## Facts

- In June 1978, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), acting through Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall, issued a final health standard limiting occupational exposure to cotton dust.
- OSHA acted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), which authorizes the Secretary to issue health standards after notice and an opportunity for interested parties to submit evidence and argument.
- OSHA’s internal rulemaking procedures also called for oral hearings presided over by a qualified hearing officer and the creation of verbatim hearing transcripts.
- Based on a large rulemaking record, OSHA found that exposure to cotton dust can cause byssinosis (“brown lung”) and other respiratory disease and that reducing exposure would reduce material health harm.
- The standard set permissible exposure limits (PELs) for lint-free respirable cotton dust that varied by operation (including separate limits for yarn manufacturing and for weaving/slashing), and it applied to textile and certain non-textile workplaces where cotton dust exposure occurred.
- The standard relied on employer implementation through engineering controls and work-practice changes, with compliance phased in over time.
- Cotton textile and non-textile industry representatives petitioned for review, arguing the standard overstated the risk, lacked substantial evidentiary support, and was technologically and economically infeasible.
- Employee unions, including AFL-CIO-related petitioners, supported the general approach but challenged parts of the standard as too lax and argued OSHA should have required stricter protections.
- Multiple petitions were consolidated for direct review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported OSHA’s determination that occupational exposure to cotton dust posed a material health hazard requiring regulation under the OSH Act.
2. Whether the cotton dust PELs and related control requirements were technologically feasible.
3. Whether the standard was economically feasible under OSH Act § 6(b)(5).
4. Whether OSHA followed required rulemaking procedures and adequately explained its choices in light of the record.
5. Whether the OSH Act required OSHA to adopt stricter provisions sought by labor petitioners.

## Decision

- The court largely upheld OSHA’s cotton dust standard against the principal industry and union challenges.
- The court held that OSHA’s finding of a serious occupational health risk from cotton dust exposure was supported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record, even though scientific questions remained.
- The court generally sustained OSHA’s PELs and its reliance on engineering and work-practice controls, accepting OSHA’s reasoned judgments about what could be achieved within the compliance period.
- The court generally sustained OSHA’s economic feasibility findings, applying an industry-wide feasibility inquiry rather than requiring OSHA to justify the standard through a cost-benefit test.
- The court rejected most claims that the OSH Act compelled OSHA to go further than it did, concluding that OSHA’s final selections fell within the range permitted by feasibility and supported by the record.
- The court ordered limited remands or revisions on discrete points where the agency’s explanation or record support was insufficient, without setting aside the standard’s central framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under OSH Act § 6(b)(5), OSHA must set health standards that most adequately assure, to the extent feasible, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health from workplace exposure.
- OSHA may regulate to prevent serious harm based on the best available evidence; the statute does not require complete scientific certainty before action.
- Judicial review of an OSHA health standard is based on the “substantial evidence” test applied to the rulemaking record.
- “Feasibility” under § 6(b)(5) is not a cost-benefit requirement; OSHA may impose significant compliance costs if the standard remains capable of being met.
- Technological feasibility may rest on record-supported projections and reasoned agency judgments about engineering and work-practice measures within a phase-in period.
- Economic feasibility focuses on whether the standard threatens the long-term viability of the affected industry as a whole, not whether compliance is easy or inexpensive for particular firms.
- OSHA must provide reasoned explanations tied to the record and must follow required notice-and-hearing procedures sufficient to allow informed participation and meaningful review.

## Conclusion

AFL-CIO v. Marshall upheld most of OSHA’s 1978 cotton dust exposure standard, finding substantial record support for OSHA’s determination that cotton dust posed a material health hazard and that the principal exposure limits and controls were generally technologically and economically feasible under the OSH Act, while sending back limited aspects for further agency explanation or reconsideration.


AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 617 F.2d 636 (1979)