American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Marshall
617 F.2d 636, 7 OSHC (BNA) 1775, 199 U.S. App. D.C. 54 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 mandates that OSHA set permanent health standards for toxic materials to prevent material health impairment, constrained only by technological and economic feasibility, and does not require a formal cost-benefit analysis where benefits are weighed against compliance costs.
Facts:
- Occupational exposure to cotton dust causes health impairments ranging from acute but reversible reactions to irreversible, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, specifically byssinosis (commonly known as 'brown lung disease').
- Byssinosis progresses from initial irritated air passages, coughing, and chest tightness, to more pronounced symptoms resembling bronchitis and asthma, ultimately resulting in irreversible lung damage, premature retirement, and early death from heart failure.
- Studies estimate that 250,000 to 800,000 workers are exposed daily to cotton dust and its attendant risks, with reported incidence rates of byssinosis as high as 20-30% of the workforce in some cotton industries.
- In 1968, the federal government first regulated cotton dust, setting a 'threshold limit value' of 1000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) as an occupational health requirement for public contractors under the Walsh-Healey Act.
- Upon passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, the 1000 ug/m3 cotton dust standard was adopted as an interim occupational safety and health standard.
- In 1974, the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended that cotton dust exposure be controlled to the lowest feasible limit, less than 200 ug/m3.
- After publishing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, receiving extensive comments, and conducting 14 days of public hearings, OSHA promulgated a new permanent cotton dust standard on June 19, 1978.
- The final standard set 'permissible exposure limits' (PELs) for lint-free respirable cotton dust: 200 ug/m3 for yarn manufacturing, 750 ug/m3 for slashing and weaving operations, and 500 ug/m3 for all other processes in the cotton industry and for all non-textile industries exposing workers to cotton dust.
Procedural Posture:
- The Secretary of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), promulgated a new permanent health standard limiting occupational exposure to cotton dust on June 19, 1978.
- Three groups of petitioners, including representatives of the cotton textile industry, non-textile industries, and their employee unions, filed consolidated petitions for direct review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging various provisions of the standard.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when promulgating permanent health standards for toxic materials, or is OSHA only constrained by the technological and economic feasibility of such standards, and did OSHA's cotton dust standard meet these feasibility requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Bazelon, Senior Circuit Judge
No, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 does not require OSHA to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis when promulgating permanent health standards for toxic materials; instead, Congress mandated that standards must be technologically and economically feasible. OSHA's standard, with the exception of its application to the cottonseed oil industry, meets these feasibility requirements. The court upheld OSHA's standard, finding that the 'substantial evidence' test, applicable to this 'hybrid' rulemaking, required rigorous scrutiny of both factual determinations and policy judgments. OSHA demonstrated conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between cotton dust exposure and respiratory diseases, including byssinosis, across textile and non-textile industries. The agency was not obligated to await absolute scientific certainty, as its mandate under Section 6(b)(5) is to protect workers from material health impairments based on the 'best available evidence.' Regarding the feasibility of the standard for the textile industry, the court reaffirmed its precedent that feasibility does not mean a standard cannot impose substantial costs, necessitate new technology, or even force some employers out of business, as long as it does not render 'financial viability generally impossible.' The court found substantial evidence to support the technological feasibility of the standard, citing existing industry compliance and the adaptability of current dust control techniques. It also found the standard economically feasible for the textile, warehousing, and classing office industries, accepting OSHA's reasoned cost estimates and its conclusion that the industry as a whole could absorb the costs. Critically, the court rejected the petitioners' argument for a mandatory cost-benefit analysis. It distinguished the OSH Act from other statutes that explicitly require such analysis, noting that Section 6(b)(5)'s language — to set the standard 'which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible... that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity' — indicated that Congress itself performed the cost-benefit balancing, prioritizing worker health and safety over economic concerns, up to the point of feasibility. The court held that imposing an additional cost-benefit requirement would be an impermissible judicial overreach, contrary to Supreme Court precedent in Vermont Yankee. However, the court remanded the standard's application to the cottonseed oil industry. It found OSHA's determination of economic feasibility for this industry to be unclear and inadequately supported by the record, as the agency merely criticized the industry's predictions of widespread plant closures without offering alternative cost estimates or a sufficient explanation for its conclusions. The court otherwise affirmed other challenged provisions, including the four-year implementation period, the medical transfer and wage guarantee provisions (deemed 'reasonably necessary or appropriate' for worker protection), and the use of pulmonary function tables.
Analysis:
This case is pivotal in administrative law, particularly for agencies tasked with public health and safety. By explicitly rejecting the requirement for a cost-benefit analysis in the context of OSHA's health standards, the D.C. Circuit significantly empowered the agency to promulgate stringent regulations based primarily on technological and economic feasibility. The ruling reinforces the idea that Congress, through the OSH Act, prioritized worker well-being over strict cost-benefit ratios, potentially influencing interpretations of similar health and safety statutes. However, the partial remand for the cottonseed oil industry underscored the judiciary's role in ensuring administrative agencies provide a robust and clearly articulated evidentiary basis for their feasibility determinations, even absent a cost-benefit mandate, emphasizing reasoned decision-making and accountability.
