# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A C I R C U I T



### Arg ued September

14, 2010 Dec ided J une 17, 2011

No. 09-1050

N A T I O N A L 

### M A R I T I M E 

### S A F E T Y 

### A S S O C I A T I O N 

### ,

P E T I T I O N E R



### v.

O C C U P A T I O N A L 

### S A F E T Y 

### & H E A L T H 

### A D M I N I S T R A T I O N A N D



### S E C R E T A R Y O F 

### L A B O R 

### , R E S P O N D E N T S



### I N T E R N A T I O N A L 

### L O N G S H O R E A N D 

### W A R E H O U S E 

### U N I O N 

### , AFL -CI O, I N T E R V E N O R



### On Petition for Review of a Final Rule of the Oc cupational Saf

ety & H ealth Administration

Francis Edwin Froelich arg ued the cause for the petitioner.

Edmund C. Baird

, Attorney
, United S t at es Depa rtment of L abor, arg ued the cause for the responde nts. Deborah Gree nfield

, Acting Deputy Solicitor, Joseph M. W oo dward

, Associate Solicitor, an d Charles F. Jame s , Counsel, wer e on brief.

Christ ine S. Hwang
, Elizab eth Morris and Randy S. Rabinowitz wer e on brie f for the interve nor.

### 2

Be fore : H E N D E R S O N 

### and G R I F F I T H 

### , Circuit Judges

, and RA N D O L P H 

### , Senior Circuit Judge

. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge H E N D E R S O N



### . K A R E N 

### L E 

### C R A F T 

### H E N D E R S O N 

### , Circuit J u d ge : O n D e c e mb e r 10, 2 0 0 8
, the Occ upational Safety and Hea lth Administration (O S HA ), an age ncy of t he United States Depa rtment of L abor, published a fi n al rule reg ulating vertica l tandem lifts (VTL s). L ong shoring and Mar ine Ter minals; Vertical Ta

ndem L ifts, 73 Fe d. Reg

. 75,246 (VTL Standard or Standard). The Nationa l Maritime Safety Association (NMSA)

, a trade association
repr esenting marine terminal o p er ators, petitions for revie w of the VTL Standard and arg ues (1) OSHA failed to demons t rate that VTL s pose a signific ant risk to worke r safe ty ; (2) two of the Standard’s require ments are not technolog ically fea sible; (3) the Standard is not rea sonably nece ssary or appropr i at e in light of the “saf e work z o ne” require ment; (4) OSHA’s authority is limit ed to requiring

, not prohibiting, workplac e prac tices; and (5) if the Stan d ar d i s otherwise valid, the Occ upational Safety and Hea lth Act (OSH Act or Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678, has made an unconstitu t i onal deleg ation of leg islative power to OSHA. As explained below, we g rant the NMSA’s petition but only in part, vacating and re manding the S tandar d with respe ct to the inspection require ment for ship-to-shore VTL s, 29 C.F.R. § 1917.71(i)(9)

, and the total ban on p l atform container VTL s, id. § 1917.71(i)(10) . Otherw ise, we de ny the petition.

I.

Most maritime car go today is shipped in standardized intermodal container s that can be transfe rre d from ship to shore (thenc e to rail, and/or truck and, finally

, to war ehouse) in the

same container

. The container has opening s at eac h corne r that allow it to be secur ed onboard a ship, truck or train. Containers

are fre quently vertica lly stacke d on t o p o f one another for transport, in which case interbox connec tors can be inserted into

### 3

the corne r opening s to fasten the s t acked container s to eac h other. Standard container s are shaped like rec tang ular bo x es. Platform container s (a lso called flat rac ks) have no top or l ong sides and the end panels (or short sides) are either fix ed uprig ht

or can be folded flat onto the floor of the container

. Platform containers may also be attache d to other container s using interbox connectors, ty

pically with their end pa

nels folded f

lat. A cra ne can lift the interconne cted container s in what is called

a vertica l tandem lift and there by move multipl e container s at

o n ce

. Marine car g o handler s have been perf orming VTL s fo r over twe nty

y ear s. Whil e the total number of VTL s perf

ormed is unknown, OSHA has estimated the number to be one milli on VTL s since 1986. No injury has been repor t ed as having

occur red dur ing a

VTL

. I n 1986 OSHA asked Matson Terminals, I nc. (Matson), a shipping company then using VTL s, for information reg arding the streng th and integ rity of Mat s o n ’s container s and interlock

connec tors. Matson supplied the reque sted inform at i on and additional l y s o u gh t OS HA ’s p er m i s s i o n t o l i ft t wo interconne cted contai ners, either empty or with one or both container s holding automobiles. VTL Standard, 73 Fe d. Reg

. at 75,247. At the time, OSHA reg ulations did not direc tly addre ss VTL s but provided that “all hoisting of container s s h al l be by means which will safe ly do so withou t p robable damag e to the container

, and using the lifting fittings provided.” 29 C.F.R. § 1918.85(c) (1986) (quoted in 73 Fe d. Reg

. at 75,247). OSHA
g rante d Matson permiss i o n to perf orm the reque sted lifts but cautioned Mat s o n to “be mindful of the manufa cture r’s specific ations and endorse ments, the Matson eng ineer ing technica l specific ations” and the condition of the equipment. 73 Fe d. Reg

. at 75,247. I n 1993, Sea-L and Service

, I n c. (SeaL and), another shipper, reque sted OSHA’s permission to lif t two empty , interconne cted co n t ai n er s in a VTL

. Id. I n a response letter that has come to be known as the “Gur nham letter,” OSHA

### 4

permitt ed Sea-L and to perf orm VTL s of two empty container s if Sea-L and met the f

ollowing e ight r equire ments: inspect[] container s for visible defe cts; verify [] that both c ontainers are empty ; a ssur[e] that container s are proper ly marke d; assur[ e] that all the [i nterbox

connec tors] opera

te (lock-unloc k) in the same manner and have positive, verifia

ble locking sy stems; assur[e] that the load does not exceed the capa city of the cra ne; assur[e] that the container s are lifted vertica lly ; hav[e] available for inspection manufa cture rs’ documents that verify the capa cit i es of the [i nterbox connec tors] and

corne r [openings]; and direc t[ ] employ ees to stay clea r of the lifting are a.
Id. I n 1994 OSHA brief

ly mentioned VTL s in the preamble t o its proposed revisions to the L ong shoring and Marine Terminals Standards, 59 Fe d. Reg

. 28,594, 28,602 (June 2, 1 9 9 4 ), b ut “[b] eca use of a lack of information on the safe ty considerations,
cost impacts, and productivity eff ects of VTL s, as well as on the
capa bility of conta iners and [ interbox connec tors] to withstand such loading

, OSHA rese rved j u dg ment on the appropr iate
reg ulatory appro ac h to [VTL s], pending further study .” VTL Standard, 73 Fe d. R eg

. at 75,247 (citing 62 Fe d. Reg

. 40,142, 40
, 1 5 2 (J uly 25, 1997)). OSHA never theless reope ned the

rec ord with respe ct to VTL s several months later, reque sting

comm ents and scheduling an “informa l public meeting ” t o gat h er information about VTL s. 62 Fe d. Reg

. 52,671, 52,672 (Oc t. 9, 1997). After the public meeting

, OSHA contra cted with the National I nstitut e of Standards and Tec hnology

, an ag ency of the U.S. Depa

rtment of C ommerce that conducts phy sical scienc e rese arc h, to conduct eng ineer ing studies on the streng th and durability of conta iner interc onnection point s and int erbox

connec tors. OSHA also met with sever al international standardsetting org anizations to discuss VTL s t an dards and formed a “wor kg roup” within its Maritime Advisory Commi ttee for

### 5

Occ upational Safety and Hea lth (MACOSH) to study VTL s and
repor t back to MACOSH. VTL Standard, 7 3 Fe d

. Reg

. at 75,248.

I n 2000, the I nterna tional Org anization for Standardization (I S O)

— “a worldwide fede ration of national standards bodies whose m i s s ion is to promote the development of international standards to r educe technica l barrie rs to trade ,” 73 F ed. Reg . at 75,246—ag ree d that in t er b ox connec tors could be used to vertica l l y lift up to three container s (depe nding on the s treng th of the container s and interbox connec tors) a n d r e quested I CHCA I nterna tional L td. (I C HC A), an I SO member, to develop a 1 

### single

, compre hensive document dealing with all aspec t s o f VTL opera tion s

. Id. at 75,248; I CHCA, Ver tical Tande m L ifting o f Freig ht Containers § 1.6. Two y ear s later, the I SO formally adop ted a standard permitting VTL s under cer tain conditions, I S O 3874 § 6.2.5; 73 Fe d. Reg

. at 75,248, and I CHCA publi s h ed its compre hensive VTL standard in 2003, I CHCA I nt’l L t d

. , Ver tical Tande m L ifting of Fr eig ht Containers (I CHCA Stand ar d ) (2003); 73 Fe d. Reg

. at 75,249. The I SO standard pe rmits VT L s of up to three c ontainers if the total mass of the VT L unit does not exceed 20,000 kilogr ams (kg ), or 20 metric to n s , t h e interbox connec tors have a safe 2

I C H C A d e s c r i b e s i t s e l f a s “ a n i n d e p e n d e n t , n o n

- p o l i t i c a l 1
i n t e r n a t i o n a l m e m b e r s h i p o r g a n i [ z ] a t i o n , w h o s e m e m b e r s h i p

c o m p r i s e s c o r p o r a t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l s [ a n d ] a c a d e m i c i n s t i t u t i o n s

. . . i n v o l v e d i n

. . . t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a n s p o r t a n d c a r g o h a n d l i n g i n d u s t r y

. ” I C H C A I n t ’ l S a f e t y P a n e l T e c h n i c a l / O p e r a t i o n a l A d v i c e N o

. 1
, V e r t i c a l T a n d e m L i f t i n g o f F r e i g h t C o n t a i n e r s ( 2 0 0 3 )

.

O n e m e t r i c t o n e q u a l s 1 0 0 0 k i l o g r a m s o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 2 0 0 2

p o u n d s

. W e b s t e r ’ s T h i r d N e w I n t ’ l D i c t i o n a r y 1 4 2 4 ( 1 9 9 3 )

.

### 6

working load of at least 10,000 kg and the vertica l forc e exerted

3



### on eac h corne r connec tion does not exceed 75 kil o n ew tons (kN). I CHCA Standa

rd §§ 5.1.4, 5.1.7. The I SO use s a safe ty 4 

### fac tor of five in assessing the safe ty of VTL s. Id. § 5.1.6. The 5 

### I CHCA s t andard imposes the same mass and safe ty fac tor require ments and, in addition, prohibits using VTL s of platform container s unless the end panels are folded flat. Id. §§ 8.1.2.3, 8

. 1

. 2.5, 8.1.3.1.2, 8.1.3.2.1. An empty box container weig hs betwee n approximately 5000 and 10,000 pounds, depending on the siz e of the container

, which equate s to a mass between
ap proxi mately 2300 kg and 4600 kg

. A t wo-c ontainer VTL o f the larges t container s has a mass of 9200 kg and a three

container VT L
, a mass of 13,800 kg

. The I SO and I CHCA standards, thus, permit loaded container s to be lifted in a VTL if the tota l car g o in a two-conta iner VTL does not exceed approximately 10,800 kg

, or 10.8 metric tons, and the total car g o

A “ s a f e w o r k i n g l o a d

, ” a l s o c a l l e d a “ m a x i m u m r a t e d l o a d

, ” “ i s 3

t h e h i g h e s t l o a d p e r m i t t e d t o b e c a r r i e d b y t h e c o m p o n e n t

. ” 7 3 F e d

. R e g

. a t 7 5
, 2 5 4

.

O n e k i l o g r a m e q u a l s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2

. 2 p o u n d s

. C o m m ’ r v

. 4
S h a p i r o , 4 2 4 U

. S

. 6 1 4
, 6 2 3 n

. 9 ( 1 9 7 6 )

. A n e w t o n i s a u n i t o f f o r c e

e q u a l t o “ t h e f

o r c e t h a t w o u l d g i v e a m a s s o f o n e k i l o g r a m [ ] a n

a c c e l e r a t i o n o f o n e m e t [ e r ] p e r s e c o n d p e r s e c o n d

. ” X O x f o r d E n g l i s h
D i c t i o n a r y 3 7 8 ( 2 d e d

. 1 9 8 9 )

.

A s a f e t y f a c t o r m e a s u r e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e s a f e 5

w o r k i n g l o a d o f a u n i t a n d t h e u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h o f t h e u n i t

. F o r

e x a m p l e , a s a f

e t y f a c t o r o f t h r e e r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h o f

t h e u n i t b e t h r e e t i m e s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e u n i t ’ s s a f e w o r k i n g l o a d ; i

. e

. , f o r t h e u n i t t o h a v e a s a f e w o r k i n g l o a d o f 1 0 0
, i t s u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h h a s t o b e a t l e a s t 3 0 0

. T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s a f e t y f a c t o r i s “ t o g u a r d

a g a i n s t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e c o m p o n e n t i s a c c i d e n t a l l y s u b j e c t e d t o f o r c e s g r e a t e r t h a n i t c a n b e a r

. ” R e s p ’ t s ’ B r

. 2 0

.

### 7

in a three -conta iner VTL does not exceed approximately 6200 kg , or 6.2 metric tons.

On September 16, 2003, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking announcing its intention to reg ulate VTL s. L ong shoring and Mar ine Terminals; Vertical Ta ndem L ifts, 68 Fe d

. Reg

. 54,298. The proposed rule would have permitted VTL s of two container s with a total weig ht (including car g o) of 20 tons. Id. at 54,317. I t would have prohibited platform container s with uprig ht end fra mes from being lifte d i n a VTL unit but would have allowed empty platform container s with the end fra mes folded down to be lifted as a VTL unit. Id. I t would have also imposed a wind speed restri ction on VTL opera tions and would have require d the employ er to e x amine the inter box

connec tors befor e ea ch use. Id.

After rec eiving comments and holding public hear ings, OSHA published the final VTL Standard in 2008. 73 Fe d. Reg

. 75,246 (De c. 10, 2008). L ike the proposed rule, the S t an dard permits only two-conta iner VTL lifts. Unlike the proposed rule, howeve r, the Standard permits VTL s of empty container s only

so that a t wo -c o n t ainer VTL can have a mass at most of approximately 9200 kg or 9.2 metric tons. Fur ther depar

ting 6 

### from the proposed ru le, the final Standard cate g orica lly bans VTL s of platform container s. The Standard ad ditionally require s “that interbox conne ctors and container s, including, in
p articular, their corne r casting s [connection points]

, . . . be inspected immediately b ef o re being used in a VTL ” despite OSHA’s acknowledg ment that this require ment “may make ship-to-shore VTL s impractica l.” Id. at 75,278 & n.31. Finally

, the Standard imposes a “saf e work zo n e” require ment, which require s the employ er to “esta blish a safe work z o n e within

T h u s , u n l i k e t h e S t a n d a r d

, t h e I S O a n d I C H C A s t a n d a r d s w o u l d 6

p e r m i t a t w o

- c o n t a i n e r V T L t o c a r r y u p t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0

. 8 m e t r i c t o n s o f c a r g o

.

### 8

which employ ees may not be prese nt when vertica lly connec ted container s are in motion[ ]

. . . sufficie nt to protec t employ ees in the event that a container drops or overturns.” 29 C.F.R. § 1917.71(k) to (k)( 1). As discussed more fully below, OSHA al s o deter

mined that “unre g ulated VTL opera tions” pose a “sig nificant risk” to worker safe ty . 73 Fe d. Reg . at 75,251.

NMSA petitioned for revie w of the Standard on Fe bruar y 6, 2009.

II.

We addre ss, in order

, OSHA’s finding of signific ant ri sk, the fea sibili ty of the S t an d ar d and its “saf e work zone” require ment. We then discuss—and reje ct—the NMSA’s two

rema ining arg uments. OSHA’s deter minations are concl u s ive if supported by substantial evidenc e in the rec ord as a whole. 29 U.S.C. § 655(f) ; Steel Joist Inst. v. OSHA
, 287 F.3d 1165, 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
A. Signi fi cant Risk

The OSH Act authorizes the Secre tary of L abor to 7 

### “promulg ate, modif

y , or revoke any occupational safe ty or health standard.” 29 U.S.C. § 655(b). The Ac t define s an “occ upational safe ty or health s t andard” as a standard “re asonably nece ssary or appropr iate to provide safe or healthful employ ment and plac es of e mploy ment.” Id. § 652(8). B efor e OSHA can enac t any perma nent health or s af

ety standard, it
must make “a threshold fi n d i ng that a place of employ ment is unsafe —in the sense that signific ant risks are prese nt and can be eliminated or lessened by a chang e in pra ctices.” Indus. Union Dep’ t, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst. ( Benzene ), 448 U.S.

T h e S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r h a s d e l e g a t e d t h i s a u t h o r i t y t o O S H A

. 7

7 2 F e d

. R e g

. 3 1
, 1 6 0

.

### 9

607, 642 (1980) (pl u ra l i t y opinion). The require ment that 8 

### OSHA m ake a t hreshold findin g o f signific ant risk imposes an important limit ation on its reg ulatory au t h o rity

, see id. at 646, but OSHA does not have to “calculate the exact probability of harm” or “support its fi n d i n g

. . . with any thing approa ching scientific cer

tainty .” Id. at 655-56. Nor must it “wa it for deaths
to occur befor e taking any action.” Id. at 655. I t “ is f ree to use

con s er v ati ve assumptions” and to err “on the side of
overpr otection ra ther than unde rprotec tion.” Id. at 656.

OSHA based its deter

mination that VTL s pose a signific ant risk on four fac tors. First, OSHA consi dere d “evide nce of at least nine VTL separ ations in the United States and Canada over the past 15 y ear s” which it beli ev ed “could have resulted in injury to or death of one o r m o re employ ees” even though the
separ ations did not cause any injuries. 73 Fe d. Reg

. at 75,251. Second, OSHA noted that the marine car g o handling i n d ustry has adopted its own s tandar ds for VTL s, which OSH A t o o k as an industry acknow ledg ment that VTL s pose a sig nificant risk. Id

. Third, having previously deter mined the “handling ” of a single container “to include risk,” OSHA conclude d that lifting multipl e container s in a VTL “ca nnot be less risky .” Id. Four th, OSHA conducte d an eng ineer ing analy sis of the streng th of the interbox connec tors used in a VTL and found “that lifting loaded container s in a VTL or lifting more t han two container s in a VTL poses a sig nificant risk of f ailure.” Id.

A l t h o u g h B e n z e n e c o m m a n d e d o n l y a p l u r a l i t y o f t h e C o u r t , o u r 8

r e a d i n g o f s u b s e q u e n t S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t i s t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f

t h e C o u r t h a s a d o p t e d t h e s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k r e q u i r e m e n t

. B l d g

. & C o n s t r

. T

r a d e s D e p ’ t
, A F L

- C I O v

. B r o c k

, 8 3 8 F

. 2 d 1 2 5 8
, 1 2 6 3 ( D

. C

. C i r

. 1 9 8 8 ) ( c i t i n g A m

. T e x t i l e M f r s

. I n s t

. v

. D o n o v a n ( C o t t o n D u s t )

, 4 5 2 U

. S

. 4 9 0
, 5 0 5

- 0 6 n

. 2 5 ( 1 9 8 1 ) )

.

### 10

The eng ineer ing analy sis needs explanation. I n calc ulating 9 

### the “for ces imposed on interbox connec tions during [a] VTL [] ,” OSHA followed the I CHCA m ethodol og y but used more restric tive assump t i ons. Id. at 75,260. First, wher eas the I CHCA assumed the forc es are sprea d acr oss four fully eng ag ed interbox connec tors (one at eac h corne r of the container ), OSHA assumed that only two c o nnector s on opposite (diag onal) corne rs

car ry the entire load. Id. at 75,260. OSHA based its assumption

on testimony of longshor emen and container manufa cture rs that

one or more interbox connec tors can fre quently detac h (or not attach in the first place ) and that it is difficult to d et ec t such detac hments if the two connec tors on o p p osite corne rs rema in attache d. Id. at 75,256, 75,258, 75,260. OSHA conclude d “that it is not uncommon” for a VTL to be performed with only the
two connec tors at oppos i t e corne rs attache d and there fore it
soug ht to ens u re that, using the “two diag onal connec tors attache d” assumption, a VTL could be perf ormed safe ly

. Id. at 75,258. Second, beca

use the I CHCA did not acc ount for the fac t that a co ntainer being lifted and moved acc eler ates, putting additional forc e on the connec tors, OSHA considere d the

O S H A b e g a n b y d e t e r m i n i n g t h e “ m a x i m u m r a t e d l o a d ”

— o r 9

s a f e w o r k i n g l o a d

— o f i n t e r b o x c o n n e c t o r s a s w e l l a s a n a p p r o p r i a t e

“ s a f e t y f a c t o r

. ” S e e s u

p r a n o t e s 3
, 5 ( e x p l a i n i n g s a f e w o r k i n g l o a d

a n d s a f e t y f a c t o r )

. O S H A a d o p t e d a s a f e t y f a c t o r o f f

i v e , r e l y i n g p r i m a r i l y o n t h e I S O a n d I C H C A s t a n d a r d s , w h i c h

, a s n o t e d e a r l i e r ,
u s e a s a f e t y f a c t o r o f f i v e

. 7 3 F e d

. R e g

. a t 7 5
, 2 5 8

. O S H A a l s o r e l i e d

o n t h e I S O a n d I C H C A s t a n d a r d s i n a d o p t i n g a s a f e w o r k i n g l o a d o f 1 0
, 0 0 0 k g , w h i c h i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f 9 8 k N o f f o r c e ( 1 0
, 0 0 0 k g

m u l t i p l i e d b y 0

. 0 0 9 8 0 6 6 5 k N / k g )

. I d

. a t 7 5
, 2 5 7

. T o s a t i s f

y a s a f e t y f a c t o r o f f

i v e w i t h a s a f

e w o r k i n g l o a d o f 9 8 k N
, i n t e r b o x c o n n e c t o r s

m u s t h a v e a m i n i m u m u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h t h a t a l l o w s t h e m t o w i t h s t a n d f o r c e s e q u a l t o 4 9 0 k N ( 9 8 k N m u l t i p l i e d b y 5 )

. I d

. a t 7 5
, 2 5 7 n

. 1 4

.

### 11

additional forc e cause d by up to 2.0 g of acc eler ation that 1 0



### occur s during a VTL “to deter mine the baseline forc e on eac h of the two intact connec tions betwee n the” container s. Id. at 75,260, 75,262.

The NMSA challeng es OSHA’s signific ant risk finding on two g rounds. First, it asser ts OSHA failed to take the nece ssary step of quantify ing the risk VTL s pose to worke r safe ty

. Second

, it arg ues that OSHA cannot rely on a finding that “unre g ulated VTL opera tions,” id. at 75,251, pose a signific ant risk to worke r safe ty but instead must deter mine that VTL s pose

a signific ant risk to worke r safe ty under curr ent industry
prac tice. We re

ject both cha lleng es.
OSHA’s deter

mina t i o n that signific ant risk should be

measure d ag ainst the baseline of what curr ent law re q uires
amounts to an interpre tation of what is “re asonably nece ssary or appropr iate t o p ro v ide safe or healthful employ ment.” 29 U.S.C. § 652(8). By

not allowing voluntar

y industry standards
to pree mpt reg ulation, OSHA’s interpre tation further s the Act’s
purpose of “building up on advanc es alre ady made throug h employ er and employ ee initiative.” Id. § 651(b)( 4). The NMSA does not cite, and we are not awa re of, any case requiring OSHA
to consider v o l u n tary industry standards in deter mining the

ex i s t en ce of a signific ant risk in a workplace

. Be cause neither the OS H Act nor our precede nt “unambig uously fore closes the
ag ency ’s interpre tation,” we owe defe renc e t o OS HA’s

re as o n able construction. Nat’l Cable & Telecomm s. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs.
, 545 U.S. 967, 982- 83 (2005); see also Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.
, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984); Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Brock

, 862 F.2d 63, 68 (3d Cir. 1988) (“We reject

. . . the

“ g ” r e p r e s e n t s t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n d u e t o g r a v i t y , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0
9

. 8 m e t e r s p e r s e c o n d p e r s e c o n d ( m / s ) a t s e a l e v e l

. V I O x f o r d 2
E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y 2 9 9 ( 2 d e d

. 1 9 8 9 )

.

### 12

contention

. . . that beca use the construction industry alre ady provides training in hazardous materia ls handling

, there i s no

s i gn ificant risk in that industry

. At best that arg ument establishes t he existence of r isks .

. . .”), cert. denied

, 490 U.S. 1064-65 (1989) , 494 U.S. 1003 (1990).

Nor is OSHA require d to quantify a risk befor e deter mining that it is signif

i cant. We have previously noted the “pec uliar
p ro blem of revie wing the rules of ag encie s like OSHA” that arises from “apply

ing the substantial evidenc e test to reg ulations which are essentially leg islative and rooted i n infere nces from complex scientific and fac tual data.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall

, 647 F.2d 1189, 1206-07 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied

, 453 U.S. 913 (1981). I n such a c ase, a s this one is, our task is not to “sec ond-g uess an ag ency decision that falls within

a zone of rea sonablene ss” b u t ra ther to “ensur e public

acc ountability ” by requiring the ag ency to identify the evidenc e upon which it relies, to expl ai n its logic and the policies underly ing its choice s, to state candidly any assumptions on which it relies and to provide its rea sons for reject i n g contrary evidenc e and arg uments. Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). OSHA has met that burden reg arding its signific ant risk deter mination of VTL s. 1 1

A l t h o u g h w e u p h o l d O S H A ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t V T L s p o s e a 1 1

s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k t o w o r k e r s a f e t y , w e t h i n k i t i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e a f l a w i n t h e t h i r d f

a c t o r u p o n w h i c h O S H A r e l i e d t o s u p p o r t i t s s i g n i f i c a n t

r i s k d e t e r m i n a t i o n , n a m e l y t h a t a t w o

- c o n t a i n e r V T L “ c a n n o t b e l e s s

r i s k y ” t h a n a o n e

- c o n t a i n e r l i f t

. 7 3 F e d

. R e g

. a t 7 5
, 2 5 1

. O S H A

a p p a r e n t l y f

a i l e d t o a c c o u n t f

o r t h e r e d u c e d n u m b e r o f l i f t s r e q u i r e d

t o b e p e r f

o r m e d i f V T L s a r e u s e d

. B e c a u s e a V T L m o v e s t w o

c o n t a i n e r s , a s h i p c a n b e l o a d e d o r u n l o a d e d w i t h h a l f a s m a n y l i f

t s a s i t c a n b e u s i n g s i n g l e l i f t s

. E v e n i f a V T L i s r i s k i e r t h a n a o n e

c o n t a i n e r l i f

t , i t c o u l d s t i l l b e s a f

e r t o p e r f

o r m V T L s b e c a u s e o f t h e

s m a l l e r n u m b e r o f t o t a l l i f t s

. H a d O S H A r e l i e d o n t h i s f a c t o r a l o n e , i t s s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k d e t e r m i n a t i o n m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n a r b i t r a r y a n d

### 13

B. Fe asibi lity

T h e NMSA also challeng es two discrete require ments of the VTL Standard—the interbox connec tor inspection require ment, 29 C.F.R. § 1917.71(i)(9)

, and the b an on platform container 1 2

c a p r i c i o u s

. S e e M o t o r V e h i c l e M f r s

. A s s ’ n o

f U

. S

. v

. S t a t e F a r m M u t

. A u t o

. I n s

. C o

. , 4 6 3 U

. S

. 2 9
, 4 3 ( 1 9 8 3 )

. O S H A ’ s e n g i n e e r i n g a n a l y s i s

a n d t h e e v i d e n c e o f p a s t V T L s e p a r a t i o n s a r e s u f f i c i e n t , h o w e v e r , t o

s u p p o r t i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t V T L s p o s e a s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k t o w o r k e r

s a f e t y

.

2 9 C

. F

. R

. § 1 9 1 7

. 7 1 ( i ) ( 9 ) p r o v i d e s : 1 2

T h e e m p l o y e r s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t e a c h c o n t a i n e r a n d i n t e r b o x

c o n n e c t o r u s e d i n a V T L a n d e a c h c o r n e r c a s t i n g t o w h i c h

a c o n n e c t o r w i l l b e c o u p l e d i s i n s p e c t e d i m m e d i a t e l

y b e f o r e

u s e i n t h e V T L

. ( i ) E a c h e m p l o y e e p e r f o r m i n g t h e i n s p e c t i o n s h a l l b e

c a p a b l e o f d e t e c t i n g d e f e c t s o r w e a k n e s s e s a n d b e a b l e t o

a s s e s s t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s a f e t y o f V T L

o p e r a t i o n s

. ( i i ) T h e i n s p e c t i o n o f e a c h i n t e r b o x c o n n e c t o r s h a l l i n c l u d e : a v i s u a l e x a m i n a t i o n f o r o b v i o u s s t r u c t u r a l d e f e c t s , s u c h a s c r a c k s ; a c h e c k o f i t s p h y s i c a l o p e r a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e l o c k i s f u l l y f u n c t i o n a l w i t h a d e q u a t e

s p r i n g t e n s i o n o n e a c h h e a d ; a n d a c h e c k f o r e x c e s s i v e

c o r r o s i o n a n d d e t e r i o r a t i o n

. ( i i i ) T h e i n s p e c t i o n o f e a c h c o n t a i n e r a n d e a c h o f i t s

c o r n e r c a s t i n g s s h a l l i n c l u d e : a v i s u a l e x a m i n a t i o n f o r

o b v i o u s s t r u c t u r a l d e f e c t s , s u c h a s c r a c k s ; a c h e c k f o r

e x c e s s i v e c o r r o s i o n a n d d e t e r i o r a t i o n ; a n d a v i s u a l

e x a m i n a t i o n t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e o p e n i n g t o w h i c h a n i n t e r b o x

c o n n e c t o r w i l l b e c o n n e c t e d h a s n o t b e e n e n l a r g e d

, t h a t t h e

w e l d s a r e i n g o o d c o n d i t i o n , a n d t h a t i t i s f r e e f r o m i c e , m u d

o r o t h e r d e b r i s

.

### 14

VTL s, id. § 1917.71(i)(10) —as tec hnologic ally infea sible. 1 3



### OS HA s tandar ds must be both economica lly and
t echnologica lly fea sible. See Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implem ent W orkers of Am. v. OSHA
, 37 F.3d 665, 6 6 8 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “To establish technolog ical fea sibili ty , OSHA, afte r consulting the best available evidenc e, must prove a rea sonable possibili ty that the ty pical firm will be able t o develop and install eng ineer ing and work prac tice controls that can meet the [st andar d] in most of its ope rations.” Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. OSHA
, 939 F.2d 975, 9 8 0 (D

. C. Cir. 1991) (interna l quotation marks omitted). We defe r to OSHA’s fea sibili ty deter

mination in pre- enfor ceme nt revie w but “the test for fea sibili ty cannot be lamely defe rential.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). W e conclude that the rec ord lacks substantial evidenc e to support the fea sibili ty of section 1917.71(i)(9) in part and of section 1917.71(i)(10) and,

acc ording ly

, that upholding the sections in toto would be lamely defe rential.

The VTL Standard is almost devoid of a fea sibili ty analy sis. I t contains only OSHA’s bare conclusion that “[b] eca use all of the[] conditions [i mposed by the Standard] can be met by

( i v ) T h e e m p l o y e r s h a l l e s t a b l i s h a s y s t e m t o e n s u r e t h a t

e a c h d e f e c t i v e o r d a m a g e d i n t e r b o x c o n n e c t o r i s r e m o v e d f r o m s e r v i c e

. ( v ) A n i n t e r b o x c o n n e c t o r t h a t h a s b e e n f o u n d t o b e d e f e c t i v e o r d a m a g e d s h a l l b e r e m o v e d f r o m s e r v i c e a n d

m a y n o t b e u s e d i n V T L o p e r a t i o n s u n t i l r e p a i r e d

. ( v i ) A c o n t a i n e r w i t h a c o r n e r c a s t i n g t h a t e x h i b i t s a n y o f

t h e p r o b l e m s l i s t e d i n p a r a g r a p h ( i ) ( 9 ) ( i i i ) o f t h i s s e c t i o n

m a y n o t b e l i f

t e d i n a V T L

. ( e m p h a s e s a d d e d )

.

2 9 C

. F

. R

. § 1 9 1 7

. 7 1 ( i ) ( 1 0 ) p r o v i d e s : “ N o p l a t f o r m c o n t a i n e r 1 3

m a y b e l i f

t e d a s p a r t o f a V T L u n i t

. ”

### 15

s t ev ed ores, and in fac t most are being met wher e VTL s ar e

curr ently being perf

ormed,

. . . the [S tandar d] is technolog ically fea sible.” 73 Fe d. Reg. at 7 5
, 285. The NMSA disag ree s with OSHA’s assessment. I t asserts that the inspection require ment “has resulted in a total ban of ship-to-shore VTL s” beca use “[i] t is neither safe

, nor fea sible, for employ ees” to inspect container s that are “in a stack betwee n other container s sitti ng 80 fee t ab ove the ship’s deck and twice that distance above the water and dock.” Pet’r’s Br

. 34-35; see also Transc ript of I nfo rm al Public Hea

ring for the Proposed Rule on Var iable Tande m L ifts,
at 100 (OSHA, J uly 30, 2004) (Joi nt Appendix 865) (testimony of Bill Wil liams, vice president for Maer sk, I nc.) (re quiring longshor emen to asce nd container s stacke d on ship can “expose[ them] t o a fall hazard of 60 fe et or more above de ck”) . Absent substantial evidenc e to support OSHA’s deter mination that its inspe ct i o n require ment is fea sible for ship-to-shore VTL s, we cannot uphold t h at deter

mination. As to shore- to-ship VTL s, howeve r, the NMSA conce des that inspection befor e eac h VTL is fea sible and that it is curr ent industry pra ct ice to perf orm it. Ora l Arg

. 39:12-39:55. We there fore uphold OSHA’s fea sibili ty deter mination with re gard to the inspection require ment for shore- to-ship VTL s.
The NMSA further alleg es that the total b an on platform container VTL s can make it infea sible to unload car g o from a ship beca

use platform container s are often s t ac k ed and i n t er connec ted overse as and there afte r cannot alway s be
separ ated or cha i n ed toge ther befor e lifting. See Curto Dec l. ¶ 12 (E x

. A to Pet’r’s Br .) (prohibition on platform container VTL s leave s marine terminal opera tors “no fea sible option” for handling platform container s in many circ umstances beca use container s “fr equently cannot be acc essed to separ ate or unitiz e for lifting in acc ordanc e with the VTL Standard” ); Pet’r’s Br

. 33 (“U nder many circ umstances, it simply is not technol og ically fea sible to acce s s a set of platform container s that have been interconne cted overse as and separ at e or chain them toge ther

### 16

befor e lifting them.”). I f that occur s, a domestic marine terminal
opera tor must either lift the pl atform containers as a unit —and
t hus violate the Standard—or leave the container s—and any container s benea

th them—onboard. Curto Dec l. ¶ 12. Be cause OSH A’ s proposed rule would have permitted VTL s of empty platform container s with their end panels folded, commenter s had no notice of the S t an d ar d ’s total ban and there fore did not addre ss the infea sibili ty of the ban. I n light of the lack of rec ord evidenc e reg arding fea sibili ty vel non

, we cannot conclude that substantial evidenc e supports OSHA’s fea sibili ty deter mination with reg ard to the total ba n on platform conta iner VTL s. 1 4

O S H A p r o t e s t s t h a t t h e N M S A ’ s e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e 1 4
i n f e a s i b i l i t y o f t h e b a n o n p l a t f o r m c o n t a i n e r V T L s

— t h e d e c l a r a t i o n

o f J o s e p h C u r t o , p r e s i d e n t o f t h e N e w Y o r k S h i p p i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , a n

“ a s s o c i a t i o n o f m a r i n e t e r m i n a l o p e r a t o r s , s t e v e d o r e s a n d o c e a n

c a r r i e r s h a n d l i n g a n d t r a n s p o r t i n g c a r g o a n d p a s s e n g e r s i n t h e P o r t o f
N e w Y o r k a n d N e w J e r s e y , ” C u r t o D e c l

. ¶ 2

— w a s s u b m i t t e d a f t e r t h e

r u l e m a k i n g e n d e d a n d t h e r e f o r e c o m e s t o o l a t e f

o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w

. S e e I M S

, P

. C

. v

. A l v a r e z , 1 2 9 F

. 3 d 6 1 8
, 6 2 3 ( D

. C

. C i r

. 1 9 9 7 )

. T h e t o t a l b a n , h o w e v e r , i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d e p a r t u r e f

r o m O S H A ’ s p r o p o s e d

r u l e , w h i c h w o u l d h a v e p e r m i t t e d V T L s o f p l a t f o r m c o n t a i n e r s w i t h

t h e i r e n d p a n e l s f

o l d e d

. S e e A m

. W i l d l a n d s v

. K e m p t h o r n e , 5 3 0 F

. 3 d 9 9 1
, 1 0 0 2 ( D

. C

. C i r

. 2 0 0 8 ) ( p a r t i e s m a y s u p p l e m e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

r e c o r d i f

, i n t e r a l i a , c o u r t “ n e e d [ s ] t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e r e c o r d w i t h b a c k g r o u n d i n f

o r m a t i o n i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a g e n c y

c o n s i d e r e d a l l o f t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s ” ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s

o m i t t e d ) ) ; E n v t l

. I

n t e g r i t y P r o j e c t v

. E P A
, 4 2 5 F

. 3 d 9 9 2
, 9 9 6 ( D

. C

. C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ [ W ] e h a v e r e f u s e d t o a l l o w a g e n c i e s t o u s e t h e

r u l e m a k i n g p r o c e s s t o p u l l a s u r p r i s e s w i t c h e r o o o n r e g u l a t e d

e n t i t i e s

. ” ) ; I

n t ’ l U n i o n , U n i t e d M i n e W

o r k e r s o f A m

. v

. M i n e S a

f e t y &
H e a l t h A d m i n

. , 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 1 2 5 0
, 1 2 5 9 ( D

. C

. C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ N o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e d e s i g n e d ( 1 ) t o e n s u r e t h a t a g e n c y r e g u l a t i o n s a r e t e s t e d v i a e x p o s u r e t o d i v e r s e p u b l i c c o m m e n t , ( 2 ) t o e n s u r e f a i r n e s s t o a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s , a n d ( 3 ) t o g i v e a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e v e l o p e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e r u l e

a n d t h e r e b y e n h a n c e t h e q u a l i t y o f j u d i c i a l r e v i e w

. ” )

. B e c a u s e t h e

### 17

Acc ording ly

, we vacate and rema nd the inspection requirement, 29 C.F.R. § 1917.71(i)(9)

, as applied to ship -t o

shore VTL s, and the total ban on pl at form container VTL s, id. § 1917.71(i)(10)

.

C. “Saf e Work Z one” Requirem ent

The “safe work z one” require ment direc ts the employ er to “esta blish a safe work zone within which employ ees may not be
prese nt when vertica lly connec ted container s are in motion.” 29 C.F.R. § 1917.71(k). The safe work zone must be “suff icient to protec t employ ees in the event that a contai n er d rops.” Id. § 1917.71(k)( 1). I f an employ er establishes a safe work zone as the Standard require s, the NMSA asser ts, em p loy ees will not fac e any dang er and the Standard’s other require ments are ther ef ore not “re asonably nece ssary or appropr iate” to protec t worke r safe ty

. 29 U.S.C. § 652(8)

. Acc ording to the NMSA, OSHA has a duty to explain why it did not simply “adopt the ‘saf e work zone’ require ment without some or all of t h e o ther require ments in the VTL Standard.” Pet’r’s Br

. 30. The NMSA further arg ues that, b eca

use employ ees are not at risk when an employ er complies with the safe work zone require ment, OSHA lacks jurisdiction to impose additional require ments beca use no risk to employ ees rema ins. The NMSA is mistaken. Whil e the saf e work zone require ment adequately protec ts employ ees located on the g round, it does not nece ssarily protec t the cra ne opera tor who moves the container s. I f a co n t ainer wer e to separ ate during a VTL
, the separ ation could jar th e cra ne and injure the o pera tor. See 73 Fe d. Reg

. at 75,256 (testimony of

u nion repr esenta tive that container can “allig ator” during VTL and “slam back down, jarring the cran e ca b opera tor”); cf.

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d l a c k s e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f t h e t o t a l b a n o n p l a t f

o r m c o n t a i n e r V T L s , t h e N M S A ’ s e v i d e n c e s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d “ i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a g e n c y c o n s i d e r e d

a l l o f t h e r e l e v a n t f

a c t o r s

. ” A m

. W

i l d l a n d s , 5 3 0 F

. 3 d a t 1 0 0 2

.

### 18

Transc ript of I nformal Publ ic M eeting

, “Pigg y back” Container I ssue at 248 (OSHA, J an. 27, 1998) (Joi nt Ap p en d ix 345) (testimony of Matthew L aport, cra ne opera tor for Sea-L and) (desc ribing as “a h el l o f a fee ling” when interbox connec tor initially fails to diseng ag e du ring single lift so that lifted container remai n s attache d to container below and “eve ry thing just jolts” when connec tor finally rele ases)

. The safe work zone require ment, there fore

, does not make the VTL Standard’s other require ments u n n ece ssary or inappropria te and we believe OSHA has supported the require ment with substantial evidenc e. See 73 Fe d. Reg . at 75,256, 75,272. D. OSHA’s Authority to P rohibit Workp lace P ract ices

The NMSA takes issue with OSHA’s statement in the VTL Standard that it “

permits VTL s o f n o more than two empty container s.” Pet’r’s Br

. 35 (empha sis in brief) (quoting 73 Fe d. Reg

. at 75,246). OSHA, acc ording to the NMSA, lacks statutory authorit y to permit or ban workplac e prac tices, arg uing that OSHA can reg ulate only how workplac e prac tices are performed, not what workplac e prac tices are perf ormed. OSHA’s unquestioned authority to ensure safe workplac e prac tices, howeve r, incl u d es the authority to prohibit unsafe
prac tices. See 29 U.S.C. § 655(b) (aut h o ri z i ng OSHA to “promulg ate, modify

, or revoke any occupational safe ty or health standard” ); id. § 652(8) (“ ‘[O] ccupational safe ty and health standard’ means a standard which require s conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more prac tices, means , methods,
opera tions, or proce sses, rea sonably nece ssary or appropr iate to prov ide safe or healthful employ ment and place s of employ ment.”). OSHA might be sty mied in its responsibility to require cer

tain prac tices if it could not also prohibit noncompliant prac tices.

### 19

E. Non-Delegat ion Chal lenge

The United States Constit ution vests “[a]ll legi slative Powers herein g rante d

. . . in a C ong ress of the Unit ed S tates.” U.S. Const. art. I
, § 1. The Constit ution “per mits no deleg ation of those power s, and so

. . . when Con gress confe rs decisio nmaking authority upon ag encie s Congress must lay down by l egi slative act an intelligible principle to which the
person o r body authorized to act is direc ted to confor m.” W hitman v. Am. Trucking As s ’n
, 5 3 1 U.S. 457, 472 (2001) (empha sis in orig inal) (interna l citations, qu o t ati on marks and brac kets omitted). I n Benzene
, the S u p re me Court interpre ted the OSH Act to r equire OSHA, befor e issuing a standard under the Act, to “dete rmine that [t he standard] is rea sonably

nece ssary an d ap propriate to reme dy a signific ant risk of materia l health impairment. ” Benzene
, 448 U.S. at 639 (pl u ralit y opinion). The limit ing construction was nece ssary beca use a plurality of the Court believed that wi t h o u t the construction “the statute would make such a swee ping d e l e g a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e p o w e r t h a t i t m i g h t b e unconstitutional.” Id. at 646 (interna l quotation marks omitted). That the Court did not invalidate the Act manifests t h at the C o u rt believes the Act, as interpre ted in Benzene
, contains an intelligible principle for promulg ating health stan d ar ds. But here the NMSA challeng es, as an unconstitutional deleg ation of leg isla t i v e power , the Act’s g rant of authority to issue safe ty standards. See Int’l Union

, Uni ted Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implem ent W

orkers of Am. v. OSHA
, 938 F.2d 1310, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

The deleg ation of power to OSHA under the OSH Act to set heal t h o r safe ty standards that are “re asonably nece ssary or appropr iate to provide safe or healthful employ ment and place s of employ

ment,” 29 U.S.C. § 652(8), is no broade r than other deleg ations that direc t ag enc i es to act in the “public interest,”
e.g., Nat’l Broad. Co. v. United States
, 319 U.S. 190, 2 1 5 -16

### 20

(1943) (interna l quotation marks omitted), or in a way that is “fa ir and equitable,” Y

akus v. United States
, 321 U.S. 414, 420- 23 (19 4 4 ), o r in a manner “re quisite to protec t the public health,” W

hitman

, 531 U.S. at 472-76 (interna l quotation marks omitted), or when “nec essar y to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safe ty ,” Touby v. United States
, 500 U.S. 160, 163, 165 (1991) (interna l quotation marks omitted). See also Am. Power & Light Co. v. SEC , 329 U.S. 90, 104 (1946) (authorizing SEC
to reor g anize corpor ate structure s to ensure they are not “unduly

or unnece ssarily complicate[ d ] ” and do not “unfa irly or inequitably distribute voting power among secur i t y h olders” (interna l quotation marks omitted)); Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne

, 525 F.3d 23, 30-31 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (aut h orization to obtain land “for I ndians” contains intelligible principle), cert. denied

, 129 S. Ct. 1002 (2009). See g en er a lly W hitman

, 531 U.S. at 472-76. “I n light of these prec edents, one cannot plausibly arg ue that [29 U.S.C. § 652(8)’ s “re asonabl y

nece ssary or appropr iate t o provide safe or healthful employ ment and place s of employ ment”] stand ar d is not an intelligible principle.” Touby

, 500 U.S. at 165. Acc ording ly

, we reje ct the NMSA’s non-de leg ation challeng e.

III.

For the fore g oing rea sons, we deny the NMSA’s petition for revie w in larg e par

t; we also g rant the pe tition i n part, va cating and rema nding only that portion of the VTL Standard providing for the inspection require ment for ship-to-shore VT L s and the total ban on platform c ontainer V TL s.
So ordered

.