.

MARTIN, Circuit Judge:

    This appeal concerns the enforceability of subpoena duces tecum issued pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 657(b) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (the Institute) against General Motors Corporation.  Both parties appeal from a District Court order granting partial enforcement of the subpoena.

The Institute was created to effectuate the research policy of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), +++.  In 1976, at the request of the union representing employees at General Motors' Dayton, Ohio, Inland Division, the Institute undertook a "health hazard evaluation" at the facility known as the "Hill Plant".  The purpose of this inquiry was to determine the cause of certain skin diseases incident among workers in the "wet rubber process".

    On October 17, 1977, in the course of gathering information for its study, the Institute issued a subpoena duces tecum directing General Motors to produce the medical records of all "wet rubber process" employees.Ý These records are on file in the office of the plant physician and are normally accessible only to members of the company's medical staff.Ý General Motors took the position that it could comply with the subpoena only if individual employees signed a form authorizing release of their records.  The company distributed consent forms to 704 workers; of this number, 490 medical files are the subject of the present controversy.

    On October 19, 1977, General Motors petitioned the District Court for a declaratory judgment relieving the company of any duty to divulge the contents of the 490 records.  In a memorandum opinion +++, the District Court ordered General Motors to produce the subpoenaed material but authorized the deletion of individual employees' names and addresses from the files.

    General Motors, on the other hand, raises the following arguments: first, that the Institute has no statutory authority to issue subpoenas at all; . . .

    General Motors appears to concede that the Institute is seeking information relevant to a lawful investigation. +++.  It denies, however, that the Institute is empowered to obtain data for its analysis by means of a subpoena.  We disagree.  The Institute's authority is coextensive with that of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.  +++ 29 USC Sec 669(b) empowers the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and therefore the Institute as well, to conduct investigations in the manner prescribed by Section 657 of the statute.  That section provides, in pertinent part:

"In making his inspection and investigations under this chapter the Secretary (of Labor) may require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence under oath. . .  We are satisfied that Congress, by reference back to the preceding sections of the statute, intended to confer subpoena power on the Institute.  General Motors' contention that the District Court erroneously "implied" this power is without merit.