448 U.S. 607 (1980), 78-911, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute

Docket NºNo. 78-911
Citation448 U.S. 607, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010
Party NameIndustrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute
Case DateJuly 02, 1980
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 607

448 U.S. 607 (1980)

100 S.Ct. 2844, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010

Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO

v.

American Petroleum Institute

No. 78-911

United States Supreme Court

July 2, 1980

Argued October 10, 1979

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act) delegates broad authority to the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to promulgate standards to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for the Nation's workers (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) being the agency responsible for carrying out this authority). Section 3(8) of the Act defines an "occupational safety and health standard" as a standard that is "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment." Where toxic materials or harmful physical agents are concerned, a standard must also comply with § 6(b)(5), which directs the Secretary to

set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity.

When the toxic material or harmful physical agent to be regulated is a carcinogen, the Secretary has taken the position that no safe exposure level can be determined, and that § 6(b)(5) requires him to set an exposure limit at the lowest technologically feasible level that will not impair the viability of the industries regulated. In this case, after having determined that there is a causal connection between benzene (a toxic substance used in manufacturing such products as motor fuels, solvents, detergents, and pesticides) and leukemia (a cancer of the white blood cells), the Secretary promulgated a standard reducing the permissible exposure limit on airborne concentrations of benzene from the consensus standard of 10 parts benzene per million parts of air (10 ppm) to 1 ppm, and prohibiting dermal contact with solutions containing benzene. On preenforcement review, the Court of Appeals held the standard invalid because it was based on findings unsupported by the administrative record. The court concluded that OSHA had exceeded its standard-setting authority because it had not been shown that the 1 ppm exposure limit was "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe and healthful employment" as required by § 3(8), and that

Page 608

§ 6(b)(5) did not give OSHA the unbridled discretion to adopt standards designed to create absolutely risk-free workplaces, regardless of cost.

Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 630-662; 667-671; 672-688.

581 F.2d 493, affirmed.

MR. .JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, MR. .JUSTICE STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE POWELL, concluded that the standard in question is invalid. Pp. 630-652, 658-659.

(a) The Court of Appeals was correct in refusing to enforce the 1 ppm exposure limit on the ground that it was not supported by appropriate findings. OSHA's rationale for lowering the permissible exposure limit from 10 ppm to 1 ppm was based not on any finding that leukemia has ever been caused by exposure to 10 ppm of benzene, and that it will not be caused by exposure to 1 ppm, but, rather, on a series of assumptions indicating that some leukemia might result from exposure to 10 ppm, and that the number of cases might be reduced by lowering the exposure level to 1 ppm. Pp. 630-638.

(b) By empowering the Secretary to promulgate standards that are "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment" as required by § 3(8), the Act implies that, before promulgating any standard, the Secretary must make a finding that the workplaces in question are not safe. But "safe" is not the equivalent of "risk-free." A workplace can hardly be considered "unsafe" unless it threatens the workers with a significant risk of harm. Therefore, before the Secretary can promulgate any permanent health or safety standard, he must make a threshold finding that the place of employment is unsafe in the sense that significant risks are present and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices. This requirement applies to permanent standards promulgated pursuant to § 6(b)(5), as well as to other types of permanent standards, there being no reason why § 3(8)'s definition of a standard should not be deemed incorporated by reference into § 6(b)(5). Moreover, requiring the Secretary to make a threshold finding of significant risk is consistent with the scope of his regulatory power under § 6(b)(5) to promulgate standards for "toxic materials" and "harmful physical agents." This interpretation is supported by other provisions of the Act, such as § 6(g), which requires the Secretary, in determining the priority for establishing standards, to give due regard to the urgency of the need for mandatory safety and health standards for particular industries or workplaces, and § 6(b)(8), which requires the Secretary, when he substantially alters an

Page 609

existing consensus standard, to explain how the new rule will "better effectuate" the Act's purposes. Pp. 639-646.

(c) The Act's legislative history also supports the conclusion that Congress was concerned not with absolute safety, but with the elimination of significant harm. Pp. 646-652.

(d) Where the Secretary relied on a special policy for carcinogens that imposed the burden on industry of proving the existence of a safe level of exposure, thereby avoiding his threshold responsibility of establishing the need for more stringent standards, he exceeded his power. Pp. 658-659.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER and MR. JUSTICE STEWART, also concluded that:

1. The burden was on OSHA to show, on the basis of substantial evidence, that it is at least more likely than not that long-term exposure to 10 ppm of benzene presents a significant risk of material health impairment. Here, OSHA did not even attempt to carry such burden of proof. Imposing such a burden on OSHA will not strip it of its ability to regulate carcinogens, nor will it require it to wait for deaths to occur before taking any action. The requirement that a "significant" risk be identified is not a mathematical straitjacket; OSHA is not required to support its finding that a significant risk exists with anything approaching scientific certainty; and the record in this case and OSHA's own rulings on other carcinogens indicate that there are a number of ways in which OSHA can make a rational judgment about the relative significance of the risks associated with [100 S.Ct. 2848] exposure to a particular carcinogen. Pp. 652-658.

2. OSHA did not make the required finding with respect to the dermal contact ban that the ban was "reasonably necessary and appropriate" to remove a significant risk of harm from such contact, but, rather, acted on the basis of the absolute, no-risk policy that it applies to carcinogens under the assumptions not only that benzene in small doses is a carcinogen but also that it can be absorbed through the skin in sufficient amounts to present a carcinogenic risk. These assumptions are not a proper substitute for the findings of significant risk of harm required by the Act. Pp. 659-662.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL, agreeing that neither the airborne concentration standard nor the dermal contact standard satisfied the Act's requirements, would not hold that OSHA did not even attempt to carry its burden of proof on the threshold question whether exposure to benzene at 10 ppm presents a significant risk to human health. He concluded that, even assuming OSHA had met such burden, the Act also requires OSHA to determine that the economic effects of its standard bear a

Page 610

reasonable relationship to the expected benefits. A standard is neither "reasonably necessary" nor "feasible," as required by the Act, if it calls for expenditures wholly disproportionate to the expected health and safety benefits. Here, although OSHA did find that the "substantial costs" of the benzene regulations were justified, the record contains neither adequate documentation of this conclusion nor any evidence that OSHA weighed the relevant considerations. The agency simply announced its finding of cost justification without explaining the method by which it determined that the benefits justified the costs and their economic effects. Pp. 667-671.

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST would invalidate, as constituting an invalid delegation of legislative authority to the Secretary, the relevant portion of § 6(b)(5) of the Act as it applies to any toxic substance or harmful physical agent for which a safe level is, according to the Secretary, unknown or otherwise "infeasible." In the case of such substances, the language of § 6(b)(5) gives the Secretary absolutely no indication where on the continuum of relative safety he should set the standard. Nor is there anything in the legislative history, the statutory context, or any other source traditionally examined by this Court, that provides specificity to the feasibility criterion in § 6(b)(5). Pp. 672-688.

STEVENS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, J., joined, and in Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, III-C, and III-E of which POWELL, J., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 662. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 664. REHNQUIST, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 671. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 688.

Page 611

STEVENS, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE STEWART joined and in Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, III-C, and III-E of which MR. JUSTICE POWELL joined.

The Occupational Safety and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
242 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 04, 2004
    • October 4, 2004
    ...working lifetime to be a significant health risk. See the Benzene standard, Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 646 ((1980); the Asbestos standard, International Union, UAW v. Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 393 (D.C. Cir. A standard is technologically feasible ......
  • Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 11, 2018
    • December 11, 2018
    ...present and that such risk can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices. See Indus. Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 42 (1980) (plurality opinion) (``Benzene''). OSHA need not make additional findings on risk for this proposal because OSHA previously dete......
  • Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards; Eye and Face Protection
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 25, 2016
    • March 25, 2016
    ...and the standard would substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk. See Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980). OSHA already determined that requirements specified by eye and face protection standards, including design requirements, are reasonably ......
  • Safety and health standards: Hexavalent chromium; occupational exposure,
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 04, 2004
    • October 4, 2004
    ...working lifetime to be a significant health risk. See the Benzene standard, Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 646 ((1980); the Asbestos standard, International Union, UAW v. Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 393 (D.C. Cir. A standard is technologically feasible ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 cases
  • Smith v Libya
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 10, 1997
    ...we would construe an act of Congress to have such an effect. Cf. Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum InstituteUNK, 448 U.S. 607, 64546, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 286566, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1980) (delegation of Congressional power narrowly construed to avoid constitutional issue). Ther......
7 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court ruling confirming the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 28, 2010
    ...Framers, who were “practical statesmen,” not metaphysical philosophers. Industrial Union Dept., AFL–CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 673 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). As we have explained, “the framers of the Constitution were not merevisionaries, toying......
  • American Sports As A Target of Terrorism: The Duty of Care After September 11th
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 24, 2003
    ...would be to hold employers strictly liable for any injury to an employee. See Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980); Brennan v. OSHRC, 502 F.2d 956 (3d Cir. 1974); National Realty & Constr. Co. v. OSHRC, 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973). While th......
  • “A Causal Relationship Need Not Have Been Proved”
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • April 8, 2010
    ...exposure standards that could never hold up in a common-law tort case. See Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 656 (1980) (“OSHA is not required to support its finding that a significant risk exists with anything approaching scientific certainty” and “......
  • The TCE Noncancer Reference Concentration: Changing the Method of Weighing the Scientific Evidence Without First Reaching Consensus
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • January 13, 2016
    ...title>35 America Petroleum Inst. v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176, 1186–87 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 36 Indus. Union Dep’t v API, 448 U.S. 607, 656 (1980) (plurality decision); Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 824 Fd.2d 1146, 1165 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (unanimous en banc decision, noting that the cancer poten......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
132 books & journal articles
  • Soundscape history and environmental law in the Supreme Court.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 45 Nbr. 4, September 2015
    • September 22, 2015
    ...444 Harriet Species U.S. 51 (1979) Shapiro Protection 10/10/1979 Indus. Union Dep't v. William Alsup Workplace Am. Petroleum Inst., Toxics 448 U.S. 607 (1980) 10/1/1979 Kaiser Aetna v. United Kathryn Public Rights States, 444 U.S. 164 Oberly to Waterways (1979) 12/3/1979 Ohio v. Kentucky, 4......
  • Employment-related crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 37 Nbr. 2, March 2000
    • March 22, 2000
    ...working conditions...." 29 U.S.C. [sections] 651(b) (1994); cf. Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 646 (1980) (reasoning legislative history of the OSH Act "supports the conclusion that Congress was concerned, not with absolute safety, but w......
  • Liberty requires accountability: checking delegations to independent agencies.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 38 Nbr. 2, March - March 2015
    • March 22, 2015
    ...v. Ass'n of Am. R.R., 135 S. Ct. 1225, 1234 (2015) (Alito, J., concurring). See also Indus. Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 685 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) ("[The nondelegation doctrine] ensures ... that important choices of social policy are made by C......
  • Paralyzing Discord: Workplace Safety, Paternalism, and the Accommodation of Biological Variance in the Americans with Disabilities Act
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review Nbr. 63-2, January 2003
    • January 1, 2003
    ...are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees"). [220] See Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 641, 100 S. Ct. 2844, 2863-64 (1980); Mark A Rothstein, Occupational Safety and Health Law 207-208, 213-214, 215-216 (4th ed. [221] 499 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
56 provisions
  • Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 10, 2014
    • October 10, 2014
    ...first articulated in a plurality decision of the Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980), commonly referred to as the Benzene case. The petitioners challenged OSHA's rule lowering the PEL for benzene from 10 ppm to 1 ppm. In......
  • COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard
    • United States
    • Occupational Safety And Health Administration
    • Invalid date
    ...OSHA's determination that eighty lives at risk over six months was a grave danger); Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n.62 (1980). However, a ``grave danger'' represents a risk greater than the ``significant risk'' that OSHA must show in order to promulga......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 24, 2006
    • August 24, 2006
    ...v. Marshall, 630 F.2d 398, 413 n. 48 (5th Cir. 1980), citing Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO-CIC v. American petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 661 In past rulemakings, OSHA's conclusions as to the best available evidence have been upheld as based on substantial evidence when it has relied ......
  • Hazard Communication
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 26, 2012
    • March 26, 2012
    ...OSHA standard address a significant risk and reduce this risk significantly. See Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980). As discussed in Sections IV and V of this preamble, OSHA finds that inadequate communication Page 17575 employees regarding the hazar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT