Opinion ID: 1433888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of a Uniform 5 μg/m3 PEL

Text: OSHA selected a universal PEL of 5 μg/m3 that applies to all industries. Id. at 10,338. OSHA stated that it has not interpreted [29 U.S.C. § 6(b)(5)] to require setting multiple PELs based on the lowest level particular industries or operations could achieve, and that, in the face of statutory silence, OSHA has the authority to adopt the reasonable interpretation that it judges will best carry out the purposes of the Act. Id. Although OSHA recognized that lower PELs might be achievable in some industries and operations, which would reduce risks to workers, it determined that these benefits would be offset by the significant disadvantages of attempting to establish and apply multiple PELs for the diverse group of industries and operations covered by the standard. Id. OSHA supported this conclusion by stating that multiple PELs would place an enormous evidentiary burden on OSHA to ascertain and establish the specific situations, if any, in which a lower PEL could be reached, causing delays in the implementation of health standards. Id. Also, OSHA asserted, the demanding burden of setting multiple PELs would be complicated by the difficulties inherent in precisely defining and clearly distinguishing between affected industries and operations. Id. The definitional and line drawing problem is far less significant when OSHA uses a unit of industries and operations for analytical but not compliance purposes, because the consequences of imprecise classifications for compliance purposes would become much more significant. Id. OSHA determined that the existing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for categorizing businesses would not be appropriate for delineating multiple PELs because NAICS categorizes businesses by primary activity, and sub-operations involving Cr(VI) would not necessarily be captured. Id. OSHA also concluded that disaggregation by operation has major practical disadvantages, in part because many firms have exposures in two or more different categories. Id. Multiple PELs could therefore require single firms to achieve multiple standards in the same workplace, and possibly with the same employees. Employers would also have to monitor for multiple exposure levels in the same workplace, where the exposure of a particular employee might not be traceable to a single task. Id. OSHA determined that a single standard would make it easier for employers to understand and comply, and would simplify government enforcement. Id. at 10,338-39.