The Secretary must establish two priority lists: one list of approximately ten candidates for rulemaking as Category I Potential Carcinogens and another list of approximately ten candidates for rulemaking as Category II Potential Carcinogens. See 1990.131 for the requirement.
No — placement on the priority lists does not reflect the Secretary's determination of the exact order in which substances will be regulated. The lists are a policy decision indicating substances the Secretary plans to address before carrying out a full scientific review of others. See 1990.131.
No — inclusion on either the Category I or Category II priority list does not reflect a final scientific determination that the substance is a Category I or Category II Potential Carcinogen. The lists identify candidates for further rulemaking, not final classifications. See 1990.131.
Yes — the Secretary may regulate a potential occupational carcinogen even if it has not been placed on the priority lists. The lists are not exclusive and do not limit the Secretary's authority to regulate. See 1990.131.
No — the statute states that the inclusion or exclusion of any substance on these lists shall not be subject to judicial review and shall not be the basis for any legal action. See 1990.131.
Each list should include approximately ten (10) candidates — one list for Category I candidates and another for Category II candidates. The section calls for approximately ten substances on each list rather than an exact fixed number. See 1990.131.
The main purpose is to identify candidate substances that the Secretary plans to address through rulemaking before undertaking a full scientific review of other substances on the Candidate List; the lists are a policy tool to prioritize regulatory attention. See 1990.131.
No — 1990.131 does not set a specific timeline or schedule for regulating substances on the lists and explicitly states that order of placement does not represent the exact order of regulation. The lists reflect planning priorities, not a binding timeline. See 1990.131.
Employers should treat inclusion as a signal to review and control exposures but understand it is not a final hazard classification. Continue complying with existing OSHA standards and workplace controls, evaluate exposure and implement appropriate engineering, administrative, and personal protective measures, and monitor rulemaking developments. The regulation 1990.131 makes clear that inclusion is not a final scientific determination.
No — 1990.131 requires establishment of two priority lists but does not provide definitions or scientific criteria within this section for Category I versus Category II classifications. You must consult other OSHA materials and rulemaking documentation for definitions and scientific criteria. See 1990.131.
No — appearance on a priority list by itself does not create enforceable legal rights because the statute states inclusion or exclusion shall not be the basis for any legal action or subject to judicial review. Workers should rely on existing enforceable OSHA standards and employer safety programs for protections. See 1990.131.
The Effective Date Note indicates that 1990.131 was stayed at 48 FR 243, Jan. 4, 1983, pending evaluation of the impact of publishing the Candidate List and Priority Lists and reconsideration of criteria; this means implementation or publication actions were put on hold at that time. See 1990.131 for the note.
Yes — while 1990.131 requires the Secretary to establish the two lists, it does not freeze them permanently and the Secretary retains authority to regulate substances not on the lists or to proceed with rulemaking as needed; list contents and priorities can change as part of the agency's regulatory process. See 1990.131.