Opinion ID: 380737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the Secretary's Action Rational?

Text: 29 The Secretary has delayed action on the field sanitation standards because he has given priority to the development of other standards. El Congreso argues that this setting of priorities was irrational. The district court agreed, concluding that the Secretary (had) not established any criteria which would enable the Court to determine that the agency (had) acted in a rational manner. 31 We disagree. 30 On this review, a court examines agency action to determine whether it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 32 31 To make (such a) finding the court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. 33 32 Here, the Secretary, both in his initial presentation to the district court and in his later responses to interrogatories, has outlined the criteria which he used in setting his priorities. 34 He has explained at length how the application of those criteria produced the set of priorities he developed. 35 The criteria selected by the Secretary adequately reflect the purposes and provisions of the statute, and are rational within that context. 36 Though other relevant criteria could be imagined, and though even given the Secretary's criteria a different set of priorities could be developed, it is not the function of a reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary, where the Secretary has reasonably exercised his discretion. In our view, the Secretary has acted reasonably in this instance, and the district court developed its own view of appropriate priorities for standards development 37 and this was error. 33 The district court's own view of appropriate priorities disregarded, without warrant, material findings made by the agency. For example, the Secretary specifically concluded that rulemaking concerning the field sanitation standard would be quite lengthy, involving the allocation of substantial resources (approximately 3600 man-hours). The Secretary also concluded that the greatest hazards to agricultural employees had already been remedied, and that other industries merited allocation of the available resources (the accident rate in the agricultural industry was fifth among eight major groupings). The district court emphasized almost exclusively the number of employees to be benefited, ignoring numerous other criteria considered by the Secretary such as the nature and the severity of the hazard exposure. 34 This court is of the view that greater respect is due the Secretary's judgment that promulgation of a cancer policy, a lead standard, an anhydrous amonia standard and the like, merited higher priority than a field sanitation standard. With its broader perspective, and access to a broad range of undertakings, and not merely the program before the court, the agency has a better capacity than the court to make the comparative judgments involved in determining priorities and allocating resources. The district court impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the agency. 35 At another level, El Congreso indicts the Secretary's modus operandi in approaching problems of occupational health and safety. It argues that the Department is dissipating its energy by undertaking a myriad of entirely new ventures (in a) 'shot gun' approach (which) means that hundreds of standards are simultaneously 'being developed' but that few are ever finalized. 38 Such an approach, El Congreso argues, is so irrational a use of agency resources as to be an abuse of power. We cannot agree. 36 The Occupational Health and Safety Act represents an attempt by Congress to address wide-ranging, serious, and complicated problems. The Secretary already has promulgated standards addressing significant problems in a number of areas, 39 including some covering the most serious hazards in the agricultural industry. 40 The development of additional standards is proceeding. The Act clearly envisaged such a broad scope approach to the problem, with the informed discretion of the Secretary guiding decisions regarding the number of projects to be undertaken at one time. The 18-month plan submitted by the Secretary is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. 37