DRY COLOR MFRS. ASS'N INC. v. Department of Labor, No. 73-1361

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMcLAUGHLIN, VAN DUSEN and ROSENN, Circuit
Citation486 F.2d 98
PartiesDRY COLOR MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al., Respondents. OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, and Health Research Group, Petitioners, v. Peter BRENNAN, Secretary United States Department of Labor and John Stender, Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, Petitioner, v. Peter J. BRENNAN, Secretary of Labor, and John H. Stender, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Respondents.
Docket NumberNo. 73-1361,73-1383 and 73-1638.
Decision Date04 October 1973

486 F.2d 98 (1973)

DRY COLOR MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al., Petitioners,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al., Respondents.

OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, and Health Research Group, Petitioners,
v.
Peter BRENNAN, Secretary United States Department of Labor and John Stender, Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Peter J. BRENNAN, Secretary of Labor, and John H. Stender, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Respondents.

Nos. 73-1361, 73-1383 and 73-1638.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued September 10, 1973.

Decided October 4, 1973.


486 F.2d 99
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
486 F.2d 100
Donald L. Morgan, Charles F. Lettow, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Washington, D. C., for petitioners in No. 73-1361

Alan B. Morrison, Washington, D. C., for petitioners in No. 73-1383.

Robert Barnard, Donald L. Morgan, Eric Schwartz, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Washington, D. C., for petitioners in No. 73-1638.

Irving Jaffe, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Walter H. Fleischer and James C. Hair, Jr., Attys., U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondents.

Before McLAUGHLIN, VAN DUSEN and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge.

These cases are before the court upon petitions (filed in May and June 1973) to review an order of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, published on May 3, 1973, 38 Fed.Reg. 10929, issuing an Emergency Temporary Standard on Certain Carcinogens, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.93c. The temporary standard prescribes plant operating procedures and equipment, work practices and procedures for preventing exposure to 14 chemicals said to be carcinogens. This court has jurisdiction to review and set aside the standard pursuant to section 6(f) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S. C. § 655(f).

In No. 73-1361, petitioners are Dry Color Manufacturers' Association, Inc., Sun Chemical Corporation, Inmont Corporation, H. Kohnstamm & Co., Inc., Allied Chemical Corporation, Chemetron Corporation, The Upjohn Company, Lakeway Chemicals, Inc. and Hercules, Incorporated (hereinafter "Dry Color"). Each is a manufacturer, user, or an association of users of 3,3'-dichlorobenzedine (DCB), one of the 14 chemicals. Petitioner in No. 73-1638, Aerojet-General Corporation (hereinafter "Aerojet") is a user of ethyleneimine (EI), another of the 14 chemicals subject to the Emergency Temporary Standard. The petitioners in these two cases (hereinafter "industry petitioners") raise as objections to the Emergency Temporary Standard that: (1) there is not substantial evidence in the record to show that the use of DCB and EI, respectively, satisfies the provisions of subsection 6(c)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U. S.C. § 655(c)(1), as to the conditions

486 F.2d 101
necessary to justify the promulgation of an emergency temporary standard; (2) the findings of fact and statement of reasons for the standard contained in the standard's preamble are inadequate; and (3) the Assistant Secretary violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement prior to issuance of the standard. In addition, the industry petitioners have challenged the Department of Labor's Certification of Record, charging that a substantial portion of the documents contained therein were never actually considered by the Department in its decision to issue the Emergency Standard and, therefore, should not be included in the record

Petitioners in No. 73-1383 are Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, many of whose members work in plants that manufacture or use chemicals subject to the Emergency Temporary Standard, and the Health Research Group, a non-profit organization engaged in public interest research and advocacy on health issues, including occupational health. These petitioners (hereinafter "employee petitioners") contend that the Emergency Temporary Standard falls short of preventing the impairment of worker health which the Act requires and seek to have this court order the implementation of a use permit system that would achieve zero exposure.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., (hereinafter "the Act") provides for the issuance of both permanent and emergency temporary standards.1 Under subsection 6(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 655(b), the Secretary may promulgate permanent standards by following rulemaking procedures similar to those prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., with the added assistance of a statutorily authorized Advisory Committee if deemed necessary. Under subsection 6(c), 29 U.S.C. § 655(c), on the other hand, emergency temporary standards become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register; the hearing, public comment, and other provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply. After issuing an emergency temporary standard, the Secretary must begin a permanent rulemaking process and complete that process by issuing a permanent standard within six months of the publication of the emergency temporary standard.

Subsection 6(c)(1) of the Act commands the Secretary to issue an emergency temporary standard "if he determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger," 29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(1). Subsection 6(e) provides that "whenever the Secretary promulgates any standard, . . . he shall include a statement of his reasons for such action," 29 U.S.C. § 655(e), and subsection 6(f) directs courts reviewing a standard that "the determinations of the Secretary shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole," 29 U.S.C. § 655(f).

The Emergency Temporary Standard in question was originally published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") on May 3, 1973, after about one year of consulting with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ("NIOSH") and receiving data and commentary from other interested groups. The Emergency Temporary Standard was based on the following findings, which are stated in the preamble of the standard and constitute the entire statement of reasons for its issuance:

"On the basis of all the relevant information before us, it is hereby found
486 F.2d 102
that: (1) the 14 carcinogens listed in the emergency temporary standard are toxic and physically harmful; (2) that exposure to any of the 14 substances poses a grave danger to employees; (3) that employees are presently being exposed to the substances; and (4) that the emergency temporary standard set forth below is necessary to protect the employees from such exposure." 38 Fed.Reg. 10929.

The standard goes on to prescribe plant operating procedures and equipment, work practices and procedures for preventing exposure of employees to the 14 chemicals found to cause cancer, together with a timetable of effective dates.2 In promulgating the standard, OSHA stated that as soon as possible a draft environmental impact statement would be filed with the Council on Environmental Quality and that a copy of the proposed rules would be sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for its comments under section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857 et seq. A draft environmental impact statement prepared by OSHA was received by the Council on Environmental Quality on May 21, 1973.

On July 27, 1973, OSHA issued a revision of the Emergency Temporary Standard, 38 Fed.Reg. 20074-20076, which became effective July 30, 1973. This revision was prompted by its receipt of "numerous comments, objections, and recommendations," which caused OSHA to determine "that certain changes in the standard are necessary to tailor the requirements for different types of workplaces and work operations, and to clarify the standard." Most of the changes are clarifications of pre-existing requirements; few substantive changes have been made. The revised standard deals more particularly with different work operations, such as isolated environment operations, closed system operations and open vessel operations, and the different control measures necessary to protect employees engaged in each category of operation are specified. In making these changes, OSHA expressly reconfirmed the "original findings concerning the toxicity of all the fourteen substances listed in the standard, the grave danger resulting from exposure to any of them," and that "the standard as revised is necessary and sufficient to protect employees from the grave danger from exposure to any of the substances."

I.

The Emergency Temporary Standard in question here was appropriately issued if there is substantial evidence in the record to support OSHA's determination (A) that the 14 chemicals listed in the standard are carcinogenic and, therefore, that exposure of employees to them presents a "grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful," and (B) that the emergency standard "is necessary to protect employees from such danger," 29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(1) and (f).3

486 F.2d 103

Turning first to the finding of carcinogenicity, the independent studies of Pliss, Saffiotti and Stula all support the conclusion that DCB causes cancer in rodents (rats and hamsters). Dry Color's criticisms of these studies, while significant, do not necessarily reduce their conclusions to the level of insubstantial evidence. The case for the carcinogenicity of EI, however, is weaker. The Walpole study with rats was carried out almost 20 years ago...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 practice notes
  • Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, No. 79-1451
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 19, 1981
    ...(D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 921, 94 S.Ct. 2628, 41 L.Ed.2d 226 (1974); Dry Color Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Department of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 108 (3d Cir. 1973); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Simon, 373 F.Supp. 1102, 1104-05 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 502 F.2d 1154, 1156-57 (Em.Ct.App.1974) (per curiam);......
  • American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc v. Donovan National Cotton Council of America v. Donovan, Nos. 79-1429
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1981
    ...of New York State, Inc. v. U. S. Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 354 (CA2 1973); Dry Color Manufacturers' Assn. v. Department of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 105-106 (CA3 1973). See also Berger & Riskin, Economic and Technological Feasibility in Regulating Toxic Substances Under the Occupational S......
  • National Indus. Sand Ass'n v. Marshall, Nos. 78-2446
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 16, 1979
    ...Perhaps better authority for this proposition would have been our earlier decision in Dry Color Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Dep't of Labor, 486 F.2d 98 (3d Cir. 1973), which appeared to assume implicitly that the Secretary bore such a We need not decide at this time whether the burden of proof ......
  • Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, No. 76-1674
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 5, 1978
    ...such procedures will maximize the susceptibility of the record to judicial review. Dry Colors Mfrs. Ass'n v. Department of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 105-07 (3d Cir. 1973). In short, we are willing to entrust the Agency with wide-ranging regulatory discretion, and even, to a lesser extent, with an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, No. 79-1451
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 19, 1981
    ...(D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 921, 94 S.Ct. 2628, 41 L.Ed.2d 226 (1974); Dry Color Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Department of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 108 (3d Cir. 1973); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Simon, 373 F.Supp. 1102, 1104-05 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 502 F.2d 1154, 1156-57 (Em.Ct.App.1974) (per curiam);......
  • American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc v. Donovan National Cotton Council of America v. Donovan, Nos. 79-1429
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1981
    ...of New York State, Inc. v. U. S. Dept. of Labor, 487 F.2d 342, 354 (CA2 1973); Dry Color Manufacturers' Assn. v. Department of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 105-106 (CA3 1973). See also Berger & Riskin, Economic and Technological Feasibility in Regulating Toxic Substances Under the Occupational S......
  • National Indus. Sand Ass'n v. Marshall, Nos. 78-2446
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 16, 1979
    ...Perhaps better authority for this proposition would have been our earlier decision in Dry Color Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Dep't of Labor, 486 F.2d 98 (3d Cir. 1973), which appeared to assume implicitly that the Secretary bore such a We need not decide at this time whether the burden of proof ......
  • Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, No. 76-1674
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 5, 1978
    ...such procedures will maximize the susceptibility of the record to judicial review. Dry Colors Mfrs. Ass'n v. Department of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 105-07 (3d Cir. 1973). In short, we are willing to entrust the Agency with wide-ranging regulatory discretion, and even, to a lesser extent, with an......
  • 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