## Facts

- OSHA issued a final Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200 (1983), requiring hazard communication for workplace chemicals through container labels, material safety data sheets (MSDS), and employee training.
- Multiple unions, public-interest groups, states, and industry associations filed petitions for review challenging different aspects of the HCS.
- The petitions were consolidated in the Third Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2112.
- Some intervenors argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the HCS was a nonreviewable “regulation,” not an occupational safety and health “standard” under the OSH Act.
- On the merits, challengers disputed (among other issues) the HCS’s initial limitation to manufacturing (SIC 20–39), its labeling/MSDS/training requirements, and its treatment of trade-secret chemical identities and disclosure to health professionals.

## Issues

1. Whether the HCS qualifies as an occupational safety and health “standard” subject to direct court of appeals review under 29 U.S.C. § 655(f).
2. Whether OSHA acted within its statutory authority and supported by substantial evidence in adopting the HCS’s hazard communication framework (labels, MSDS, training).
3. Whether OSHA acted arbitrarily or unlawfully by initially limiting the HCS to the manufacturing sector and by providing certain categorical exclusions.
4. Whether the HCS’s trade-secret provisions, including emergency disclosure of chemical identity to health professionals, lawfully balance confidentiality interests and worker health protections.

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction because the HCS is an occupational safety and health “standard” within the OSH Act’s definition.
- The court largely upheld the HCS as within OSHA’s authority and supported by substantial evidence.
- The court sustained OSHA’s decision to phase in coverage by applying the initial rule to manufacturing.
- The court upheld the core labeling, MSDS, and training requirements as reasonable and feasible means to communicate chemical hazards.
- The court upheld the basic trade-secret framework, including mandatory emergency disclosure to treating health professionals, but remanded limited aspects for clarification or refinement of procedures/criteria governing trade-secret assertions and related safeguards.

## Legal Principles

- A rule that imposes binding, prospective requirements mandating workplace practices or processes “reasonably necessary or appropriate” to protect workers qualifies as an OSH Act “standard” and is reviewable under 29 U.S.C. § 655(f).
- OSHA may adopt a phased regulatory approach and is not required to regulate all covered workplaces simultaneously if it provides a rational explanation grounded in the record.
- Hazard communication measures—labels, safety data sheets, and employee training—may be sustained where supported by substantial evidence that they reduce risks from chemical exposure and where OSHA reasonably addresses feasibility.
- OSHA may permit withholding of chemical identity as a bona fide trade secret while requiring prompt disclosure to health professionals in medical emergencies; confidentiality measures cannot delay emergency disclosure.
- Where confidentiality mechanisms risk undermining health protections, a reviewing court may uphold the overall framework but remand discrete provisions for clearer standards or procedures.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit treated OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard as an OSH Act “standard” subject to direct appellate review and upheld it in most respects, approving OSHA’s phased coverage, hazard communication requirements, and core trade-secret structure while remanding limited procedural details—especially relating to trade-secret assertions—to ensure adequate protection of worker health and effective access to chemical identity when medically necessary.


United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Auchter, 763 F.2d 728 (3d Cir. 1985)