Opinion ID: 584066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: other union issues

Text: 84 Union petitioners raise several other issues that deserve comment.
85 The union challenges OSHA's use of the ACGIH recommendations on two grounds. First, OSHA only considered for this rulemaking those substances for which the ACGIH has recommended a limit more protective than the existing PEL or for which there was no existing PEL. 54 Fed.Reg. at 2372; 53 Fed.Reg. at 20967. The union argues that this decision to limit the scope of this rulemaking in such a way was inconsistent with the agency's duty to set the standards which most adequately assure[ ] ... that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity from exposure to toxic substances. See 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5). We disagree. 86 As previously noted, we find nothing in the OSH Act that prohibits OSHA from combining multiple substances in one rulemaking, as long as the statutory requirements are met for each substance. Neither do we find a requirement that OSHA include all possible substances in one rulemaking. OSHA has never claimed that this Air Contaminants Standard constituted the total universe of substances needing regulation, and it seems reasonable that some limit needed to be set as to what substances could be considered in this rulemaking. The list of ACGIH recommendations is a rational choice as the source for that limitation. The ACGIH recommendations are clearly well known to industry and the safety and health community. 32 Therefore, we find that the agency's choice to so limit this rulemaking is a valid exercise of OSHA's authority to set priorities for rulemaking. See id. § 655(g). The Act is sufficiently flexible to allow OSHA to initially determine whether or not there will be a standard ... [and] to process higher priority standards more quickly. National Congress of Hispanic Am. Citizens v. Usery, 554 F.2d 1196, 1199 (D.C.Cir.1977). 87 Petitioners also challenge OSHA's extensive use of the ACGIH recommendations for individual substances. Petitioners claim that OSHA did no more than adopt wholesale the ACGIH recommendations without independently analyzing the evidence supporting those recommendations. It is not clear from the record if OSHA independently reviewed the individual studies cited by the ACGIH, or merely the ACGIH summary of that data. See 53 Fed.Reg. at 20965 (OSHA has concentrated its efforts on reviewing summaries of the major studies, with emphasis on the literature used to support the exposure limits proposed by NIOSH and ACGIH....). However, we do not believe that OSHA is required to independently research all aspects of its rules. The Act authorizes the agency to employ expert consultants, 29 U.S.C. § 656(c), and OSHA is entitled to rely on such consultants, as well as studies in the scientific literature, as a basis for its PELs. See United Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1217. To that extent, OSHA is entitled to rely on the recommendations and documentation of the ACGIH, as it may rely on any other consulting organizations. 88 Use of such consultants, however, does not relieve OSHA of the responsibility for making detailed findings, with adequate explanations, for all statutory criteria. The recommendations of a consultant are not always based on the criteria required by the statute. As it is ultimately OSHA's responsibility to make those statutory findings, OSHA must determine, based on the best available evidence, 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5), if those statutory criteria have been met, and then set forth the analysis behind that determination in an understandable way. 89 In this rulemaking, petitioners state that the ACGIH recommendations are not based on the statutory criteria 33 and that OSHA did nothing more than adopt those recommendations without any independent analysis of whether the evidence supporting those recommendations satisfied the statutory criteria. We express no opinion on this claim. However, the dearth of explanation in the rulemaking record for these 428 PELs makes it difficult to determine how the agency arrived at its conclusions. We do note that not all final PELs conformed to the ACGIH recommendation, though approximately ninety percent were identical. On remand, OSHA will be required to carefully review the evidence supporting each of the 428 PELs, and this concern should be addressed at that time. 90
91 The union also challenges OSHA's decision to defer issuing standards for monitoring and medical surveillance of the new PELs until a later rulemaking. Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act provides: 92 Where appropriate, such standard shall also prescribe suitable protective equipment and control or technological procedures to be used in connection with such hazards and shall provide for monitoring or measuring employee exposure at such locations and intervals, and in such manner as may be necessary for the protection of employees. In addition, where appropriate, any such standard shall prescribe the type and frequency of medical examinations or other tests which shall be made available, by the employer at his cost.... 93 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(7). From this, the union infers that toxic substance standards must always include provisions for monitoring. Section 6(g) clearly permits the Secretary to set priorities for the use of the agency's resources, and to promulgate standards sequentially. Auchter, 763 F.2d at 738. OSHA argues, and we agree, that this is purely a matter of regulatory priority. See 29 U.S.C. § 655(g).
94 The union also challenges OSHA's decision to allow four years, until December 31, 1992, for the implementation of engineering and work practice controls to bring industry into compliance with the new standards, while in the interim permitting compliance through the use of respirators. 54 Fed.Reg. at 2921. As a transitional provision, OSHA specified that employers must continue to achieve the 1971 PELs by adhering to the hierarchy of controls in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1000(e), as they have been required to do since 1971. 34 In adopting this four-year time period, OSHA stated that the agency's experience is that for substances of normal difficulty, one to two years is sufficient, 54 Fed.Reg. at 2916, but that a four-year period takes into account that some employers will have to control several substances and also considers those few substances where compliance may take greater efforts for some employers, id. That conclusory analysis falls short of justifying an across-the-board four-year period of delay, but is fully consistent with OSHA's treatment of this standard as a generic standard, without adequate consideration of individual substances or the effect of the new standards on individual industries. 95 This generic four-year compliance period is simply not adequately supported in the record. Unlike other standards where OSHA has exercised its technology-forcing authority and required that industries develop the technology to achieve the new standards, see United Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1264-65, in this standard, OSHA's feasibility analysis was based on what industry is already achieving or what could be achieved with standard 'off-the-shelf' technology, [and] there are few if any cases where OSHA is attempting to force technology. 54 Fed.Reg. at 2366. If the technology exists and is in many cases already being used, it is difficult to understand why four years is required for the implementation of this standard for all industries. If OSHA's concern was primarily economic feasibility, that too needed to be addressed for each industry or for each appropriate industrial grouping. 96 To the extent that there may be any unusual situations in which a feasibility problem exists, the OSH Act and the standard itself provide appropriate means of dealing with such problems without resorting to the extreme expedient of an across-the-board four-year compliance period. First, section 6(b)(6) allows an employer to obtain a temporary variance if that employer is unable to comply with a standard by its effective date because of unavailability of professional or technical personnel or of materials and equipment needed to come into compliance with the standard or because necessary construction or alteration of facilities cannot be completed by the effective date. 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(6)(A)(i). Furthermore, if the rulemaking record establishes that specific industries will need an extended period of time to comply with PELs for certain substances, OSHA could so provide, just as it allows respirator use after December 1992 for four substances in specified operations. 54 Fed.Reg. at 2335, 2916 (carbon monoxide, carbon disulfide, styrene, and sulfur dioxide). We find insufficient explanation in the record to support this across-the-board four-year delay in implementation of this rule.