American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Marshall
| Citation | 199 U.S.App.D.C. 54,617 F.2d 636 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | 78-1736,CL,I,78-1979,AFL-CIO,POINT-PEPPEREL,Nos. 78-1562,AFL-CI,INC,s. 78-1562 |
| Parties | , 7 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1775, 1979 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 23,963 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS et al., Petitioners, v. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, et al., Respondents. COTTON WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U. S. Department of Labor. AMERICAN TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC., Petitioner, v. Dr. Eula BINGHAM, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Respondents, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; Industrial Union Department,; and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,, CLC, Intervenors. AMERICAN TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC., Petitioner, v. Dr. Eula BINGHAM, Assistant Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Respondents,, etc., Intervenors, (two cases). MILLIKEN AND COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor and Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Respondents. ARKWRIGHT MILLS, Petitioner, v. F. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Respondents. SPARTAN MILLS, Petitioner, v. F. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Respondents. BLAIR MILLS, INC., Petitioner, v. F. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Respondents. HERMITAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. F. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary, Department of Labor, and Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occup |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
George H. Cohen, Washington, D. C., with whom Robert M. Weinberg, Jeremiah A. Collins, David M. Silverman, Laurence Gold, Judith Kincaid, Raleigh, N. C., J. Albert Woll, Elliot Bredhoff and Arthur M. Goldberg, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for AFL-CIO, et al. petitioner in No. 78-1562, and intervenors in Nos. 78-1979, 78-1980 and 78-1981.
Robert E. Payne, Richmond, Va., with whom John S. Battle, Jr., Richmond. Va., Gregory B. Tobin, Greenville, S. C., Edward W. Warren and Arthur F. Sampson III, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioners American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc., et al. in Nos. 78-1562, 78-1979, 78-1980, 78-1981 and 78-1993.
Harlan H. Huntley and Roger L. Tuttle, Danville, Va., were on the brief, for petitioner Dan River, Inc. in No. 78-1988.
Robert T. Thompson, Greenville S. C., with whom Gary S. Klein, Greenville, S. C., was on the brief, for petitioner Milliken and Company in Nos. 78-1982, 78-1986 and 78-1987.
Samuel K. Abrams and Brian E. Moran, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for petitioner Cone Mills Corp. in No. 78-1989.
Carl W. Vogt, Washington, D. C., with whom Joyce E. Reback and Neal P. Gillen, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner Cotton Warehouse Association, et al., in Nos. 78-1736, 78-2013 and 78-2014.
Dan M. Byrd, Jr., New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner Springs Mills, Inc. in No. 78-1991.
Robert E. Gregory, Jr., Spartanburg, S. C., was on the brief, for petitioner Sparton Mills in No. 78-1984.
Lovic A. Brooks, Jr. and Charles A. Edwards, Atlanta, Ga., were on brief, for petitioner Riegel Textile Corporation, in No. 78-1992.
Neil Jay King, Alan N. Braverman and Max O. Truitt, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner West Point Pepperell, Inc., in No. 78-2018.
Charles M. Crump, Memphis, Tenn., was on the brief, for petitioner National Cotton Council of America in No. 78-2016.
Allen H. Feldman and John A. Bryson, Attys., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., with whom Thomas L. Holzman, Laura V. Fargas, Gail Lindsay Simmons, Attys., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Allen A. Lauterbach, Park Ridge, Ill., was on the brief, for Amicus Curiae urging the Secretary's order to be vacated in No. 78-1562.
Before BAZELON, Senior Circuit Judge, and TAMM and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge BAZELON.
These consolidated petitions 1 for review challenge a new permanent health standard limiting occupational exposure to cotton dust, 2 which was promulgated by regulation on June 19, 1978 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department To assist a proper understanding of the issues, we discuss (I) the history and context of the agency's action; (II) the nature of our review under the Act; (III) the claims of the textile industry; (IV) the claims of the non-textile industries; and (V) challenges to a few technical provisions of the standard.
of Labor (OSHA), under section 6(b)(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act). 3 OSHA's action, which rests on its determination that occupational exposure to cotton dust presents a material health hazard to workers, is attacked by three groups of petitioners: (1) representatives of the cotton textile industry 4 and (2) nontextile industries 5 who claim that the standard is unwarranted and infeasible; and (3) their employee unions, who attack two provisions of the standard as too lax, but support the rest. 6 These very divergent claims reflect the wide variety of conflicting interests that make OSHA's task a difficult one. On direct review, 7 we uphold the standard except for its application to the cottonseed oil industry which we remand for clarification or reconsideration
Health impairments associated with exposure to cotton dust range from acute but reversible reactions to irreversible, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 8 Cotton dust exposure can produce or aggravate respiratory symptoms characteristic of chronic bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema. 9 Further, a specific, debilitating disease has been conclusively attributed to the effect of cotton dust on the respiratory passages. This disease, named byssinosis, is more commonly known in its chronic stage as "brown lung disease." 10 This is the most serious health hazard for cotton workers.
Although the prevalence of the disease among cotton workers has been known for centuries, 11 its exact etiology is still not Typically, a person suffering from byssinosis is initially affected by irritated air passages, coughing, breathlessness, and chest tightness. These symptoms are often accompanied by decreased pulmonary functioning, evidenced by objective indicators. At first the symptoms tend to last briefly, and usually remit a few days after exposure. The symptoms recur, however, whenever an affected individual returns to a dusty environment.
completely understood. 12 The subjective nature of many early symptoms 13 and variations in the composition of cotton dust 14 have compounded the uncertainties about the...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lead Industries Ass'n, Inc. v. E.P.A.
...It is not our function to resolve disagreement among the experts or to judge the merits of competing expert views. AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 617 F.2d 636, 651 & n.66 (D.C.Cir.1979); cf. Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F.2d 91, 115 (D.C.Cir.1978) ("(c)hoice among scientific test data is precisely the t......
-
Sierra Club v. Costle
...Sciences. Id.277 Brief for Respondent EPA at 31 (citing National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 432-33 (D.C.Cir.1980); AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 617 F.2d 636 (D.C.Cir.1979), vacated in part, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 56, 66 L.Ed.2d 12, cert. granted in part, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 68, 66 L.Ed......
-
International Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agr. Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., s. 89-1559
... ... Department ... of Labor, Respondent, ... The Dow Chemical Company, ... Stringham for American Petroleum Institute, were on the joint brief, for ... fields but with those of ordinary industrial equipment that may suddenly move and cut or crush ... Association of Manufacturers that Congress has given so little guidance for rules issued ... at 692, 100 S.Ct. at 2889 (Marshall, J., dissenting) ... Moreover, ... American Federation of Labor v. Marshall, 617 F.2d 636, 662-63 ... ...
-
American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc v. Donovan National Cotton Council of America v. Donovan, s. 79-1429
...determination or statement of reasons that this requirement was related to achievement of health and safety goals. Pp. 536-540. 199 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 617 F.2d 636, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Robert H. Bork, New Haven, Conn., for petitioners. Kenneth S. Geller, Washingto......
-
CHAPTER 9 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION: SELECTED TOPICS
...supra, at 749. [37] E.g., Hearings at 430. [38] O'Reilly, supra, at 769. [39] 487 F.2d 342, 349 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.). [40] 617 F.2d 636, 649 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (Bazelon, J.) ("substantial evidence" test more stringent than "arbitrary and capricious" test). [41] 15 U.S.C. § 2618(c) (1......