United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Administrative Law

Administrative LawOccupational Safety and HealthRulemakingJudicial ReviewOSHAlead standardsubstantial evidencehybrid rulemaking

Facts

OSHA issued a new workplace lead standard that lowered the permissible exposure limit to 50 ug/m3, imposed monitoring, hygiene, respirator, training, and recordkeeping requirements, and created a medical removal protection program that required removal of workers with dangerous blood-lead levels while preserving earnings, benefits, and seniority for up to 18 months. Industry petitioners challenged nearly every aspect of the rulemaking, including alleged bias, improper staff and consultant involvement, inadequate notice, lack of statutory authority for several provisions, and lack of substantial evidence for the factual predicates of the standard. Union petitioners argued the standard was not stringent enough. A central factual dispute concerned whether OSHA had substantial evidence that lead causes harmful subclinical effects at relatively low blood-lead levels and whether a 50 ug/m3 air-lead limit was feasible across affected industries.

Issue

Whether OSHA's occupational lead standard was promulgated through lawful procedures, rested within OSHA's statutory authority, and was supported by substantial evidence, including evidence that a 50 ug/m3 permissible exposure limit was necessary and feasible. Also at issue was whether OSHA could lawfully adopt medical removal protection and related medical-review and record-access provisions.

Rule

In reviewing OSHA's hybrid rulemaking, the court asks whether the agency acted within the scope of its authority, followed required procedures, explained the bases for its decision, and supported its determinations with substantial evidence. Under the OSH Act, OSHA may set toxic-substance standards that, to the extent feasible and on the best available evidence, most adequately assure that no employee suffers material impairment; this permits regulation of subclinical effects that are precursors or parts of a continuum with overt disease. Feasibility includes both technological and economic feasibility: OSHA may adopt technology-forcing standards if there is a reasonable possibility that the typical firm can develop and install controls to meet the PEL in most operations, and if the standard does not threaten the existence or competitive structure of the industry as a whole.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

OSHA issues a toxic-solvent standard for furniture plants in North Carolina and Ohio. Trade groups challenge the rule, arguing that the reviewing court should invalidate it whenever the judges would have weighed the scientific studies differently from OSHA.

What is the best statement of the reviewing court's role?

Explanation. The governing review framework is whether OSHA acted within its authority, followed required procedures, explained the bases for its decision, and supported its determinations with substantial evidence. The court does not reweigh technical disputes or demand certainty, but it also does not rubber-stamp unexplained agency action. (Derived from United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall (n.d.).)