Industry petitioned for review of five issues:
- whether substantial evidence supports OSHA’s finding that limiting workers’ silica exposure to the level set by the Rule reduces a significant risk of material health impairment;
- whether substantial evidence supports OSHA’s finding that the Rule is technologically feasible for the foundry, hydraulic fracturing, and construction industries;
- whether substantial evidence supports OSHA’s finding that the Rule is economically feasible for the foundry, hydraulic fracturing, and construction industries;
- whether OSHA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating the Rule; and
- whether substantial evidence supports two ancillary provisions of the Rule—one that allows workers who undergo medical examinations to keep the results confidential from their employers and one that prohibits employers from using dry cleaning methods unless doing so is infeasible.
The court rejected all of Industry’s challenges.