Document NEmj1BawXwqvrXZgjkeJyMYRp

S^ 3c (REV. -J-78) Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum MARCH 21, 1984 FROM: SENIOR INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST, HEALTH & SAFETY, MFG. & TECH. TO: SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION LIST SUBJECT: EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD FOR ASBESTOS The attached summarizes the decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for asbestos. We will continue to keep you apprised of further developments. JDR:bjd Attachment cc: B. F. Aurelius K. C. Crawford C. F. Phillips J. L. Rivard J. T fpMtrw ft-Er&SSidt jTwrrmsmr al 1 I II VIT lam 024502 ABS-007681 DISTRIBUTION LIST ANACORTES REFINERY MANAGER, SAFETY DEER PARK MANUFACTURING COMPLEX ----------SUPERINTENDENT,\eAlTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER, SAFETY ^ SENIOR INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST EL PASO PLANT SAFETY-REPRESENTATIVE GEISMAR PLANT MANAGES, HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST MARIETTA PLANT MANAGER, HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT SENIOR ENGINEER, HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX ------ MANAGES, HEALTH And safety SUPERVISOR, HEALTH AND SAFETY INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST II MOBILE PLANT ----------------------------- MANAGES, SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SENIOR INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST NORCO MANUFACTURING COMPLEX MANAGER, HEALTH, SAFETY AND MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST II INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST I ODESSA REFINERY SAFETY"REPRESENTATIVE TAFT PLANT SAFETY AND TRAINING REPRESENTATIVE WILMINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPLEX MANAGER, SAFETY AND INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SENIOR INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST WOODBURY PLANT MANAGES, HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT SENIOR ENGINEER, HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT WOOD RIVER MANUFACTURING COMPLEX MANAGER, SAFETY AND INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SENIOR INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST SW-3? ( Shell Oil Company Interoffice Memorandum MARCH 14, 1984 FROM: B. F. AURELIUS, ATTORNEY ENVIRONMENT AND LABOR DEPARTMENT HEAD OFFICE LEGAL TO: H. L. KUSNETZ, MANAGER SAFETY & INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE HS&E 0. L. RIVARD, MANAGER REGULATIONS AND SAFETY SERVICES HS&E J. S. SZYMANOWSKI, MANAGER HEALTH & SAFETY MANUFACTURING D. P. ATWOOD, MANAGER SERVICES - HS&E SHELL DEVELOPMENT F. A. ELY, MANAGER PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION HEALTH AND SAFETY J. J. PICKELL, MANAGER SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION E&P SUBJECT: ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION^. OSHA (EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD FOR ASBESTOS) LAM 024504 Attached for your general information is a copy of the subject decision which was issued vary recently by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court struck down OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard for asbestos, which reduced the PEL from 2.0 f/cc to .5 f/cc TWA and sets forth some general criteria for the issuance of an ETS which could be applicable to other substances in the future. At the outset the Court made it clear that 6(c) of the OSH Act requires that OSHA demonstrate (1) that worker exposure to a particular substance constitutes a "grave danger" and (2) that the protective provisions of the ETS are "necessary" to protect the employees from that danger. The Court also held that an ETS must on balance produce a benefit which bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of compliance with the ETS. P18 -J-OT--C3 ABS-007683 ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION V. OSHA (EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD FOR ASBESTOS) 2 Addressing the merits of the asbestos ETS the Court noted that there may have been some errors in OSHA's quantitative risk assessment which claimed that 80 lives a year would be saved by the new PEL. Also the Court noted that the applicability of the risk assessment process to the six month period during which the ETS would be in effect tended to magnify the inherent uncertainties in the risk assessment process. Nevertheless the Court refrained from actually deciding the issue of whether or not the old PEL constituted a "grave danger" to workers. Rather the Court held that, even assuming there was such a grave danger, the ETS was not "necessary" to achieve the health benefits which OSHA projected would occur with the new standard. In this regard the Court stated that the ETS relied largely on the use of respirators to assure compliance with the new PEL. The Court pointed out that the use of respirators was already required by other existing regulations which were applicable to asbestos, and that the same was true with respect to worker training and education. In short the protective provisions in ETS were redundant and hence not "necessary" in this instance. In light of the latter conclusion the Court apparently did not deem it necessary to address the cost-benefit criteria noted above. Incidentally it is questionable how the Supreme Court might view the latter issue in light of its decision in the Cotton Dust case which held that OSHA was not required to balance the cost and benefits of a standard promulgated under 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act. In general the Fifth Circuit seems to have cast some doubt on the use of quantitative risk assessment as a basis for establishing the existence of a "grave danger" for purposes of issuing an ETS under 6(c) of the Act. The Court seemed to feel that the risk assessment process is more appropriate as part of a permanent rulemaking under 6(b) of the Act where it can be subjected to careful public scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit's decision also would appear to impose the burden on OSHA to demonstrate that other existing standards do not adequately control the risk to be covered by an ETS. If you have any questions on the above, please just give me a call. PIS 1H3 LAM 024505 ABS-007684 BNA's Daily Reporter System DAILY LABOR REPORT FULL TEXT SECTION DECISION OF FIFTH CIRCUIT IN ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION v. OSHA (TEXT) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Nos. 83-4687, 83-4688,' 83-4689' No. 83-4711 ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION/' NORTH AMERICA, et al., .i Petitioners, versus OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, etal., - . . Respondents. -. EAST TEXAS SERVICE CORPORATION, et al., .Petitioners, ,, versus -OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH -ADMINISTRATION, etal., ...... -Respondents. ... .. Petitions for Review of an Order of the . Occupational Safety and Health Administration' . '( MARCH 7 ' 1984) ! Before CLARK, Chief Judged RUBIN'and JOLLY, Circuit ; Judges. _ E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: . The Asbestos Information Association (AJLA), an or ganization of American and Canadian manufacturers of .asbestos products, asks this court to determine whether . the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) properly by-passed normal notice-and-comment rule- . making procedures in favor of creating an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) lowering workers' permissi ble exposure level (PEL) to ambient asbestos fibers from - 2.0 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) to 0.5 f/cc. We hold that OSHA did not invoke its ETS powers properly. ; 'I. . ...' Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) in 1970, codified at 29 U.S.C. 651-678, to assure safe and healthful working conditions for the na' tion's work force and to preserve the nation's human re sources. 29 U.S.C. 651 (1976). Toward that goal, the Act allows the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary), after public notice and ooportunity for comment by interested persons, to promulgate rules and standards for occupa tional safety and health. Id. at 65o(b). The Act also al-1) lowsjhe Secretary to by-pass these normal procedures in favor of promulgating an ETS to take effect immediately! upon publication In the Federal Register if be determines thacNemployees are exposed to grave danger from expo,- surew substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards?" and also de termines "that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger." 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(l). Tee ETS statute further provides that the ETS as published shall serve as a proposed rule, and that the .Secretary shall act on the rule no later than six months after publication.' ' The full text of the statute says: Any standard, including an ETS, properly Imposed under the Act has the force of law because the Act im poses upon every employer ' the duty to "comply with oc cupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter" or face civil and criminal penalties. 29 U.S.C. 654; Florid* Peach Growers Association v. De partment of Labor,' 489 F.2d 120, 123(5chCir. 1974). On November 4, 1983," acting pursuant to its ETS enabling statute, OSHA published in the Federal Register an ETS lowering the time-weighted average PEL for am bient asbestos fibers from 2.0 f/cc that are S microns or more in length * to 0.5 f/cc."48 Fed. Reg. 51,086-51,140 (1983). See also 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 (1983) (text of current rule). In die November 4 publication, die Secre tary alsoincluded a statement of reasons to support his action as be is required by law to do. 29 U.S.C. 655(c). See also Dry Color Manufacturers ` Association v. De partment of Labor, 486 F. 2d 98 (3d Cir. 1973) (applying 655(c) to ETS promulgations) The ETS allows "any practical combination" of en gineering controls ,work practices and personal protec tive equipment to meet the lower PEL: The ETS also . requires training to begin within thirty days for all em ployees whose exposure is "reasonably expected" to be at or above the PEL. Training must cover respirator fit ting and use, asbestos handling, medical information, and the relationship between smoking, lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. 48 Fed. Reg. 51,139-51,140 (1983) (text of ETS). Finally, the Agency announced it would increase enforcement efforts in workplaces where asbestos is handled. Id. at 51,087. . vv (1) The Secretary shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5 of Title 5, for an emer gency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if he deter mines (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. (2) Such standard shall be effective until superseded by a standard promulgated in accordance with the pro cedures prescribed in paragraph (3) of this subsection. (3) Upon publication of such standard in the Federal Register the Secretary shall commence a proceeding in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, and . the standard as published shall also serve as a pro posed rule for the proceeding. The Secretary shall promulgate a standard under this paragraph no later than six months after publication of the emergency standard as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection. 29 U.S.C. 655(c). The Act defines an employer as "a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees, but does not include the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State." 29 U.S.C. 652(5). ' As much as 98% of ambient asbestos fibers may be less than 5 microns long, and, given the sophistication of measuring devices, too small to regulate. 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,086, 51,092 ('.953). o. i-r.-aJ -., --_-c rr "i-C-fi. 3.C. LAM 024506 ABS-007685 lklfcictohfcfa**ia*lL>Si*.wa LAM 024507 - - - v-"- -'-'/ (DLR) 3-Ln.-n-: The AIA Immediately petitioned OSHA to stay the effective dace of the TS pending Judicial review of whether OSHA's action is a proper application of its ETS statute. The Agency refused the stay. Subsequently, on November 17, 1983, the ALA peti- ~ tioned this court for an emergency stay pending judicial review of OSHA's action, arguing that its members would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were not granted, ud arguing Its likely ultimate success on the merits. After* reviewing the arguments of both the AIA and OSHA,'-ana\ . lyzing diem according to well-established legal criteria? for determining when a court should grant eaultable ln-! . terira relief, and balancing the equities involved.,1 this ' court granted the stay but expedited full hearing on thejjf merits .' We how hold that OSHA did not properly act pur- . suant to its ETS enabling statute and that the'standard ini question,1'therefore, should not become effective absent! ` notice-and-jcomment rulemaking. , ., . 'V7^*:n~. *: . .V-;'-.*;*:," . OSHA has regulated asbestos since" 1971. Its first . asbestos PEL was 12.0 f/cc .` In 1972 OSHA reduced this .. * standard to 5 f/cc,` and in 1976 OSHA again reduced the . standard to the currently effective 2 f/cc.In 1975 OSHA proposed to reduce the standard to 0.5 f/cc, but founded its proposal on a policy to set PEL'S for carcinogens as j, ' ` low as technologically and economically feasible. The ; _ Agendy did not act quickly and, in 1980, the Supreme - Court rejected the proposition that such a general policy * may serve as te basis for any rule, and held that OSHA ; V must make an actual finding that the workplace is unsafe: * before it promulgates a standard. 'Industrial Union de- : partment v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 601, i 100 S.0^3844, 65 L'.Ed.2d 1010 (1980).-OSHA bases its ` 1983 promulgation of an ETS lowering the PEL to 0.5 '"f/cc, however, on specific data compiled and analyzed by OSHA that lead it to conclude that a ''grave danger" ex- 1sts, necessitating immediate action. 48 Fed. Reg. at ' ;5i,088. ? ; .. .*1 No new data or discovery leads OSHA to invoke its 'extraordinary lrc_p7vxpv3-and lO'A'&'f'the asbestos PEL. Rather, OSHA bases its conclusion that a grave~3anger ; -re- To obtain equitable relief pending further judicial action on the merits, an applicant must establish (1) a ' 'substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) danger * 'of irreparable harm if the court denies interim relief; (3) - that other parties will not be harmed substantially if the court grants interim relief; and (4) that interim relief will not harm the public interest. Virginia Petroleum Job bers Ass'n. v. Federal Power Commission, 104 ' U.S.App.D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (1958). In Taylor Diving & Salvage Co. r. Department of Labor, 537 F.2d 819, 821 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1976) this court applied Virginia Petroleum Jobbers' four criteria to application for stay ' pending review of an OSHA ETS. ' ' Subsequent interpretations of the four legal crite' ria de-emphasize the likelihood-of-success criteria and emphasize balancing the equities of the situation. United States v. Baylor University Medical Center, 711 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1983). OSHA adopted the 12.0 f/cc PEL by adopting a na tional concensus standard existing in 1971, the year the Occupational Health and Safety Act became effective. Section 6 of the Act explicitly allowed OSHA to adopt na tional concensus standards, and directed the agency to establish standards "as soon as practicable. " 20 U.S.C. 655(a). On December 7, 1971, OSHA lowered the 12.0 f/cc standard to 5.0 f/cc by using, for the first time, its ETS powers. The action was not challenged, and in June of 1972, it became a permanent standard through normal notice-ir.d-comrr.ent procedures. 48 Fed. Reg. at exists op quantitative risk assessments, which are math ematical extrapolations, fo tKS'HJtelihood of contracting an asbestos-related disease at various levels of exposure to asbestos particles. The risk assessment, which OSHA completed in July of 1983, and a meeting a few months earlier between the'Asslstant Secretary of Labor and a recognized expert in the asbestos epidemiology field, heightened OSHA's awareness of the asbestos situation and precipitated the ETS. - OSHA calculated the likelihood of developing lung cancer, mesothelioma,' and gastrointestinal cancer due to contact with ambient asbestos fibers, at different expo sure levels. By applying its calculations to an estimated working population exposed to asbestos, OSHA claims that 210 lives eventual^ can be saved from cancer by lowering the PEL to 0.5 f/cc for six months. 48 Fed.Reg. at 51,086. These'figures include deaths that will occur at OSHA's estimated current actual exposure levels and in clude employees working in environments where the den sity of ambient asbestos particles is 20 f/cc , ten times the current PEL. Even If, however, OSHA removes from the computation those employees who do not enjoy the benefit of the current 2.0 f/cc PEL because It Is not en forced in their work place, and counts only those employ ees who are exposed to ambient asbestos between the levels of 2.0 f/cc and 0.5 f/cc, OSHA estimates it can save 80 lives by lowering the PEL for six months .* OSHA calculated the number of lives saved by first deriving a mortality rate, which is the number of excess deaths * because of exposure to ambient asbestos parti cles at~.diffe; r.ent levels."I?t. t h`e,1n muJlt'.i.pliJe.d,, t`he number of . * 'j** , ". * r*if? * ' .' - ( * , ' Mesothelioma Is an incurable cancer infecting the mesothelium, a layer of fiat cells lining the membranes enclosing the heart, abdominal cavity, and thoracic cav- ity and lungs... .. . -- OSHA's'own data, however, indicates that the ac - tual number of asbestos-related cancer deaths prevented by a 0.5 f/cc standard would be approximately 40 for sLx months. Approximately 71% of the"benefits of OSHA's ETS accrue in the drywall construction industry where demolition and other activities generate large amounts of ambient asbestos particles. 'OSHA specifically estimates It could save 57 lives in that industry by lowering the PEL for six months ;assuming the entire industry currently complies with the 2 f/cc standard. 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,097 (Table 4). Its estimate of employee exposure, however, indicates that of all 51,621 employees estimat ed to be working in that industry, 38,666 or approximate ly 75% currently are exposed to only 0.2 f/cc. Id. at 51,094 (Table 1). Consequently, these workers would nc- benefit by lowering the standard to 0.5 f/cc. Reducing OSHA's calculations by 75% indicates that approximately 14 drywall construction workers will benefit "from the ETS. Stated differently, aporoximately 43 of the 57 work ers already are exposed to levels below that which the ETS would permit. -' Excess deaths are those that would net occur ir. a control group not exposed to asbestos. 48 Fed. Reg. a: 51,101. For mesothelioma, the number of excess deaths projected due to asbestos exposure also is the total num ber of deaths, because mesothelioma almost never oc-U curs In someone not exposed to asbestos. Id. at 51,0391 " Because of the latency period for most asbestos - related cancers, OSHA had no observations for asbestos- related deaths under the current 2 f/cc PEL. OSHA calculated a mortality rate for the 2 f/cc PEL by estimat ing the cumulative number of particles to which a worker will be exposed over varying lengths of time at 2.0 f/cc, and then applying the mortality rate to higher exposures over a shorter period of time. For example, a worker exposed to 0.2 f/cc for ten years would be as likely to de velop cancer as a worker exposed to 0.4 f/cc for five years . The validity of mis calculation fecerds or. thr as - Published 5y THE BUREAU Cr NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington. O.C. 2CCZT ABS-007686 3 1 - p-a> TEXT (No. 4S) D-3 workers currently exposed at those levels by the mortal ity rate. Finally, to obtain a projected number of lives saved. It subtracted the number of deaths that It esti mates will continue to occur even at the new PEL from the number of deaths likely to occur at the higher levels of ... , exposure, which resulted In 210 deaths for six months exposure. 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,095-51,097 and Chart 4. The underlying data base from which OSHA derived Its mortality rates consists of eleven epidemiological studies which OSHA felt contained sufficient data to allow computation of quantitative risk assessments for lung cancer. Four of these studies OSHA decided also provide sufficient data to compute risk assessments for mesothe lioma. These eleven studies observe a total of appropri ately 53,000 workers in several countries and in a wide range of occupations. The studies include insulation workers, production workers, maintenance employees, textile workers, miners, and millers. They observe a variety of exposure levels, and Include workers exposed to the three commonly occurring asbestos fiber types, . 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,101-51,105.. . A- .- ; JRB Associates, a private research firm, actually performed the mathematical computations to estimate the ' benefits of reducing the asbestos PEL from 2.0 f/cc to .. 0.5 f/cc. Additionally, JRB Associates estimated the ... number of workers currently exposed to asbestos, rely-. : ing on.1980 worker population estimates made by Re- search Triangle Institute (RTI). JRB updated the RTI - estimates to incorporate more recent employment statis tics. Final Report, Benefits Assessment of Emergency Temporary and Proposed Asbestos Standards, JRB Asso- . dates (1983) (Record Exhibit 84-393). OSHA evidently , .also estimated the number of workers currently exposed to asbestos, by updating die 1980 RTI figures to reflect data it had accumulated over the past three years enforc- 1 ing the 2.0 f/cc PEL. 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,092. Finally, OSHA had its conclusions reviewed by sev eral experts. Most of these reviews are favorable, at leas: regarding OSHA's mathematical methodology and overall conclusions.", . ..: ..- *,. r. v }. . .. sumption accepted by most, but not all, researchers that the likelihood of developing asbestos-related cancer var ies directly with the number of fibers Inhaled, and is not Independently affected by intensity or duration of exposure. " The three fiber types are crocidolite, amosite and chrysotile. OSHA concluded that three should be subject to a uniform regulation, partially for practical reasons. Inconclusive evidence, however, suggests that some fi ber types are more harmful than others. 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,115-51,121. " OSHA first submitted, by motion to amend the '' record, only the seven peer reviews on which it claimed to rely to support its ETS. This court granted that motion prior to oral argument, over the petitioners' objection. The petitioners informed the court that other, unfavorabls peer reviews existed. A: oral argument the court requested that OSHA either produce the unfavorable re ports or exolain their absence from the record. OSHA subsequently complied with the request. It also acknowl edged that it considered all peer reviews, both favorable and unfavorable. Because of the extraordinary posture of the court reviewing an ETS, made more extraordinary by the statutory reqirement that we review it under a sub stantial evidence standard, 29 U.S.C. f665(f), we also considered the unfavorable reviews as well as the favor able ones to aid us in our understanding of this techno logically complex case. To do otherwise "would convert the reviewing process into an artificial game." Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 501 F.2d722, 729 n.10 (D.C.Cir. 1974) (admitting evidence accumulated after rule promulgation to assess validity of pre-rule predictions). III. We note at the outset of our analysis that Immedi ately after its November publications, OSHA commenced regular notice-and-comment rulemaking to decide wheth er to impose anew permanent PEL for asbestos. The Statute, requires that the Secretary promulgate a perma nent standard no later .than six months after publication of the ETS. 29 U.S.C. |655(c)(3). At oral argument OSHA's counsel stated that OSHA could complete full notice-andcomment rulemaking within one year, presumably even without the impetus of the ETS requirement that it do so within six months." Consequently, the practical effects of our decision on the regulations enforced In the workplace will endure only a short time. We are, however, con cerned not only with practical implications, but also with the legal issue of the extent of the Secretary's power to determine when an emergency situation exists and his powe'r to act in such a situation.',:-L\. The standard under which we review OSHA's new PEL is whether the Agency's action Is "supported by sub stantial evidence in the record considered as a whole." 29 U.S.C. {655(f). This court's decision in Florida Peach Growers r. Department ofLabor holds that an ETS is like any other OSHA regulation under pre-enforcement judici al scrutiny for purposes of Imposing die statutorily pre scribed substantial evidence standard. 489 F.2d at . 127-28. Consequently, we must take a "harder look" at OSHA's action than we would if we were reviewing the ac tion under the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard applicable to agencies governed by the Adminis trative Procedure Act." -r--r - ; . Even though we must apply the substantial evidence test, OSHA urges us to apply it less rigorously in review ing an informally promulgated ETS than we would in re viewing a standard imposed after formal '"=>' notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. Indeed, the anomaly of being required to make a searching review of the evidence, but being provided only with a record of a volume and technical complexity that would tax the com petency of any court/forces us to concede the Agency's contention to a degree. The'record fills nine large boxes, and contains years' worth of accumulated asbestos re ports and studies from all over the world. It also includes mathematical and statistical computations, and letters and memoranda to, from and between government ' agencies.1' f.r.. - - We recognize that the general rule is that court cannot consider evidence not relied on by the agency in reviewing agency action. Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Assn, Inc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1X05 (D.C. Cir. 1979); Dry Color Mfrs. Ass'n r. Dept, of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 104 n.8 (3d Cir. 1973). This case does not cre ate an exception to that rule, nor present the question whether a court may consider evidence not relied on by the agency, but merely submitted by one of the parties after ETS promulgation. " At oral argument OSHA intimated that even with the ETS requirement that it promulgate a permanent standard within six months, the complexity of the data in this case might make impossible such rapid action. We note, however, that the statute says the agency "shall promulgate a standard no later than six months after pub lication." 29 U.S.C. |655(c)(3). The statute does not contemplate the agency's allowing the new rule to lapse. M See 5 U.S.C. J706. See also Vermont Yankee Hu- clear Power Corp. y. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 549, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1214, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); Texas Independent Cinners Ass'n v. Marshall, 630 F.2d 389, 405 (5th cir. 1980). Published by THE BUREAU Of NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. Washington. D.C. 20037 LAM 024508 ABS-007687 . ___ _ VV.-affaia (DLR) 1 IT 0 ;l The type of administrative proceeding giving rise to the rc.-alaticr., and the form of the record It produces, Inevitably influences Judicial review. A record like the one before us cannot be reviewed as a record In which adversarv proceedings have narrowly focused the facts and issues "in' discute. Florida Peach Growers, 489 F.2d at 123-29. While we do not question risk assessment as a quiremer.t, OSHA's reliance on several studies to com pute a mathematical quantitative risk assessment, and its reliance on the 1983 JR8 Report for Its estimations of the population at risk, which in turn relies on the 1980 RTI report, makes the evidence supporting OSHA's action elusive indeed. While the ultimate question is whether the record contains "such relevnt evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion," Con'sofidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126, (1938), the nature of the evidence in this case requires that we inquire into wheth er OSHA "carried out [its] essentially legislative task in a manner reasonable under the state of the record before [it]." Aqua Slide 'if Dive Corp. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 589 F.2d 831, 838 (5th Cir. 1978) (quoting Florida Peach Growers, 489 F. 2d at 129) .In . making this inquiry, we must, of course, defer to OSHA's fact-finding expertise. Aqua Slide 'if Dive Corp., 569 F.2d at 838. See also Industrial Union Department, 448 U.S. at 652, 100 S.Ct. at 2870, 65 L.Ed.2d at--------The extent to which the supporting evidence has survived public and scientific scrutiny, however, will affect the weight given to it by an Inexpert judiciary." Aqua Slide `if Dire, 569 F.2d at 838. The Agency's essentially legislative task, more over, necessarily requires that Irmake Two types of de terminations. In Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467 (D.C. Cir. 1974), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia re viewed an asbestos PEL set by the Secretary after noticeand-comment rulemaking procedures. In discussing application of a substantial-evidence standard of review to an Informal, essentially legislative proceeding, the iCourt recognized that only some of the Agency's decisions are capable of being reviewed under the usual substan tial-evidence standard. The Agency makes these reviewable decisions primarily by "evaluating the data and drawing conclusions from it," and the court "can review that data in the record and determine whether it reflects substantial support for the Secretary's findings." Id. at 474. To speak of substantial evidence review with respect to other determinations, however. Is anomalous, be cause these determinations involve policy choices or fac.tual determinations so much "on the frontiers of scientific knowledge" that they resemble policy determi nations more than factual ones. Id. Judicial review inher ently legislative decisions of this sort is obviously an undertaking of different dimensions," Id. at 475, and re quires deference to the Agency that is furthering goals that Congress thought to be saiutory. Thus, with "a due respect for the boundaries between the legislative and the judicial function," we "approach our reviewing task with a flexibility informed and shaped by sensitivity to the di verse origins of the determinations that enter into a leg islative judgment"made by an agency. Id. " When new data or, as In this case, new mathemat ical extrapolations, provide the basis for the new rule, independent peer reviews may be extraordinarily helpful to the court. See supra note 11. Precisely because the data has not been scrutinized, however, the court has particular interest in having access to both favorible and unfavctide peer reviews. In reviewing the ETS, we also must remain aware that the plain wording of the statute limits us to assessing the harm likely to accrue, or the grave danger that the ETS may alleviate, during the six-month period that Is the life of the standard. OSHA urges us to assess the harm likely to accrue-over at least a year, even though the ETS expires six months from its promulgation. At oral argument CSKA said that even if the ETS lapsed be fore OSHA promulgated a permanent regulation, the benefits of the EST likely would continue because employ ers will have expended the resources to comply with the new lower standard and would have no incentive to revert to old practices. These post hoc rationalizations cannot be accepted as basis for our review; first, because the ETS statute does not contemplate the Secretary's allowing an ETS to lapse before he promulgates a permanent standard, and second, because to assume that the em ployers will not revert to less exacting standards is pure speculation. The opposite Is equally plausible, especially given that OSHA allows compliance with die ETS through methods as simple as wetdnjg floors or wearing respira tors. See 48 Fed. Reg.'at 51,086. - * . In its November 4 publication OSHA partially Justi fied its decision to issue an ETS on the fact that notice - and-comment rulemaking often takes several years to complete, excluding possible subsequent postponements of the effective date caused by court-ordered stays pend ing judicial review. 50 Fed. Reg. at 51,089. OSHA ap parently would have us assess benefits in this light. We cannot do so. As noted earlier, OSHA concedes that it can complete rulemaking within one year. Additionally, as its legislative history makes clear, the ETS statute is not to be used merely as an interim releif measure, but treated as an extraordinary power to be used only in "limited sit uations" in which a grave danger exists, and then, to be "delicately exercised." Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Auchter, 702 F.2d at 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1983). See also Taylor Diving & Salvage v. Deoartment of La bor, 537 F.2d 819, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1976); Florida Peach Growers, 489 F.2d at 129; Dry Color Manufacturers' Ass'n 486 F.2d at 104 n. 9a (3d Cir. 1973). The Agency cannot use its ETS powers as a stop-gap measure. This would allow it to displace its clear obligations to promul gate rules after public notice and opportunity for com ment in any case, not just in those in which ETS is necessasry to avert grave danger. See 29 U.S.C. 5655(b). IV. A. The AIA urges us to hold that OSHA must have new information before it promulgates an ETS." An "emer gency" cannot exist, it argues, when the Agency has " The AIA argues that OSHA's successful invocation of its ETS powers are distinguishable from its unsuc cessful uses on the basis of the existence of new informa tion. We do not wholly agree. Certainly, OSHA has used its ETS powers successfully to address a situation that recently came to light. In 1974 OSHA issued an ETS for vinyl chloride within weeks after learning that workers' deaths were attributable to exposure to that substance. No one contested the Agency's actior.. See 39 Fed. Reg. 12,342 (1974). See also Society of Plastics Industries, Inc. v. OSHA, 509 F.2d 1301 (2d Cir. 1975) (upholding fi nal rule). Similarly, In 1977 OSHA issued an ETS for 1,2 Dibramo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP), after having become aware in just a few months that exposure to even small amounts of the chemical caused sterility. See 42 Fed. Reg. 45,536 (1977). In 1971, however, OSHA used its ETS powers to lower the asbestos PEL from 12 f/cc to 5 f/cc, having concluded only that asbestos presented a I "gr-ive J anger. " ice 1971 acdcr. was not challenged. LAM 024509 ABS-007688 (No. 48) D - 5 known for years that asbestos constitutes a serious health risk and, in fact, has had all the data it uses to support its November 4 action at hand, but nevertheless failed to act on it. Although new Information may be a sound basis for an ETS, we decline to hold that OSHA cannot issue an ETS in its absence. As OSHA admits, the Agency's fail ure to act may be evidence that a situation is not a true , emergency, but we agree with OSHA that failure to act ' dees nor conclusively establish that a situation is not ar. e merger,cy. The ETS statute itself, allowing the Secretary to promulgate an ETS in response to "grave danger ... or . . . new hazards," precludes our imposing a "new in formation" requirement on OSHA. Additionally, to im pose such a requirement would imprudently circumscribe the Secretary's ability to act in response to serious situ ations, (f exposure to 2.0 f/cc of asbestos fibers creates >-a grave danger, to hold that because OSHA did not act 'previously it cannot do so now only compounds the conse quences of the Agency's.failure to act.,.. -... . . . - , OSHA should,, of course, offer some explanation of its timing in promulgating an ETS, especially when, as here, for years it has known of the serious health risk the regulated substance poses, and has possessed, albeit in unrefined form, the substantive data forming the basis for the ETS." In this case OSHA says it acted in response to new awareness of the danger of asbestos and in re sponse to extrapolated data that did not become available until July of 1983, four months before it promulgated the ETS. We are not prepared to say thae such heightened awareness cannot justify the Secretary's action. . . Additionally, even if adequately explained, an ETS "must,'on balance, produce a benefit the costs of which are not unreasonable. The protection afforded to workers should outweigh the economic consequence's to the regu' lated industry. American Petroleum Institute v. OSHA, 581 F.2d 493, 502-03 (5th Cir. 1978) aifd subnom Indus trial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1980); Florida Peach Growers, '489 F. 2d at 130. " OSHA con- - Other invocations of the ETS power have failed. None, however, has failed solely because the Agency.did not act pursuant to newly acquired information. See American Petroleum Institute v. OSHA, 581 F.2d 493, 503 (5th Cir. 1978) aff'd sub nom Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1980) (benzene ETS failed for lack of substantial evidence); Taylor Diving and Sal vage Co., Inc. r. Dept, of Labor, 537 F.2d 819, 821 (5th Cir. 1976) (temporary stay granted because petitioners showed likelihood of success on the merits and irrepara ble harm); Florida Peach Growers Ass`n., Inc. r. Dept, of Labor, 489 F.2d 120, 129 (organophosphorus pesti cides ETS failed for lack of substantial evidence); Dry Color Mfrs. Ass'n., Inc. v. Dept, of Labor, 486 F.2d 98 .(3d.Cir. 1973) (fourteen carcinogens ETS failed for fail ure to adequate state reasons. ; ... - -"OSHA completed a risk assessment in 1981 that concluded that between 8 and 260 deaths per year would occur at the 2.0 f/cc PEL. At oral argument, counsel for OSHA said the Agency did not act then becaue it considred the data to be too unrefined. . " Although in this case the agency conducted a for mal cost-benefit analysis, we do not imply that the Occu pational Safety and Health Act requires the agency to do so before it promulgates an ETS. Indeed, in true "emer gency" situations, that the agency would have time to conduct such an analysis is unlikely. The American Pe troleum Institute and Florida Peach Growers cases re quire only that in reviewing whether the agency's action was reasonable under the circumstances, we analyze the anticipated benefit of the ETS in light of its probable consequences. .ducted a benefits analysis prior to promulgating the ETS, and concluded that the cost of compliance with the lower PEL Is reasonable compared to total Industry sales vol ume. Further, OSHA concluded that the costs are fairly . distributed, because the industries in which asbescos-re- lated risks currently are greatest are the Industries that must spend the most to comply with the lower standard." In no Industry does the compliance cost exceed 7.2 cents per dollar of sales,'and in most Industries, the cost of compliance is less chan one cent per dollar. 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,136-51, 137 and Tables 17 and 18. We cannot say that the cost of compliance is unreasonable if the ETS in fact alleviates a grave danger. -- The ALA does not complain of the cost of compliance with the new PEL, however, as much as of the anticipated ripple effects that OSHA's action will have on the asbes tos products market. -The ALA argues that asbestos users will substitute other products for asbestos because of the alarm the ETS causes throughout the Industry in idling the situation as an emergency. Indeed, such consider ations are not insignificant. As this court has noted, "It is.essential that employees be protected against exposure to highly toxic materials, but this should be done without eliminating the [asbestos industry] and the associated Jobs." Florida Peach Growers, 489 F.2d at 130.11 The in dustry, however, already will have felt any ripple effects , precipitated by OSHA's declaration of an emergency, and _ our holding today cannot undo whatever harm has been done, especially in light of the fact that the ETS now is a proposed permanent standard. The ALA, moreover, to convince us that the ETS seriously jeopardizes the as bestos industry, or even that the harm due to lost sales will be significant. __ .. .\,J _ b. ' *r The ETS statute requires that the Secretary issue an ETS only after he finds substantial evidence indicating both that a "grave danger" exists and that an emergency standard is "necessary" to protect workers from such danger. Thus, the gravity and necessity requirements lie at the center of proper invocation of the ETS powers. No one doubts that asbestos is a gravely dangerous product. The gravity we are concerned with, however, is not of the product itself, but of six months exposure to it at 0.5 f/cc, as compared with six months exposure at 2.0 f/cc. Our inquiry, then. Is a narrow one,' and requires us to evaluate both the nature of the consequences of exposure, and also the number of workers likely to suffer those consequences. ...... ..... . 'According to the Secretary', the consequences of ex posure to significant amounts.of asbestos are likely to be fatal. Victims of lung cancer, mesothelioma, and gastro intestinal cancer have poor survival rates. Additionally, workers exposed to significant amounts of asbestos run a " For the six months the ETS remains In effect, the average cost per worker of compliance is $708. The con struction Industry cost per worker Is $973, the highest of any industry segment. The automotive aftermarket in dustry has the lowest cost per worker at $251. 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,137, Table 17. The estimated employee expo sure in the automotive aftermarket currently is less than 0.1 f/cc for die vast majority of employees. Id. at 51,093, Table 1. * OSHA itself noted that "the nature of the action it self, and the accompanying enforcement program will un doubtedly boost the incentives to comply with all protective provisions of the asbestos standard." 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,098. Exactly what OSHA intended by this re mark is unclear from the context of the publication. Cer tainly, for OSHA to use its ETS powers expressly to alarm the industry is illegitimate, and would count against the Agency in a judicial challenge. Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., Washington, O.C. 20037 LAM 024510 ABS-007689 D - 6 (No. 43) TEXT ft)r.cN ?.'?.* risk of developing asbestosis, a serious condition caused by the accumulation of asbestos fibers In the lungs. The symptoms of asbestosis range from shortness of breath in mild cases to respiratory failure and death in serious cases. Counsel far the petitioners at oral argument ' agreed that asbestos, at some level of exposure, will c.ause caj ncer and asbestosis, an...d..,..i^nde.Ued,f t.h! e- .number of less than 80." Both the gravity of the risk as defined by OSHA and the necessity of an E5T to protest against it are therefore questionable. .Additionally, although risk assessment analysis is ah extremely useful tool, especially when used to project lifetime consequences of exposure, the results of its ap plication to a small slice of time are speculative because the jnde-V.-ir.j database projects only long-term risks. docket almost makes the fact one appropriate for judicial notice. Thus, we do not have a situation in which the symptoms of exposure are "easily curable and fleeting." See generally Florida Peach Growers, 489 F.2d at 132. Nor do we have a situation in which the danger of develop:ir.g a serious disease is speculative. See generally Dry Color Manufacturers Association 489 F. 2d at 106. ` OSHA claims that by permanently lowering the present 2.0 f/cc PEL to 0.5 f/cc, It will save sixty-four fives per one thousand workers over a working lifetime of forty-five years. See 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,100. Over six months, this works out to eighty lives out of an estimated worker population of 375,399." 48 Fed. Reg. at 51,094' 51,095. As the Supreme Court has noted, the determina tion of wharconS brutes a rtsk'Wghthyof Agency'action is a policy coiSTderartian-that pelongs. urthetrrsrinstance Epidemiologists generally study only the consequences of long-term exposure to asbestos. Indeed, OSHA concedes some unreliability and uncertainty to be inherent in risk assessment generally. Applying the risk assessment process to a period of_s!x montns. one-ninetieth ot OSHAls_estimated-working lifetime, only magnifies those Inherent uncertainties. - - - ' - --'--by holding as we do In this cas'e, however, we do not intimate at all that risk-assessment analysis is inappro priate evidence on which to base any standard, temporary or permanent. We say no more than that evidence based on risk-assessment analysis is precisely the type of data that may be more uncritically accepted after public scru tiny, through nodce-an-comment rulemaking, especially when the conclusions it suggests are controversial or subject to different interpretations. ' to the-Agency. Industrial Workers Union. 448 U.S. at 6557V. 62;100 S.Ct. at 2871; 65 L.Ed.2d at_____ "Some risks are plainly acceptable and others are plainly unacceptable." Id. at 655; 100 S.Ct. at 2870; 65 L.Ed.2d at_______ The Secretary determined that eighty lives at -'risk is a grave danger. We are not prepared to say it is not. - The Agency need not support Its conclusion "with ' -C. ,- Even assuming that OSHA's projected benefits would accure from the ETS, however, we hold that OSHA's action must fail for another reason. The Agency has not proved that the ETS. OSHA's most dramatic weapon in its eniorcement arsenal, is "necessary" to achieve the projuuud benefits.-------------------------- anything approaching scientific certainty." Id. at 656, As OSHA concedes, the probable practical effect of 100 S.Ct. at 2871; 65 L.Ed.2d at. Additionally, so the ETS, which allows compliance through "any feasible long as the Agency supports its conclusion with "a body of combination of engineering controls, work practices, and reputable scientific thought," it may "use conservative personal protective equipment and devices," would be assumptions" to support that conclusion. Id. The Agency that employers would require employees to wear respira also has a prerogative to choose between conflicting evi tors . Current regulations already require employers to dence of equivalent quality, and a court will consider a outfit workers with respirators that can provide up to one finding consistent with one authority or another to be sup hundred-fold protection. 29 C.F.R. ported by substantial evidence. American Petroleum In 111910.1001(c)(2)(lii), (d)(2)(ii), and (d)(2)(iii). Yet stitute, 581 F. 2d at 507. OSHA did not include in its calculations the effect of en - The Secretary must, however present a statement forcing the current standard by requiring employers in of the reasons for his action. 29 U.S.C. {655(e). It is axiomatic that the reasons the Agency gives at the time it the drywall construction and demolition industry to fur nish these respirators. Counsel for OSHA informed the acts form the actual basis for the Agency's action. See, court at oral argument that the Secretary considers the e.g. Industrial Union, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum regulation requiring construction and demolition workers Institute, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 2858 n.3l (1980) (plurality): to wear respirators to be unenforceable absent actual . As we have often held, the validity of an agency's de termination must be Judged on the basis of the agency's monitoring to show that ambient asbestos particles are so far above the permissible limit that respirators are nec- stated reasons for making that determination. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 95 S.Ct. 454, 462, 87 L.Ed. 626 ("[Ajn administrative order cannot be upheld unless the grounds upon which the agency acted In exercising its powers were those upon which its ac tion can be sustafiied"); FPC v. Texaco Inc., 4178 U.S. 380, 397, 94S.Ct. 2315, 2326, 41 L.Ed.2d 141; FTC v. Sperry L Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233, 249, 92 S.Ct. 898, 907, 31 L.Ed.2d 170. See also Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 91 S.Ct. 814, 825 (1971). OSHA has made the number of deaths avoided -- at least 80 -- the basis for its rulemaking. Yet it is apparent from an examination of the record that the actual number of lives saved is uncertain, ansd is likely to be substantially " See supra note 8. 29 C.F.R. |{1910.1001(d)(ii) and (iii) provide (emphasis added): -! (ii) Powered air purifying respirators. A full face - piece powered air purifying respirator, or a powered air purifying respirator, or a respirator described in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, shall be used to reduce the concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers in the respirator below the exposure limits prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, when the ceiling or the 8-hour time-weighted average concentrations of as bestos fibers are reasonably expected to exceed 10 times, but not 100 times, those limits. (iii) Type "C" supplied-air respirators, continuous flow or pressure-demand class. A type "C" continu ous flow or pres sure-demand, supplied-air respirator " In the November 4 publication, OSHA stated chat i shall be used to reduce the concentrations of airborne 210 lives will be saved over six months. The Agency, asbestos fibers in the respirator below the exposure however, concedes that this figure is inflated because it i limits prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, Includes these lives that OSHA could save by enforcing Us j when the ceiling or the 8-hour time-weighted average current 2.0 f/cc standard. See supra note 8 and accom- ! air-borne concentrations of asbestos fibers are rea panying text. ' I sonably expected to exceed ICC times those limits. LAM 024511 ABS-007690 3-12-84 (DLR) TEXT (No. 48) D - 7 essary to bring the employees' exposure within the PEL of 2.0 f/cc. Fear of a successful judicial challenge to en forcement of OSHA's permanent standard regarding'res pirator use hardly Justifies resort to the most dramatic weapon In OSHA's enforcement arsenal.* Thus, lacking a satisfactory explanation why the ETS is a necesssr/ means to achieve the added saving obtainable by applica tion of the current regulations, we must assume that OSHA's claimed benefit should be discounted by some ad ditional, uncertain amount. OSHA also attempts to justify the ETS by emphasiz ing that the ETS does more to protect worker's health than simply lowering the asbestos fiber PEL. An ETS, however, is not necessary to achieve these ancillary benefits. The ETS requires employers to educate em ployees concerning the risks of asbestos exposure and the proper steps necessary to minimize exposure. While education Is a worthy objective, OSHA could achieve it without invoking its extraordinary ETS power. Indeed, current regulations provide for worker training and edu cation. Id. at 1926.21. Similarly, OSHA supports its action by arguing that it plans to increase enforcement efforts, with die aim of encouraging greater compliance with die new standard than it estimates currently exists under the present standard. Increasing enforcement is another worthy objective; but it likewise cannot justify ' Indeed, Occupational Safety and Health-Review Commission decisions do not support the Secretary's in terpretation. See Anaconda Aluminum Co., OSH Dec. (CCH) 125,300 (1981) (51910.1001 applies to all workers, not merely those exposed to concentrations of asbestos fibers greater than the allowable limit). The regulations themselves appear to authorize Type C respirators at 10 times the currenrPEL. See supra note 23. use of the ETS power, especially when, as in this case, much of the claimed benefit could be obtained simply by enforcing the current standard. In'sum, although asbestos doubtless may present a grave danger to workers, the record considered as a whole does not substantially support OSHA's conclusion that an ETS lowering worker PEL from 2.0 f/cc to 0.5 f/cc is necessary to alleviate a grave risk of worker deaths during its six-month term. This court, in ruling on a challenge to an ETS, has "rejected] any suggestion that deaths must occur before health and safety standards may be adopted," Florida Peach Growers Association, supra at 132, and we make no such suggestion here. Ad ditionally, we do not decide whether the record would support a conclusion that some threat to workers' health of a magnitude substantially less than 80 deaths during the ETS period constitutes a grave danger necessitating an ETS of 0.5 f/cc. Gravity of dancer Is a nblicv decision committed to OSHA- hoi to me cnurtv. Wa hold only that an ETS that lacks support In the record for the basis OSHA has articulated must be declared invalid-! ! ' V. OSHA may, of course, continue its plan to increase enforcement of the current PEL. If danger is imminent, it should complete nodce-and-comment rulemaking as quickly as possible to determine if a new standard Tower ing the PEL to 0.5 f/cc, or even lower, is appropriate. Our finding here that substantial evidence does not exist to support a six-month ETS should not be construed as a prediction that a lower asbestos PEL would fail under ju dicial scrutiny if OSHA promulgates it pursuant to proper nodce-and-comment rulemaking procedures. We determine the Emergency Temporary Standard^ to be invalid because die record, considered as a whole, does not Indicate that die risk the ETS seeks to eliminate > is "grave," as OSHA itself has defined it, or that the Y^' ETS is '.'necessary," as those terms are used in the ETS/ statute .V " ENFORCEMENT OF EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD STAYED. . -- End of Text -- -- End of Section D -- LAM 024512 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. Washington. O.C. 20037 ABS-007691