Opinion ID: 71020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonably Necessary or Appropriate Standard

Text: 23 Third, petitioners contend that OSHA did not demonstrate, by substantial evidence, that the June 30, 1994 revision of the apparel provision is reasonably necessary or appropriate. Specifically, petitioners contend that OSHA failed to consider the costs imposed by the provision. 24 The applicable test is dependant on the type of material regulated by a standard. OSHA standards regarding toxic materials or harmful physical agents must be standards which most adequately assure, to the extent feasible, ... that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity. 29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(5). The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require that the proposed standard be both technologically and economically 'feasible.'  International Union, 938 F.2d at 1313. Standards imposed under 29 U.S.C. § 655(b), which do not concern toxic materials or harmful physical agents, must be  'reasonably necessary or appropriate' to protect employee safety. National Grain and Feed Association v. OSHA, 866 F.2d 717, 733 (5th Cir.1989). In addition, [t]he reasonably necessary or appropriate limitation requires that OSHA regulations must be reasonably essential or at least reasonably efficacious in reducing a significant risk of material harm. Texas Independent Ginners, 630 F.2d at 410. Although the agency does not have to conduct an elaborate cost-benefit analysis, it does have to determine whether the benefits expected from the standard bear a reasonable relationship to the costs imposed by the standard. American Petroleum Inst. v. OSHA, 581 F.2d 493, 503 (5th Cir.1978) (citations omitted). 25 Regardless of whether the feasibility limitation or the reasonably necessary limitation applies to the instant case, we find that OSHA's findings and actions based on such fulfill both standards. In its costs analysis for the Standard, OSHA did not attribute any cost to the apparel provision because the provision itself does not require utility employers to supply work clothing to their employees. R-L-71 at pp. 4-16, 4-34, 4-49, and 4-72. Although the cost of compliance could therefore be passed on to the employees, we nevertheless find nothing in the record that leads us to believe that using heavyweight natural fabric clothing, or flame retardant treated clothing, would necessarily increase the cost at all. Indeed, although petitioners claim compliance with this provision will impose tremendous costs upon employees, we find no evidence in the record which substantiates their claim. In analyzing the benefits of the Standard, OSHA concluded that compliance with the Standard will significantly reduce the number of fatalities and injuries involving electrical contact, flash burns, and thermal burns, 59 Fed.Reg. 4431 (emphasis added), and is expected to prevent 61 fatalities and 1634 injuries annually. 59 Fed.Reg. 4430. 26 Although OSHA may not have done everything it could to be in literal compliance with either test annunciated above, we nevertheless find that OSHA's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. As Mr. Wallace Reed of W.H. Salisbury and Co. so aptly noted with regard to this provision: any added measure of protection afforded is justified by the small difference in cost. R-3-57. In this case, as previously noted, our thorough search of the record reveals no evidence supporting petitioners' assumption that compliance will necessarily result in increased costs. 7