Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1910.1027(c); 1910.1000 TABLE Z-2|
October 15, 1999
Ms. Gail Sheridan
Attorney for the Labor Commissioner
Iowa Workforce Development
1000 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0209
Dear Ms. Sheridan:
Thank you for your letter sent to us in May regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit case, Color Pigments Manufacturers Association v. OSHA, decided in 1994. In this case, the 11th Circuit remanded the Cadmium Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1027, to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for inquiry into the technological and economic feasibility for dry color formulators to meet the permissible exposure limit (PEL) and the possible need for a Special Engineering Control Air Limit (SECAL). We apologize for our delayed response.
You ask what instructions Federal Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) have been given with regard to enforcing the Cadmium Standard PEL provision, 29 CFR 1910.1027(c), at dry color formulator operations, both in the 11th Circuit and in other circuits. Federal CSHOs were informed, via a memorandum of September 1, 1994, to all OSHA Regional Administrators (enclosed), that they are not to enforce 29 CFR 1910.1027(c) at dry color formulator operations anywhere in the country. The cadmium dust exposure limits in Table Z-2 in the Air Contaminants Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000, are to be applied to occupational exposures at dry color formulator operations.
You also ask if OSHA has taken any action concerning the 11th Circuit's remand of 29 CFR 1910.1027(c) to us for a specific inquiry into the feasibility of the dry color formulators meeting the PEL and the possible need for a SECAL. While this remand issue remains a concern to OSHA, our resources have been applied to other priority activities. OSHA has not, as of the present time, resolved this remand issue.
As discussed between you and Melo