View Rule

Printer-Friendly Version Download RIN Data in XML

DOL/OSHA

RIN: 1218-AB45

Publication ID: Fall 2004

Title: Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium (Preventing Occupational Illness: Chromium)
Abstract: In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium (CrVI). The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Unions (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for CrVI compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). The current PEL in general industry is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m3, measured as CrVI and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). The amount of CrVI in the anhydride compound equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. The ceiling limit applies to all forms of CrVI, including chromic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL of CrVI in the construction industry is 100 ug/m3 as a TWA PEL, which also equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. After reviewing the petition, OSHA denied the request for an ETS and initiated a section 6(b)(5) rulemaking. OSHA began collecting data and performing preliminary analyses relevant to occupational exposure to CrVI. However, in 1997, OSHA was sued by HRG OCAW for unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard. The 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in OSHA's favor and the Agency continued its data collection and analytic efforts on CrVI. In 2002, OSHA was sued again by HRG and Paper, Allied-International, Chemical and Energy Workers Ineternational Union (PACE) for continued unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard. In August, 2002 OSHA published a Request for Information on CrVI to solicit additional information on key issues related to controlling exposures to CrVI and on December 4, 2002, OSHA announced its intent to proceed with developing a proposed standard. On December 24, 2002, the 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HRG and ordered the Agency to proceed expeditiously with a CrVI standard.
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL)	Priority: Economically Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda	Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage
Major: Yes	Unfunded Mandates: Private Sector
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b) 29 USC 657

Legal Deadline:

Action	Source	Description	Date
NPRM	Judicial		10/04/2004

Statement of Need: Approximately 380,000 workers are exposed to CrVI in general industry, maritime, construction, and agriculture. Industries or work processes that could be particularly affected by a standard for CrVI include: Electroplating, welding, painting, chromate production, chromate pigment production, ferrochromium production, iron and steel production, chromium catalyst production, and chromium dioxide and sulfate production. Exposure to CrVI has been shown to produce lung cancer, an often fatal disease, among workers exposed to CrVI compounds. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies CrVI compounds as a Group 1 Carcinogen: Agents considered to be carcinogenic in humans. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have also designated CrVI compounds as known and confirmed human carcinogens, respectively. Similarly, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) considers CrVI compounds to be potential occupational carcinogens. OSHA's current standards for CrVI compounds, adopted in 1971, were established to protect against nasal irritation. Therefore, there is a need to revise the current standard to protect workers from lung cancer.

Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination that workers are exposed to a significant risk of lung cancer and dermatoses and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce the risk.

Alternatives: OSHA had considered non-regulatory approaches, including the dissemination of guidance on its web site. However, OSHA has determined that rulemaking is a necessary step to ensure that workers are protected from the hazards of CrVI and the Agency has been ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals to move forward with a final rule.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed rulemaking includes estimates of the costs and benefits are being developed.

Risks: A detailed risk analysis is included in the NPRM.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite
Request for Information	08/22/2002	67 FR 54389
Comment Period End	11/20/2002
Initiate SBREFA Process	12/23/2003
SBREFA Report	04/20/2004
NPRM	10/04/2004	69 FR 59305
NPRM Comment Period End	01/03/2005
Public Hearings	02/00/2005
Final Rule	01/00/2006

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes	Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions	Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes
Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt Director, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3700, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone:202 693-2200 Fax:202 693-1671 Email: witt.steven@dol.gov