Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules) - Table of Contents|
| Record Type:||Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride|
| Title:||Section 3 - III. Events Leading to the Final Standard|
III. Events Leading to the Final Standard
The present OSHA standard for MC requires employers to ensure that employee exposure does not exceed 500 ppm as an 8-hour TWA, 1000 ppm as a ceiling concentration, and 2000 ppm as a maximum peak for a period not to exceed five minutes in any two hours (29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-2). This standard was adopted by OSHA in 1971 pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655, from an existing Walsh-Healey Federal Standard. The source of this Walsh-Healey Standard [Ex. 7-1] was the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for acceptable concentrations of MC (ANSI-Z37.23-1969), which was intended to protect workers from injury to the neurological system including loss of awareness and functional deficits linked to anesthetic and irritating properties of MC which had been observed from excessive, acute or large chronic exposures to MC in humans and experimental animals.
In 1946, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommended a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 500 ppm for MC [Ex. 2]. In 1975, the ACGIH lowered the recommended TLV to 100 ppm [Ex. 7-11].
In March 1976, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published "Criteria for a recommended standard for Methylene Chloride" [Ex. 2], which recommended a reduction of occupational exposures to MC to 75 ppm as an 8-hour TWA, and a lower peak exposure not to exceed 500 ppm. Further exposure reduction based on the ambient level of carbon monoxide was also recommended.
In February 1985, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) reported the final results of animal studies indicating that MC is a potential cancer causing agent [Ex. 7-8]. Subsequently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), upon receipt of the NTP studies, initiated a risk assessment evaluation to determine whether or not MC presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment and to determine if regulatory actions are needed to eliminate or reduce exposures.
On May 14, 1985, EPA announced its determination that MC was a probable human carcinogen. EPA classified MC as Group B2, in accordance with its interim guidelines for cancer risk (49 FR 46294), and hence announced the initiation of a 180-day priority review (50 FR 20126) under section 4(f) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In meeting its mandate under section 4(f) of TSCA to initiate a regulatory action, on October 17, 1985, EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (50 FR 42037) for the purpose of collecting the necessary information required for initiating a rulemaking. In this notice, EPA established December 16, 1985, as its deadline for receiving comments.
On April 11, 1985, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released its risk assessment findings for MC and began to consider a regulatory action to ban MC containing products and to develop a voluntary hazard communication program for consumers.
On December 18, 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a proposal to ban the use of MC as an ingredient in aerosol cosmetic products (50 FR 51551). This proposal was based on a risk assessment that used the NTP animal data.
On July 19, 1985, Owen Bieber, President of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), petitioned OSHA to act expeditiously on reducing workers' exposure to MC. Specifically, Mr. Bieber requested that OSHA: (1) Publish a hazard alert; (2) issue an emergency temporary standard (ETS); and (3) begin work on a new permanent standard for controlling MC exposure. Subsequently, the following unions joined UAW in petitioning OSHA to act on revising the current standard:
A. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America; B. Glass, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers International Union; C. United Furniture Workers of America; D. The Newspaper Guild; E. Communication Workers of America; and F. United Steelworkers of America.
In March 1986, as a preliminary response to this petition, OSHA issued "Guidelines for Controlling Exposure to Methylene Chloride." That document, which was canceled by OSHA Notice ADM 8 (July 12, 1994), provided information to employers and workers on risks of MC exposure and methods for controlling such exposure [Ex. 8-11].
In April 1986, NIOSH published a Current Intelligence Bulletin #46 (CIB) on MC reflecting the findings of the NTP study [Ex. 8-26]. The CIB concluded that MC should be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen and that exposure should be controlled to the lowest feasible level.
On August 20, 1986, the CPSC issued a proposed rule [51 FR 29778] "that would declare household products containing other than contaminant levels of MC to be hazardous substances." The CPSC noted the proposal was prompted by evidence that inhalation of MC vapor increased the incidence of various malignant and benign tumors in rats and mice. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to require that household products which can expose consumers to MC vapor be treated as hazardous substances and be labeled as provided by section 2(p)(1) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) (15 U.S.C. 1261(p)(1)). The FHSA requires the use of labels which (1) indicate that exposure to a product may present a cancer risk; (2) explain the factors (such as level and duration of exposure) that control the degree of risk; and (3) explain the precautions to be taken.
On November 17, 1986, OSHA denied the petition for an Emergency Temporary Standard, but agreed that work on a permanent standard should commence [Ex. 3A]. On November 24, 1986, OSHA announced, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) [51 FR 42257], that it was considering revision of the occupational health standard for MC. The Agency based this action on animal studies which indicated that the PEL of 500 ppm did not provide adequate protection against potential cancer risks and other adverse health effects. The ANPR summarized OSHA's information regarding the production and use of MC, occupational exposure to MC, and the potential adverse health effects associated with MC exposure. In addition, the notice invited interested parties to submit comments, recommendations, data, and information on a variety of issues related to the regulation of MC. OSHA received 43 comments in response to the ANPR. Those comments are discussed, as appropriate, below.
On December 5, 1986, the FDA reopened the comment period for 30 days on the above-cited proposal to ban the use of MC in cosmetic products [51 FR 43935]. The reopening enabled interested parties to submit comments on studies received after the close of the initial comment period regarding MC comparative pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and genotoxicity.
On September 14, 1987, the CPSC issued a statement of interpretation and enforcement policy, in lieu of continuing with rulemaking, which expressed the Commission's determination that consumer products containing MC and capable of exposing consumers to significant amounts of MC may pose cancer risk to humans and, therefore, are subject to the above-described hazardous substance labeling requirements. The CPSC explicitly retained the option of resuming the rulemaking if voluntary compliance with and enforcement of the Commission's interpretation did not adequately induce firms to label their products appropriately.
In 1988, based on the response to the ANPR, OSHA began contacting small businesses and conducting a number of site visits, to develop a clear understanding of how revisions to OSHA's MC standard would affect small entities. For example, on April 27, 1989, OSHA participated in a NIOSH conference on MC controls for the furniture stripping industry (54 FR 11811, March 22, 1989) to learn how that industry, which is dominated by small businesses, was dealing with MC exposure. That conference focused on the progress of a NIOSH pilot program aimed at developing affordable engineering controls for the furniture stripping industry. OSHA continued to seek input from small businesses throughout the MC rulemaking, as discussed below in the Preamble and in the Final Economic Analysis [Ex. 129].
Also, in 1988, ACGIH officially lowered the TLV for MC to 50 ppm as an 8-hour TWA. OSHA considered whether the TLV recommended by the ACGIH would be an appropriate OSHA standard. The ACGIH is a professional society devoted to administrative and technical aspects of occupational and environmental health. Voting members of ACGIH are scientists who work for government agencies or educational institutions. Every year the ACGIH adopts new or revised TLVs for several substances by a majority vote, not by consensus. OSHA has not adopted the MC TLV (50 ppm) as the 8-hour TWA PEL because the Agency's criteria for setting standards differ from those used by the ACGIH. OSHA standards must eliminate significant risks to the extent feasible, whereas the ACGIH sets limits under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed day after day without adverse health effects. Also, as evidenced by their "Documentation of the TLVs," the ACGIH does not perform quantitative risk assessments. This difference between OSHA and ACGIH practice is critical because the Supreme Court has required OSHA to perform quantitative risk assessments when data permit, and to use these assessments to set exposure limits.
On June 29, 1989, the FDA issued a final rule that banned the use of MC in cosmetic products [54 FR 27328]. The Agency based its final rule on scientific studies that showed inhalation of MC caused cancer in laboratory animals. The FDA concluded, accordingly, "that continued use of MC in cosmetic products may pose a significant risk to human health * * * " The Agency considered comments and information regarding the application of a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model to the prediction of human cancer risk. The FDA determined that the risk assessment developed using animal studies should not be changed to reflect the "pharmacokinetic and metabolic data and hypothesized GST metabolic mechanism of carcinogenicity."
On August 8, 1990, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a General Order (55 FR 32282) that required manufacturers, importers, packagers and private labelers of consumer products containing 1% or more of MC to report to the CPSC information on the labeling and marketing of those products. The CPSC indicated that the information obtained would aid the Commission in evaluating the CPSC's policy concerning the labeling of MC-containing products as hazardous substances, pursuant to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
On November 11, 1990, then-President Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Title VI of the CAAA requires the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals by the year 2000 (section 604) and requires the EPA to determine which alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals are safe for use (section 612). MC was among the potential substitutes studied by the EPA. In addition, section 112 of the CAAA requires the EPA to address the residual risks of MC and other specified Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) by establishing Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. In particular, section 112(d) requires EPA to promulgate National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR part 63) over a 10-year period. In addition, EPA regulates MC as a priority pollutant under the Clean Water Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) On February 12-13, 1991, EPA convened an international conference on "Reducing Risk in Paint Stripping" that was well attended by representatives of small businesses which use MC or its substitutes in a wide range of operations. OSHA actively participated in the workgroup and panel discussions to elicit information regarding the anticipated impacts of a revised MC standard on paint stripping operations.
OSHA determined, based on animal and human data, that the existing PELs for MC did not adequately protect employee health. Accordingly, on November 7, 1991, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (56 FR 57036) to address the significant risks of MC-induced health effects. The proposed rule required employers to reduce occupational exposure to MC and to institute ancillary measures, such as employee training and medical surveillance, for further protection of MC-exposed workers. The provisions of the proposed rule are discussed in detail in the Summary and Explanation, Section X, below. The Agency published a correction notice on January 6, 1992 (57 FR 387). The NPRM solicited comments on the proposed rule and raised 48 specific issues to elicit information about MC health effects, use, and exposure controls, as well as input regarding the appropriateness and impacts of particular provisions. The written comment period, which ended on April 6, 1992, produced 58 comments, including several hearing requests.
On February 11, 1992, then-President Bush announced an accelerated phaseout schedule for ozone depleting substances and ordered the EPA to accelerate its review of substitutes (such as MC) whose use would reduce damage to the ozone layer.
On May 19, 1992, OSHA presented the MC proposal to the newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) for consultation. The Advisory Committee established a MC work group to generate information and recommendations regarding MC use and exposure in the construction industry.
In response to the hearing requests and to concerns raised by commenters, the Agency issued a notice of informal public hearing (57 FR 24438, June 9, 1992), which scheduled hearings to start in Washington, D.C. on September 16, 1992 and in San Francisco, California on October 14, 1992. That notice also reopened the written comment period until August 24, 1992. The hearing notice raised 16 issues, based on the NPRM comments, which solicited input regarding the human health risks of MC exposure and the impact of the proposed rule on MC users. San Francisco was selected as a hearing site to facilitate participation by small businesses, particularly foam blowers and furniture refinishers, for whom attendance at the Washington, D.C. hearing would have been economically burdensome.
On July 28, 1992, the MC work group's report was presented to the ACCSH and was adopted as the Advisory Committee's recommendation to OSHA. Based on the input from the ACCSH, OSHA issued a supplemental hearing notice (57 FR 36964, August 17, 1992) which raised MC use, exposure and control issues specific to the construction industry. The supplemental notice extended the deadline for submission of comments regarding the construction issues until September 22, 1992.
OSHA convened public hearings in Washington, D.C. on September 16-24, 1992 and in San Francisco on October 14-16, 1992, with Administrative Law Judge James Guill presiding. At the conclusion of the hearings, Judge Guill set a post hearing period for the submission of additional data, which ended on January 14, 1993, and for the submission of additional briefs, arguments and summations, which ended on March 15, 1993. The posthearing comment period elicited 35 comments.
On March 31, 1993, pursuant to section 112 of the CAAA, the EPA issued a notice (58 FR 16808) requesting information on the anticipated impacts of a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the halogenated solvent cleaning-vapor degreasing source category. This notice characterized MC as the third most commonly used halogenated solvent, based on 1991 data. On November 29, 1993, the EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (58 FR 62566) describing MACT rules for the use of MC and other HAPs in halogenated solvent cleaning-vapor degreasing operations.
On March 11, 1994, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record for 45 days (59 FR 11567) to receive public comment on reports related to engineering controls for MC exposure in the furniture refinishing industry, MC carcinogenicity, and the availability of water-based substitutes for MC-based adhesives in the manufacture of flexible foam products. In particular, OSHA solicited input regarding the extent to which it was feasible for small businesses with furniture stripping operations to comply with the proposed PELs using engineering controls addressed in an OSHA contractor's report [Ex. 114]. The limited reopening, which ended on April 25, 1994, elicited 29 comments.
OSHA has evaluated the impact of the final rule on the identified application groups (except for farm equipment [Ex. 115-23], insofar as this rulemaking does not address agricultural employment). The Agency's analysis and conclusions are presented in the Final Economic Assessment for this rulemaking [Ex.129], summarized in Section VIII, below.
On March 18, 1994, the EPA issued a final rule (59 FR 13044) which addressed the use of MC as a substitute for ozone-depleting chemicals being phased out under section 612 of the CAAA of 1990. The EPA has found the use of MC to be acceptable in the production of flexible polyurethane foam; polyurethane integral skin foams; metal cleaning; electronics cleaning; precision cleaning; and adhesives, coatings and inks. That Agency expressed concern regarding MC toxicity, stating "methylene chloride use will be subject to future controls for hazardous air pollutants under Title III section 112 of the CAA. In addition, use of the compound must conform to all relevant workplace safety standards * * * Use is also subject to waste disposal requirements under RCRA (59 FR at 13088)." The EPA also noted that it is encouraging companies to decrease emissions of MC through the "30/50" pollution prevention program, under which companies voluntarily commit to reduce emissions 33 percent by the end of 1992 and 50 percent by the end of 1995 (59 FR at 13093).
On April 21, 1994, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a notice (59 FR 19084) announcing that funds were available for the removal of lead-based paint. That notice explicitly provided that paint removal activities funded by HUD could not use products containing MC.
On May 31, 1994, Judge Guill closed and certified the hearing record for OSHA's MC rulemaking.
Pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAAA, the EPA has already finalized NESHAP rulemakings that cover halogenated solvent cleaning (59 FR 61801, December 4, 1994, 40 CFR part 63, subpart T), aerospace manufacture and rework facilities (September 1, 1995, 40 CFR part 63, subpart ) and wood furniture manufacturing (60 FR 62930, December 7, 1995, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ). MC-related NESHAP proceedings for several industries (e.g., pharmaceuticals, flexible polyurethane foam, polycarbonates and nylon 6 are currently underway.
Pursuant to its CAAA, CWA, RCRA and PPA mandates, EPA has proposed effluent limitation guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry (60 FR 21592, May 2, 1995) which characterize MC as one of the most significant priority pollutants to be addressed under the CWA. In particular, EPA has addressed the use of stream stripping and distillation technology to recover MC from wastewater for reuse or sale for use in other industries. That Agency has also proposed requirements for compliance monitoring of MC that, due to dilution with wastewater, would be found at levels below current analytical limits of detection.
OSHA has attempted to consider the foreseeable impact of EPA action on the use of MC because EPA-driven changes in such use would affect the data on which OSHA relies to estimate the impact of this final rule. In brief, while EPA action to reduce HAP exposure may encourage employers to reduce or eliminate MC use, simultaneous EPA efforts to reduce the emission of ozone-depleting chemicals may encourage employers to maintain or increase MC use. Given the time frame for EPA action and that Agency's need to coordinate proceedings that arise from several statutory mandates, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions regarding the impact of EPA regulatory action on the need for OSHA action.
OSHA has also consulted with EPA to determine whether any potential overlapping or conflicting requirements exist in OSHA's MC standard and various EPA NESHAPs, and has committed to continue working with EPA on future NESHAP compliance issues. OSHA discussed the MC regulation with project officers for all recent, current and planned NESHAPs projects and has determined that there are no overlapping or conflicting requirements in the NESHAPs and OSHA's MC standard. Indeed, employers can choose among a variety of means to comply which would not entail any conflict in OSHA and EPA regulations.
In particular, OSHA conducted a thorough analysis of the EPA Solvent Degreasing NESHAP. OSHA determined, and EPA agreed, that there are no conflicting requirements in the two regulations. OSHA does not require or recommend specific compliance strategies. One common method of reducing worker exposure is local exhaust ventilation. In addition, some of the alternative compliance strategies suggested in the EPA solvent degreasing NESHAP include reducing room draft. OSHA has determined that even if an employer chooses reducing room draft as its compliance strategy for the EPA NESHAP, employers may use some local exhaust ventilation to reduce worker MC exposures and still be in compliance with both the OSHA MC standard and the EPA NESHAP. There are also other combinations of compliance strategies that can be utilized to comply with both regulations. OSHA plans further discussion of this issue in its compliance assistance documents. The purpose of these documents is to assist employers in selecting among the many appropriate control strategies which satisfy requirements under both OSHA and EPA regulations.
On October 25, 1995, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record (60 FR 54462) to obtain input regarding studies submitted by the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) [Ex. 118-125] which address the use of animal data to estimate human cancer risk from MC exposure. The comments received on those studies [Exs. 126-1 through 126-37] are discussed in relation to the Quantitative Risk Assessment (Section VI), below.
The rulemaking record contains 129 exhibits, and 2717 pages of hearing transcript. A wide range of employees, employers, union representatives, trade associations, government agencies and other interested parties contributed to the development of the rulemaking record. The Agency appreciates these efforts to help OSHA develop a record that provides a sound basis for the promulgation of this final rule.
Throughout the ten years since OSHA initiated MC proceedings, the Agency has sought and evaluated input regarding the anticipated impact of a MC health standard on small entities. For example, Issue K of OSHA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for MC (ANPRM) (51 FR 42257, November 24, 1986) solicited comments, recommendations, data and information regarding the anticipated impacts of a MC standard on small entities. Responses from manufacturers of flexible polyurethane foam [Exs. 10-4 and 10-17] and industrial paint removers [Ex. 10-7] indicated that rulemaking regarding MC would affect small entities. Based on the response to the ANPRM, OSHA initiated contacts with small businesses and conducted a number of site visits, to develop a clear understanding of how revisions to OSHA's MC standard would affect small entities.
Based on OSHA's contacts with small business and the response to the ANPRM, the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) for the MC NPRM (56 FR 57036, November 7, 1991) considered small firms to be those with fewer than 20 total employees. In addition, the PRIA estimated that 45 percent of establishments using MC were "small businesses."
Issue 25 of the NPRM for MC stated that OSHA had analyzed the impacts of the proposed rule on small businesses and had adapted the standard to take into account the circumstances of small businesses, where appropriate. The performance-oriented language covering the demarcation of regulated areas (proposed paragraph (e)(4)) and the 30/10 days of exposure thresholds for medical surveillance (proposed paragraph (i)(1)(i)) reflected the Agency's determination to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on small entities. In addition, Issue 25 solicited information regarding anticipated small business impacts so that OSHA could update the initial regulatory flexibility analysis performed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Small businesses, particularly in the furniture refinishing [Exs. 19-1, 19-4, 19-6, 19-8, 19-10 and 19-11] and polyurethane foam blowing industries [Ex. 19-3], expressed concern that the proposed rule would impose excessive compliance burdens on their operations. Based in part on these concerns, the Agency convened informal public hearings (57 FR 24438, June 9, 1992) in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, CA. San Francisco was selected as a hearing site to facilitate participation by small businesses, particularly foam blowers and furniture refinishers, for whom attendance at the Washington, D.C. hearing would have been economically burdensome.
Hearing Notice Issue 8 solicited comments and testimony, with supporting documentation, regarding the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses, particularly in the furniture refinishing sector. A significant number of small businesses participated in the Washington, D.C. and San Francisco hearings, providing OSHA with useful testimony and posthearing submissions. For example, Harold Markey of the Markey Restoration Company proposed [Tr. 2660, 2672, 10/16/92] that "furniture refinishing businesses be exempt from [25 ppm PEL] due to the financial hardship that enforcement would cause." In addition, Mr. Markey expressed appreciation for OSHA's efforts to facilitate his participation in the hearing. As discussed above, OSHA subsequently solicited (59 FR 11567, March 11, 1994) additional input regarding the extent to which it was feasible for small businesses with furniture stripping operations to comply with the proposed PELs using the engineering controls addressed in an OSHA contractor's report [Ex. 114].
OSHA has had numerous contacts with furniture refinishers, particularly with members of the National Association of Furniture Refinishers and Refurbishers (NAFRR), the trade association for the industry. In 1994, OSHA was represented at the NAFRR's annual conference in Williamsburg, VA. The Agency has continued to provide assistance to NAFRR members and other furniture refinishers regarding appropriate industrial hygiene measures for workplaces where MC is used. For example, OSHA has disseminated information about the engineering controls developed by NIOSH for the furniture stripping industry. OSHA will continue to strive for a cooperative relationship with the small businesses affected by the MC final rule through careful compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. Chapter 8) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as amended. In addition, the Agency's "Outreach Program" for the MC final rule will involve a commitment of significant consultation and other resources by OSHA and other concerned parties, building on the relationships established during the rulemaking.
OSHA has developed a multifaceted outreach plan to provide information and compliance assistance to the regulated community. In particular, OSHA:
-- Has developed a booklet which summarizes the provisions of the MC standard;
-- Has developed a compliance directive for the MC standard which answers compliance-related questions about the MC standard;
-- Is developing compliance guides directed at assisting small businesses in complying with the MC standard, consistent with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996;
-- Has recruited interested trade associations to assist in the distribution of MC standard-related information, and the convening of workshops to help small businesses understand available compliance strategies;
-- Has spoken to trade association meetings and distributed MC standard-related materials;
-- Has contacted manufacturers of MC to develop a strategy for inclusion of OSHA MC-standard information in existing product stewardship programs; and
-- Is working with individuals interested in conducting workshops for impacted industries, such as polyurethane foam manufacturers and furniture refinishers, to train small businesses on compliance with OSHA and EPA regulations.
All 50 states and the territories covered by the OSH Act provide free consultation services for small businesses to assist them in achieving compliance with OSHA standards. Those services are funded by federal OSHA but supplied by the states in state plan states and by private contractors in other areas. Those consultation services will provide free assistance for small business so it will be easier to come into compliance with the MC standard.
OSHA will also set up Cooperative Assessment Programs (CAP's) for individual employers to assist them in achieving compliance in a reasonable manner. In a CAP, an OSHA industrial hygienist works with the employer and employee representatives, to determine a reasonable number of cost-effective engineering controls and work practices to bring the employer into compliance. A reasonable schedule is determined for the implementation of those controls. Good faith efforts to implement a CAP are generally considered to be in compliance with the provisions of the standard. OSHA has had success in implementing CAP's for the arsenic, lead and other standards. Employers have found that working with OSHA or CAP's has led to cost effective compliance with OSHA standards.
Regulations (Preambles to Final Rules) - Table of Contents|