## Facts

- OSHA promulgated a comprehensive occupational lead standard under OSH Act § 6(b), codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1025.
- The standard set a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 µg/m³ and imposed monitoring, medical surveillance, and engineering/work-practice control requirements.
- The standard included Medical Removal Protection (MRP), requiring temporary removal of certain employees from lead exposure based on blood-lead levels or medical findings while maintaining earnings, seniority, and benefits for a defined period.
- Multiple industry groups petitioned for review, challenging OSHA’s scientific findings, feasibility determinations, procedures, and specific provisions including MRP.
- Labor petitioners, including United Steelworkers, generally supported the standard but contested discrete provisions and raised claims of procedural unfairness, including alleged bias and ex parte communications.
- The consolidated petitions were reviewed by the D.C. Circuit under OSH Act § 6(f).

## Issues

1. Whether OSHA had statutory authority under the OSH Act to promulgate a comprehensive lead standard, including the 50 µg/m³ PEL and ancillary requirements.
2. Whether OSHA made a supported finding of “significant risk” of material health impairment at higher exposure levels and justified the selected PEL by substantial evidence.
3. Whether the standard’s engineering and work-practice control requirements were technologically and economically feasible across affected industries.
4. Whether the OSH Act authorized MRP requiring employers to maintain removed employees’ earnings and benefits.
5. Whether alleged ex parte communications and public statements by OSHA officials so compromised the rulemaking as to invalidate the standard under the APA and due process principles.

## Decision

- The court largely upheld OSHA’s lead standard, including the 50 µg/m³ PEL and most ancillary provisions.
- The court held that OSHA’s significant-risk determination and feasibility findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the OSH Act.
- The court upheld OSHA’s authority to adopt broad ancillary requirements, including medical surveillance and MRP, as reasonably necessary or appropriate to protect worker health.
- The court rejected claims that alleged ex parte contacts or asserted bias required vacatur, finding no sufficient showing that the rulemaking record was tainted or that parties lacked a fair opportunity to participate.
- The court modified or vacated certain discrete provisions (not central to the validity of the PEL and the standard’s basic framework).

## Legal Principles

- OSHA must identify a “significant risk” of material health impairment at prevailing exposure levels and support its determinations with substantial evidence in the rulemaking record.
- Under the OSH Act, OSHA may promulgate comprehensive health standards with ancillary requirements beyond an exposure limit when reasonably related to effective health protection.
- “Feasibility” does not require cost-benefit optimization; OSHA must show compliance is generally achievable technologically and economically on an industry-wide basis.
- OSHA may require medical removal and related pay/benefit protection when supported by the record as necessary to make medical surveillance effective and to prevent workers from bearing health-protection costs through lost wages.
- In informal notice-and-comment rulemaking, agency officials may hold policy views and engage in policy advocacy; a rule is set aside for improper contacts or bias only upon a showing that the process or record was materially compromised.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit largely sustained OSHA’s stringent lead standard, holding that OSHA supported its significant-risk and feasibility findings with substantial evidence and could adopt broad protective measures, including MRP, while rejecting claims that alleged bias or ex parte communications invalidated the rulemaking.


United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980)