The Appeals Court for the Third Circuit Court denied a request for regulations on occupational exposure to metalworking fluids. On December 9, 1993, the International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Works of America (UAW) petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to take immediate action to protect workers from the health effects of occupational exposure to machining fluids. UAW urged OSHA to promulgate a rule that would establish a standard for occupational exposure to machining or metalworking fluids. OSHA did not formally respond to UAW's petition for rulemaking until more than a decade later when John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, denied UAW's petition. On October 21, 2003, UAW was joined by the United Steelworkers of America in a petition to the Circuit Court. They asked the Court the review what they described as the unreasonable delay of respondents OSHA and the Secretary of Labor in issuing the requested standard. OSHA argued that it has limited resources, and there were three other priorities more pressing than metalworking fluids: hexavalent chromium, crystalline silica, and beryllium. Further, OSHA identified the reasons why regulating metalworking fluids will require an enormous allocation of resources. First, metalworking fluids come in a variety of types, numerous combinations, and many forms. Exposure to one likely has different hazardous effects than to another. Sorting all this out would require considerable effort and expense. Second, none of the scientific studies undertaken by the Committee quantitatively assesses the risks of metalworking fluids. Thus, a significant amount of additional scientific work would have to be conducted. For these reasons, the Court found that the Secretary of Labor's denial of the request for rulemaking proceedings on metalworking fluids was correct, and therefore denied the petition.
 American Wire Producers Association |
