Opinion ID: 71020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Stated Reasons for the Apparel Provision

Text: 27 Fourth, petitioners challenge whether or not OSHA adequately explained its reasons for the June 30, 1994 correction of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.269(1)(6)(iii) (apparel provision). 28 Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 655(e), in promulgating any standard the Secretary of Labor must include a statement of the reasons for such action. To that end, the agency must pinpoint the factual evidence and the policy considerations upon which it relied. AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 617 F.2d 636, 651 (D.C.Cir.1979). 29 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that OSHA sufficiently articulated the factual evidence and policy considerations upon which it relied. In its statement of reasons for its action, OSHA noted evidence which supported a finding that certain fabrics worn by electric utility workers exposed to electric arcs could actually increase the extent of injury caused by contact with arcs. For instance, OSHA found that the testimony of Mr. James Ozello of the IBEW strongly rebutted the comment made that electric utility employees are rarely exposed to electric arcs. Specifically, Mr. Ozello testified that with regard to accidents involving burns, [i]f 65 of the employees who were involved in serious accidents had been wearing natural fiber clothing or flame retardant clothing, their accidents might not have been classified as serious accidents. 8 59 Fed.Reg. 4388. OSHA also stated that in promulgating this provision it relied upon the Duke Power video submitted by the IBEW which demonstrat[ed] the effects of different types of clothing upon exposure to electric arcs. Id. at 4389. In addition, other submissions to the record were cited by OSHA as evidence upon which it relied. See 59 Fed.Reg. 4389. OSHA believed these submissions provided ample evidence of the fact that certain fabrics increase the extent of injuries caused by electrical arc exposure. 30 Consequently, OSHA's comments in the Federal Register are sufficient to comply with the requirement imposed by 29 U.S.C. § 655(e).