reviews chemical substances and updates its list of
TLVs[supreg]. Where OSHA currently has PELs for approximately 470
chemical hazards, the ACGIH recommends TLVs[supreg] for more than
700 chemical substances and physical agents, approximately 200 of
which have been updated since 1971. (FACOSH, 2012; Ex. #145).
C. Section 6(b) Notice and Comment Rulemaking
Section 6(b) of the OSH Act provides OSHA with the authority to
promulgate health standards. OSHA promulgates two main types of
health standards: (i) PELs, and (ii) comprehensive standards, which,
as the name implies, consist of provisions to protect workers in
addition to PELs. Section 6(b)(5) imposes specific requirements
governing the adoption of health standards:
[T]he Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic
materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall
set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent
feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no
employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional
capacity even if such employee has regular exposure to the hazard
dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life.
Development of standards under this subsection shall be based upon
research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as
may be appropriate. In addition to the attainment of the highest
degree of health and safety protection for the employee, other
considerations shall be the latest available scientific data in the
field, the feasibility of the standards, and experience gained under
this and other health and safety laws. Whenever practicable, the
standard promulgated shall be expressed in terms of objective
criteria and of the performance desired.
29 U.S.C. 655(6)(b)(5). (Ex. #9)
The courts have elaborated on the findings OSHA must make before
adopting a 6(b)(5) standard. One such case, Industrial Union Dept.,
AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (the
Benzene case; Ex. #10), has had a major impact on OSHA rulemaking by
establishing a threshold requirement that before the agency can
promulgate a health standard it must show that a significant risk of
material impairment exists, which can be eliminated or lessened by a
change in practices. Additionally, the phrase ``to the extent
feasible'' in section 6(b)(5) has been interpreted by the courts to
require that OSHA show that a standard is both economically and
technologically feasible. American Textile v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490
(1981) (the Cotton Dust case; Ex. #15); United Steelworkers v.
Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (the Lead I case; Ex.
#12). These cases will be discussed in greater detail in Section III
of this Appendix.
D. 1989 Air Contaminants Standard
In 1989, OSHA published the Air Contaminants final rule, which
remains the Agency's most significant attempt at
[[Page 61420]]
updating the PELs. Unlike typical substance-specific rulemakings,
where OSHA develops a comprehensive standard, the Air Contaminants
final rule was only intended to update existing PELs and to add new
PELs for substances not currently regulated. As such, the final rule
did not include ancillary provisions (e.g. exposure monitoring,
medical surveillance, requirements for personal protective
equipment, or labeling) because OSHA determined that these
provisions would delay and unnecessarily complicate the PELs update.
Appendix B. to this Request for Information contains the table of
PELs from the 1989 Air Contaminants Final Rule. The table includes
both PELs originally adopted by OSHA in 1971 and the PELs
established under the 1989 final rule.
In order to determine a starting point for updating the general
industry PELs for chemicals on Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR
1910.1000 (Ex. #4), and for creating new PELs for some substances
not listed in those tables, OSHA analyzed existing databases and
lists of occupational exposure limits (OELs) to determine the scope
of the rulemaking. After extensive review of all available sources
of OELs, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Levels (RELs), the American
Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values
(TLVs[supreg]), the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs), and limits from
other countries, OSHA ultimately selected the ACGIH's 1987-88 TLVs
to identify the basis for which substances and corresponding
exposure values that would be included in the proposed rule. 53 FR
20977. The TLVs were selected as a reference point because of the
number of substances they covered, the availability of written
documentation on how the TLVs were selected, and the general
acceptance of the TLVs by industrial hygienists, other occupational
health professionals, and industry. (53 FR 20967; Ex. #18, 54 FR
2375; Ex. #7)
After determining the scope of hazardous chemicals to be
included in the rulemaking, OSHA began the process of identifying
the most appropriate new PELs to be proposed. OSHA considered both
the ACGIH TLVs and the NIOSH RELs as a starting point. (53 FR 20966-
67; Ex. #18) When the TLV and REL were similar, OSHA reviewed both
the ACGIH documentation and the NIOSH recommendation. Where the TLV
and REL ``differed significantly,'' OSHA reviewed the studies and
reasoning upon which the NIOSH and ACGIH recommendations were based
to determine which was more appropriate. OSHA presumed that a
significant difference did not exist between the TLV and the REL for
a chemical when:
(a) The TLV and REL values are the same;
(b) TLV and REL values differ by less than 10 percent;
(c) The TLV and REL Time Weighted Averages (TWA) are the same,
but there are differences in the Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) or
Ceiling (C); or
(d) The TWA in one data base is the same, or one-half, the STEL/
C in the other data base. 53 FR 20977.
In reviewing the evidence, OSHA first determined whether the
studies and analyses were valid and of reasonable scientific
quality. Second, it determined, based on the studies, if the
published documentation of the REL or TLV would meet OSHA's legal
requirements for setting a PEL. Thus, OSHA reviewed the evidence of
significant risk at the existing PEL or, if there was no PEL, at
exposures which might exist in the workplace in the absence of any
limit. Third, OSHA reviewed the studies to determine if the new PEL
would lead to substantial reduction in significant risk. 54 FR 2372.
OSHA's determination of where the new PEL should be set was
based on its review and analysis of the information found in these
sources. OSHA set the new PELs based on a review of the available
evidence. 54 FR 2402. Safety factors were applied on a case-by-case
basis. (54 FR 2365, 2399; Ex. #7). Based on the analysis discussed
above, OSHA summarized the health evidence for each individual
substance and determined when and at what level a new limit was
necessary to substantially reduce a significant risk of material
impairment of health or functional capacity among American workers.
The following example illustrates the type of analysis that OSHA
conducted for each substance:
OSHA had no former limit for potassium hydroxide. A ceiling
limit of 2 mg/m(3) was proposed by the Agency based on the ACGIH
recommendation, and NIOSH (Ex. 8-47, Table N1) concurred with this
proposal. OSHA has concluded that this limit is necessary to afford
workers protection from irritant effects and is establishing the 2-
mg/m(3) ceiling limit for potassium hydroxide in the final rule.
[One commenter] (Ex. 3-830) commented that there was no basis
for establishing an occupational limit for potassium hydroxide. OSHA
disagrees and notes that the irritant effects of potassium hydroxide
dusts, mists, and aerosols have been documented (ACGIH 1986/Ex. 1-3,
p. 495; Karpov 1971/Ex. 1-1115). Although dose-response data are
lacking for this substance, it is reasonable to expect potassium
hydroxide to exhibit irritant properties similar to those of sodium
hydroxide, a structurally related strong alkali. In its criteria
document, NIOSH (1976k/Ex. 1-965) cites a personal communication
(Lewis 1974), which reported that short-term exposures (2 to 15
minutes) to 2 mg/m(3) sodium hydroxide caused ``noticeable'' but not
excessive upper respiratory tract irritation. Therefore, OSHA finds
that the 2-mg/m(3) ceiling limit will provide workers with an
environment that minimizes respiratory tract irritation, which the
Agency considers to be material impairment of health. To reduce
these risks, OSHA is establishing a ceiling limit of 2 mg/m(3) for
potassium hydroxide. (54 FR 2332 et seq.)
OSHA proposed making 212 PELs more protective and setting new
PELs for 164 substances not previously regulated by OSHA. Substances
for which the PEL was already aligned with a newer TLV were not
included.
In order to determine whether the Air Contaminants rule was
feasible, OSHA prepared the regulatory impact analysis in two
phases. The first phase of its feasibility analyses involved using
secondary databases to collect information on the chemicals to be
regulated and the industries in which they were used. These
databases provided information on the toxicity and health effects of
exposure to chemicals covered by the rulemaking, on engineering
controls, and on emergency response procedures. (54 FR 2725; Ex.
#7).
Two primary databases were used to collect information on the
nature and extent of employee exposures to the substances covered by
the rule. One database was the 1982 NIOSH National Occupational
Exposure Survey (NOES), which collected information from 4,500
businesses on the number of workers exposed to hazardous substances.
The second database was OSHA's Integrated Management Information
System (IMIS) which contains air samples taken since 1979 by OSHA
industrial hygienists during compliance inspections. OSHA also
consulted industrial hygienists and engineers who provided
information about the exposure controls in use, the number and size
of plants that would be impacted by the rulemaking, and the
estimated costs associated with meeting the new PELs. (54 FR 2373,
2725, 2736; Ex. #7).
As part of the second phase of its feasibility analyses, OSHA
performed an industry survey and site visits. The survey was the
largest survey ever conducted by OSHA and included responses from
5,700 firms in industries believed to use chemicals included in the
scope of the Air Contaminants proposal. It was designed to focus on
industry sectors that potentially had the highest compliance costs,
identified through an analysis of existing exposure data at the
four-digit SIC (Standards Industrial Classification) code level. 54
FR 2843. The survey gathered data on chemicals, processes, exposures
and controls currently in use, which ``permitted OSHA to refine the
Phase I preliminary estimates of technical and economic feasibility.
Site visits to 90 firms were conducted to verify the data collected
on chemicals, processes, controls, and employee exposures.'' 54 FR
2725; see also 54 FR 2736-39, 2768, 2843-69.
OSHA analyzed the data collected in phases I and II to determine
whether the updated PELs were both technologically and economically
feasible for each industry sector covered. 54 FR 2374.
For technological feasibility, OSHA evaluated engineering
controls and work practices available within industry sectors to
reduce employee exposures to the new PELs. In general, it found
three types of controls might be employed to reduce exposures:
Engineering controls, work practice and administrative controls, and
personal protective equipment. Engineering controls included local
exhaust ventilation, general ventilation, isolation of the worker
and enclosure of the source of the emission, and product
substitution. Work practice controls included housekeeping, material
handling procedures, leak detection, training, and personal hygiene.
Personal protective equipment included respirators, and where the
chemicals involved presented skin
[[Page 61421]]
hazards, protective gloves and clothing. 54 FR 2789-90, 2840.
OSHA found that many processes required to reduce exposure were
``relatively standardized throughout industry and are used [to
control exposures] for a variety of substances.'' 54 FR 2373-74. It
``examined typical work processes found in a cross section of
industries'' and had industry experts identify the major processes
that had the potential for hazardous exposures above the new PELs,
requiring new controls. For each affected industry group, OSHA
reviewed the data it had collected to ``identify examples of
successful application of controls to these processes.'' 54 FR 2790.
Based on its review OSHA found that ``engineering controls and
improved work practices [were] available to reduce exposure levels
in almost all circumstances.'' 54 FR 2727. In some cases, it found
respirators or other protective equipment was necessary. 54 FR 2727,
2813-15, 2840. For each relevant industry sector (which was at the
2, 3, or 4 digit SIC code level, depending on the processes
involved). As the court explained in Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at
981 (Ex. #8):
The SIC codes classify by type of activity for purposes of
promoting uniformity and comparability in the presentation of data.
As the codes go from two and three digits to four digits, the
groupings become progressively more specific. For example, SIC Code
28 represents ``Chemicals and Allied Products,'' SIC Code 281
represents ``Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,'' and SIC Code 2812
includes only ``Alkalies and Chlorine.''
OSHA prepared a list of the processes identified and the
engineering controls and personal protective equipment (PPE)
required to reach the new PELs. 54 FR 2814-39. In almost all cases,
the OSHA list showed that the new PELs could be reached through a
combination of ventilation and enclosure controls. 54 FR 2816-39.
OSHA received and addressed numerous comments on the controls it
proposed for use in various industries. 54 FR 2790-2813. OSHA found
that ``in the overwhelming majority of situations where air
contaminants [were] encountered by workers, compliance [could] be
achieved by applying known engineering control methods, and work
practice improvements.'' 54 FR 2789.
To assess economic feasibility, OSHA ``made estimates of the
costs to reduce exposure based on the scale of operations, type of
process, and degree of exposure reduction needed'' based primarily
on the results of the survey. 54 FR 2373, 2841-51. For each survey
respondent, OSHA identified the processes employed at the plant and
made a determination about whether workers would be exposed to a
chemical in excess of a new PEL. 54 FR 2843-47. For those processes
where the new PEL would be exceeded, OSHA estimated the cost of
controls necessary to meet the PEL. 54 FR 2947-51. Process control
costs were then summed by establishment and costs ``for the survey
establishment were then weighted (by SIC and size) to represent
compliance costs for the universe of affected plants.'' 54 FR 2851.
OSHA received and addressed many comments on its cost approach and
assumptions. (54 FR 2854-62; Ex. #7).
Based on the survey, OSHA determined that 74 percent of
establishments with hazardous chemicals had no exposures in excess
of the new PELs and would incur no costs, 22 percent would incur
costs to implement additional engineering controls, and 4 percent
would be required to provide personal protective equipment only for
maintenance workers. 54 FR 2851. OSHA estimated the total compliance
cost to be $788 million per year annualized over ten years at a ten
percent discount rate. 54 FR 2851. OSHA assessed the economic impact
of the standard on industry profits on the two-digit SIC level.
Assuming industry would not be able to pass the additional costs on
to customers, the average change in profits was less than one
percent, with the largest change in SIC 30 (Rubber and Plastics) of
2.3 percent. 54 FR 2885, 2887. Alternatively, assuming that industry
could pass on all costs associated with the rule to its customers,
OSHA determined that for no industry sector would prices increase on
average more than half of a percent. 54 FR 2886, 2887. In neither
case was the economic impact significant, OSHA found, and the new
standard was therefore considered by the Agency to be economically
feasible. (54 FR 2733, 2887; Ex. #7)
The Air Contaminants final rule was published on January 19,
1989. In the final rule, OSHA summarized the health evidence for
each individual substance, discussed over 2,000 studies, reviewed
and addressed all major comments submitted to the record, and
provided a rationale for each new PEL chosen. The final rule
differed from the proposal in a number of ways as OSHA changed many
of its preliminary assessments presented in the proposal based on
comments submitted to the record.
Ultimately, the final rule adopted more protective PELs for 212
previously regulated substances, set new PELs for 164 previously
unregulated substances, and left unchanged an additional 52
substances, for which lower PELs were initially proposed. OSHA
estimated over 21 million employees were potentially exposed to
hazardous substances in the workplace and over 4.5 million employees
were currently exposed to levels above the old PELs or in the
absence of a PEL. OSHA projected the final rule would result in
potential reduction of over 55,000 lost workdays due to illnesses
per year and annual compliance with this final rule would prevent an
average of 683 fatalities annually from exposures to hazardous
substances. 54 FR 2725.
The update to the Air Contaminants standard generally received
wide support from both industry and labor. However, there was
dissatisfaction on the part of some industry representatives and
union leaders, who brought petitions for review challenging the
standard. For example, some industry petitioners argued that OSHA's
use of generic findings, the inclusion of so many substances in one
rulemaking, and the allegedly insufficient time provided for comment
by interested parties created a record inadequate to support the new
set of PELs. In contrast, the unions challenged the generic approach
used by OSHA to promulgate the standard and argued that several PELs
were not protective enough. The unions also asserted that OSHA's
failure to include any ancillary provisions, such as exposure
monitoring and medical surveillance, prevented employers from
ensuring the exposure limits were not exceeded and resulted in less-
protective PELs.
Fifteen of the twenty-five lawsuits were settled; of the
remaining suits, nine were from industry groups challenging seven
specific exposure limits, and one was from the unions challenging 16
substances. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), all petitions for review
were consolidated for disposition and transferred to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965, F.2d 962, 981-82
(11th Cir. 1992) (Air Contaminants). Although only 23 of the new
PELs were challenged, the court ultimately decided to vacate the
entire rulemaking, finding that ``OSHA [had] not sufficiently
explained or supported its threshold determination that exposure to
these substances at previous levels posed a significant risk of
these material health impairments or that the new standard
eliminates or reduces that risk to the extent feasible.'' Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 986-987; Ex. #8.
After publishing the Air Contaminants Final Rule for general
industry, OSHA proposed amending the PELs for the maritime and
construction industry sectors and establishing PELs to cover the
agriculture industry sector. OSHA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 12, 1992, which included more protective
exposure limits for approximately 210 substances currently regulated
in the construction and maritime industries and added new exposure
limits for approximately 160 chemicals to protect these workers. (57
FR 26002; Ex. #146). The notice also proposed approximately 220 PELs
to cover the agriculture industry. OSHA extended the comment period
indefinitely while it considered possible responses to the Air
Contaminants court decision. Once it became clear that an appeal
would not be pursued, the Agency halted work on the project.
III. Significant Court Decisions Shaping OSHA's Rulemaking Process and
OSHA's Approach to Updating Its Permissible Exposure Limits
OSHA's Air Contaminants final rule is the agency's most
significant attempt to move away from developing individual,
substance-specific standards. As discussed above in Section II, this
rule attempted to establish or revise 376 exposure limits for
chemicals in a single rulemaking. OSHA's efforts in reducing
occupational illnesses and the mortality associated with hazardous
chemical exposure has largely been through developing substance
specific standards, such as Hexavalent Chromium general industry (29
CFR 1910.1026; Ex. #26), shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1026), and
construction (29 CFR 1926.1026) and Methylene Chloride (29 CFR
1910.1052; Ex. #27). These standards, in addition to setting PELs,
establish other provisions to help reduce risk to workers, such as
requirements to monitor exposure, train workers and conduct medical
surveillance, if appropriate.
[[Page 61422]]
However, due to the associated time and costs, promulgating
comprehensive rules for individual chemical hazards is an
ineffective approach to address all chemical hazard exposures
because of the sheer number of chemicals and mixtures to which
workers are exposed on a daily basis. To date, only 30 comprehensive
individual standards have been successfully published by the Agency
to address hazardous chemicals in the workplace.
The courts have had a significant impact on OSHA's rulemaking
process by articulating specific burdens OSHA must meet before
promulgating a standard. It was because the Air Contaminants court
found that OSHA had failed to meet some of these burdens that the
court vacated OSHA's attempt to update the PELs. This section
discusses the important cases laying out OSHA's burdens under the
OSH Act, and summarizes the reasons the Air Contaminants court gave
for finding that OSHA had not satisfied those burdens. These cases
influence what steps OSHA may take in the future to update the PELs.
A. The Substantial Evidence Test: OSHA's Burden of Proof for
Promulgating Health Standards
The test used by the courts to determine whether OSHA has
reached its burden of proof is the ``substantial evidence test.''
This test, which applies to policy decisions as well as factual
determinations, is set forth in section 6(f) of the OSH Act, which
states: ``the determinations of the Secretary shall be conclusive if
supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a
whole.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(f). ``Substantial evidence'' has been defined
as ``such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.'' Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 522;
Ex. #15 (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477
(1951) Ex. #16).
Although the substantial evidence test requires OSHA to show
that the record as a whole supports the final rule, OSHA is not
required to wait for ``scientific certainty'' before promulgating a
health standard. Benzene, 448 U.S. at 656 (Ex. #10). Rather, to meet
its burden of proof under the ``substantial evidence test,'' the
agency need only ``identify relevant factual evidence, to explain
the logic and the policies underlying any legislative choice, to
state candidly any assumptions on which it relies, and to present
its reasons for rejecting significant contrary evidence and
argument.'' Lead I, 647 F.2d. at 1207; Ex. #12.
B. The Air Contaminants Case
OSHA published the Air Contaminants final rule on January 19,
1989. As discussed in Section II, the standard adopted more
protective PELs for 212 previously regulated substances, set new
PELs for 164 previously unregulated substances, left unchanged the
PELs for 52 substances for which lower limits had been proposed, and
raised the PEL for one substance. 54 FR 2332. The rule was
challenged by both industry and labor groups, which both raised a
series of issues regarding the validity of the final rule.
The first issue addressed by the court was whether OSHA's
``generic'' approach to rulemaking used to update or create new PELs
for 376 chemicals in a single rulemaking was permissible under the
OSH Act. Although the Eleventh Circuit determined that the Air
Contaminants final rule did not fit within the classic definition of
a generic rulemaking, the court upheld the format used by OSHA to
update the PELs. Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 972. The court, in so
holding, reasoned ``nothing in the OSH Act prevented OSHA from
addressing multiple substances in a single rulemaking.'' Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 972. The court also upheld OSHA's
statutory authority to select the substances and determine the
parameters of its rules. However, the court stated that even though
OSHA was permitted to promulgate multi-substance rules, each
substance was required to ``stand independently, i.e., . . . each
PEL must be supported by substantial evidence in the record
considered as a whole and accompanied by adequate explanation.'' Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 972; Ex. #8.
C. Significant Risk of a Material Impairment
1. The Benzene Case and Significant Risk
The significant risk requirement was first articulated in 1980
in a plurality decision of the Supreme Court in Benzene, 448 U.S.
607. The petitioners in Benzene challenged OSHA's rule lowering its
PEL for benzene from 10 ppm to 1 ppm. In support of the new PEL,
OSHA found that benzene caused leukemia and that the evidence did
not show that there was a safe threshold exposure level below which
no excess leukemia would occur. Applying its policy to treat
carcinogens as posing a risk at any level of exposure where such a
threshold could not be established, OSHA chose the new PEL of 1 ppm
based on its finding that it was the lowest feasible exposure level.
This was because Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act requires standards
to be set at the most protective level that is feasible. See
Benzene, 448 U.S. at 633-37; Ex. #10.
The Benzene Court rejected OSHA's approach. First, it found that
the OSH Act did not require employers to ``eliminate all risks of
harm from their workplaces.'' The OSH Act defines ``occupational
safety and health standard'' to be standard that require the
adoption of practices which are ``reasonably necessary or
appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of
employment''. OSH Act Sec. 3(8), 29 U.S.C. 652(8); Ex. #9.
Relying on this definition, the Court found that the Act only
required that employers ensure that their workplaces are safe, that
is, that their workers are not exposed to ``significant risk[s] of
harm.'' 448 U.S. at 642. Second, the Court made clear that it is
OSHA's burden to establish that a significant risk is present at the
current standard before lowering a PEL. The burden of proof is
normally on the proponent, the Court noted, and there was no
indication in the OSH Act that Congress intended to change this
rule. 448 U.S. at 653, 655. Thus, the Court held that, before
promulgating a health standard, OSHA is required to make a
``threshold finding that a place of employment is unsafe-in the
sense that significant risks are present and can be eliminated or
lessened by a change in practices'' before it can adopt a new
standard. Benzene, 448 U.S. at 642; Ex. #10.
Although the Court declined to establish a set test for
determining whether a workplace is unsafe, it did provide guidance
on what constitutes a significant risk. The Court stated a
significant risk was one that a reasonable person would consider
significant and ``take appropriate steps to decrease or eliminate.''
Benzene, 448 U.S. at 655 (Ex. #10). For example, it said, a one in a
1,000 risk would satisfy the requirement. However, this example was
merely an illustration, not a hard line rule. The Court made it
clear that determining whether a risk was ``significant'' was not a
``mathematical straitjacket'' and did not require the Agency to
calculate the exact probability of harm. 448 U.S. at 655. OSHA was
not required to support a significant risk finding ``with anything
approaching scientific certainty'' and was free to use
``conservative assumptions'' in interpreting the evidence. 448 U.S.
at 656. Still, because OSHA had not made a significant risk finding
at the 10 ppm level (indeed, the Court characterized the evidence of
leukemia in the record at the 10 ppm level as ``sketch[y]''), the
Court vacated the new PEL and remanded the matter to OSHA.
2. OSHA's Post-Benzene Approach to Significant Risk and Air
Contaminants
In past rulemakings involving hazardous chemicals, OSHA
satisfied its requirement to show that a significant risk of harm is
present by estimating the risk to workers subject to a lifetime of
exposure at various possible exposure levels. These estimates have
typically been based on quantitative risk assessments. As a general
policy, OSHA has considered a lifetime excess risk of one death or
serious illness per 1000 workers associated with occupational
exposure over a 45 year working life as clearly representing a
significant risk. However, as noted above, Benzene does not require
OSHA to use such a rigid or formulaic criterion. Nevertheless, OSHA
has taken a conservative approach and has used the 1:1,000 example
as a useful benchmark for determining significant risk. This
approach has often involved the use of the quantitative risk
assessment models OSHA has employed in developing substance-specific
health standards.
In the Air Contaminants rule, OSHA departed from this approach.
Rather, as noted above, it looked at whether studies showed excess
effects of concern at concentrations lower than allowed under OSHA's
existing standard. Where they did, OSHA made a significant risk
finding and either set a PEL (where none existed previously) or
lowered the existing PEL. These new PELs were based on agency
judgment, taking into account the existing studies, and as
appropriate, safety factors. Both industry and union petitioners
challenged aspects of OSHA's approach to making its significant risk
determinations. The AFL-CIO argued that OSHA's rule was
``systematically under protective,'' and asserted that 16 of the
exposure limits in the final rule were too high. For example, the
AFL-CIO argued that OSHA had made a policy determination not to
lower the PELs for carbon tetrachloride and vinyl bromide even
though the exposure limits chosen
[[Page 61423]]
would continue to pose a residual risk in excess of 3.7 deaths per
1,000 workers exposed over the course of their working lifetime. The
court agreed with the AFL-CIO, finding that OSHA failed to provide
adequate evidence to support the higher PEL chosen by the agency.
The court found that some of the PELs chosen by the Agency were at
levels that would continue to pose a significant risk of material
health impairment, and concluded that OSHA's decision was due to
time and resource constraints, rather than legitimate
considerations, such as feasibility. Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at
976-77; Ex. #8.
Conversely, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI; Ex.
#147) argued that OSHA set the PELs for certain substances below the
level substantiated by the evidence. AISI argued that OSHA failed to
quantify the risk of material health impairment at present exposure
levels posed by individual substances and instead relied on
assumptions in order to select its updated PELs. The court agreed
with the AISI, finding that although OSHA summarized the studies on
health effects in the final rule, it did not explain why the
``studies mandated a particular PEL chosen.'' Air Contaminants, 965
F.2d at 976. Specifically, the court stated that OSHA failed to
quantify the risk from individual substances and merely provided
conclusory statements that the new PEL would reduce a significant
risk of material health effects. Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 975.
OSHA argued to the court that it relied on safety factors in
setting PELs. Safety or uncertainty factors are used to ensure that
exposure limits for a hazardous substance are set sufficiently below
the levels at which adverse effects have been observed to assure
adequate protection for all exposed employees. As explained in the
1989 Air Contaminants rule, regulators use safety factors in this
context to account for statistical limitations in studies showing no
observed effects, the uncertainties in extrapolating effects
observed in animals to humans, and variation in human responses. The
size of the proper safety factor is a matter of professional
judgment. 54 FR 2397-98
The Eleventh Circuit rejected OSHA's use of safety factors in
the Air Contaminants rule, however. While noting that the Benzene
case held that OSHA is permitted ``to use conservative assumptions
in interpreting data . . ., risking error on the side of
overprotection rather than under protection,'' Benzene, 448 U.S. at
656, the Air Contaminants court found that OSHA had not adequately
supported the use of safety factors in this rule. The court observed
that ``the difference between the level shown by the evidence and
the final PEL is sometimes substantial,'' and assumed that though
``it is not expressly stated, that for each of those substances OSHA
applied a safety factor to arrive at the final standard.'' 965 F.2d
at 978. OSHA had not indicated ``how the existing evidence for
individual substances was inadequate to show the extent of risk for
these factors,'' and ``failed to explain the method by which its
safety factors were determined.'' Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 978.
``OSHA may use assumptions but only to the extent that those
assumptions have some basis in reputable scientific evidence,'' the
court concluded. Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 978-979. See Section
IV. A. for additional discussion of the use of safety factors in
risk assessment.
Ultimately, although the Eleventh Circuit noted that OSHA
``probably established that most or all of the substances involved
do pose a significant risk at some level,'' the court determined
that OSHA failed to adequately explain or provide evidence to
support its conclusion that ``exposure to these substances at
previous levels posed a significant risk . . . or that the new
standard eliminates or reduces that risk to the extent feasible.''
Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 987. Therefore, the court vacated the
rule and remanded it to the agency.
3. Material Impairment
Under section 6(b)(5), OSHA must set standards to protect
employees against ``material impairment of health or functional
capacity.'' This requirement was uncontroversial in Benzene, since
the effect on which OSHA regulated was leukemia. However, in Air
Contaminants, AISI argued that not all of the health effects
addressed by OSHA in the final rule were material health effects.
Specifically, AISI stated that the category of ``sensory
irritation,'' which OSHA used as an endpoint to set PELs for 79
substances, failed to distinguish between ``materially impairing
sensory irritation and the less serious sort.'' AISI brief at page
24. The court rejected AISI's argument. It accepted OSHA's
explanation that material impairments may be any health effect,
permanent or transitory, that seriously threatens the health or job
performance of an employee, and held that, ``OSHA is not required to
state with scientific certainty or precision the exact point at
which each type of sensory or physical irritation becomes a material
impairment.'' Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 975. ``Section 6(b)(5)
of the [OSH] Act charges OSHA with addressing all forms of `material
impairment of health or functional capacity,'' and not exclusively
those causing `death or serious physical harm' or `grave danger'
from exposure to toxic substances, the court held. Air Contaminants,
965 F.2d at 975; Ex. #8.
D. Technological and Economic Feasibility
Once OSHA makes its threshold finding that a significant risk is
present at the current PEL or in the absence of a PEL and can be
reduced or eliminated by a standard, the Agency considers
feasibility. First, the feasibility requirement that originated in
Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act requires that the standard be
``technologically feasible,'' which generally means an industry has
to be able to develop the technology necessary to comply with the
requirements in the standard. Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264-65; Ex. #12.
Second, the standard must be ``economically feasible,'' meaning
that an industry as a whole must be able to absorb the impact of the
costs associated with compliance with the standard. Id. at 1265.
OSHA has historically made determinations on technological
feasibility and economic feasibility separately.
1. Technological Feasibility
A standard is technologically feasible if ``a typical firm will
be able to develop and install engineering and work practice
controls that can meet the PEL in most operations.'' Lead I, 647
F.2d at 1272. Standards are permitted to be ``technology forcing,''
meaning that OSHA can require industries to ``develop new
technology'' or ``impose a standard which only the most
technologically advanced plants in an industry have been able to
achieve, even if only in some of their operations some of the
time.'' Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1264; Ex. #12.
Technological feasibility analysis generally focuses on
demonstrating that PELs can be achieved through engineering and work
practice controls. However, the concept of technological feasibility
applies to all aspects of the standard, including air monitoring,
housekeeping, and respiratory protection requirements. Some courts
have required OSHA to determine whether a standard is
technologically feasible on an industry-by-industry basis, Color
Pigments Manufacturers Assoc. v. OSHA, 16 F.3d 1157 (Ex. #13), 1162-
63 (11th Cir. 1994); Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 981-82 (Ex. #8),
while another court has upheld technological feasibility findings
based on the nature of an activity across many industries rather
than on a pure industry basis, Public Citizen Health Research Group
v. United States Department of Labor, 557 F.3d 165,178-79 (3d Cir.
2009; Ex. #14).
Regardless, OSHA must show the existence of ``technology that is
either already in use or has been conceived and is reasonably
capable of experimental refinement and distribution within the
standard's deadlines,'' Lead I, 647 F.2d 1272. Where the agency
presents ``substantial evidence that companies acting vigorously and
in good faith can develop the technology,'' the agency is not bound
to the technological status quo, and ``can require industry to meet
PELs never attained anywhere.'' Lead I, 647 F.2d 1265; Ex. #12.
OSHA usually demonstrates the technological feasibility of a PEL
by finding establishments in which the PEL is already being met and
identifying the controls in use, or by arguing that even if the PEL
is not currently being met in a given operation, the PEL could be
met with specific additional controls. OSHA is also concerned with
determining whether the conditions under which the PEL can be met in
specific plants are generalizable to an industry as whole. This
approach is very resource-intensive, as it commonly requires
gathering detailed information on exposure levels and controls for
each affected operation and process in an industry. OSHA's
inspection databases usually do not record this information, and
consequently OSHA makes site visits for the specific purpose of
determining technological feasibility. (See Section IV. of this
Request for Information for a detailed discussion of how OSHA
determines technological feasibility and possible alternatives to
current methods.)
As noted above, in the Air Contaminants rule, OSHA made its
feasibility determination by gathering information on work processes
that might expose workers
[[Page 61424]]
above the new PELs, and identifying controls that had been
successfully implemented to reduce the exposure to the new limits.
It made these findings mainly at the two-digit SIC level, but also
at the three- and four-digit level where appropriate given the
processes involved. The Air Contaminants court rejected this
approach, finding that OSHA failed to make industry-specific
findings or identify the specific technologies capable of meeting
the proposed limit in industry-specific operations. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 981. While OSHA had identified primary air
contaminant control methods: engineering controls, administrative
controls and work practices and personal protective equipment, the
agency, ``only provided a general description of how the generic
engineering controls might be used in the given sector.'' Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 981. Though noting that OSHA need only
provide evidence sufficient to justify a ``general presumption of
feasibility,'' the court held that this ``does not grant OSHA
license to make overbroad generalities as to feasibility or to group
large categories of industries together without some explanation of
why findings for the group adequately represents the different
industries in that group.'' Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 981-82.
Accordingly, the court held that OSHA failed to establish the
technological feasibility of the new PELs in its final rule. Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982. As noted below, in a subsequent
rulemaking the reviewing court accepted OSHA's approach of grouping
numbers of industries.
2. Economic Feasibility
With respect to economic feasibility, the courts have stated ``A
standard is feasible if it does not threaten ``massive dislocation''
to . . . or imperil the existence of the industry.'' United
Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Lead
I,). In order to show this, the same court suggested, OSHA should
``construct a reasonable estimate of compliance costs and
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that these costs will not
threaten the existence or competitive structure of an industry.''
The same court noted, ``[T]he court probably cannot expect hard and
precise estimates of costs. Nevertheless, the agency must of course
provide a reasonable assessment of the likely range of costs of its
standard, and the likely effects of those costs on the industry.''
Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1265; Ex. #12.
Economic feasibility does not entail a cost-benefit analysis of
the level of protection provided by the standard. As the Supreme
Court noted, Congress considered the costs of creating a safe and
healthful workplace to be the cost of doing business. Cotton Dust,
452 U.S. at 514, 520; Ex. #15. Instead, standards are economically
feasible if the standard will not substantially alter the industry's
competitive structure. Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Secretary of Labor,
773 F.2d 1436, 1453 (4th Cir. 1985; Ex. #148). In order to make a
determination of economic feasibility, OSHA should ``construct a
reasonable estimate of compliance costs and demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood that these costs will not threaten the existence or
competitive structure of an industry,'' Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272,
noting that such analyses will not provide absolute certainty:
[T]he court probably cannot expect hard and precise estimates of
costs. Nevertheless, the agency must of course provide a reasonable
assessment of the likely range of costs of its standard, and the
likely effects of those costs on the industry . . . . And OSHA can
revise any gloomy forecast that estimated costs will imperil an
industry by allowing for the industry's demonstrated ability to pass
through costs to consumers. 647 F.2d at 1266-67.
Again, courts have required OSHA to determine whether a standard
is economically feasible on an industry-by-industry basis. See Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982 (Ex. #8). Both to meet requirements
for any Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) analysis and
to assure that standards do not threaten the competitive structure
of an industry, OSHA also analyzes the economic impacts on different
size classes within an industry. However, OSHA is not required to
show that all companies within an industry will be able to bear the
burden of compliance or ``guarantee the continued existence of
individual employers.'' Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1265 (Ex. #12) (quoting
Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C.
Cir. 1974) Ex. #55)).
As discussed above, OSHA supported its economic feasibility
findings for the 1989 Air Contaminants rule based primarily on the
results of a survey of over 5700 businesses, summarizing the
projected cost of compliance at the two-digit SIC industry sector
level. It found that compliance costs would average less than one
percent of profits, and, alternatively, that prices would increase
by less than one half percent. Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit
held that OSHA had failed to meet its burden. The court held that
OSHA was required to show that the rule was economically feasible on
an industry-by industry basis, and that OSHA had not shown that its
analyses at the two-digit SIC industry sector level were appropriate
to meet this burden. Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982. OSHA argued
the generic nature of the rulemaking allowed the agency ``a great
latitude in grouping industries in order to estimate `average'
costs,'' and that ``the costs were sufficiently low per sector to
demonstrate feasibility not only for each sector, but each sub-
sector.'' Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 983. However, the court
found that ``average estimates of cost can be extremely misleading
in assessing the impact of particular standards on individual
industries'' and observed that ``analyzing the economic impact for
an entire sector could conceal particular industries laboring under
special disabilities and likely to fail as a result of
enforcement.'' Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982. The court allowed
that OSHA could ``find and explain that certain impacts and
standards do apply to entire sectors of an industry'' if ``coupled
with a showing that there are no disproportionately affected
industries within the group.'' Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 982
n.28. But in this case, the court found, OSHA had not explained why
its use of such a ``broad grouping was appropriate.'' Air
Contaminants, 965 F.2d at 983; Ex. #8.
Ultimately, the court held that OSHA did not sufficiently
explain or support its threshold determination that exposures above
the new PELs posed significant risks of material health impairment,
or that the new PELs eliminated or reduced the risks to the extent
feasible. Finding that ``OSHA's overall approach to this rulemaking
is . . . flawed,'' the court vacated the entire Air Contaminant
rulemaking, rather than just the 23 chemicals that were contested by
union and industry representatives. Air Contaminants, 965 F.2d at
987(Ex. #8).
The Eleventh Circuit denied OSHA's petition for rehearing. No
longer having a basis to enforce the 1989 PELs, OSHA directed its
compliance officers to stop enforcing the updated limits through a
memo, which was followed by a Federal Register Notice on June 30,
1993, revoking the new limits. 58 FR 35338-35351; (Ex. #19).
Appendix B: 1989 PELs Table
Table Z-1-A--Limits For Air Contaminants
[From the vacated 1989 final rule--Ex. #149]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWA STEL Ceiling
Substance Cas No. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Skin
ppm mg/m\3\ ppm mg/m\3\ ppm mg/m\3\ Designation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde.............................. 75-07-0...................... 100 180 150 270 ......... ......... ...........
Acetic acid............................... 64-19-7...................... 10 25 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Acetic anhydride.......................... 108-24-7..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5 20 ...........
Acetone................................... 67-64-1...................... 750 1800 1000 24006 ......... ......... ...........
Acetonitrile.............................. 75-05-8...................... 40 70 60 105 ......... ......... ...........
2-Acetylamino-fluorine; see 1910.1014..... 53-96-3......................
Acetylene dichloride; see 1,2- 540-59-0.....................
Dichloroethylene.
Acetylene tetrabromide.................... 79-27-6...................... 1 14 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin)............ 50-78-2...................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Acrolein.................................. 107-02-8..................... 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.8 ......... ......... ...........
Acrylamide................................ 79-06-1...................... ......... 0.03 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
[[Page 61425]]
Acrylic acid.............................. 79-10-7...................... 10 30 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Acrylonitrile; see 1910.1045.............. 107-13-1..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Aldrin.................................... 309-00-2..................... ......... 0.25 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Allyl alcohol............................. 107-18-6..................... 2 5 4 10 ......... ......... X
Allyl chloride............................ 107-05-1..................... 1 3 2 6 ......... ......... ...........
Allyl glycidyl ether (AGE)................ 106-92-3..................... 5 22 10 44 ......... ......... ...........
Allyl propyl disulfide.................... 2179-59-1.................... 2 12 3 18 ......... ......... ...........
alpha-Alumina............................. 1344-28-1.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Aluminum (as Al) Metal.................... 7429-90-5.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Pyro powders................. ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Welding fumes................ ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Soluble salts................ ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Alkyls....................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
4-Aminodiphenyl; see 1910.1011............ 92-67-1.
2-Aminoethanol; see Ethanolamine.......... 141-43-5.
2-Aminopyridine........................... 504-29-0..................... 0.5 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Amitrole.................................. 61-82-5...................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ammonia................................... 7664-41-7.................... ......... ......... 35 27 ......... ......... ...........
Ammonium chloride fume.................... 12125-02-9................... ......... 10 ......... 20 ......... ......... ...........
Ammonium sulfamate........................ 7773-06-0.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
n-Amyl acetate............................ 628-63-7..................... 100 525 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Sec-Amyl acetate.......................... 626-38-0..................... 125 650 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Aniline and homologs...................... 62-53-3...................... 2 8 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Anisidine (o-, p-isomers)................. 29191-52-4................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Antimony and compounds (as Sb)............ 7440-36-0.................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
ANTU (alpha naphthyl-thiourea)............ 86-88-4...................... ......... 0.3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Arsenic, organic compounds (as As)........ 7440-38-2.................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Arsenic, inorganic compounds (as As); see Varies with compound......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1910.1018.
Arsine.................................... 7784-42-1.................... 0.05 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Asbestos; see 1910.1001................... Varies....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Atrazine.................................. 1912-24-9.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Azinphos-methyl........................... 86-50-0...................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Barium, soluble compounds................. 7440-39-3.................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Barium sulfate............................ 7727-43-7.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Benomyl................................... 17804-35-2.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Benzene; see 1910.1028. See Table Z-2 for 71-43-2.
the limits applicable in the operations
or sectors excluded in 1910.1028.
Benzidine; see 1910.1010.................. 92-87-5.
p-Benzoquinone; see Quinone............... 106-51-4.
Benzo(a)pyrene; see Coal tar pitch
volatiles
Benzoyl peroxide.......................... 94-36-0...................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Benzyl chloride........................... 100-44-7..................... 1 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Beryllium and beryllium compounds (as Be). 7440-41-7.................... 0.002 ......... \1\.005 ......... 0.025 ......... ...........
Biphenyl; see Diphenyl.................... 92-52-4.
Bismuth telluride, undoped................ 1304-82-1.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Bismuth telluride, Se-doped............... 1304-82-1.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Borates, tetra, sodium salts:
Anhydrous............................. 1330-43-4.................... ......... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ...........
Decahydrate........................... 1303-96-4.................... ......... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ...........
Penta-hydrate......................... 12179-04-3................... ......... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ...........
Boron oxide............................... 1303-86-2.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable Fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Boron tribromide.......................... 10294-33-4................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1 10 ...........
Boron trifluoride......................... 7637-07-2.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1 3 ...........
Bromacil.................................. 314-40-9..................... 1 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Bromine................................... 7726-95-6.................... 0.1 0.7 0.3 2 ......... ......... ...........
Bromine pentafluoride..................... 7789-30-2.................... 0.1 0.7 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Bromoform................................. 75-25-2...................... 0.5 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Butadiene (1,3- Butadiene); see 1910.1051. 106-99-0.
Butane.................................... 106-97-8..................... 800 1900 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Butanethiol; see Butyl mercaptan.......... 109-79-5.
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone).......... 78-93-3...................... 200 590 300 885 ......... ......... ...........
[[Page 61426]]
2-Butoxyethanol........................... 111-76-2..................... 25 120 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
n-Butyl-acetate........................... 123-86-4..................... 150 710 200 950 ......... ......... ...........
sec-Butyl acetate......................... 105-46-4..................... 200 950 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
tert-Butyl acetate........................ 540-88-5..................... 200 950 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Butyl acrylate............................ 141-32-2..................... 10 55 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
n-Butyl alcohol........................... 71-36-3...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 50 150 X
sec-Butyl alcohol......................... 78-92-2...................... 100 305 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
tert-Butyl alcohol........................ 75-65-0...................... 100 300 150 450 ......... ......... ...........
Butylamine................................ 109-73-9..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5 15 X
tert-Butyl Chromate (as CrO3)............. 1189-85-1.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 X
n-Butyl glycidyl ether (BGE).............. 2426-08-6.................... 25 135 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
n-Butyl lactate........................... 138-22-7..................... 5 25 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Butyl mercaptan........................... 109-79-5..................... 0.5 1.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
o-sec-Butylphenol......................... 89-72-5...................... 5 30 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
p-tert-Butyltoluene....................... 98-51-1...................... 10 60 20 120 ......... ......... ...........
Cadmium (all forms, as Cd); see 1910.1027 7440-43-9.
See Table Z-2 for the limits applicable
in the operations or sectors excluded in
1910.1027.
Calcium carbonate......................... 1317-65-3.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Calcium cyanamide......................... 156-62-7..................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Calcium hydroxide; see particulates not 1305-62-0.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
otherwise regulated.
Calcium oxide............................. 1305-78-8.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Calcium silicate.......................... 1344-95-2.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Calcium sulfate........................... 7778-18-9.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Camphor, synthetic........................ 76-22-2.
Camphor, synthetic........................ 76-22-2...................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Caprolactam............................... 105-60-2.
Dust......................... ......... 1 ......... 3 ......... ......... ...........
Vapor........................ 5 20 10 40 ......... ......... ...........
Captafol (Difolatan[supreg]).............. 2425-06-1.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Captan.................................... 133-06-2..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Carbaryl (Sevin[supreg]).................. 63-25-2...................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Carbofuran (Furadan[supreg]).............. 1563-66-2.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Carbon black.............................. 1333-86-4.................... ......... 3.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Carbon dioxide............................ 124-38-9..................... 10,000 18,000 30,000 54,000 ......... ......... ...........
0 0
Carbon disulfide.......................... 75-15-0...................... 4 12 12 36 ......... ......... X
Carbon monoxide........................... 630-08-0..................... 35 40 ......... ......... 200 229 ...........
Carbon tetrabromide....................... 558-13-4..................... 0.1 1.4 0.3 4 ......... ......... ...........
Carbon tetrachloride...................... 56-23-5...................... 2 12.6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Carbonyl fluoride......................... 353-50-4..................... 2 5 5 15 ......... ......... ...........
Catechol (Pyrocatechol)................... 120-80-9..................... 5 20 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Cellulose................................. 9004-34-6.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cesium hydroxide.......................... 21351-79-1................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chlordane................................. 57-74-9...................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Chlorinated camphene...................... 8001-35-2.................... ......... 0.5 ......... 1 ......... ......... X
Chlorinated diphenyl oxide................ 55720-99-5................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chlorine.................................. 7782-50-5.................... 0.5 1.5 1 3 ......... ......... ...........
Chlorine dioxide.......................... 10049-04-4................... 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.9 ......... ......... ...........
Chlorine trifluoride...................... 7790-91-2.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 0.4 ...........
Chloro-acetaldehyde....................... 107-20-0..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1 3 ...........
alpha-Chloroaceto-phenone (Phenacy1 532-27-4..................... 0.05 0.3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
chloride).
Chloroacetyl chloride..................... 79-04-9...................... 0.05 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chlorobenzene............................. 108-90-7..................... 75 350 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
o-Chloro-benzylidene malononitrile........ 2698-41-1.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.05 0.4 X
Chloro-bromomethane....................... 74-97-5...................... 200 1050 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene; see beta- 126-99-8..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chloroprene.
Chloro-difluoromethane.................... 75-45-6...................... 1000 3500 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chlorodiphenyl (42% Chlorine) (PCB)....... 53469-21-9................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Chlorodiphenyl (54% Chlorine) (PCB)....... 11097-69-1................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
1-Chloro,2,3-epoxypropane; see 106-89-8.
Epichlorohydrin.
2-Chloroethanol; see Ethylene chlorohydrin 107-07-3.
Chloroethylene; see Vinyl chloride........ 75-01-4.
Chloroform (Trichloro-methane)............ 67-66-3...................... 2 9.78 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
bis(Chloro-methyl) ether; see 1910.1008... 542-88-1.
Chloromethyl methyl ether; see 1910.1006.. 107-30-2.
1-Chloro-l-nitropropane................... 600-25-9..................... 2 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chloropenta-fluoroethane.................. 76-15-3...................... 1000 6320 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chloropicrin.............................. 76-06-2...................... 0.1 0.7 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
[[Page 61427]]
beta-Chloroprene.......................... 126-99-8..................... 10 35 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
o-Chlorostyrene........................... 2039-87-4.................... 50 285 75 428 ......... ......... ...........
o-Chlorotoluene........................... 95-49-8...................... 50 250 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
2-Chloro-6-trichloro-methyl pyridine...... 1929-82-4.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chlorpyrifos.............................. 2921-88-2.................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Chromic acid and chromates (as CrO3); see Varies with compound......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 ......... ...........
1910.1026. See Table Z-2 for the exposure
limit for any operations or sectors where
the exposure limit in 1910.1026 is stayed
or are otherwise not in effect.
Chromium (II) compounds (as Cr)........... Varies with compound......... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chromium (III) compounds (as Cr).......... Varies with compound......... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chromium metal and insoluble salts........ 7440-47-3.................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Chrysene; see Coal tar pitch volatiles
Clopidol.................................. 2971-90-6.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Coal dust (less than 5% Si02), quartz, N/A.......................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
respirable fraction.
Coal dust (greater than or equal to 5% N/A.......................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Si02) respirable quartz fraction.
Coal tar pitch volatiles (benzene soluble 8007-45-2.................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
fraction), anthracene, BaP, phenanthrene,
acridine, chrysene, pyrene.
Cobalt metal, dust, and fume (as Co)...... 7440-48-4.................... ......... 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cobalt carbonyl (as Co)................... 10210-68-1................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cobalt hydrocarbonyl (as Co).............. 16842-03-8................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Coke oven emissions; See 1910.1029
Copper.................................... 7440-50-8.
Fume (as Cu)................. ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dusts and mists (as Cu)...... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cotton dust, raw This 8-hour TWA applies
to respirable dust as measured by a
vertical elutriator cotton dust or
equivalent instrument. The time-weighted
average applies to the cotton waste
processing operations of waster recycling
(sorting, blending, cleaning, and
willowing) and garnetting. See also
1910.1043 for cotton dust limits
applicable to other sectors.
Crag herbicide (Sesone)................... 136-78-7.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cresol, all isomers....................... 1319-77-3; 95-48-7; 108-39-4; 5 22 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
106-44-5.
Crotonaldehyde............................ 123-73-9; 4170-30-3.......... ......... 2 6 ......... ......... ......... ...........
Crufomate................................. 106-44-5..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cumene.................................... 98-82-8...................... 50 245 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Cyanamide................................. 420-04-2..................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cyanides (as CN).......................... 151-50-0..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cyanogen.................................. 460-19-5..................... 10 20 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cyanogen chloride......................... 506-77-4..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.3 0.6 ...........
Cyclohexane............................... 110-82-7..................... 300 1050 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cyclohexanol.............................. 108-93-0..................... 50 200 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Cyclohexanone............................. 108-94-1..................... 25 100 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Cyclohexene............................... 110-83-8..................... 300 1015 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cyclohexylamine........................... 108-91-8..................... 10 40 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cyclonite................................. 121-82-4..................... ......... 1.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Cyclopentadiene........................... 542-92-7..................... 75 200 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cyclopentane.............................. 287-92-3..................... 600 1720 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Cyhexatin................................. 13121-70-5................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
2,4-D (Dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid)....... 94-75-7...................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Decaborane................................ 17702-41-9................... 0.05 0.3 0.15 0.9 ......... ......... X
Demeton-(Systox[supreg]).................. 8065-48-3.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Diborane.................................. 19207-45-7................... 0.1 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dichlorodiphenyltri-chloroethane (DDT).... 50-29-3...................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Dichlorvos (DDVP)......................... 62-73-7...................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Diacetone alcohol (4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2- 123-42-2..................... 50 240 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
pentanone).
1,2-Diaminoethane; see Ethylenediamine.... 107-15-3.
Diazinon.................................. 333-41-5..................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Diazomethane.............................. 334-88-3..................... 0.2 0.4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; see 1910.1044 96-12-8.
2-N-Dibutylamino-ethanol.................. 102-81-8..................... 2 14 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dibutyl phosphate......................... 107-66-4..................... 1 5 2 10 ......... ......... ...........
Dibutyl phthalate......................... 84-74-2...................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dichloro-acetylene........................ 7572-29-4.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 0.4 ...........
[[Page 61428]]
o-Dichlorobenzene......................... 95-50-1...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 50 300 ...........
p-Dichlorobenzene......................... 106-46-7..................... 75 450 110 675 ......... ......... ...........
3,3'-Dichloro-benzidine; see 1910.1007.... 91-94-1.
Dichlorodifluoro-methane.................. 75-71-8...................... 1000 4950 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethyl hydantoin....... 118-52-5..................... ......... 0.2 ......... 0.4 ......... ......... ...........
1,1-Dichloroethane........................ 75-34-3...................... 100 400 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,2-Dichloroethylene...................... 540-59-0..................... 200 790 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dichloroethyl ether....................... 111-44-4..................... 5 30 10 60 ......... ......... X
Dichloro-methane; see Methylene chloride.. 75-09-2.
Dichloromono-fluoromethane................ 75-43-4...................... 10 40 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,1-Dichloro- 1-nitroethane............... 594-72-9..................... 2 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,2-Dichloropropane; see Propylene 78-87-5.
dichloride.
1,3-Dichloropropene....................... 542-75-6..................... 1 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
2,2-Dichloro-propionic acid............... 75-99-0...................... 1 6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dichloro-tetrafluoroethane................ 76-14-2...................... 1000 7000 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dicrotophos............................... 141-66-2..................... ......... 0.25 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Dicyclo-pentadiene........................ 77-73-6...................... 5 30 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dicyclo-pentadienyl iron.................. 102-54-5.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dieldrin.................................. 60-57-1...................... ......... 0.25 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Diethanolamine............................ 111-42-2..................... 3 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diethylamine.............................. 109-89-7..................... 10 30 25 75 ......... ......... ...........
2-Diethylamino-ethanol.................... 100-37-8..................... 10 50 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diethylene triamine....................... 111-40-0..................... 1 4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diethyl ether; see Ethyl ether............ 60-29-7.
Diethyl ketone............................ 96-22-0...................... 200 705 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diethyl phthalate......................... 84-66-2...................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Difluorodibromo-methane................... 75-61-6...................... 100 860 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diglycidyl ether (DGE).................... 2238-07-5.................... 0.1 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dihydroxy-benzene; see Hydroquinone....... 123-31-9.
Diisobutyl ketone......................... 108-83-8..................... 25 150 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diisopropylamine.......................... 108-18-9..................... 5 20 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
4-Dimethylamino-azobenzene; see 1910.1015. 60-11-7.
Dimethoxy-methane; see Methylal........... 109-87-5.
Dimethyl acetamide........................ 127-19-5..................... 10 35 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Dimethylamine............................. 124-40-3..................... 10 18 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dimethylamino-benzene; see Xylidine....... 1300-73-8.
Dimethylaniline (N,N-Dimethylaniline)..... 121-69-7..................... 5 25 10 50 ......... ......... X
Dimethyl-benzene; see Xylene.............. Varies with isomer.
Dimethyl-1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl 300-76-5..................... ......... 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
phosphate.
Dimethyl-formamide........................ 68-12-2...................... 10 30 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
2,6-Dimethyl-4-heptanone; see Diisobutyl 108-83-8.
ketone.
1,1-Dimethyl-hydrazine.................... 57-14-7...................... 0.5 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Dimethyl-phthalate........................ 131-11-3..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dimethyl sulfate.......................... 77-78-1...................... 0.1 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Dinitolmide (3,5-Dinitro-o-toluamide)..... 148-01-6..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Dinitrobenzene (all isomers).............. (alpha): 528-29-0............ ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
(meta): 99-65-0..............
(para-): 100-25-4............
Dinitro-o-cresol.......................... 534-52-1..................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Dinitrotoluene............................ 121-14-2..................... ......... 1.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Dioxane (Diethylene dioxide).............. 123-91-1..................... 25 90 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Dioxathion (Delnav)....................... 78-34-2...................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Diphenyl (Biphenyl)....................... 92-52-4...................... 0.2 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diphenylamine............................. 122-39-4..................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diphenylmethane diisocyanate; see 101-68-8.
Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate.
Dipropylene glycol methyl ether........... 34590-94-8................... 100 600 150 900 ......... ......... X
Dipropyl ketone........................... 123-19-3..................... 50 235 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diquat.................................... 85-00-7...................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Di-sec octyl phthalate (Di-2-ethylhexyl 117-81-7..................... ......... 5 ......... 10 ......... ......... ...........
phthalate).
Disulfiram................................ 97-77-8...................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Disulfoton................................ 298-04-4..................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol................ 128-37-0..................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Diuron.................................... 330-54-1..................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Divinyl benzene........................... 108-576...................... 10 50 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Emery..................................... 112-62-9.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Endosulfan................................ 115-29-7..................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Endrin.................................... 72-20-8...................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Epichlorohydrin........................... 106-89-8..................... 2 8 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
EPN....................................... 2104-64-5.................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
1,2-Epoxypropane; see Propylene oxide..... 75-56-9.
2,3-Epoxy-l-propanol; see Glycidol........ 556-52-5.
Ethanethiol; see Ethyl mercaptan.......... 75-08-1.
Ethanolamine.............................. 141-43-5..................... 3 8 6 15 ......... ......... ...........
[[Page 61429]]
Ethion.................................... 563-12-2..................... ......... 0.4 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
2-Ethoxyethanol [In Process of 6(b) 110-80-5.
Rulemaking].
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate (Cellosolve acetate) 111-15-9.
[In Process of 6(b) Rulemaking].
Ethyl acetate............................. 141-78-6..................... 400 1400 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl acrylate............................ 140-88-5..................... 5 20 25 100 ......... ......... X
Ethyl alcohol (Ethanol)................... 64-17-5...................... 1000 1900 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethylamine................................ 75-04-7...................... 10 18 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl amyl ketone (5-Methyl-3-heptanone).. 106-68-3..................... 25 130 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl benzene............................. 100-41-4..................... 100 435 125 545 ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl bromide............................. 74-96-4...................... 200 890 250 1110 ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl butyl ketone (3-Heptanone).......... 106-35-4..................... 50 230 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl chloride............................ 75-00-3...................... 1000 2600 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl ether............................... 60-29-7...................... 400 1200 500 1500 ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl formate............................. 109-94-4..................... 100 300 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl mercaptan........................... 75-08-1...................... 0.5 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethyl silicate............................ 78-10-4...................... 10 85 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethylene chlorohydrin..................... 107-07-3..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1 3 X
Ethylenediamine........................... 107-15-3..................... 10 25 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ethylene dibromide; see Table Z-2......... 106-93-4.
Ethylene dichloride....................... 107-06-2..................... 1 4 2 8 ......... ......... ...........
Ethylene glycol........................... 107-21-1..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 50 125 ...........
Ethylene glycol dinitrate................. 628-96-6..................... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... X
Ethylene glycol methyl acetate; see Methyl 110-49-6.
cellosolve acetate.
Ethyleneimine; see 1910.1012.............. 151-56-4.
Ethylene oxide; see 1910.1047............. 75-21-8.
Ethylidene chloride; see 1,1- 75-34-3.
Dichloroethane.
Ethylidene norbornene..................... 16219-75-3................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5 25 ...........
N-Ethylmorpholine......................... 100-74-3..................... 5 23 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Fenamiphos................................ 22224-92-6................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Fensulfothion (Dasanit)................... 115-90-2..................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Fenthion.................................. 55-38-9...................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Ferbam.................................... 14484-64-1.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ferrovanadium dust........................ 12604-58-9................... ......... 1 ......... 3 ......... ......... ...........
Fluorides (as F).......................... Varies with compound......... ......... 2.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Fluorine.................................. 7782-41-4.................... 0.1 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Fluoro-trichloromethane (Trichlorofluoro- 75-69-4...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1000 5600 ...........
methane).
Fonofos................................... 944-22-9..................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Formaldehyde; see 1910.1048............... 50-00-0.
Formamide................................. 75-12-7...................... 20 30 30 45 ......... ......... ...........
Formic acid............................... 64-18-6...................... 5 9 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Furfural.................................. 98-01-1...................... 2 8 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Furfuryl alcohol.......................... 98-00-0...................... 10 40 15 60 ......... ......... X
Gasoline.................................. 8006-61-9.................... 300 900 500 1500 ......... ......... ...........
Gemanium tetrahydride..................... 7782-65-2.................... 0.2 0.6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Glutaraldehyde............................ 111-30-8..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.2 0.8 ...........
Glycerin (mist)........................... 56-81-5.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Glycidol.................................. 556-52-5..................... 25 75 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Glycol monoethyl ether; see 2- 110-80-5.
Ethoxyethanol.
Grain dust (oat, wheat, barley)........... N/A.......................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Graphite, natural respirable dust......... 7782-42-5.................... ......... 2.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Graphite, synthetic....................... N/A.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Guthion[supreg]; see Azinphos methyl...... 86-50-0.
Gypsum.................................... 7778-18-9.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hafnium................................... 7440-58-6.................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Heptachlor................................ 76-44-8...................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Heptane (n-Heptane)....................... 142-82-5..................... 400 1600 500 2000 ......... ......... ...........
Hexachloro-butadiene...................... 87-68-3...................... 0.02 0.24 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene................ 77-47-4...................... 0.01 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hexa-chloroethane......................... 67-72-1...................... 1 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Hexachloro-naphthalene.................... 1335-87-1.................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Hexafluoro-acetone........................ 684-16-2..................... 0.1 0.7 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
n-Hexane.................................. 110-54-3..................... 50 180 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hexane isomers............................ Varies with compound......... 500 1800 1000 3600 ......... ......... ...........
2-Hexanone (Methyl n-butyl ketone)........ 591-78-6..................... 5 20 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hexone (Methyl isobutyl ketone)........... 108-10-1..................... 50 205 75 300 ......... ......... ...........
sec-Hexyl acetate......................... 108-84-9..................... 50 300 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
[[Page 61430]]
Hexylene glycol........................... 107-41-5..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 25 125 ...........
Hydrazine................................. 302-01-2..................... 0.1 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Hydrogenated terphenyls................... 61788-32-7................... 0.5 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hydrogen bromide.......................... 10035-10-6................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3 10 ...........
Hydrogen chloride......................... 7647-01-0.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5 7 ...........
Hydrogen cyanide.......................... 74-90-8...................... ......... ......... 4.7 5 ......... ......... X
Hydrogen fluoride (as F).................. 7664-39-3.................... 3 ......... 6 ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hydrogen peroxide......................... 7722-84-1.................... 1 1.4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hydrogen selenide (as Se)................. 7783-07-5.................... 0.05 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Hydrogen sulfide.......................... 7783-06-4.................... 10 14 15 21 ......... ......... ...........
Hydroquinone.............................. 123-31-9..................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
2-Hydroxypropyl acrylate.................. 999-61-1..................... 0.5 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Indene.................................... 95-13-6...................... 10 45 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Indium and compounds (as In).............. 7440-74-6.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Iodine.................................... 7553-56-2.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 1 ...........
Iodoform.................................. 75-47-8...................... 0.6 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Iron oxide (dust and fume as Fe) Total 1309-37-1.................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
particulate.
Iron pentacarbonyl (as Fe)................ 13463-40-6................... 0.1 0.8 0.2 1.6 ......... ......... ...........
Iron salts (soluble) (as Fe).............. Varies with compound......... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Isoamyl acetate........................... 123-92-2..................... 100 525 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Isoamyl alcohol (primary and secondary)... 123-51-3..................... 100 360 125 450 ......... ......... ...........
Isobutyl acetate.......................... 110-19-0..................... 150 700 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Isobutyl alcohol.......................... 78-83-1...................... 50 150 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Isooctyl alcohol.......................... 26952-21-6................... 50 270 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Isophorone................................ 78-59-1...................... 4 23 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Isophorone diisocyanate................... 4098-71-9.................... 0.005 ......... 0.02 ......... ......... ......... X
2-Isopropoxy-ethanol...................... 109-59-1..................... 25 105 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Isopropyl acetate......................... 108-21-4..................... 250 950 310 1185 ......... ......... ...........
Isopropyl alcohol......................... 67-63-0...................... 400 980 500 1225 ......... ......... ...........
Isopropylamine............................ 75-31-0...................... 5 12 10 24 ......... ......... ...........
N-Isopropylaniline........................ 768-52-5..................... 2 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Isopropyl ether........................... 108-20-3..................... 500 2100 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Isopropyl glycidyl ether (IGE)............ 4016-14-2.................... 50 240 75 360 ......... ......... ...........
Kaolin.................................... N/A. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ketene.................................... 463-51-4..................... 0.5 0.9 1.5 3 ......... ......... ...........
Lead inorganic (as Pb); see 1910.1025..... 7439-92-1.
Limestone................................. 1317-65-3.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Lindane................................... 58-89-9...................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Lithium hydride........................... 7580-67-8.................... ......... 0.025 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
L.P.G. (Liquefied petroleum gas).......... 68476-85-7................... 1000 1800 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Magnesite................................. 546-93-0.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Magnesium oxide fume, total particulate... 1309-48-4.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Malathion................................. 121-75-5.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Maleic anhydride.......................... 108-31-6..................... 0.25 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Manganese compounds (as Mn)............... 7439-96-5.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5 ...........
Manganese fume (as Mn).................... 7439-96-5.................... ......... 1 ......... 3 ......... ......... ...........
Manganese cyclopentadienyl tricarbonyl (as 12079-65-1................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Mn).
Manganese tetroxide (as Mn)............... 1317-35-7.................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Marble.................................... 1317-65-3.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Mercury (aryl and inorganic) (as Hg)...... 7439-97-6.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 X
Mercury (organo) alkyl compounds (as Hg).. 7439-97-6.................... ......... 0.01 ......... 0.03 ......... ......... X
Mercury (vapor) (as Hg)................... 7439-97-6.................... ......... 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Mesityl oxide............................. 141-79-7..................... 15 60 25 100 ......... ......... ...........
Methacrylic acid.......................... 79-41-4...................... 20 70 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Methanethiol; see Methyl mercaptan........ 74-93-1.
Methomyl (Lannate)........................ 16752-77-5................... ......... 2.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methoxychlor.............................. 72-43-5.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
2-Methoxyethanol; see Methyl cellosolve... 109-86-4.
4-Methoxyphenol........................... 150-76-5..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl acetate............................ 79-20-9...................... 200 610 250 760 ......... ......... ...........
Methyl acetylene (Propyne)................ 74-99-7...................... 1000 1650 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl acetylene-propadiene mixture (MAPP) ............................. 1000 1800 1250 2250 ......... ......... ...........
Methyl acrylate........................... 96-33-3...................... 10 35 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
[[Page 61431]]
Methyl-acrylonitrile...................... 126-98-7..................... 1 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Methylal (Dimethoxy-methane).............. 109-87-5..................... 1000 3100 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl alcohol............................ 67-56-1...................... 200 260 250 325 ......... ......... X
Methylamine............................... 74-89-5...................... 10 12 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl amyl alcohol; see Methyl isobutyl 108-11-2.
carbinol.
Methyl n-amyl ketone...................... 110-43-0..................... 100 465 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl bromide............................ 74-83-9...................... 5 20 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Methyl butyl ketone; see 2-Hexanone....... 591-78-6.
Methyl cellosolve (2-Methoxyethanol)...... 109-86-4..................... 25 80 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Methyl cellosolve acetate (2-Methoxyethyl 110-49-6..................... 25 120 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
acetate).
Methyl chloride........................... 74-87-3...................... 50 105 100 210 ......... ......... ...........
Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane). 71-55-6...................... 350 1900 450 2450 ......... ......... ...........
Methyl 2-cyanoacrylate.................... 137-05-3..................... 2 8 4 16 ......... ......... ...........
Methyl cyclohexane........................ 108-87-2..................... 400 1600 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl-cyclohexanol....................... 25639-42-3................... 50 235 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
o-Methylcyclo-hexanone.................... 583-60-8..................... 50 230 75 345 ......... ......... X
Methylcyclo-pentadienyl manganese 12108-13-3................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
tricarbonyl (as Mn).
Methyl demeton............................ 8022-00-2.................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) 101-14-4..................... 0.02 0.22 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
(MBOCA).
Methylene bis(4-cyclo-hexylisocyanate).... 5124-30-1.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.01 0.11 X
Methylene chloride; see 1910.1052......... 75-09-2.
Methylene-dianiline; see 1910.1050........ 101-77-9.
Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP)....... 1338-23-4.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.7 5 ...........
Methyl formate............................ 107-31-3..................... 100 250 150 375 ......... ......... ...........
Methyl hydrazine (Monomethyl hydrazine)... 60-34-4...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.2 0.35 X
Methyl iodide............................. 74-88-4...................... 2 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Methyl isoamyl ketone..................... 110-12-3..................... 50 240 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl isobutyl carbinol.................. 108-11-2..................... 25 100 40 165 ......... ......... X
Methyl isobutyl ketone; see Hexone........ 108-10-1.
Methyl isocyanate......................... 624-83-9..................... 0.02 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Methyl isopropyl ketone................... 563-80-4..................... 200 705 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl mercaptan.......................... 74-93-1...................... 0.5 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl methacrylate....................... 80-62-6...................... 100 410 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Methyl parathion.......................... 298-00-0..................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Methyl propyl ketone; see 2-Pentanone..... 107-87-9.
Methyl silicate........................... 681-84-5..................... 1 6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
alpha-Methyl styrene...................... 98-83-9...................... 50 240 100 485 ......... ......... ...........
Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI)...... 101-68-8..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.02 0.2 ...........
Metribuzin................................ 21087-64-9................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Mica; see Silicates....................... N/A.
Molybdenum (as Mo)........................ 7439-98-7.
Soluble compounds............ ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Insoluble compounds total ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
dust.
Insoluble compounds.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction..........
Monocrotophos (Azodrin)................... 6923-22-4.................... ......... 0.25 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Monomethyl aniline........................ 100-61-8..................... 0.5 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Morpholine................................ 110-91-8..................... 20 70 30 105 ......... ......... X
Naphtha (Coal tar)........................ 8030-30-6.................... 100 400 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Naphthalene............................... 91-20-3...................... 10 50 15 75 ......... ......... ...........
alpha-Naphthylamine; see 1910.1004........ 134-32-7.
beta-Naphthylamine; see 1910.1009......... 91-59-8.
Nickel carbonyl (as Ni)................... 13463-39-3................... 0.001 0.007 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Nickel, metal and insoluble compounds (as 7440-02-0.................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ni).
Nickel, soluble compounds (as Ni)......... 7440-02-0.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Nicotine.................................. 54-11-5...................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Nitric acid............................... 7697-37-2.................... 2 5 4 10 ......... ......... ...........
Nitric oxide.............................. 10102-43-9................... 25 30 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
p-Nitroaniline............................ 100-01-6..................... ......... 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Nitrobenzene.............................. 98-95-3...................... 1 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
p-Nitrochloro-benzene..................... 100-00-5..................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
4-Nitrodiphenyl; see 1910.1003............ 92-93-3.
Nitroethane............................... 79-24-3...................... 100 310 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Nitrogen dioxide.......................... 10102-44-0................... ......... ......... 1 1.8 ......... ......... ...........
Nitrogen trifluoride...................... 7783-54-2.................... 10 29 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Nitroglycerin............................. 55-63-0...................... ......... ......... ......... 0.11 ......... ......... X
Nitromethane.............................. 75-52-5...................... 100 250 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1-Nitropropane............................ 108-03-2..................... 25 90 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
2-Nitropropane............................ 79-46-9...................... 10 35 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
N-Nitrosodimethyl-amine; see 1910.1016.... 62-75-9.
Nitrotoluene.............................. o-isomer 88-72-2............. 2 11 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
m-isomer 99-08-1.............
p-isomer 99-99-0.............
Nitrotrichloro-methane; see Chloropicrin.. 76-06-2.
[[Page 61432]]
Nonane.................................... 111-84-2..................... 200 1050 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Octachloro-naphthalene.................... 2234-13-1.................... ......... 0.1 ......... 0.3 ......... ......... X
Octane.................................... 111-65-9..................... 300 1450 375 1800 ......... ......... ...........
Oil mist, mineral......................... 8012-95-1.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Osmium tetroxide (as Os).................. 20816-12-0................... 0.0002 0.002 0.0006 0.006 ......... ......... ...........
Oxalic acid............................... 144-62-7..................... ......... 1 ......... 2 ......... ......... ...........
Oxygen difluoride......................... 7783-41-7.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.05 0.1 ...........
Ozone..................................... 10028-15-6................... 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 ......... ......... ...........
Paraffin wax fume......................... 8002-74-2.................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Paraquat, respirable dust................. 4685-14-7.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Parathion................................. 56-38-2...................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Particulates not otherwise regulated...... N/A.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Pentaborane............................... 19624-22-7................... 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.03 ......... ......... ...........
Pentachloro-naphthalene................... 1321-64-8.................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Pentachloro-phenol........................ 87-86-5...................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Pentaerythritol........................... 115-77-5.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Pentane................................... 109-66-0..................... 600 1800 750 2250 ......... ......... ...........
2-Pentanone (Methyl propyl ketone)........ 107-87-9..................... 200 700 250 875 ......... ......... ...........
Perchloro-ethylene (Tetrachloro-ethylene). 127-18-4..................... 25 170 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Perchloromethyl mercaptan................. 594-42-3..................... 0.1 0.8 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Perchloryl fluoride....................... 7616-94-6.................... 3 14 6 28 ......... ......... ...........
Perlite.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Petroleum distillates (Naphtha)........... 8002-05-9.................... 400 1600 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phenol.................................... 108-95-2..................... 5 19 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Phenothiazine............................. 92-84-2...................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
p-Phenylene diamine....................... 106-50-3..................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Phenyl ether, vapor....................... 101-84-8..................... 1 7 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phenyl ether-biphenyl mixture, vapor...... N/A.......................... 1 7 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phenylethylene; see Styrene............... 100-42-5.
Phenyl glycidyl ether (PGE)............... 122-60-1..................... 1 6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phenylhydrazine........................... 100-63-0..................... 5 20 10 45 ......... ......... X
Phenyl mercaptan.......................... 108-98-5..................... 0.5 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phenylphosphine........................... 638-21-1..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.05 0.25 ...........
Phorate................................... 298-02-2..................... ......... 0.05 ......... 0.2 ......... ......... X
Phosdrin (Mevinphos[supreg]).............. 7786-34-7.................... 0.01 0.1 0.03 0.3 ......... ......... X
Phosgene (Carbonyl chloride).............. 75-44-5...................... 0.1 0.4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phosphine................................. 7803-51-2.................... 0.3 0.4 1 1 ......... ......... ...........
Phosphoric acid........................... 7664-38-2.................... ......... 1 ......... 3 ......... ......... ...........
Phosphorus (yellow)....................... 7723-14-0.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phosphorus oxychloride.................... 10025-87-3................... 0.1 0.6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phosphorus pentachloride.................. 10026-13-8................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Phosphorus pentasulfide................... 1314-80-3.................... ......... 1 ......... 3 ......... ......... ...........
Phosphorus trichloride.................... 7719-12-2.................... 0.2 1.5 0.5 3 ......... ......... ...........
Phthalic anhydride........................ 85-44-9...................... 1 6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
m-Phthalodinitrile........................ 626-17-5..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Picloram.................................. 1918-02-1.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Picric acid............................... 88-89-1...................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Piperazine dihydrochloride................ 142-64-3..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Pindone (2-Pivalyl- 1,3-indandione)....... 83-26-1...................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Plaster of Paris.......................... 7778-18-9.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Platinum (as Pt).......................... 7440-06-4.
Metal........................ ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Soluble salts................ ......... 0.002 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Portland cement........................... 65997-15-1.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Potassium hydroxide....................... 1310-58-3.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2 ...........
Propane................................... 74-98-6...................... 1000 1800 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Propargyl alcohol......................... 107-19-7..................... 1 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
beta-Propriolactone; see 1910.1013........ 57-57-8.
Propionic acid............................ 79-09-4...................... 10 30 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Propoxur (Baygon)......................... 114-26-1..................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
n-Propyl acetate.......................... 109-60-4..................... 200 840 250 1050 ......... ......... ...........
n-Propyl alcohol.......................... 71-23-8...................... 200 500 250 625 ......... ......... ...........
n-Propyl nitrate.......................... 627-13-4..................... 25 105 40 170 ......... ......... ...........
Propylene dichloride...................... 78-87-5...................... 75 350 110 510 ......... ......... ...........
Propylene glycol dinitrate................ 6423-43-4.................... 0.05 0.3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Propylene glycol monomethyl ether......... 107-98-2..................... 100 360 150 540 ......... ......... ...........
[[Page 61433]]
Propylene imine........................... 75-55-8...................... 2 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Propylene oxide........................... 75-56-9...................... 20 50 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Propyne; see Methyl acetylene............. 74-99-7.
Pyrethrum................................. 8003-34-7.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Pyridine.................................. 110-86-1..................... 5 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Quinone................................... 106-51-4..................... 0.1 0.4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Resorcinol................................ 108-46-3..................... 10 45 20 90 ......... ......... ...........
Rhodium (as Rh), metal fume and insoluble 7440-16-6.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
compounds.
Rhodium (as Rh), soluble compounds........ 7440-16-6.................... ......... 0.001 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ronnel.................................... 299-84-3..................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Rosin core solder pyrolysis products, as ............................. ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
formaldehyde.
Rotenone.................................. 83-79-4...................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Rouge.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Selenium compounds (as Se)................ 7782-49-2.................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Selenium hexafluoride (as Se)............. 7783-79-1.................... 0.05 0.4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Silica, amorphous, precipitated and gel... ............................. ......... 6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Silica, amorphous, diatomaceous earth, 68855-54-9................... ......... 6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
containing less than 1% crystalline
silica.
Silica, crystalline cristobalite 14464-46-1................... ......... 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
respirable dust.
Silica, crystalline, quartz, respirable 14808-60-7................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
dust.
Silica, crystalline tripoli (as quartz), 1317-95-9.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
respirable dust.
Silica, crystalline tridymite respirable 15468-32-3................... ......... 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
dust.
Silica, fused, respirable dust............ 60676-86-0................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silicates (less than 1% crystalline silica)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mica (respirable dust).................... 12001-26-2................... ......... 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Soapstone, total dust..................... ............................. ......... 6 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Soapstone, respirable dust................ ............................. ......... 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Talc (containing asbestos): Use asbestos
limit; see 1910.1001.
Talc (containing no asbestos), respirable 14807-96-6................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
dust.
Tremolite; asbestiform--see 1910.1001; non- ............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
asbestiform--see 57 FR 24310, June 8,
1992.
Silicon................................... 7440-21-3.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Silicon carbide........................... 409-21-2.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Silicon tetrahydride...................... 7803-62-5.................... 5 7 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Silver, metal and soluble compounds (as 7440-22-4.................... ......... 0.01 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Ag).
Soapstone; see Silicates
Sodium azide.............................. 26628-22-8.
(as HN3)..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 ......... X
(as NaN3 )................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.3 X
Sodium bisulfite.......................... 7631-90-5.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Sodium fluoroacetate...................... 62-74-8...................... ......... 0.05 ......... 0.15 ......... ......... X
Sodium hydroxide.......................... 1310-73-2.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2 ...........
Sodium metabisulfite...................... 7681-57-4.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Starch.................................... 9005-25-8.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Stibine................................... 7803-52-3.................... 0.1 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Stoddard solvent.......................... 8052-41-3.................... 100 525 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Strychnine................................ 57-24-9...................... ......... 0.15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Styrene................................... 100-42-5..................... 50 215 100 425 ......... ......... ...........
Subtilisins (Proteolytic enzymes)......... 1395-21-7.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0. 00006 ...........
Sucrose................................... 57-50-1.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Sulfur dioxide............................ 7446-09-5.................... 2 5 5 13 ......... ......... ...........
Sulfur hexafluoride....................... 2551-62-4.................... 1000 6000 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Sulfuric acid............................. 7664-93-9.................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Sulfur monochloride....................... 10025-67-9................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1 6 ...........
Sulfur pentafluoride...................... 5714-22-7.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.01 0.1 ...........
Sulfur tetrafluoride...................... 7783-60-0.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 0.4 ...........
Sulfuryl fluoride......................... 2699-79-8.................... 5 20 10 40 ......... ......... ...........
Sulprofos................................. 35400-43-2................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Systox[supreg]; see Demeton............... 8065-48-3.
2,4,5-T................................... 93-76-5...................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Talc; see Silicates.
Tantalum, metal and oxide dust............ 7440-25-7.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
TEDP (Sulfotep)........................... 3689-24-5.................... ......... 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Tellurium and compounds (as Te)........... 13494-80-9................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Tellurium hexafluoride (as Te)............ 7783-80-4.................... 0.02 0.2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
[[Page 61434]]
Temephos.................................. 3383-96-8.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
TEPP...................................... 107-49-3..................... ......... 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Terphenyls................................ 26140-60-3................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.5 5 ...........
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloro-2,2-difluoroethane.... 76-11-9...................... 500 4170 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro 1,2-difluoroethane.... 76-12-0...................... 500 4170 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-ethane................ 79-34-5...................... 1 7 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Tetrachoro-ethylene; see Perchloro- 127-18-4.
ethylene.
Tetrachloro-methane; see Carbon 56-23-5.
tetrachloride.
Tetrachloro-naphthalene................... 1335-88-2.................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Tetraethyl lead (as Pb)................... 78-00-2...................... ......... 0.075 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Tetrahydrofuran........................... 109-99-9..................... 200 590 250 735 ......... ......... ...........
Tetramethyl lead (as Pb).................. 75-74-1...................... ......... 0.075 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Tetramethyl succinonitrile................ 3333-52-6.................... 0.5 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Tetranitro-methane........................ 509-14-8..................... 1 8 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Tetrasodium pyrophosphate................. 7722-88-5.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Tetryl (2,4,6-Trinitro-phenyl-methyl- 479-45-8..................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
nitramine).
Thallium, soluble compounds (as Tl)....... 7440-28-0.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
4,4'-Thiobis (6-tert-Butyl-m-cresol)...... 96-69-5.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Thioglycolic acid......................... 68-11-1...................... 1 4 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Thionyl chloride.......................... 7719-09-7.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1 5 ...........
Thiram.................................... 137-26-8..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Tin, inorganic compounds (except oxides) 7440-31-5.................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
(as Sn).
Tin, organic compounds (as Sn)............ 7440-31-5.................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Tin oxide (as Sn)......................... 7440-31-5.................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Titanium dioxide.......................... 13463-67-7.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Toluene................................... 108-88-3..................... 100 375 150 560 ......... ......... ...........
Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate (TDI)............ 584-84-9..................... 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.15 ......... ......... ...........
m-Toluidine............................... 108-44-1..................... 2 9 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
o-Toluidine............................... 95-53-4...................... 5 22 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
p-Toluidine............................... 106-49-0..................... 2 9 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Toxaphene; see Chlorinated camphene....... 8001-35-2.
Tremolite; see Silicates.................. N/A.
Tributyl phosphate........................ 126-73-8..................... 0.2 2.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Trichloroacetic acid...................... 76-03-9...................... 1 7 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,2,4-Trichloro-benzene................... 120-82-1..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5 40 ...........
1,1,1-Trichloroethane; see Methyl 71-55-6.
chloroform.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane..................... 79-00-5...................... 10 45 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Trichloro-ethylene........................ 79-01-6...................... 50 270 200 1080 ......... ......... ...........
Trichloro-methane; see Chloroform......... 67-66-3.
Trichloro-naphthalene..................... 1321-65-9.................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
1,2,3-Trichloropropane.................... 96-18-4...................... 10 60 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane..... 76-13-1...................... 1000 7600 1250 9500 ......... ......... ...........
Triethylamine............................. 121-44-8..................... 10 40 15 60 ......... ......... ...........
Trifluorobromo-methane.................... 75-63-8...................... 1000 6100 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Trimellitic anhydride..................... 552-30-7..................... 0.005 0.04 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Trimethylamine............................ 75-50-3...................... 10 24 15 36 ......... ......... ...........
Trimethyl benzene......................... 25551-13-7................... 25 125 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Trimethyl phosphite....................... 121-45-9..................... 2 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
2,4,6-Trinitrophenyl; see Picric acid..... 88-89-1.
2,4,6-Trinitrophenylmethyl nitramine; see 479-45-8.
Tetryl.
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)............... 118-96-1..................... ......... 0.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Triorthocresyl phosphate.................. 78-30-8...................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Triphenyl amine........................... 603-34-9..................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Triphenyl phosphate....................... 115-86-6..................... ......... 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Tungsten (as W)........................... 7440-33-7.
Insoluble compounds.......... ......... 5 ......... 10 ......... ......... ...........
Soluble compounds............ ......... 1 ......... 3 ......... ......... ...........
Turpentine................................ 8006-64-2.................... 100 560 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Uranium (as U)............................ 7440-61-1.
Soluble compounds............ ......... 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Insoluble compounds.......... ......... 0.2 ......... 0.6 ......... ......... ...........
n-Valeraldehyde........................... 110-62-3..................... 50 175 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Vanadium.................................. 1314-62-1.
Respirable Dust as V205...... ......... 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Fume (as V205)............... ......... 0.05 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Vegetable Oil Mist........................ N/A.
Total dust................... ......... 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
[[Page 61435]]
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Vinyl acetate............................. 108-05-4..................... 10 30 20 60 ......... ......... ...........
Vinyl benzene; see Styrene................ 100-42-5.
Vinyl bromide............................. 593-60-2..................... 5 20 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Vinyl chloride; see 1910.1017............. 75-01-4.
Vinyl cyanide; see Acrylonitrile.......... 107-13-1.
Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide................. 106-87-6..................... 10 60 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloro- 75-35-4...................... 1 4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
ethylene).
Vinyl toluene............................. 25013-15-4................... 100 480 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
VM & P Naphtha............................ 8032-32-4.................... 300 1350 400 1800 ......... ......... ...........
Warfarin.................................. 81-81-2...................... ......... 0.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Welding fumes (total particulate)*........ N/A.......................... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Wood dust, all soft and hard woods, except N/A.......................... ......... 5 ......... 10 ......... ......... ...........
Western red cedar.
Wood dust, western red cedar.............. N/A.......................... ......... 2.5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-isomers)............... 1330-20-7.................... 100 435 150 655 ......... ......... ...........
m-Xylene alpha, alpha' diamine............ 1477-55-0.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.1 X
Xylidine.................................. 1300-73-8.................... 2 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... X
Yttrium................................... 7440-65-5.................... ......... 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Zinc chloride fume........................ 7646-85-7.................... ......... 1 ......... 2 ......... ......... ...........
Zinc chromate (as CrO3); see 910.1026. See Varies with compound.
Table Z-2 for the exposure limit for any
operations or sectors where the exposure
limit in 1910.1026 is stayed or are
otherwise not in effect.
Zinc oxide fume........................... 1314-13-2.................... ......... 5 ......... 10 ......... ......... ...........
Zinc oxide................................ 1314-13-2.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Zinc stearate............................. 557-05-1.
Total dust................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Respirable fraction.......... ......... 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
Zirconium compounds (as Zr)............... 7440-67-7.................... ......... 5 ......... 10 ......... ......... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\(30 minutes).
References by Exhibit Number
Ex. #1: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013a). 2012 Chemical
Data Reporting Results. Retrieved from: https://epa.gov/cdr/pubs/guidance/cdr_factsheets.html.
Ex. #2: Hogue, C. (2007). Point/Counterpoint: The Future of U.S.
Chemical Regulation. Chemical and Engineering News, 85(2), 34-38.
Ex. #3: European Chemicals Agency. (2013). Registered Substances.
Retrieved from: https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances.
Ex. #4: Air Contaminants, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3, 29 CFR 1910.1000
(2012).
Ex. #5: Air Contaminants, 29 CFR 1915.1000 (2012).
Ex. #6: Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists, 29 CFR 1926.55
(2012).
Ex. #7: Air Contaminants, 54 FR 2332 (Jan. 19, 1989).
Ex. #8: AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1992) (``Air
Contaminants'').
Ex. #9: Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651,
652(8), 655(a), 655(b)(5), 655(f) (2006).
Ex. #10: Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum
Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (``Benzene'').
Ex. #11: Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde Final Rule, 52 FR
46168 (December 4, 1987).
Ex. #12: United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 at 1264
(D.C. Cir. 1980) (``Lead I'').
Ex. #13: Color Pigments Manufacturers Assoc. v. OSHA, 16 F.3d 1157,
1162-63 (11th Cir. 1994).
Ex. #14: Public Citizen Health Research Group v. United States
Department of Labor, 557 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2009).
Ex. #15: American Textile v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981) (``Cotton
Dust'').
Ex. #16: Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951).
Ex. #17: Senate Report (Labor and Pubic Welfare Committee) S. REP.
91-1282 (1970).
Ex. #18: Air Contaminants Proposed Rule, 53 FR 20960 (Jun. 7, 1988).
Ex. #19: Air Contaminants Final Rule, 58 FR 35338 (Jun. 30, 1993).
Ex. #20: Unified Agenda, The Regulatory Plan, DOL-OSHA, Permissible
Exposure Limits (PELS) for Air Contaminants, 60 FR 59628 (Nov. 28,
1995).
Ex. #21: Notice of Public Meeting on Updating Permissible Exposure
Limits (PELs) for Air Contaminants, 61 FR 1947 (Jan. 24, 1996).
Ex. #22: Unified Agenda, The Regulatory Plan, DOL-OSHA, Permissible
Exposure Limits (PELS) for Air Contaminants, 66 FR 61882 (Dec. 3,
2001).
Ex. #23: National Research Council. (2012). Exposure science in the
21st century: a vision and a strategy. Retrieved from: https://nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13507.
Ex. #24: National Research Council. (2009). Science and decisions:
advancing risk assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12209.
Ex. #25: National Research Council. (2007). Toxicity testing in the
21st century: a vision and a strategy. Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11970.
Ex. #26: Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium, 71 FR 10099
(Feb. 28, 2006).
Ex. #27: Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride, 62 FR 1494
(Jan. 10, 1997).
Ex. #28: National Research Council. (1983). Risk assessment in the
federal government: managing the process. Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309033497.
Ex. #29: Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment and disease: association
or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5),
295-300.
Ex. #30: Rothman, K.J., Greenland, S. Modern Epidemiology.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Lippincott, 1998.
Ex. #31: Environmental Protection Agency--Integrated Risk
Information System (1994) Methods for derivation of inhalation
reference concentrations and applications of inhalation dosimetry.
Washington, DC (EPA/600/8-90/066f).
Ex. #32: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Guidelines
for carcinogen risk assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F).
Ex. #33: European Chemicals Bureau (ECB). (2003). Technical guidance
on risk assessment. Retrieved from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/5619?mode=full.
[[Page 61436]]
Ex. #34: Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment
and Risk Management (PCRARM). (1997). Risk assessment and risk
management in regulatory decision-making. Retrieved from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/pcrarm.cfm.
Ex. #35: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). A review of
the reference dose and reference concentration processes (EPA/630/P-
02-002F).
Ex. #36: International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). (2005).
Chemical-specific adjustment factors for interspecies differences
and human variability: guidance document for use of data in dose/
concentration-response assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.inchem.org/documents/harmproj/harmproj/harmproj2.pdf.
Ex. #37: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2012a). Guidance on
information requirements and chemical safety assessment, chapter
R.8: characterization of dose [concentration]-response for human
health. Retrieved from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/information_requirements_r8_en.pdf.
Ex. #38: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Guidance for
applying quantitative data to develop data-derived extrapolation
factors for interspecies and intraspecies extrapolation (EPA/100/J-
11/001). Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/raf/files/ddef-external-review-draft05-11-11.pdf.
Ex. #39: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). (2007). Guidance on grouping of chemicals. (ENV/JM/MONO
(2007) 28). Retrieved from: https://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=env/jm/mono%282007%2928.
Ex. #40: National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2013). High Throughput
Screening Initiative. Retrieved from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/28213.
Ex. #41: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). NexGen:
Advancing the Next Generation of Risk Assessment. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/risk/nexgen.
Ex. #42: Patankar, S.V., Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Ex. #43: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
(2011a). Experimental and Numerical Research on the Performance of
Exposure Control Measures for Aircraft Painting Operations, Part I
(EPHB Report No. 329-12a).
Ex. #44: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
(2010). Workplace Safety & Health Topics: Aerosols. Retrieved from:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aerosols/internal_research.html.
Ex. #45: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
(2011b). NORA Manufacturing Sector Strategic Goals. Retrieved from:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs/manuf/noragoals/projects/921Z6KR.html.
Ex. #46: Yuan, L., Smith, A.C., and Brune, J.F. (2006).
Computational Fluid Dynamics Study on the Ventilation Flow Paths in
Longwall Gobs. Proceedings of the 11th U.S./North American Mine
Ventilation Symposium, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Ex. #47: Edwards, J.C. and Hwang, C.C. (2006). CFD Modeling of Fire
Spread Along Combustibles in a Mine Entry. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/cmofs.pdf.
Ex. #48: Trevits, M.A., Yuan, L., Thibou, M., Hatch, G. (2010). Use
of CFD Modeling to Study Inert Gas Injection into a Sealed Mine
Area. SME Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona.
Ex. #49: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of
Energy. (2008). Laboratories for the 21st Century: Best Practice
Guide.
Ex. #50: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
(1997). Use of Computational Fluid Dynamics to Analyze Indoor Air
Quality Issues (NISTIR 5997).
Ex. #51: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
(2009). NIST Technical Note 1637: Modeling the Effects of Outdoor
Gasoline Powered Generator Use on Indoor Carbon Monoxide Exposures.
Ex. #53: American Dental Ass'n v. Martin, 984 F.2d 823 (7th Cir.
1993).
Ex. #54: Assoc. Bldrs & Contrs. Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63 (3d Cir.
1988).
Ex. #55: Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467
(D.C. Cir. 1974).
Ex. #56: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). High
Production Volume Information System (HPVIS). Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/.
Ex. #57: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013c). TSCA
Interagency Testing Committee (ITC). Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/oppt/itc/index.htm.
Ex. #58: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). (2013). eChemPortal. Retrieved from: https://www.echemportal.org/echemportal/index?pageID=0&request_locale=en.
Ex. #59: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014a).
Computational Toxicology Research. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/.
Ex. #60: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014).
ToxCastTM Advancing the next generation of chemical
safety evaluation. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ncct/.
Ex. #61: REACH Fact Sheet: Safety Data Sheets and Exposure
Scenarios. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2011). REACH Fact
Sheet: Safety Data Sheets and Exposure Scenarios. ECHA-11-FS-02.1-
EN.
Ex. #62: Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601-2629 (2011).
Ex. #63: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013d). HPV Chemical
Hazard Characterizations. Retrieved from: https://iaspub.epa.gov/oppthpv/hpv_hc_characterization.get_report?doctype=2.
Ex. #64: Russom, C.L., Breton, R.L., Walker, J.D., & Bradbury, S.P.
(2003). An overview of the use of quantitative structure-activity
relationships for ranking and prioritizing large chemical
inventories for environmental risk assessments. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, 22(8), 1810-1821.
Ex. #65: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2007).
Chemical regulation: comparison of U.S. and recently enacted
European Union approaches to protect against the risks of toxic
chemicals (GAO-07-825).
Ex. #66: Zeeman, M. (1995). EPA's framework for ecological effects
assessment. In Office of Technology Assessment, Screening and
Testing Chemicals in Commerce (pp. 169-178) (OTA-BP-ENV-166).
Ex. #67: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). Ecological
Structure Activity Relationships (ECOSAR). Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/tools/21ecosar.htm.
Ex. #68: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Guidance on information
requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.6: QSARS and
grouping of chemicals. May 2008
Ex. #69: OSPAR Commission. (2000). Briefing document of the work of
DYNAMEC and the DYNAMEC Mechanism for the selection and
prioritization of hazardous substances. Retrieved from: https://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00104/p00104_briefing%20doc%20on%20dynamec.pdf.
Ex. #70: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), EC No. 1907/2006 (2006).
Ex. #71: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2012b). Information
Requirements. Retrieved from: https://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/regulations/reach/substance-registration/information-requirements.
Ex. #72: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2012c). Information on
Chemicals. Retrieved from: https://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals.
Ex. #73: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2009). Guidance in a
nutshell: Chemical Safety Assessment.
Ex. #74: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2012d). Evaluation.
Retrieved from: https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/evaluation.
Ex. #75: Kriebel, D., Jacobs, M. M., Markkanen, P., & Tickner, J.
(2011). Lessons learned: Solutions for workplace safety and health.
Lowell, MA: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. Retrieved
from: https://www.sustainableproduction.org/downloads/LessonsLearned-FullReport.pdf.
Ex. #76: Wilson, M.P., Hammond, S.K., Nicas, M., & Hubbard, A.E.
(2007). Worker exposure to volatile organic compounds in the vehicle
repair
[[Page 61437]]
industry. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 4, 301-
310.
Ex. #77: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
(n.d.). Toxics Use Reduction Act. Retrieved from: https://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/toxicsus.htm.
Ex. #78: Toxics Use Reduction Institute. (2011a). About TUR plans
and planning. Retrieved from: https://www.turi.org/Our_Work/Training/TUR_Planner_Program/About_TUR_Plans_and_Planning.
Ex. #79: Toxics Use Reduction Institute. (2011b). Trichloroethylene
and chlorinated solvents reduction. Retrieved from: https://www.turi.org/Our_Work/Green_Cleaning_Lab/How_We_Can_Help/Cleaning_Research_Projects/Trichloroethylene-and-Chlorinated-Solvents-Reduction.
Ex. #80: Toxics Use Reduction Institute. (2011c). CleanerSolutions
database. Retrieved from: https://www.turi.org/Our_Work/Green_Cleaning_Lab/Does_It_Clean/CleanerSolutions_Database.
Ex. #81: Toxics Use Reduction Institute. (2011d). TCE facts: Use
nationally and in Massachusetts. Retrieved from: https://www.turi.org/About/Library/TURI-Publications/Massachusetts_Chemical_Fact_Sheets/Trichloroethylene_TCE_Fact_Sheet/TCE_Facts/Use_Nationally_and_in_Massachusetts.
Ex. #82: Roelofs, C.R., Barbeau, E.M., Ellenbecker, M.J., & Moure-
Eraso, R. (2003). Prevention strategies in industrial hygiene: A
critical literature review. AIHA Journal, 64(1), 62-67.
Ex. #83: American Industrial Hygiene Association. (2008).
Demonstrating the business value of industrial hygiene: Methods and
findings from the value of the industrial hygiene profession study.
Retrieved from: https://www.aiha.org/votp_new/pdf/votp_report.pdf.
Ex. #84: Lavoie, E.T., Heine, L.G., Holder, H., Rossi, M.S., Lee II,
R.E., Connor, E.A., . . . Davies, C.L. (2010). Chemical alternatives
assessment: Enabling substitution to safer chemicals. Environmental
Science & Technology, 44(24), 9244-9249.
Ex. #85: Toxics Use Reduction Institute. (2006). Five chemicals
alternatives assessment study. Retrieved from: https://www.turi.org/About/Library/TURI-Publications/2006_Five_Chemicals_Alternatives_Assessment_Study.
Ex. #86: Rossi, M., Tickner, J., & Geiser, K. (2006). Alternatives
assessment framework of the Lowell Center for Sustainable
Production. Lowell, MA: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production.
Retrieved from: https://www.chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/FinalAltsAssess06.pdf.
Ex. #87: Raphael, D.O. & Geiger, C.A. (2011). Precautionary policies
in local government: Green chemistry and safer alternatives. New
Solutions, 21(3), 345-358.
Ex. #88: Clean Production Action. (2012). GreenScreen for Safer
Chemicals v1.2. Retrieved from: https://www.cleanproduction.org/Greenscreen.v1-2.php.
Ex. #89: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011a). DfE's
standard and criteria for safer chemical ingredients. Retrieved
from: https://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/gfcp/index.htm#.
Ex. #90: Institut f[uuml]r Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen
Unfallversicherung (IFA). (2011). The GHS Column Model: An aid to
substitute assessment. Berlin, Germany: Deutsche Gesetzliche
Unfallversicheung e.V. (DGUV).
Ex. #91: Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.
(2002). Implementation strategy on management of substances: 2nd
progress report. Retrieved from: https://www.subsport.eu/images/stories/pdf_archive/substitution_tools/15_quick_scan_en.pdf.
Ex. #92: Identification, Classification, and Regulation of Potential
Occupational Carcinogens, 45 FR 5258 (Jan. 22, 1980).
Ex. #93: OSHA Cancer Policy, 29 CFR 1990.111(k) (2011).
Ex. #94: OSHA Cancer Policy, 29 CFR 1990.132(b)(6) (2011).
Ex. #95: OSHA Cancer Policy, 29 CFR 1990.146(k) (2011).
Ex. #96: Respiratory Protection, 29 CFR 1910.134(a) (2011).
Ex. #97: Air Contaminants, 29 CFR 1910.1000(e) (2011).
Ex. #98: Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride, 62 FR 1494
(Jan. 10, 1997).
Ex. #99: Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium, 71 FR 10099
(Feb. 28, 2006).
Ex. #100: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1996).
Final economic and regulatory flexibility analysis for OSHA's
standard for occupational exposure to methylene chloride.
Ex. #101: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2006a).
Final economic and regulatory flexibility analysis for OSHA's final
standard for occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium.
Ex. #102: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1987).
Regulatory impact and regulatory flexibility analysis of the
formaldehyde standard.
Ex. #103: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1984).
Regulatory impact and regulatory flexibility analysis of the final
standard for ethylene oxide.
Ex. #104: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2005).
Regulatory Review of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's Ethylene Oxide Standard [29 CFR 1910.1047].
Ex. #105: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2010).
Regulatory Review of 29 CFR 1910.1052: Methylene chloride.
Ex. #106: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2006b).
Best practices for the safe use of glutaraldehyde in health care
(OSHA 3254-08N 2006).
Ex. #107: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2013a).
Transitioning to safer chemicals: a toolkit for employers and
workers. Retrieved from: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/safer_chemicals/.
Ex. #108: American National Standard for Occupational Health and
Safety Management Systems, ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 (2005).
Ex. #109: Council Directive on the Protection of the Health and
Safety of Workers from the Risks Related to Chemical Agents at Work,
98/24/EC (1998).
Ex. #110: Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the Protection of Workers from the Risks Related to Exposure to
Carcinogens or Mutagens at Work, 2004/37/EC (2004).
Ex. #111: Safe Alternatives Policy, 42 U.S.C. 7671K (2011).
Ex. #113: European Commission. (2012). Minimising chemical risk to
workers' health and safety through substitution. Retrieved from:
https://osha.europa.eu/en/news/eu-minimising-chemical-risk-to-workers-health-and-safety-through-substitution.
Ex. #114: German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (BAuA), Hazardous Substances Ordinance
(Gefahrstoffverordnung--GefStoffV) (July 28, 2011).
Ex. #115: German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (BAuA), Technical Rule on Hazardous Substances (TRGS) 600
(Aug. 2008).
Ex. #116: German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt). (2011). Guide
on sustainable chemicals: A decision tool for substance
manufacturers, formulators, and end users of chemicals. Retrieved
from: https://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4169.pdf.
Ex. #117: GreenBlue. (2012). CleanGredients. Retrieved from: https://www.cleangredients.org/home.
Ex. #118: Institute of Work, Environment, and Health (ISTAS).
(2012). RISCTOX. Retrieved from: https://www.istas.net/risctox/en/.
Ex. #119: SUBSPORT. (2012). Substitution Support Portal. Retrieved
from: https://www.subsport.eu/about-the-project.
Ex. #120: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012c).
Alternatives assessments. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/dfe/alternative_assessments.html.
Ex. #121: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011b). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's strategic plan for evaluating the
toxicity of chemicals. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/spc/toxicitytesting/.
Ex. #122: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012d). Overview of
National Research Council toxicity testing strategy. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/nrc-toxtesting.html.
Ex. #123: Washington Department of Ecology. (2012). Ecology Quick
Chemical Assessment Tool 1.2 Methodology. Retrieved from: https://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/ChemAlternatives/documents/QCAT2012-03-20final.pdf.
Ex. #124: Hazard Communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200 (2012).
Ex. #125: Hazard Communication, 77 FR 17574 (Mar. 26, 2012).
Ex. #126: National Safety Council, Fundamentals of Industrial
Hygiene
[[Page 61438]]
(2012) ed. Plog, B.A. and Quinlan, P. J. Chapter 31, International
Developments in Occupational Safety and Health, Silk, J. and
Brigandi, P.
Ex. #127: Taylor-McKernan, L. and Seaton M. (2014) The Banding
Marches On, NIOSH Proposes a New Process for Occupational Exposure
Banding. The Synergist, May, p. 44-46.
Ex. #128: Laszcz-Davis, C., Maier, A., Perkins, J. (2014) The
Hierarchy of OELs, A New Organizing Principle for Occupational Risk
Assessment, The Synergist, March, p. 27-30.
Ex. #129: Health and Safety Executive. (2013). COSHH Essentials.
Retrieved from: https://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/essentials/.
Ex. #130: Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations,
2002 No. 2677 (2002).
Ex. #131: Health and Safety Executive. (2009). The technical basis
for COSHH essentials: easy steps to control chemicals. Retrieved
from: https://coshh-essentials.org.uk/assets/live/CETB.pdf.
Ex. #132: Jones, R.M., Nicas, M., (2006) Evaluation of COSHH
Essentials for vapor degreasing and bag filling operations. Annals
of Occupational Hygiene, 50(2), 137-147.
Ex. #133: Hashimoto, H., Toshiaki, G., Nakachi, N., Suzuki, H.,
Takebayashi, T., Kajiki, S., Mori, K. (2007) Evaluation of the
Control Banding Method--Comparison with Measurement-based
Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Journal of Occupational Health, 49,
482-492.
Ex. #134: Lee, E.G., Slaven, J., Bowen, R.B., Harper, M. (2011).
Evaluation of the COSHH Essentials Model with a Mixture of Organic
Chemicals at a Medium-Sized Paint Producer. Annals of Occupational
Hygiene, 55(1), 16-29.
Ex. #135: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH). (2009). Qualitative risk characterization and management of
occupational hazards: control banding (CB), a literature review and
critical analysis (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009-152).
Ex. #136: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2009).
Controlling silica exposures in construction (OSHA 3362-05 2009).
Ex. #137: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2013b).
Notice of proposed rulemaking for occupational exposure to
respirable crystalline silica.
Ex. 138: Susi, et. al. (2000). The use of a task-based exposure
assessment model (T-BEAM) for assessment of metal fume exposures
during welding and thermal cutting. Applied Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, 15(1): 26-38.
Ex. #139: Burg, F. (2012). Standards insider. Professional Safety,
57(3), 24-25.
Ex. #140: Marine Terminals, 29 CFR 1917.2, 1917.22, 1917.23, 1917.25
(2012).
Ex. #141: Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring. 29 CFR 1918
(2012).
Ex. #142: National Consensus Standards and Established Federal
Standards, 36 FR 10466 (May 29, 1971).
Ex. #143: Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation, 33 U.S.C. 901-
950 (2006).
Ex. #144: Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard
Employment, 29 CFR 1915.11, 1915.12, 1915.32, 1915.33 (2012).
Ex. #145: Federal Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and
Health (FACOSH). (2012). Recommendations for Consideration by the
U.S. Secretary of Labor on the Adoption and Use of Occupational
Exposure Limits by Federal Agencies.
Ex. #146: Air Contaminants Proposed Rule, 57 FR 26002 (Jun. 12,
1992).
Ex. #147: American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). (1990). On
Petition for Review of Final Rule of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration: Industry Petitioners' Joint Procedural Brief.
Ex. #148: Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Secretary of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436,
1453 (4th Cir. 1985).
Ex. #149: 1989 PELs Table. 54 FR 2332, 2923-2959.
[FR Doc. 2014-24009 Filed 10-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P