Opinion ID: 543586
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: validity of the hcs

Text: 17 The Company's alternative argument is that if the Secretary's interpretation of the disclosure requirement, as applied to the MSDS, is correct, then she exceeded her statutory authority in promulgating the HCS (in 1983). Section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 655 et seq., authorizes the Secretary to promulgate a standard prescribing the use of ... appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed.... Durez contends that requiring disclosure of all potential health hazards of a chemical, regardless of foreseeable exposure levels, is not necessary to ensure that employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed. 18 This argument, while not addressed in and therefore not foreclosed by General Carbon, is not properly before us because it was not effectively raised before the Commission in the Company's Petition for Discretionary Review of the ALJ's decision. The PDR does list, as one of five issues raised, whether the Standard exceed[s] the statutory authority granted, but it nowhere discusses this issue, nor does it cite any authority or otherwise put the Commission on notice of the nature of or basis for its challenge. See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2200.91(d) (a petition should concisely state the portions of the decision for which review is sought). Because 29 U.S.C. Sec. 660(a) provides that [n]o objection that has not been urged before the Commission shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect ... be excused by extraordinary circumstances, and because we find that the petitioner's abbreviated mention of its challenge to the validity of the Standard is wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirement of Sec. 660(a) that an objection be 'urged before the Commission,'  Power Plant Div., Brown & Root, Inc. v. OSHRC, 659 F.2d 1291, 1293 (5th Cir.1981), we conclude that the petitioner failed to preserve this challenge for judicial review.