AMERICAN TEXTILE MFRS. INST. v. DONOVAN

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Act) "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions. . . ." § 2 (b), 84 Stat. 1590, 29 U. S. C. § 651 (b). The Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to establish, after notice and opportunity to comment, mandatory nationwide standards governing health and safety in the workplace. 29 U. S. C. §§ 655 (a), (b). In 1978, the Secretary, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),1 promulgated a standard limiting occupational exposure to cotton dust, an airborne particle byproduct of the preparation and manufacture of cotton products, exposure to which induces a "constellation of respiratory effects" known as "byssinosis." 43 Fed. Reg. 27352, col. 3 (1978). This disease was one of the expressly recognized health hazards that led to passage of the Act. S. Rep. No. 91-1282, p. 3 (1970), Legislative History of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, p. 143 (Comm. Print 1971) (Leg. Hist.).

Petitioners in these consolidated cases, representing the interests of the cotton industry,2 challenged the validity of the "Cotton Dust Standard" in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pursuant to § 6 (f) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 655 (f). They contend in this Court, as they did below, that the Act requires OSHA to demonstrate that its Standard reflects a reasonable relationship between the costs and benefits associated with the Standard. Respondents, the Secretary of Labor and two labor organizations,3 counter that Congress balanced the costs and benefits in the Act itself, and that the Act should therefore be construed not to require OSHA to do so. They interpret the Act as mandating that OSHA enact the most protective standard possible to eliminate a significant risk of material health impairment, subject to the constraints of economic and technological feasibility. The Court of Appeals held that the Act did not require OSHA to compare costs and benefits. AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 199 U. S. App. D. C. 54, 617 F.2d 636 (1979). We granted certiorari, 449 U.S. 817 (1980), to resolve this important question, which was presented but not decided in last Term's Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980),4 and to decide other issues related to the Cotton Dust Standard.5

I

Byssinosis, known in its more severe manifestations as "brown lung" disease, is a serious and potentially disabling respiratory disease primarily caused by the inhalation of cotton dust.6 See 43 Fed. Reg. 27352-27354 (1978); Exhibit 6-16, App. 15-22.7 Byssinosis is a "continuum . . . disease," 43 Fed. Reg. 27354, col. 2 (1978), that has been categorized into four grades.8 In its least serious form, byssinosis produces both subjective symptoms, such as chest tightness, shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing, and objective indications of loss of pulmonary functions. Id., at 27352, col. 2. In its most serious form, byssinosis is a chronic and irreversible obstructive pulmonary disease, clinically similar to chronic bronchitis or emphysema, and can be severely disabling. Ibid. At worst, as is true of other respiratory diseases including bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma, byssinosis can create an additional strain on cardiovascular functions and can contribute to death from heart failure. See Exhibit 6-73, App. 72 ("there is an association between mortality and the extent of dust exposure"). One authority has described the increasing seriousness of byssinosis as follows:

While there is some uncertainty over the manner in which the disease progresses from its least serious to its disabling grades, it is likely that prolonged exposure contributes to the progression. 43 Fed. Reg. 27354, cols. 1 and 2 (1978); Exhibit 6-27, App. 25; Exhibit 11, App. 152. It also appears that a worker may suddenly contract a severe grade without experiencing milder grades of the disease. Exhibit 41, App. 192.10

Estimates indicate that at least 35,000 employed and retired cotton mill workers, or 1 in 12 such workers, suffer from the most disabling form of byssinosis.11 43 Fed. Reg. 27353, col. 3 (1978); Exhibit 124, App. 347. The Senate Report accompanying the Act cited estimates that 100,000 active and retired workers suffer from some grade of the disease. S. Rep. No. 91-1282, p. 3 (1970), Leg. Hist. 143. One study found that over 25% of a sample of active cotton-preparation and yarn-manufacturing workers suffer at least some form of the disease at a dust exposure level common prior to adoption of the current Standard. 43 Fed. Reg. 27355, col. 3 (1978); Exhibit 6-51, App. 44.12 Other studies confirm these general findings on the prevalence of byssinosis. See, e. g., Ct. of App. J. A. 3683; Ex. 6-56, id., at 376-385.

Not until the early 1960's was byssinosis recognized in the United States as a distinct occupational hazard associated with cotton mills. S. Rep. No. 91-1282, supra, at 3, Leg. Hist. 143.13 In 1966, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), a private organization, recommended that exposure to total cotton dust14 be limited to a "threshold limit value" of 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter of air (1,000 μg/m[3]) averaged over an 8-hour workday. See 43 Fed. Reg. 27351, col. 1 (1978). The United States Government first regulated exposure to cotton dust in 1968, when the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to the Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U. S. C. § 35 (e), promulgated airborne contaminant threshold limit values, applicable to public contractors, that included the 1,000 μg/m[3] limit for total cotton dust. 34 Fed. Reg. 7953 (1969).15 Following passage of the Act in 1970, the 1,000 μg/m[3] standard was adopted as an "established Federal standard" under § 6 (a) of the Act, 84 Stat. 1593, 29 U. S. C. § 655 (a), a provision designed to guarantee immediate protection of workers for the period between enactment of the statute and promulgation of permanent standards.16

In 1974, ACGIH, adopting a new measurement unit of respirable rather than total dust, lowered its previous exposure limit recommendation to 200 μg/m[3] measured by a vertical elutriator, a device that measures cotton dust particles 15 microns or less in diameter. 43 Fed. Reg. 27351, col. 1, 27355, col. 2 (1978).17 That same year, the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),18 pursuant to the Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 669 (a) (3), 671 (d) (2), submitted to the Secretary of Labor a recommendation for a cotton dust standard with a permissible exposure limit (PEL) that "should be set at the lowest level feasible, but in no case at an environmental concentration as high as 0.2 mg lint-free cotton dust/cu m," or 200 μg/m[3] of lint-free respirable dust.19 Ex. 1, Ct. of App. J. A. 11; 41 Fed. Reg. 56500, col. 1 (1976). Several months later, OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 39 Fed. Reg. 44769 (1974), requesting comments from interested parties on the NIOSH recommendation and other related matters. Soon thereafter, the Textile Worker's Union of America, joined by the North Carolina Public Interest Research Group, petitioned the Secretary, urging a more stringent PEL of 100 μg/m[3].

On December 28, 1976, OSHA published a proposal to replace the existing federal standard on cotton dust with a new permanent standard, pursuant to § 6 (b) (5) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 655 (b) (5). 41 Fed. Reg. 56498. The proposed standard contained a PEL of 200 μg/m[3] of vertical elutriated lint-free respirable cotton dust for all segments of the cotton industry. Ibid. It also suggested an implementation strategy for achieving the PEL that relied on respirators for the short term and engineering controls for the long term. Id., at 56506, cols. 2 and 3. OSHA invited interested parties to submit written comments within a 90-day period.20

Following the comment period, OSHA conducted three hearings in Washington, D. C., Greenville, Miss., and Lubbock, Tex., that lasted over 14 days. Public participation was widespread, involving representatives from industry and the work force, scientists, economists, industrial hygienists, and many others. By the time the informal rulemaking procedure had terminated, OSHA had received 263 comments and 109 notices of intent to appear at the hearings. 43 Fed. Reg. 27351, col. 2 (1978). The voluminous record, composed of a transcript of written and oral testimony, exhibits, and posthearing comments and briefs, totaled some 105,000 pages. 199 U. S. App. D. C., at 65, 617 F. 2d, at 647. OSHA issued its final Cotton Dust Standard—the one challenged in the instant case—on June 23, 1978. Along with an accompanying statement of findings and reasons, the Standard occupied 69 pages of the Federal Register. 43 Fed. Reg. 27350-27418 (1978); see 29 CFR § 1910.1043 (1980).

The Cotton Dust Standard promulgated by OSHA establishes mandatory PEL's over an 8-hour period of 200 μg/m[3] for yarn manufacturing,21 750 μg/m[3] for slashing and weaving operations, and 500 μg/m[3] for all other processes in the cotton industry.22 29 CFR § 1910.1043 (c) (1980). These levels represent a relaxation of the proposed PEL of 200 μg/m[3] for all segments of the cotton industry.

OSHA chose an implementation strategy for the Standard that depend primarily on a mix of engineering controls, such as installation of ventilation systems,23 and work practice controls, such as special floor-sweeping procedures. Full compliance with the PEL's is required within four years, except to the extent that employers can establish that the engineering and work practice controls are infeasible. § 1910.1043 (e) (1). During this compliance period, and at certain other times, the Standard requires employers to provide respirators to employees. § 1910.1043 (f). Other requirements include monitoring of cotton dust exposure, medical surveillance of all employees, annual medical examinations, employee education and training programs, and the posting of warning signs. A specific provision also under challenge in the instant case requires employers to transfer employees unable to wear respirators to another position, if available, having a dust level at or below the Standard's PEL's, with "no loss of earnings or other employment rights or benefits as a result of the transfer." § 1910.1043 (f) (2) (v).

On the basis of the evidence in the record as a whole, the Secretary determined that exposure to cotton dust represents a "significant health hazard to employees," 43 Fed. Reg. 27350, col. 1 (1978), and that "the prevalence of byssinosis should be significantly reduced" by the adoption of the Standard's PEL's, id., at 27359, col. 3. In assessing the health risks from cotton dust and the risk reduction obtained from lowered exposure, OSHA relied particularly on data showing a strong linear relationship between the prevalence of byssinosis and the concentration of lint-free respirable cotton dust. Id., at 27355-27359; Exhibit 6-51, App. 29-55. See also Ex. 6-17, Ct. of App. J. A. 235-245; Ex. 38D, id., at 1492-1839. Even at the 200 μg/m[3] PEL, OSHA found that the prevalence of at least Grade 1/2 byssinosis would be 13% of all employees in the yarn manufacturing sector. 43 Fed. Reg. 27359, cols. 2 and 3 (1978).

In promulgating the Cotton Dust Standard, OSHA interpreted the Act to require adoption of the most stringent standard to protect against material health impairment, bounded only by technological and economic feasibility. Id., at 27361, col. 3. OSHA therefore rejected the industry's alternative proposal for a PEL of 500 μg/m[3] in yarn manufacturing, a proposal which would produce a 25% prevalence of at least Grade 1/2 byssinosis. The agency expressly found the Standard to be both technologically and economically feasible based on the evidence in the record as a whole. Although recognizing that permitted levels of exposure to cotton dust would still cause some byssinosis, OSHA nevertheless rejected the union proposal for a 100 μg/m[3] PEL because it was not within the "technological capabilities of the industry." Id., at 27359-27360. Similarly, OSHA set PEL's for some segments of the cotton industry at 500 μg/m[3] in part because of limitations of technological feasibility. Id., at 27361, col. 3. Finally, the Secretary found that "engineering dust controls in weaving may not be feasible even with massive expenditures by the industry," id., at 27360, col. 2, and for that and other reasons adopted a less stringent PEL of 750 μg/m[3] for weaving and slashing.

The Court of Appeals upheld the Standard in all major respects.24 The court rejected the industry's claim that OSHA failed to consider its proposed alternative or give sufficient reasons for failing to adopt it. 199 U. S. App. D. C., at 70-72, 617 F. 2d, at 652-654. The court also held that the Standard was "reasonably necessary and appropriate" within the meaning of § 3 (8) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 652 (8), because of the risk of material health impairment caused by exposure to cotton dust. 199 U. S. App. D. C., at 72-73, and n. 83, 617 F. 2d, at 654-655, and n. 83. Rejecting the industry position that OSHA must demonstrate that the benefits of the Standard are proportionate to its costs, the court instead agreed with OSHA's interpretation that the Standard must protect employees against material health impairment subject only to the limits of technological and economic feasibility. Id., at 80-84, 617 F.2d 662-666. The court held that "Congress itself struck the balance between costs and benefits in the mandate to the agency" under § 6 (b) (5) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 655 (b) (5), and that OSHA is powerless to circumvent that judgment by adopting less than the most protective feasible standard. 199 U. S. App. D. C., at 81, 617 F. 2d, at 663. Finally, the court held that the agency's determination of technological and economic feasibility was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Id., at 73-80, 617 F. 2d, at 655-662.

We affirm in part, and vacate in part.25

II

The principal question presented in these cases is whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires the Secretary, in promulgating a standard pursuant to § 6 (b) (5) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 655 (b) (5), to determine that the costs of the standard bear a reasonable relationship to its benefits. Relying on §§ 6 (b) (5) and 3 (8) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 655 (b) (5) and 652 (8), petitioners urge not only that OSHA must show that a standard addresses a significant risk of material health impairment, see Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S., at 639 (plurality opinion), but also that OSHA must demonstrate that the reduction in risk of material health impairment is significant in light of the costs of attaining that reduction. See Brief for Petitioners in No. 79-1429, pp. 38-41.26 Respondents on the other hand contend that the Act requires OSHA to promulgate standards that eliminate or reduce such risks "to the extent such protection is technologically and economically feasible." Brief for Federal Respondent 38; Brief for Union Respondents 26-27.27 To resolve this debate, we must turn to the language, structure, and legislative history of the Act.

A

The starting point of our analysis is the language of the statute itself. Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 97 (1981); Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 337 (1979). Section 6 (b) (5) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 655 (b) (5) (emphasis added), provides:

Although their interpretations differ, all parties agree that the phrase "to the extent feasible" contains the critical language in § 6 (b) (5) for purposes of these cases.

The plain meaning of the word "feasible" supports respondents' interpretation of the statute. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 831 (1976), "feasible" means "capable of being done, executed, or effected." Accord, the Oxford English Dictionary 116 (1933) ("Capable of being done, accomplished or carried out"); Funk & Wagnalls New "Standard" Dictionary of the English Language 903 (1957) ("That may be done, performed or effected"). Thus, § 6 (b) (5) directs the Secretary to issue the standard that "most adequately assures. . . that no employee will suffer material impairment of health," limited only by the extent to which this is "capable of being done." In effect then, as the Court of Appeals held, Congress itself defined the basic relationship between costs and benefits, by placing the "benefit" of worker health above all other considerations save those making attainment of this "benefit" unachievable. Any standard based on a balancing of costs and benefits by the Secretary that strikes a different balance than that struck by Congress would be inconsistent with the command set forth in § 6 (b) (5). Thus, cost-benefit analysis by OSHA is not required by the statute because feasibility analysis is.29 See Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S., at 718-719 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).

When Congress has intended that an agency engage in cost-benefit analysis, it has clearly indicated such intent on the face of the statute. One early example is the Flood Control Act of 1936, 33 U. S. C. § 701:

A more recent example is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, 43 U. S. C. § 1347 (b) (1976 ed., Supp. III), providing that offshore drilling operations shall use

These and other statutes30 demonstrate that Congress uses specific language when intending that an agency engage in cost-benefit analysis. See Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, supra, at 710, n. 27 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). Certainly in light of its ordinary meaning, the word "feasible" cannot be construed to articulate such congressional intent. We therefore reject the argument that Congress required cost-benefit analysis in § 6 (b) (5).

B

Even though the plain language of § 6 (b) (5) supports this construction, we must still decide whether § 3 (8), the general definition of an occupational safety and health standard, either alone or in tandem with § 6 (b) (5), incorporates a cost-benefit requirement for standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents. Section 3 (8) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 652 (8) (emphasis added), provides:

Taken alone, the phrase "reasonably necessary or appropriate" might be construed to contemplate some balancing of the costs and benefits of a standard. Petitioners urge that, so construed, § 3 (8) engrafts a cost-benefit analysis requirement on the issuance of § 6 (b) (5) standards, even if § 6 (b) (5) itself does not authorize such analysis. We need not decide whether § 3(8), standing alone, would contemplate some form of cost-benefit analysis. For even if it does, Congress specifically chose in § 6 (b) (5) to impose separate and additional requirements for issuance of a subcategory of occupational safety and health standards dealing with toxic materials and harmful physical agents: it required that those standards be issued to prevent material impairment of health to the extent feasible. Congress could reasonably have concluded that health standards should be subject to different criteria than safety standards because of the special problems presented in regulating them. See Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S., at 649, n. 54 (plurality opinion).

Agreement with petitioners' argument that § 3 (8) imposes an additional and overriding requirement of cost-benefit analysis on the issuance of § 6 (b) (5) standards would eviscerate the "to the extent feasible" requirement. Standards would inevitably be set at the level indicated by cost-benefit analysis, and not at the level specified by § 6 (b) (5). For example, if cost-benefit analysis indicated a protective standard of 1,000 μg/m[3] PEL, while feasibility analysis indicated a 500 μg/m[3] PEL, the agency would be forced by the cost-benefit requirement to choose the less stringent point.31 We cannot believe that Congress intended the general terms of § 3 (8) to countermand the specific feasibility requirement of § 6 (b) (5). Adoption of petitioners' interpretation would effectively write § 6 (b) (5) out of the Act. We decline to render Congress' decision to include a feasibility requirement nugatory, thereby offending the well-settled rule that all parts of a statute, if possible, are to be given effect. E. g., Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S., at 339; Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609, 633-634 (1973); Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307-308 (1961). Congress did not contemplate any further balancing by the agency for toxic material and harmful physical agents standards, and we should not " `impute to Congress a purpose to paralyze with one hand what it sought to promote with the other.'" Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., supra, at 631, quoting Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, 332 U.S. 480, 489 (1947).32

C

The legislative history of the Act, while concededly not crystal clear, provides general support for respondents' interpretation of the Act. The congressional Reports and debates certainly confirm that Congress meant "feasible" and nothing else in using that term. Congress was concerned that the Act might be thought to require achievement of absolute safety, an impossible standard, and therefore insisted that health and safety goals be capable of economic and technological accomplishment. Perhaps most telling is the absence of any indication whatsoever that Congress intended OSHA to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis before promulgating a toxic material or harmful physical agent standard. The legislative history demonstrates conclusively that Congress was fully aware that the Act would impose real and substantial costs of compliance on industry, and believed that such costs were part of the cost of doing business. We thus turn to the relevant portions of the legislative history.

Neither the original Senate bill, S. 2193, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969), introduced by Senator Williams, nor the original House bill, H. R. 16785, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), introduced by Representative Daniels, included specific provisions controlling the issuance of standards governing toxic materials and harmful physical agents, Leg. Hist. 1, 6-7 (Williams bill); 721, 728-732 (Daniels bill), although both contained the definitional section enacted as § 3 (8).33 The House Committee on Education and Labor, to which the Daniels bill was referred, reported out an amended bill that included the following section:

The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, reporting on the Williams bill, included a provision virtually identical to the House version, except for the additional requirement that the Secretary set the standard "which most adequately and feasibly assures . . . that no employee will suffer any impairment of health." Id., at 242 (the Senate provision was numbered § 6 (b) (5)) (emphasis added). This addition to the Williams bill was offered by Senator Javits, who explained his amendment:

Thus the Senator's concern was that a standard might require "absolute health and safety" without any consideration as to whether such a condition was achievable. The full Senate Committee also noted that standards promulgated under this provision "shall represent feasible requirements," S. Rep. No. 91-1282, at 7, Leg. Hist. 147, and commented that "[s]uch standards should be directed at assuring, so far as possible, that no employee will suffer impaired health . . . ." ibid. (emphasis added).

The final amendments to this Senate provision, resulting in § 6 (b) (5) of the Act, were proposed and adopted on the Senate floor after the Committee reported out the bill. Senator Dominick, who played a prominent role in this amendment process, see 116 Cong. Rec. 37631 (1970), Leg. Hist. 526 (comments of Sen. Javits); 116 Cong. Rec., at 37631, Leg. Hist. 527 (comments of Sen. Williams), continued to be concerned that the Act might be read to require absolute safety. He therefore proposed that the entire first sentence of § 6 (b) (5) be struck, explaining:

In the ensuing floor debate on this issue, Senator Dominick reiterated his concern that "[i]t is unrealistic to attempt. as [the Committee's § 6 (b) (5)] apparently does, to establish a utopia free from any hazards. Absolute safety is an impossibility . . . ." 116 Cong. Rec. 37614 (1970), Leg. Hist. 480.35 The Senator concluded: "Any administrator responsible for enforcing the statute will be faced with an impossible choice. Either he must forbid employment in all occupations where there is any risk of injury, even if the technical state of the art could not remove the hazard, or he must ignore the mandate of Congress . . . ." 116 Cong. Rec., at 37614, Leg. Hist. 481-482.

Senator Dominick failed in his efforts to have the first sentence of § 6 (b) (5) deleted. However, after working with Senators Williams and Javits, he introduced an amended version of the first sentence which he thought was "agreeable to all" and which became § 6 (b) (5) as it now appears in the Act. 116 Cong. Rec., at 37622, Leg. Hist. 502. This amendment limited the applicability of § 6 (b) (5) to "toxic materials and harmful physical agents," changed "health impairment" to "material impairment of health," and deleted the reference to "diminished life expectancy." Significantly, the feasibility requirement was left intact in the statute. Instead of the phrase "which most adequately and feasibly assures," the amendment merely substituted "which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible," to emphasize that the feasibility requirement operated as a limit on the promulgation of standards under § 6 (b) (5).

Senator Dominick believed that his modifications made clearer that attainment of an absolutely safe working environment could not be achieved through "prohibition of the occupation itself," Leg. Hist. 367, and that toxic material and harmful physical agent standards should not address frivolous harms that exist in every workplace. The feasibility requirement, along with the need for a "material impairment of health," were thus thought to satisfy these two concerns. He explained the effect of the amendment:

Senator Williams added that the amendment "will provide a continued direction to the Secretary that he shall be required to set the standard which most adequately and to the greatest extent feasible assures" that no employee will suffer any material health impairment. 116 Cong. Rec., at 37622, Leg. Hist. 503. The Senate thereafter passed S. 2193. One week later, the House passed a substitute bill which failed to contain any substantive criteria for the issuance of health standards in place of its original bill. 116 Cong. Rec., at 38716-38717, Leg. Hist. 1094-1096. At the joint House-Senate Conference, however, the House conferees acceded to the Senate's version of § 6 (b) (5).36

Not only does the legislative history confirm that Congress meant "feasible" rather than "cost-benefit" when it used the former term, but it also shows that Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to create a safe and healthful working environment.37 Congress viewed the costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business. Senator Yarborough, a cosponsor of the Williams bill, stated: "We know the costs would be put into consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million workers in America." 116 Cong. Rec., at 37345, Leg. Hist. 444. He asked:

Senator Eagleton commented that "[t]he costs that will be incurred by employers in meeting the standards of health and safety to be established under this bill are, in my view, reasonable and necessary costs of doing business." 116 Cong. Rec., at 41764, Leg. Hist. 1150-1151 (emphasis added).38

Other Members of Congress voiced similar views.39 Nowhere is there any indication that Congress contemplated a different balancing by OSHA of the benefits of worker health and safety against the costs of achieving them. Indeed Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of eliminating these problems. In its statement of findings and declaration of purpose encompassed in the Act itself, Congress announced that "personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments." 29 U. S. C. § 651 (a). The Senate was well aware of the magnitude of these costs:

Senator Eagleton summarized: "Whether we, as individuals, are motivated by simple humanity or by simple economics, we can no longer permit profits to be dependent upon an unsafe or unhealthy worksite." 116 Cong. Rec. 41764 (1970), Leg. Hist. 1150-1151.

III

Section 6 (f) of the Act provides that "[t]he determinations of the Secretary shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole." 29 U. S. C. § 655 (f). Petitioners contend that the Secretary's determination that the Cotton Dust Standard is "economically feasible" is not supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. In particular, they claim (1) that OSHA underestimated the financial costs necessary to meet the Standard's requirements; and (2) that OSHA incorrectly found that the Standard would not threaten the economic viability of the cotton industry.

In statutes with provisions virtually identical to § 6 (f) of the Act, we have defined substantial evidence as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951). The reviewing court must take into account contradictory evidence in the record, id., at 487-488, but "the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence," Consolo v. FMC, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). Since the Act places responsibility for determining substantial evidence questions in the courts of appeals, 29 U. S. C. § 655 (f), we apply the familiar rule that "[t]his Court will intervene only in what ought to be the rare instance when the [substantial evidence] standard appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied" by the court below. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, supra, at 491; see Mobil Oil Corp. v. FPC, 417 U.S. 283, 292, 310 (1974); FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 355 U.S. 396, 400-401 (1958). Therefore, our inquiry is not to determine whether we, in the first instance, would find OSHA's findings supported by substantial evidence. Instead we turn to OSHA's findings and the record upon which they were based to decide whether the Court of Appeals "misapprehended or grossly misapplied" the substantial evidence test.

A

OSHA derived its cost estimate for industry compliance with the Cotton Dust Standard after reviewing two financial analyses, one prepared by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), an OSHA-contracted group, the other by industry representatives (Hocutt-Thomas).40 The agency carefully explored the assumptions and methodologies underlying the conclusions of each of these studies. From this exercise the agency was able to build upon conclusions from each which it found reliable and explain its process for choosing its cost estimate. A brief summary of OSHA's treatment of the two studies follows.

OSHA rejected RTI's cost estimate of $1.1 billion for textile industry engineering controls for three principal reasons.41 First, OSHA believed that RTI's estimate should be discounted by 30%, 43 Fed. Reg. 27372, col. 3 (1978), because that estimate was based on the assumption that engineering controls would be applied to all equipment in mills, including those processing pure synthetic fibers, even though cotton dust is not generated by such equipment. RTI had observed that "[e]xclusion of equipment processing man-made fibers only could reduce these costs by as much as 30 percent." Ex. 6-76, Ct. of App. J. A. 585.42 Since the Standard did not require controls on synthetics-only equipment, OSHA rejected RTI's assumption about application of controls to synthetics-only machines. 43 Fed. Reg. 27371, col. 3 (1978). Second, OSHA concluded that RTI "may have over-estimated compliance costs since some operations are already in compliance with the permissible exposure limit of the new standard." Id., at 27370, cols. 2 and 3. Evidence indicated that some mills had attained PEL's of 200 μg/m[3] or less, while others were below the 1,000 μg/m[3] total dust level.43 Therefore, OSHA disagreed with RTI's assumption that the industry had not reduced cotton dust exposure below the existing standard's 1,000 μg/m[3] total dust PEL. Id., at 27370, col. 3. Third, OSHA found that the RTI study suffered from lack of recent accurate industry data. Id., at 27373, col. 1; see Ex. 6-76, Ct. of App. J. A. 858; Ex. 16., id., at 1357, 1359.

In light of these deficiencies in the RTI study, OSHA adopted the Hocutt-Thomas estimate for textile industry engineering controls of $543 million,44 emphasizing that, because it was based on the most recent industry data, it was more realistic than RTI's estimate. 43 Fed. Reg. 27373, col. 1 (1978).45 Nevertheless OSHA concluded that the Hocutt-Thomas estimate was overstated for four principal reasons. First, Hocutt-Thomas included costs of achieving the existing PEL of 1,000 μg/m[3], while OSHA thought it likely that compliance was more widespread and that some mills had in fact achieved the final standard's PEL. Ibid.; see n. 43, supra.46 Second, Hocutt-Thomas declined to make any allowance for the trend toward replacement of existing production machines with newer more productive equipment.47 Relying on this "[n]atural production tren[d]," 43 Fed. Reg. 27359, col. 1 (1978), OSHA concluded that fewer machines than estimated by Hocutt-Thomas would require retrofitting or other controls, id., at 27372, col. 3. Third, OSHA thought that Hocutt-Thomas failed to take into account development of new technologies likely to occur during the 4-year compliance period. Ibid.48 Fourth, OSHA believed that Hocutt-Thomas might have improperly included control costs for synthetics-only machines, ibid., an inclusion which could result in a 30% cost overestimate.49

Petitioners criticize OSHA's adoption of the Hocutt-Thomas estimate, since that estimate was based on achievement of somewhat less stringent PEL's than those ultimately promulgated in the final Standard.50 Thus, even if the Hocutt-Thomas estimate was exaggerated, they assert that "only by the most remarkable coincidence would the amount of that overestimate be equal to the additional costs required to attain the far more stringent limits of the Standard OSHA actually adopted." Brief for Petitioners in No. 79-1429, p. 27; see Brief for Petitioner in No. 79-1583, pp. 14-15. The agency itself recognized the problem cited by petitioners, but found itself limited in the precision of its estimates by the industry's refusal to make more of its own data available.51 OSHA explained that, "in the absence of the [industry] survey data [of textile mills], OSHA cannot develop more accurate estimates of compliance costs." 43 Fed. Reg. 27373, col. 1 (1978). Since § 6 (b) (5) of the Act requires that the Secretary promulgate toxic material and harmful physical agent standards "on the basis of the best available evidence," 29 U. S. C. § 655 (b) (5), and since OSHA could not obtain the more detailed confidential industry data it thought essential to further precision, we conclude that the agency acted reasonably in adopting the Hocutt-Thomas estimate.52 While a cost estimate based on the standard actually promulgated surely would be preferable,53 we decline to hold as a matter of law that its absence under the circumstances required the Court of Appeals to find that OSHA's determination was unsupported by substantial evidence.54

Therefore, whether or not in the first instance we would find the Secretary's conclusions supported by substantial evidence, we cannot say that the Court of Appeals in this case "misapprehended or grossly misapplied" the substantial evidence test when it found that "OSHA reasonably evaluated the cost estimates before it, considered criticisms of each, and selected suitable estimates of compliance costs." 199 U. S. App. D. C., at 79, 617 F. 2d, at 661 (footnote omitted).

B

After estimating the cost of compliance with the Cotton Dust Standard, OSHA analyzed whether it was "economically feasible" for the cotton industry to bear this cost.55 OSHA concluded that it was, finding that "although some marginal employers may shut down rather than comply, the industry as a whole will not be threatened by the capital requirements of the regulation." 43 Fed. Reg. 27378, col. 2 (1978); see id., at 27379, col. 3 ("compliance with the standard is well within the financial capability of the covered industries"). In reaching this conclusion on the Standard's economic impact, OSHA made specific findings with respect to employment, energy consumption, capital financing availability, and profitability. Id., at 27377-27378. To support its findings, the agency relied primarily on RTI's comprehensive investigation of the Standard's economic impact.56

RTI evaluated the likely economic impact on the cotton industry and the United States' economy of OSHA's original proposed standard, an across-the-board 200 μg/m[3] PEL. Ex. 6-76, Ct. of App. J. A. 626.57 RTI had estimated a total compliance cost of $2.7 billion for a 200 μg/m[3] PEL,58 and used this estimate in assessing the economic impact of such a standard. Id., at 736-737. As described in n. 44, supra, OSHA estimated total compliance costs of $656.5 million for the final Cotton Dust Standard,59 a standard less stringent than the across-the-board 200 μg/m[3] PEL of the proposed standard. Therefore, the agency found that the economic impact of its Standard would be "much less severe" than that suggested by RTI for a 200 μg/m[3] PEL estimate of $2.7 billion. 43 Fed. Reg. 27378, col. 2 (1978). Nevertheless, it is instructive to review RTI's conclusions with respect to the economic impact of a $2.7 billion cost estimate. RTI found:

In reaching this conclusion, RTI analyzed the total and annual economic impact60 on each of the different sectors of the cotton industry.

For example, in yarn production (opening through spinning), RTI found that the total additional capital requirement per dollar of industry shipment was 7.8 cents, and that the corresponding annual requirement was 1.9 cents. Ex. 6-76, id., at 729. Average price increases necessary to maintain prestandard rates of return on investment were estimated to range from 0.22 cents to 6.25 cents per dollar of industry sales.61 Ibid. Even assuming no price increases, only one of the six yarn-producing operations would experience a negative rate of return on investment, while the five other rates of return would range from 1.4% to 3.9%. Id., at 652.62 RTI estimated the average prestandard rate of return for the yarn-producing sector as 4.1%. Ibid.

Through an output demand elasticity analysis, RTI determined that price increases necessitated by the 200 μg/m[3] standard would result in a 1.68% contraction of cotton yarn consumption.63 Id., at 685; see id., at 680-687. RTI also discussed the effects of such price increases on interfiber and domestic/foreign competition. RTI observed that "non-price factors have probably dominated" the competition between cotton and manmade fibers. Id., at 623, 948-953.64 Noting that international trade agreements restricting foreign imports of textile products "have tended to smother the effects of a small change in the relative prices of domestic versus foreign textile products," id., at 622, RTI concluded that such small changes have had "very little impact" on domestic industries and markets, id., at 961; see id., at 954-961. In order to measure the ability of different sized textile companies to finance compliance costs, RTI constructed a ratio of capital requirements to profit after taxes. RTI found that two of the six yarn production operations would have financing difficulties, but that such difficulties decreased as company size increased. Id., at 730.65 Finally, impacts on energy costs, employment, inflation, and market structure were evaluated. See id., at 728-731.66

Relying on its comprehensive economic evaluation of the cotton industry's ability to absorb the $2.7 billion compliance cost of a 200 μg/m[3] PEL standard, RTI concluded that "nothing in the RTI study indicates that the cotton textile industry as a whole will be seriously threatened." Ex. 16, id., at 1380.67 Therefore, it follows a fortiori that OSHA's estimated compliance cost of $656.6 million is "economically feasible."68 Even if OSHA's estimate was understated, we are fortified in observing that RTI found that a standard more than four times as costly was nevertheless economically feasible.

The Court of Appeals found that the agency "explained the economic impact it projected for the textile industry," and that OSHA has "substantial support in the record for its . . . findings of economic feasibility for the textile industry." 199 U. S. App. D. C., at 80, 617 F. 2d, at 662. On the basis of the whole record, we cannot conclude that the Court of Appeals "misapprehended or grossly misapplied" the substantial evidence test.

IV

The final Cotton Dust Standard places heavy reliance on the use of respirators to protect employees from exposure to cotton dust, particularly during the 4-year interim period necessary to install and implement feasible engineering controls.69 One part of the respirator provision requires the employer to give employees unable to wear a respirator70 the opportunity to transfer to another position, if available, where the dust level meets the Standard's PEL. 29 CFR § 1910.1043 (f) (2) (v) (1980). When such a transfer occurs, the employer must guarantee that the employee suffers no loss of earnings or other employment rights or benefits.71 Petitioners do not object to the transfer provision, but challenge OSHA's authority under the Act to require employers to guarantee employees' wage and employment benefits following the transfer. The Court of Appeals held that OSHA has such authority. 199 U. S. App. D. C., at 93, 617 F. 2d, at 675. We hold that, whether or not OSHA has this underlying authority, the agency has failed to make the necessary determination or statement of reasons that its wage guarantee requirement is related to the achievement of a safe and healthful work environment.

Respondents urge several statutory bases for the authority exercised here. They cite § 2 (b) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 651 (b), which declares that the purpose of the Act is "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions"; § 2 (b) (5), which suggests achievement of the purpose "by developing innovative methods, techniques, and approaches for dealing with occupational safety and health problems"; § 6 (b) (5), which requires the agency to "set the standard which most adequately assures . . . that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity . . ."; and § 3 (8), which provides that a standard must require "conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment." Brief for Federal Respondent 68. Whatever methods these provisions authorize OSHA to apply, it is clear that such methods must be justified on the basis of their relation to safety or health.

Section 6 (f) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 655 (f), requires that "determinations of the Secretary" must be supported by substantial evidence. Section 6 (e), 29 U. S. C. § 655 (e), requires the Secretary to include "a statement of the reasons for such action, which shall be published in the Federal Register." In his "Summary and Explanation of the Standard," the Secretary stated: "Each section includes an analysis of the record evidence and the policy considerations underlying the decisions adopted pertaining to specific provisions of the standard." 43 Fed. Reg. 27380, col. 2 (1978). But OSHA never explained the wage guarantee provision as an approach designed to contribute to increased health protection. Instead the agency stated that the "goal of this provision is to minimize any adverse economic impact on the employee by virtue of the inability to wear a respirator." Id., at 27387, col. 3. Perhaps in recognition of this fact, respondents in their briefs argue:

See Brief for Union Respondents 51.72

Whether these arguments have merit, and they very well may,73 the post hoc rationalizations of the agency or the parties to this litigation cannot serve as a sufficient predicate for agency action. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419 (1971); Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168-169 (1962); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943). For Congress gave OSHA the responsibility to protect worker health and safety, and to explain its reasons for its actions. Because the Act in no way authorizes OSHA to repair general unfairness to employees that is unrelated to achievement of health and safety goals, we conclude that OSHA acted beyond statutory authority when it issued the wage guarantee regulation.74

V

When Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, it chose to place pre-eminent value on assuring employees a safe and healthful working environment, limited only by the feasibility of achieving such an environment. We must measure the validity of the Secretary's actions against the requirements of that Act. For "[t]he judicial function does not extend to substantive revision of regulatory policy. That function lies elsewhere—in Congressional and Executive oversight or amendatory legislation." Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S., at 663 (BURGER, C. J., concurring); see TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 185, 187-188, 194-195 (1978).75

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in all respects except to the extent of its approval of the Secretary's application of the wage guarantee provision of the Cotton Dust Standard at 29 CFR § 1910.1043 (f) (2) (v) (1980). To that extent, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case remanded with directions to remand to the Secretary for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the decision of these cases.

JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.

Section 6 (b) (5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides:

Everybody agrees that under this statutory provision the Cotton Dust Standard must at least be economically feasible, and everybody would also agree, I suppose, that in order to determine whether or not something is economically feasible, one must have a fairly clear idea of how much it is going to cost. Because I believe that OSHA failed to justify its estimate of the cost of the Cotton Dust Standard on the basis of substantial evidence, I would reverse the judgment before us without reaching the question whether the Act requires that a standard, beyond being economically feasible, must meet the demands of a cost-benefit examination.

The simple truth about OSHA's assessment of the cost of the Cotton Dust Standard is that the agency never relied on any study or report purporting to predict the cost to industry of the Standard finally adopted by the agency. OSHA did have before it one cost analysis, that of the Research Triangle Institute, which attempted to predict the cost of the final Standard. However, as recognized by the Court, ante, at 524-525, the agency flatly rejected that prediction as a gross overestimate. The only other estimate OSHA had, the Hocutt-Thomas estimate prepared by industry researchers, was not designed to predict the cost of the final OSHA Standard. Rather, it assumed a far less stringent and inevitably far less costly standard for all phases of cotton production except roving. Ante, at 527, n. 50. The agency examined the Hocutt-Thomas study, and concluded that it too was an overestimate of the costs of the less stringent standard it was addressing. I am willing to defer to OSHA's determination that the Hocutt-Thomas study was such an overestimate, conceding that such subtle financial and technical matters lie within the discretion and skill of the agency. But in a remarkable non sequitur, the agency decided that because the Hocutt-Thomas study was an overestimate of the cost of a less stringent standard, it could be treated as a reliable estimate for the more costly final Standard actually promulgated, never rationally explaining how it came to this happy conclusion. This is not substantial evidence. It is unsupported speculation.

Of course, as the Court notes, this Court will re-examine a court of appeals' review of a question of substantial evidence "only in what ought to be the rare instance when the standard appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied." Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 491. But I think this is one of those rare instances where an agency has categorically misconceived the nature of the evidence necessary to support a regulation, and where the Court of Appeals has failed to correct the agency's error. Of course, broad generalizations about the meaning of "substantial evidence" have limited value in deciding particular cases. But within the confines of a single statute, where the agency and reviewing courts have identified certain specific factual matters to be proved, we can establish practical general criteria for comprehending "substantial evidence."

Unlike the Court, I think it clear to the point of being obvious that, as a matter of law, OSHA's prediction of the cost of the Cotton Dust Standard lacks a basis in substantial evidence, since the agency did not rely on even a single estimate of the cost of the actual Standard it promulgated. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.

A year ago I stated my belief that Congress in enacting § 6 (b) (5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 unconstitutionally delegated to the Executive Branch the authority to make the "hard policy choices" properly the task of the legislature. Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 671 (1980) (concurring in judgment). Because I continue to believe that the Act exceeds Congress' power to delegate legislative authority to nonelected officials, see J. W. Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), I dissent.

I will repeat only a little of what I said last Term. Section 6 (b) (5) provides in pertinent part:

As the Court correctly observes, the phrase "to the extent feasible" contains the critical language for the purpose of these cases. We are presented with a remarkable range of interpretations of that language. Petitioners contend that the statute requires the Secretary to demonstrate that the benefits of its "Cotton Dust Standard," in terms of reducing health risks, bear a reasonable relationship to its costs. Brief for Petitioners in No. 79-1429, pp. 38-41. Respondents, including the Secretary of Labor at least until his postargument motion, counter that Congress itself balanced costs and benefits when it enacted the statute, and that the statute prohibits the Secretary from engaging in a cost-benefit type balancing. Their view is that the Act merely requires the Secretary to promulgate standards that eliminate or reduce such risks "to the extent . . . technologically or economically feasible." Brief for Federal Respondent 38; Brief for Union Respondents 26-27. As I read the Court's opinion, it takes a different position. It concludes that, at least as to the "Cotton Dust Standard," the Act does not require the Secretary to engage in a cost-benefit analysis, which suggests of course that the Act permits the Secretary to undertake such an analysis if he so chooses. Ante, at 510-512.

Throughout its opinion, the Court refers to § 6 (b) (5) as adopting a "feasibility standard" or a "feasibility requirement." Ante, at 508-522. But as I attempted to point out last Term in Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, supra, at 681-685, the "feasibility standard" is no standard at all. Quite the contrary, I argued there that the insertion into § 6 (b) (5) of the words "to the extent feasible" rendered what had been a clear, if somewhat unrealistic, statute into one so vague and precatory as to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the Executive Branch. Prior to the inclusion of the "feasibility" language, § 6 (b) (5) simply required the Secretary to "set the standard which most adequately assures, on the basis of the best available professional evidence, that no employee will suffer any impairment of health . . . ." Legislative History, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, p. 943 (Comm. Print 1971) (hereinafter Leg. Hist.). Had that statute been enacted, it would undoubtedly support the result the Court reaches in these cases, and it would not have created an excessive delegation problem. The Secretary of Labor would quite clearly have been authorized to set exposure standards without regard to any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

But Congress did not enact that statute. The legislative history of the Act reveals that a number of Members of Congress, such as Senators Javits, Saxbe, and Dominick, had difficulty with the proposed statute and engaged Congress in a lengthy debate about the extent to which the Secretary should be authorized to create a risk-free work environment. Congress had at least three choices. It could have required the Secretary to engage in a cost-benefit analysis prior to the setting of exposure levels, it could have prohibited cost-benefit analysis, or it could have permitted the use of such an analysis. Rather than make that choice and resolve that difficult policy issue, however, Congress passed. Congress simply said that the Secretary should set standards "to the extent feasible." Last year, JUSTICE POWELL reflected that "one might wish that Congress had spoken with greater clarity." American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S., at 668 (POWELL, J., concurring in part and in judgment). I am convinced that the reason that Congress did not speak with greater "clarity" was because it could not. The words "to the extent feasible" were used to mask a fundamental policy disagreement in Congress. I have no doubt that if Congress had been required to choose whether to mandate, permit, or prohibit the Secretary from engaging in a cost-benefit analysis, there would have been no bill for the President to sign.

The Court seems to argue that Congress did make a policy choice when it enacted the "feasibility" language. Its view is that Congress required the Secretary to engage in something called "feasibility analysis." Ante, at 509. But those words mean nothing at all. They are a "legislative mirage, appearing to some Members [of Congress] but not to others, and assuming any form desired by the beholder." American Petroleum Institute, supra, at 681. Even the Court does not settle on a meaning. It first suggests that the language requires the Secretary to do what is "capable of being done." Ante, at 508-509. But, if that is all the language means, it is merely precatory and "no more than an admonition to the Secretary to do his duty . . . ." Leg. Hist. 367 (remarks of Sen. Dominick). The Court then seems to adopt the Secretary's view that feasibility means "technological and economic feasibility." But there is nothing in the words of § 6 (b) (5), or their legislative history, to suggest why they should be so limited. One wonders why the "requirement" of § 6 (b) (5) could not include considerations of administrative or even political feasibility. As even the Court recognizes, when Congress has wanted to limit the concept of feasibility to technological and economic feasibility, it has said so. Ante, at 510. Thus the words "to the extent feasible" provide no meaningful guidance to those who will administer the law.

In believing that § 6 (b) (5) amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the Executive Branch, I do not mean to suggest that Congress, in enacting a statute, must resolve all ambiguities or must "fill in all of the blanks." Even the neophyte student of government realizes that legislation is the art of compromise, and that an important, controversial bill is seldom enacted by Congress in the form in which it is first introduced. It is not unusual for the various factions supporting or opposing a proposal to accept some departure from the language they would prefer and to adopt substitute language agreeable to all. But that sort of compromise is a far cry from this case, where Congress simply abdicated its responsibility for the making of a fundamental and most difficult policy choice—whether and to what extent "the statistical possibility of future deaths should . . . be disregarded in light of the economic costs of preventing those deaths." American Petroleum Institute, supra, at 672. That is a "quintessential legislative" choice and must be made by the elected representatives of the people, not by nonelected officials in the Executive Branch. As stated last Term:

In sum, the Court is quite correct in asserting that the phrase "to the extent feasible" is the critical language for the purposes of these cases. But that language is critical, not because it establishes a general standard by which those charged with administering the statute may be guided, but because it has precisely the opposite effect: in failing to agree on whether the Secretary should be either mandated, permitted, or prohibited from undertaking a cost-benefit analysis, Congress simply left the crucial policy choices in the hands of the Secretary of Labor.* As I stated at greater length last Term, I believe that in so doing Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative responsibility to the Executive Branch.