Opinion ID: 453218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evolution of the Standard

Text: 17 Section 6 of the OSH Act directs the Secretary of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards to further the purpose of the Act to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.... 29 U.S.C. Secs. 651(b) and 655(b)(1) (1982). Any standard promulgated by the Secretary 18 shall prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed, relevant symptoms and appropriate emergency treatment, and proper conditions and precautions of safe use or exposure. 19 29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(7) (1982). 20 In 1974, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), an agency created by section 22 of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 671 (1982), recommended that the Secretary promulgate a standard requiring employers to inform employees of potentially hazardous materials in the workplace. 47 Fed.Reg. 12095 (1982). Later that year the Secretary appointed an advisory committee to develop standards for implementation of the statutory provision requiring labels or other appropriate forms of warning. That advisory committee issued its report on June 6, 1975, recommending a classification of hazards, the use of warning devices such as labels and placards, disclosure of chemical data, and employee training programs. Id. at 12096. 21 The 1975 Committee report did not result in prompt action by the Secretary. In 1976 a House of Representatives subcommittee held oversight hearings during which several committee members expressed concern over the Secretary's failure to promulgate a comprehensive Hazard Communication Standard. Control of Toxic Substances in the Workplace: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Manpower and Housing of the House Comm. on Government Operations, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. 87, 89-90 (1976). Seventeen months later, the full House Committee on Government Operations issued a Report which criticized the agency for miserly use of its delegated powers to deal with disease and death-dealing toxic substances. House Comm. on Government Operations, Failure to Meet Commitments Made in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, H.R.Rep. No. 710, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (1977). The Committee concluded that: 22 The Department of Labor should exercise its power under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to insure that employers and workers can and will know what kinds of toxic dangers are present in the Nation's workplaces. OSHA should require chemical formulators to identify any regulated substance in products they sell. 23 Id. at 15. 24 Eventually, on January 16, 1981 the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Hazards Identification. 46 Fed.Reg. 4412-53. The standard proposed would be applicable to employers in Division D. Standard Industrial Classification Codes 20-39, which include only employers in the manufacturing sector. Id. at 4426. This classification of employers is made by type of activity for the purpose of promoting uniformity and comparability in the presentation of statistical data. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual 9 (1972). This initial proposal was withdrawn by the Secretary on February 12, 1981 for further consideration of regulatory alternatives. 46 Fed.Reg. 12214. The notice of proposed rulemaking which resulted in the rule challenged in the instant proceedings, entitled Hazard Communication, was published on March 19, 1982. 47 Fed.Reg. 12091. Like the January 16, 1981 proposal, it was limited to employers in the manufacturing sector. The most significant difference from the rule proposed in 1981 was the inclusion in the March 19, 1982 proposal of a trade secret exception to the requirement that the chemical identities of all hazardous chemicals be disclosed. Compare 46 Fed.Reg. 4426 (1981) with 47 Fed.Reg. 12105 (1982). 25 The standard was published in its final form on November 25, 1983. 48 Fed.Reg. 53279. It requires that chemical manufacturers and importers evaluate chemicals produced in their workplaces or imported by them to determine if they are hazardous. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(d)(1) (1984). It refers to several compilations of toxic materials. These lists establish a floor of toxic substances which chemical manufacturers or importers must treat as hazardous. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(d)(3) (1984). Chemicals not included in the designated compilations must be evaluated for hazardousness by reference to available scientific evidence. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(d)(2) (1984). A manufacturer or importer of chemicals found to be hazardous must ensure that each container ... leaving the workplace is labeled with the chemical identity, with appropriate hazard warnings, and with the name and address of the source. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(f)(1) (1984). Manufacturers or importers must also prepare a material safety data sheet (MSDS) containing the chemical common names of each hazardous ingredient, and information necessary for safe use of the product. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(g) (1984). The MSDS must be provided to each employer in the manufacturing sector (Standard Industrial Classification Codes 20-39) purchasing a hazardous chemical. That employer must in turn make the MSDS available for employee inspection, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(g)(8) (1984) and shall provide employees with information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area.... 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(h) (1984). 26 The rule allows an exception from the labeling and MSDS ingredient disclosure requirements when a chemical manufacturer or importer claims that the chemical identity is a trade secret. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(i) (1984). In such a case, the manufacturer or importer must provide a MSDS disclosing the hazardous properties of the chemical and suggesting appropriate precautions. In the case of a medical emergency, the manufacturer or importer must disclose the chemical identity to a treating physician or nurse, and may later require such a health professional to sign a confidentiality agreement. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1100.1200(i)(2) (1984). Absent a medical emergency, the manufacturer or importer may be required to disclose the chemical identity to a health professional who makes a written request detailing the occupational need for the information, and who is willing to sign a confidentiality agreement containing a liquidated damages clause. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(i)(3) & (4). In no case is the manufacturer required to disclose the precise formula, as opposed to the identity of chemicals in the compound. The rule provides expressly that: 27 [t]his occupational safety and health standard is intended to address comprehensively the issue of evaluating and communicating chemical hazards to employees in the manufacturing sector, and to preempt any state law pertaining to this subject. 28 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200(a)(2) (1984). Thus, at least insofar as they might require hazard communication to employees in the manufacturing sector, state hazard disclosure laws are claimed to be preempted by the rule.