Manufacturers and importers often cannot accurately predict busch light beer crocs downstream exposures to a hazardous chemical, and individual reactions to an exposure vary.
busch light beer crocs
As these new provisions address the unique concerns of the formaldehyde – related industries, OSHA does not believe those industries’ concerns need be dealt with further in this rulemaking proceeding busch light beer crocs with regard to the article definition. As noted in the formaldehyde preamble (57 FR ), nothing in the formaldehyde rule should be considered to be precedent – setting with regard to hazard communication. It was a unique situation that was handled on an individual basis and does not apply to the generic provisions of the HCS. No new arguments have been presented by these rulemaking participants, and as discussed in the NPRM, the existing arguments are not persuasive. As a result of comments these same participants and others have made in the formaldehyde docket,
the hazard communication provisions of the formaldehyde rule were stayed repeatedly, and the HCS was applied to those products. As OSHA had indicated in the NPRM, the 0.1 ppm cut-off that applied in the formaldehyde standard was a de-regulatory provision – it resulted in the hazard communication provisions of that rule applying to fewer products than would be covered under the HCS. As far as OSHA is concerned, the specific formaldehyde rulemaking addressed the concerns of the industry producing such products by establishing a substance – specific de minimis cut-off for formaldehyde. That cut-off was then stayed at the request of the industry representatives. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to revise the generic HCS rule to address the specific situation with regard to formaldehyde. As indicated in the NPRM, this alternative simply does not provide sufficient protection for employees, and does not address the true issue of concern – the exposure of employees.