Opinion ID: 356961
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Performance standard combined with controls and procedures

Text: 58 Petitioners contend that combining a performance standard with mandatory controls and procedures exceeds the Secretary's power. In support of their attack on this double-barrelled standard, petitioners point to the statutory grant of power, section 6(b)(5), which states whenever practicable, the standard promulgated shall be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the performance desired. 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5) (1970). Then, petitioners point to section 6(b)(7) which states: where appropriate, such standard shall also prescribe . . . control or technological procedures. 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(7) (1970). Petitioners argue that when a performance standard has been adopted under section 6(b)(5) the additional imposition of specific engineering controls under section 6(b)(7) to achieve that level is clearly not appropriate because (s)etting forth inflexible requirements of particular methods would be effective only if the Secretary could anticipate all possible problems and devise a uniform approach appropriate to each. Industrial Union Department v. Hodgson, supra, 162 U.S.App. at 338, 499 F.2d at 484. Furthermore, petitioners note that the Secretary rejected imposition of specific controls in the proposed rules. Petitioners argue that because the record contains no evidence to rebut that prior conclusion, and because the standard makes no effort to explain the change, the Secretary is foreclosed from requiring industry to apply controls he had previously rejected. SOCMA I, supra, at 1160. 59 Petitioners' contention as to the propriety of the double-barrelled standard is devoid of support. First, section 6(b)(5) authorizes the Secretary to set the standard which most adequately assures . . . that no employee will suffer material impairment of health. 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5) (1970). We discern nothing in the language cited by petitioners in sections 6(b)(5) and (7) to indicate lack of power to combine a performance standard with controls and procedures. Second, petitioners' reliance on the language from Hodgson is misleading for while the court approved non-mandatory controls for certain aspects of a plan to reduce asbestos concentrations, the decision did uphold a standard in which the Secretary combined a maximum permissible exposure level with certain required work practices. 162 U.S.App.D.C. at 347, 499 F.2d at 483. Third, because the statutory objective is to adequately assure that employees will not suffer material impairment of health while at work, it becomes self-defeating to bar the use of reasonable and effective engineering controls and work practices to achieve such purpose. 60 Furthermore, we disagree with petitioners' contention that the Secretary failed to explain his policy reversal in requiring work practices and engineering controls. At 41 Fed.Reg. 46760 the Secretary stated: 61 (T)he final rule, unlike the proposal requires specific minimum engineering and work practice controls for byproduct coke ovens, which constitute about 99% of the coking industry. OSHA believes this approach is appropriate because (1) while there are some differences among the 65 coke oven plants with 236 coke oven batteries, their design and operation are similar; and (2) much of the technology which is required by the final rule has been available for some time. . . . (W)e are confident that as described more fully below the specified controls will significantly reduce employee exposures and that these controls represent minimum controls which are necessary to protect employee health. 62 Based on the record developed in the informal rulemaking proceedings, including the advisory committee, the agency has determined that the engineering controls and work practices specified below are the essential minimum constituents of an effective emission control program and that they are technologically feasible on nearly all of the existing coke oven batteries. 63 We believe the Secretary's policy decision to require implementation of work practices and engineering controls in combination with a performance standard is supported by the record and that discussion of the requirement in the standard meets the SOCMA I test of supplying a reasoned analysis reflecting considerations of relevant factors.