Thurgood Marshall

“ We emphasize the narrowness of our holding. We deal in this case only with the division of powers between the Secretary and the Commission under the OSH Act. We conclude from the available indicia of legislative intent that Congress did not intend to sever the power authoritatively to interpret OSH Act regulations from the Secretary's power to promulgate and enforce them. ”

“ If an employer wishes to contest a citation, the Commission must afford the employer an evidentiary hearing and "thereafter issue an order, based on findings of fact, affirming, modifying, or vacating the Secretary's citation or proposed penalty." ”

“ Although we find these concerns to be important, we think that they are overstated. It is clear that Congress adopted the split-enforcement structure in the OSH Act in order to achieve a greater separation of functions than exists in a conventional unitary agency. ”

“ Training shall provide the men an opportunity to handle the respirator, have it fitted properly, test its face-piece-to-face seal, wear it in normal air for a long familiarity period, and, finally, to wear it in a test atmosphere. ”

“ The Court of Appeals concluded that it should defer to the Commission's interpretation under such circumstances. We reverse.
* A.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act or Act) establishes a comprehensive regulatory scheme designed "to assure so far as possible . . . safe and healthful working conditions" for "every working man and woman in the Nation." 29 U.S.C. § 651 (b) . See generally Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S. 442, 444-445, 97 S.Ct. ”

“ It is well established "that an agency's construction of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference." Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 939, 106 S.Ct. 2333, 2341, 90 L.Ed.2d 921 (1986) ; accord, Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-17, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801-802, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965) . In situations in which "the meaning of [regulatory] language is not free from doubt," the reviewing court should give effect to the agency's interpretation so long as it is "reasonable," Ehlert v. ”

“ CF & I contested the citation.
The ALJ sided with the Secretary, but the full Commission subsequently granted review and vacated the citation. See CF & I, 12 OSHC 2067 (1986) . In the Commission's view, the "respiratory protection program" referred to in § 1910.1029 (g) (3) expressly requires only that an employer train employees in the proper use of respirators; [2] the obligation to assure proper fit of an individual employee's respirator, the Commission noted, was expressly stated in another regulation, namely, § 1910.1029 (g) (4) (i) . [3] See 12 OSHC, at 2077-2078. ”

“ Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 425-426, and n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 2399, 2405-2406, and n. 9, 53 L.Ed.2d 448 (1977) ; Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 164, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) ; Whirlpool, supra, 445 U.S., at 11, 100 S.Ct., at 890. ”