## Facts

- The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), acting under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), issued a Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers (16 C.F.R. pt. 1205 (1979)) to reduce blade-contact injuries.
- The CPSC found approximately 77,000 annual blade-contact injuries, including about 9,900 amputations and 11,400 fractures, with estimated annual economic losses of about $253 million.
- The standard imposed three main requirements: (1) shielding sufficient to pass a “foot-probe” test at the rear and at the side discharge chute; (2) a blade-control system stopping the blade within three seconds after the operator releases the normal hand position; and (3) a specified warning label regarding blade-contact danger.
- Lawnmower manufacturers (through their trade association) and an individual consumer petitioned for judicial review, arguing the rule was overly broad, insufficiently supported by evidence, and not reasonably necessary, and challenging the compliance timeframe.
- The CPSC supported the three-second blade-stop requirement with field testing of how quickly users could move hands from the handle toward the blade, and supported the rule with an economic analysis weighing compliance costs against injury-cost reductions.

## Issues

1. Whether the standard, and each contested component, was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole under the CPSA.
2. Whether the foot-probe/shielding provisions, the three-second blade-stop requirement, and the warning label were reasonably necessary to reduce an unreasonable risk of injury and within the CPSC’s statutory authority.
3. Whether the discharge-chute foot-probe test and other contested provisions imposed unjustified burdens given the record evidence, including injury incidence and feasibility/cost considerations.

## Decision

- The court granted the petitions in part and denied them in part.
- The court upheld most of the standard, including the rear foot-probe/shielding requirement, the three-second blade-stop performance requirement, the warning label requirement, and the effective date.
- The court vacated only the discharge-chute foot-probe test requirement, holding it was not supported by substantial evidence of an unreasonable risk of injury at that location.

## Legal Principles

- Under the CPSA, a consumer product safety standard must be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and courts review whether the agency acted within statutory authority and adequately supported required findings.
- Substantial-evidence review requires record support that a reasonable decisionmaker could accept as sufficient; courts do not substitute their policy choices for the agency’s, but may set aside discrete requirements lacking evidentiary support.
- The CPSA permits performance standards (allowing manufacturers flexibility in compliance methods) and labeling requirements when reasonably necessary to reduce an unreasonable risk of injury.
- The agency must consider technical feasibility and the relationship between regulatory costs and expected safety benefits; cost-benefit and feasibility analyses may support the agency’s determinations when grounded in the record.
- A rule may be sustained in general while a specific provision is invalidated if the agency fails to establish record support for that particular requirement.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the CPSC’s overall effort to reduce serious lawnmower blade-contact injuries through performance, shielding, and labeling measures, but set aside the discharge-chute foot-probe test because the record did not contain substantial evidence of a sufficiently demonstrated injury risk at the chute to justify that specific requirement.


Southland Mower Co. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 619 F.2d 499 (5th Cir. 1980)