Diamond Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, s. 73--3704

Citation528 F.2d 645
Decision Date15 March 1976
Docket NumberNos. 73--3704,74--1343,73--3705,s. 73--3704
Parties4 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1001, 1975-1976 O.S.H.D. ( 20,521 DIAMOND ROOFING CO., INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and W. J. Usery, the Secretary of Labor, Respondents. S. D. MULLINS COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and W. J. Usery, the Secretary of Labor, Respondents. LANCE ROOFING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and W. J. Usery, the Secretary of Labor, Respondents. Summary Calendar. *
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
*

Ira J. Smotherman, Jr., McNeill Stokes, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioners.

William S. McLaughlin, Executive Secretary, OSHRC, Baruch A. Fellner, Counsel for Regional Litigation, William J. Kilberg, Sol. of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Barbara L. Herwig, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Sol., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Atlanta, Ga., Stephen F. Eilperin, Thomas S. Moore, Karen K. Siegel, Dept. of Justice, Michael H. Levin, Counsel, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Petitions for Review of Orders of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Georgia case).

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge:

These petitions for review of orders of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRECOM) 1 are being considered together because they all require us to address the same question: Does 29 CFR § 1926.500(d)(1) 2 of OSHA's regulations for construction, which requires that a standard railing be placed around an open-sided floor, also apply to an open-sided roof? We answer the question in the negative and reverse. 3

The Roofers

Petitioners Diamond Roofing Company, Inc. (Diamond) and S. D. Mullins Company, Inc. (Mullins) install roofs for industrial and commercial buildings in the Atlanta, Georgia area. They employed 12 and 8 roofing employees, respectively, at the time of the inspections which resulted in their citations. In December 1971 both Diamond and Mullins were installing a flat 4 roof 25 feet above ground at 6,000 Boat Rock Boulevard in Atlanta. The roof perimeter did not contain a safety railing.

The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) issued citations against both Diamond and Mullins for nonserious violations of § 1926.500(d)(1), Diamond for 'employees working on roof with unguarded sides or edges' and Mullins for 'no guards on open-sided floors (roof).' 5 The petitioners contested the citations. The two cases were consolidated and a hearing was held in Atlanta on July 6, 1972. An Administrative Law Judge of OSHRECOM vacated the citations, finding that § 1926.500(d)(1)'s safety railing requirement for open-sided floors did not apply to open-sided roofs. Hodgson v. Diamond Roofing Co., Inc., OSHRC Docket No. 459 (Sept. 15, 1972). OSHRECOM reversed, Chairman Moran dissenting, concluding that the term 'open-sided floor' in § 1926.500(d)(1) did include a flat roof. Secretary of Labor v. S. D. Mullins Co., Inc., OSHRC Docket Nos. 364 & 459 (Oct. 24, 1973).

Petitioner Lance Roofing Company, Inc. (Lance) is another Atlanta roofing company which installs roofs for industrial and commercial buildings. On June 6, 1972 it was inspected while installing a flat roof at 4888 Frontage Road in Forest Park, Georgia. Lance employed 10 roofers at this job site. The roof perimeter did not contain a safety railing.

The Secretary issued a citation for 'no guardrailings, nor were the employees secured so as to prevent them from falling off the roof,' in violation of § 1926.500(d)(1). 6 Lance contested the citation. After a hearing on August 31, 1972, an ALJ of OSHRECOM vacated the citation, refusing to apply § 1926.500(d)(1) to open-sided roofs. Secretary of Labor v. Lance Roofing Co., Inc., OSHRC Docket No. 1102 (March 12, 1973). OSHRECOM reversed, Chairman Moran again dissenting, on the strength of its previous holding in Secretary of Labor v. S. D. Mullins Co., Inc., supra, which applied § 1926.500(d)(1) to roofs as well as floors.

We have jurisdiction of these petitions for review under 29 U.S.C.A. § 660(a).

Why A Roof Is Not A Floor

Subpart M of OSHA's regulations for construction, 29 CFR § 1926, is entitled 'Floor and Wall Openings, and Stairways.' 7 According to its introductory provision, Subpart M applies 'where there is danger of employees or materials falling through floor, roof, or wall openings.' § 1926.500(a) (emphasis added). Subsection (b) applies to floor openings and floor holes, while open-sided floors, platforms and runways are treated in subsection (d). 'Floor opening' and 'floor hole' are specifically defined at § 1926.502(a) & (b) to include an opening or a hole in a roof. Thus, the standard railing requirement of subsection (b) applies to roof openings and roof holes as well as to floor openings and floor holes.

The term 'open-sided floor' in subsection (d), however, is not defined. (Nor are the general terms 'floor' or 'roof.') Since the definitions of 'platform' and 'runway' to which subsection (d) also applies do not indicate that they should be construed to include a roof, we conclude that--in contrast to subsection (b)--the standard railing requirement in subsection (d) applies only to open-sided floors and not to open-sided roofs.

Since Subpart M applies to roof as well as floor openings, respondents 8 OSHRECOM and the Secretary argue that the term open-sided floor should be construed to include an open-sided roof. The fallacy in this argument is that the very regulation in dispute twice recognizes a distinction between a floor and a roof. First, the general provision clause, § 1926.500(a), uses the terms floor and roof cumulatively to describe the kinds of openings to which Subpart M applies. Second, the terms floor opening and floor hole are specifically defined to include an opening or a hole in a roof. § 1926.502(a) & (b). The inclusion of the term roof in the general provision clause and in the definitions of floor opening and floor hole, combined with its absence from the open-sided floor provision of subsection (d)(1), can only be construed as an intent to distinguish between a floor and a roof and therefore to exclude open-sided roofs from the requirement of a safety railing.

This conclusion comports with the rule of construction that where a term is carefully employed in one place and excluded in another, it should not be implied where excluded. Federal Trade Commission v. Sun Oil Co., 1963,371 U.S. 505, 514--15, 83 S.Ct. 358, 364, 9 L.Ed.2d 466, 475; Bott v. American Hydrocarbon Corp., 5 Cir., 1972, 458 F.2d 229, 233; J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. v. Vessel Morning Star, 5 Cir., 1972, 457 F.2d 815, 818. Had the drafters of this regulation intended that § 1926.500(d)(1) apply to open-sided roofs, they very easily could have and should have said so, as they did with reference to roof openings and roof holes. If the regulation missed its mark, the fault lies in the wording of the regulation--a matter easily remedied under the flexible regulation promulgating structure,29 U.S.C.A. § 655(b) & (e); 29 CFR Part 1911, with no need to press limits by judicial construction in an industrial area presenting infinite operational situations. 9 Cf. Brennan v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 5 Cir., 1973, 488 F.2d 337.

The respondents contend that the regulations should be liberally construed to give broad coverage because of the intent of Congress to provide safe and healthful working conditions for employees. An employer, however, is entitled to fair notice in dealing with his government. Like other statutes and regulations which allow monetary penalties against those who violate them, an occupational safety and health standard must give an employer fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires, and it must provide a reasonably clear standard of culpability to circumscribe the discretion of the enforcing authority and its agents. Secretary v. California Stevedore and Ballast Co., OSHRC Docket No. 72 (June 16, 1972) (employers entitled to rely on standard's clear language, uncolored by additional subjective criteria). A regulation should be construed to give effect to the natural and plain meaning of its words. Johnson v. Udall, C.D.Cal., 1968, 292 F.Supp. 738, 750. See Commissioner v. Wodehouse, 1949, 337 U.S. 369, 69 S.Ct. 1120, 93 L.Ed. 1419, reh. denied, 338 U.S. 840, 70 S.Ct. 31, 94 L.Ed. 514 (tax regulation); M. Kraus & Bros., Inc. v. United States, 1946, 327 U.S. 614, 66 S.Ct. 705, 90 L.Ed. 894 (criminal prosecution for violation of maximum price regulation).

If a violation of a regulation subjects private parties to criminal or civil sanctions, a regulation cannot be construed to mean what an agency intended but did not adequately express. Brennan v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 5 Cir., 1973, supra; Meehan v. Macy, 1968, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 392 F.2d 822; 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 30.12. Cf. Cole v. Young, 1956, 351 U.S. 536, 76 S.Ct. 861, 100 L.Ed. 1396 (ambiguity in Executive Order is fault of government and is resolved against it). We recognize that OSHA was enacted by Congress for the purpose stated by the respondents. Nonetheless, the Secretary as enforcer of the Act has the responsibility to state with ascertainable certainty what is meant by the standards he has promulgated. Because the Secretary has failed in this regulation to so state, we must conclude that § 1926.500(d)(1) does not apply to open-sided roofs. The Act grants the Secretary--not OSHRECOM or the courts--the means to amend the regulation if he so desires.

Respondents OSHRECOM and the Secretary further argue that our conclusion presents the ludicrous anomaly of guarding employees working on opensided floors while leaving unprotected those employees working on open-sided roofs, which are always at greater...

To continue reading

Request your trial
130 cases
  • Shell Oil Co. v. Babbitt, Civil Action No. 95-492 MMS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • November 14, 1996
    ...certainty what is meant by the standards he has promulgated. Id. at 1232-33 (quoting Diamond Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 528 F.2d 645, 649 (5th Cir. 1976)). Shell argues that Dravo controls this case. Regulation 212.51(a) expressly describes two kind o......
  • Perry, In re, 88-1475
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • May 3, 1989
    ...of adjudication; and therefore, to appear as a party in the courts of appeals to defend those policies. See Diamond Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 528 F.2d 645, 648 n. 8 (5th Cir.1976); Brennan v. Gilles and Cotting, Inc., 504 F.2d 1255, 1266-67 (4th Cir.1974). We disagree. Although we recognize tha......
  • Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, 76-1278
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 3, 1978
    ...which the standard's source did not impose. 6 See Dunlop v. Ashworth, 538 F.2d 562, 563 (4th Cir. 1976); Diamond Roofing Co., Inc. v. OSHRC, 528 F.2d 645, 650 (5th Cir. 1976). Thus, we also agree that the question whether § 1910.212 applies to press brakes is determined by whether its Walsh......
  • Marshall v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 5, 1980
    ...States District Judge on an appeal from his decision. We respectfully decline to follow Diamond Roofing v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 528 F.2d 645, 648, n. 8 (5th Cir. 1976), and Brennan v. Gilles & Cotting Co., 504 F.2d 1255 (4th Cir. 1974), to the extent that they c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Kisor v. Wilkie as a Limit on Auer Deference in the Sentencing Context
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 70-4, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...to apply Auer deference to its interpretation of the regulations."); Diamond Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm'n, 528 F.2d 645, 649 (5th Cir. 1976) ("If a violation of a regulation subjects private parties to criminal or civil sanctions, a regulation cannot be construed ......
  • DUE DEFERENCE: KISOR, STINSON, AND THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 98 No. 5, June 2023
    • June 1, 2023
    ...372 (11th Cir. 2018). (120) Id. at 375. (121) Id. at 384-85 (quoting Diamond Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm'n, 528 F.2d 645, 649 (5th Cir. (122) See id. It is difficult to say whether the Eleventh Circuit still follows this approach. It recently applied Stinson to......
  • Uncommon Allies: Bridging the Gap Between Auer Deference and the Rule of Lenity in Criminal Cases.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 54 No. 2, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...2018) (quoting United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 (1971)). (162.) See id. (differentiating roles of legislatures and courts). (163.) 528 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1976). The Fifth Circuit originally encompassed the states within the current Eleventh Circuit before the Fifth Circuit Court of ......
  • CHAPTER 6 TRANSMISSION AND GATHERING LINE LEAKS AND SPILLS: HOW THE UPSTREAM AND MIDSTREAM SECTOR NEEDS TO PLAN, RESPOND, AND DEFEND
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Midstream Oil and Gas from the Upstream Perspective (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...a psychic" but these "possibilities are more than the law requires." In Diamond Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 528 F.2d 645, 649 (5th Cir. 1976), the court explained that fair notice is especially important when "a violation of a regulation subjects private parti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT