Opinion ID: 483233
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the merits of the october 21 decision

Text: 59 The Secretary's October 21 decision presents a novel question for judicial review: can the Secretary after completion of rulemaking proceedings, decide not to promulgate a proposed occupational safety or health standard he finds to be necessary to fulfill the purposes of the OSH Act solely in the hope that state governments will provide equivalent protection within the next two years? In this case, the new Secretary announced he was reversing his predecessor's decision not to issue a regulation because of his own assessment that there was clear evidence in the record of unacceptable risks to the health of farmworkers arising from the currently inadequate provision of sanitary facilities and drinking water. 50 Fed.Reg. at 42,660. In reconsidering his predecessor's April 16 decision not to issue a field sanitation standard at all, the Secretary emphasized that he had thoroughly reviewed [not only] the evidence in the record ... [but] the policy reasons behind that [earlier] determination, [including] the severe limitations on OSHA's resources [and] OSHA's other priorities. Id. At the end of that review, the Secretary reached a determination that further regulation is required to deal with farmworkers' health problems, and explicitly commit[ed] OSHA to the issuance of a federal field sanitation standard within 24 months in the event the states do not take the necessary action within the next 18 months. Id. Thus, it is critical to keep in mind that in reviewing the Secretary's October 21 decision, the court is not evaluating the Secretary's fundamental administrative decision about how best to allocate his agency's resources or to order its priorities. The Secretary has already made that decision in favor of federal regulation of farmworkers' sanitation needs, based on current conditions. Rather, the court is reviewing only the second part of the Secretary's decision that, once the need for a particular occupational health standard has been shown in a rulemaking proceeding, the Secretary may nonetheless refuse to promulgate it, because of a desire or hope that the states will fill the regulatory gap. We will conduct this review in accordance with the standards set forth in Part II of this opinion. 11 A. The Impermissibility of the Secretary's First Two Justifications 60 We first consider the import of the Secretary's frequent assertions that state regulation of field sanitation is preferable to federal regulation, terminology repeated at three separate points in his October 21 decision. Id. at 42,661 (emphasis added); see also id. at 42,660 (further regulation, preferably on a state level, is needed to protect farmers adequately). This language is open to several different but not necessarily mutually exclusive interpretations. 61 1. The Secretary's belief about appropriate federal-state relations 62 The October 21 decision appears to argue that in our American system of government, state regulation in aid of social needs or welfare is usually preferable to federal regulation for two reasons: citizens feel more in touch or at home with their state or local governments than with the federal bureaucracy in Washington and state governments are generally more competent to regulate than their federal counterpart. Indeed, in the October 21 decision, the Secretary emphasized that [s]tates without field sanitation standards can draw on their closer relationship with their constituents, both growers and farmworkers, and their long experience with analogous public health problems to promulgate and enforce appropriate standards, and continued that [s]anitation, like many other public health issues, has traditionally been a primary concern of state and local officials. Id. at 42,661. These remarks suggest that the October 21 decision was motivated, in part, by the Secretary's concept about the proper roles of the federal and state governments in our system. The earlier April 16 decision was even more explicit in this respect:  'Federalism' involves a concept designed to restore an appropriate balance of responsibility between state & federal government.... 50 Fed.Reg. at 15,090. Because in October the Secretary stated that he continues to believe that state action ... would be preferable to ... federal action, we must assume that the October decision was based, at least to some degree, upon his particular view of apprropriate federal-state relations. 50 Fed.Reg. at 42,660. 63 To the extent, then, that the October decision rests on such a preference, the Secretary acted beyond the scope of his discretion. 12 Although the Secretary might prefer that state governments regulate public health issues because they have traditionally been a primary concern of state and local officials, Congress, in adopting the OSH Act, decided that the federal government would take the lead in regulating the field of occupational health. However much the Secretary might wish to restore what he considers to be an appropriate balance of responsibility between state and federal governments, he is bound to enforce what Congress already determined to be the appropriate balance of responsibility between state and federal governments in the field of occupational health and safety. See American Textile, 452 U.S. at 509, 101 S.Ct. at 2490. In short, the Secretary may not withhold or delay issuance of a standard within his jurisdiction because he holds a different vision of the federal government's role in this field than the role envisioned by Congress and enacted into law in the OSH statute. 64 Congress was most explicit about its own determination that the time had come for the federal government to assume primary responsibility for developing standards in the field of occupational health and safety. The OSH Act was premised on the following finding: 65 The Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy, through the exercise of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources ... by authorizing the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to business affecting interstate commerce.... 66 29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(b) (emphasis added). 67 Recognizing that its decision to regulate occupational safety and health at the national level would subordinate the role of state regulation in this field, Congress adopted a specific mechanism whereby state governments could subsequently assume responsibility for the further development and enforcement of workplace safety and health standards after initial issuance by the Secretary. Section 18(b) of the OSH Act states: 68 Any State, which, at any time, desires to assume responsibility for development and enforcement therein of occupational safety and health standards relating to any occupational safety or health issue with respect to which a Federal standard has been promulgated under section 655 of this title shall submit a state plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement. 69 29 U.S.C. Sec. 667(b). Section 18(c) goes on to provide that the Secretary of Labor shall approve a state plan if, among other things, the plan will be at least as effective in providing safe and health employment and places of employment [as a standard] under section 655 of this title which relate[s] to the same issues.... 29 U.S.C. Sec. 667(c) (emphasis added). 70 Thus, Sec. 18 allows, and indeed encourages, 13 states to take charge of enforcement and development of standards, but in the context of a structure that requires the federal government to approve the state plan for meeting a national standard. Although Sec. 18(a) lets state standards stay in place until there are federal standards in effect, there is no textual authorization whatsoever for the Secretary to withhold a federal standard simply because he would prefer state governments to take over the responsibility. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 667(a). 71 The legislative history of the OSH Act is replete with evidence that Congress explicitly considered the issue of federal-state relations and determined that the federal government, within the limits of its resources, must assume responsibility for initiating standards in the occupational health field. Both Reports emphasized the need for federal, as opposed to state, regulations in the workplace. The Senate Report stated: 72 The problem of assuring safe and healthful workplaces for our working men and women ranks in importance with any that engage the national attention today.... 73