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

Heading: Required research and development

Text: 64 The Secretary's standard requires that if, after implementation of all the required controls, the permissible exposure limit has not been met by January 20, 1980, 65 employers shall research, develop and implement any other engineering and work practice controls necessary to reduce exposure to or below the permissible exposure limit. 66 41 Fed.Reg. 46785. 67 Petitioners attack this requirement contending that requiring employers to engage in unlimited research and development is not authorized by the Act. Although the Secretary may raise standards which require improvement in existing technologies or which require the development of new technology, Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. OSHA, supra, at 1309, petitioners note that the Secretary's technology-forcing power is limited to technology that looms on today's horizon. American Federation of Labor v. Brennan, supra, 530 F.2d at 131. The petitioners also contend that the requirement is fatally vague, providing no indication of the limit or magnitude of the employer's obligation. The Government maintains that the requirement is valid technology-forcing and that it is not fatally vague. 68 29 U.S.C. § 665(b)(5) grants authority to the Secretary to develop and promulgate standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful agents based upon research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as may be appropriate. Under the same statutory provision the Secretary is directed to consider the latest scientific data in the field. As we have construed the statute, the Secretary can impose a standard which requires an employer to implement technology looming on today's horizon, and is not limited to issuing a standard solely based upon technology that is fully developed today. Nevertheless, the statute does not permit the Secretary to place an affirmative duty on each employer to research and develop new technology. Moreover, the speculative nature of the research and development provisions renders any assessment of feasibility practically impossible. In holding that the Secretary lacks statutory authorization to promulgate the research and development provision, we note in passing that we need not reach petitioners' challenge to the provision as fatally vague. Accordingly, we hold the research and development provision of the standard to be invalid and unenforceable.