|
 Printer-Friendly Version
Archived News Release--Caution:
information may be out of date.
For more information call: (202) 219-8151
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) today
requested comments on California's state hazard communication standard, which
incorporates the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, also known as
Proposition 65.
The state standard differs both in content and supplemental method of
enforcement from the federal hazard communication standard.
When an OSHA approved state health and safety plan adopts a standard
that differs significantly from the comparable federal standard, the law
requires it to be at least as effective as the federal standard. In addition,
if the standard applies to a product distributed or used in interstate
commerce, it must be required by compelling local conditions and not pose any
undue burden on interstate commerce.
OSHA is seeking comment on whether the California hazard communication
standard meets those requirements. Written comments should be submitted in
quadruplicate by Nov. 12, 1996, to Docket T-032, Docket Office, Room N-2625,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20210. Comments less than 10 pages
long may be sent by telefax to the Docket Office at (202) 219-5046 but must be
followed by a mailed submission in quadruplicate.
Proposition 65 was passed by a referendum of the voters of California in
1986. Provisions relating to occupational exposure were incorporated into the
California hazard communication standard after a January 23, 1991, court order
requiring the action.
Proposition 65 requires businesses with 10 or more employees to provide
individuals with clear and reasonable warning if the individual is exposed to a
chemical known by the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. A product
label or a sign can serve as the warning in the workplace. California annually
publishes a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
On April 18, 1995, a coalition of chemical manufacturers filed a
petition with OSHA requesting that the California standard, with its
incorporation of Proposition 65, be rejected as unduly burdensome on interstate
commerce in both its provisions and enforcement mechanism. The Chemical
Manufacturers Association and several employers are supporting the request. The
Environmental Defense Fund has asked OSHA to reject the petition and accept the
standard as it is currently being applied in occupational settings.
OSHA is seeking comment on whether the California standard is at least
as effective as the federal standard. Because the incorporation of Proposition
65 imposes requirements that go beyond those in the federal standard, it might
be viewed as more effective than the federal standard. However, some persons
say that the different warnings required by Proposition 65 for exposures not
otherwise covered by the hazard communication standard make the standard less
effective by engendering confusion. Questions also have been raised about
whether occupational safety and health standards can be as effectively enforced
by local attorneys and private parties in addition to the state occupational
safety and health officials.
OSHA also is seeking comment on whether the California standard:
- (a) is applicable to products that are distributed or used in
interstate commerce;
- (b) if so, whether it is required by compelling local conditions;
and
- (c) unduly burdens interstate commerce.
Individual employers and employer groups have said that manufacturers
may need to have products labeled as carcinogens or reproductive toxins in
California but not in other states, and must include specific language not
required for products destined for other states, thus creating a burden on
interstate commerce.
They also have said that private parties may create a burden on
interstate commerce by subjecting out-of-state employers and suppliers to
inconsistent requirements depending on the circumstances of individual lawsuits
and the settlement of those cases.
The state has addressed both the effectiveness and product clause
issues in a letter to federal OSHA dated Feb. 16, 1996. The state argues that
the additional enforcement measures merely supplement the administrative
enforcement of the standard by Cal/OSHA and do not detract from its
effectiveness. The state also argues that the standard does not require
machinery or equipment to be custom-built for California and that compliance
may be achieved by workplace postings that do not need to travel in interstate
commerce. The standard also is justified by compelling local conditions because
the voters of California, in passing Proposition 65, determined that there is a
pressing need for additional protection from exposure to toxic chemicals, the
state argues.
Notice of the request for comments is published in the Friday, Sept.
13, 1996, Federal Register.
Archived News Release--Caution:
information may be out of date.
| 
