“Docket No. 80-6925 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant, v.ATLANTA FORMING CO., INC.,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 80-6925DECISION Before: ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY, Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION:The issue in this case is whether Atlanta Forming Company is engaged in a businessaffecting commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. ? 652(5), section 3(5) of theOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678. [[1\/]] This case hadbeen remanded to an administrative law judge for further consideration in light ofAvalotis Painting Co., 81 OSAHRC 7\/B1, 9 BNA OSHC 1226, 1981 CCH OSHD (P) 25,157 (No.76-4774, 1981), which held that an employer’s use of goods produced out of state affectsinterstate commerce. The judge, however, misinterpreted our remand order as a finding thatcommerce coverage had been shown. We granted the employer’s petition for discretionaryreview to decide the commerce issue.After review was granted, we issued Clarence M. Jones, 83 OSAHRC 23\/A2, 11 BNA OSHC 1529,1983 CCH OSHD (P) 26,516 (No. 77-3676, 1983), in which we held that construction workaffects interstate commerce because it is in a class of activity that as a whole affectscommerce. We also observed that there is an interstate market in construction materialsand services. It is undisputed that Atlanta Forming was engaged in the construction of amultiple-story commercial building. Under Clarence Jones, therefore, Atlanta Forming’sactivities affected interstate commerce. See also Usery v.- Franklin R. Lacy, 628 F.2d1226 (9th Cir. 1980).There is another reason why we find commerce coverage. Atlanta forming owns and uses\”Skil\” brand power tools. At the Secretary’s request, we take official noticethat the Skil Corporation–a division of Emerson Electric Company–does not have anymanufacturing plants in Georgia. See 2 Moody’s Industrial Manual 4173-74 (1978). UnderAvalotis Painting, an employer’s use of goods produced out of state affects interstatecommerce. Accordingly, the judge’s disposition is affirmed.[[2\/]]FOR THE COMMISSIONRay D Darling, Jr.Executive Secretary Dated: AUG 22 1983\u00a0The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format. Toobtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public Information Office Bye-mail ( [email protected] ), telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY(202-606-5386).FOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] Section 3(5) provides: \”The term ’employer’ means a person engaged in abusiness affecting commerce. . . . \” Section 3(3) defines commerce\” in part as\”trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several states,or between a state and any place outside thereof . . . .\” 29 U.S.C. ? 652(3).Congress, in passing the Act, intended to exercise its full powers under the CommerceClause of the Constitution, Art. 1, sec. 8. See, E.g., Godwin v. OSAHRC, 540 F.2d 1013(9th Cir. 1976).[[2\/]] The Judge’s decision affirmed two citation items alleging violations of 29 C.F.R.?? 1926.500(b)(1) and (d)(1) and vacated two citation items alleging separate violationsof the same standards. Because Atlanta Forming took exception only to the judge’s findingthat commerce coverage had been established, and the direction for review was limited tothe commerce issue, we do not otherwise pass on the correctness of the judge’s decision.See Commission Rule 92(c).”