Source: http://openjurist.org/526/f2d/53
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 19:12:24
Document Index: 713416607

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 660', '§ 654', '§ 327', '§ 5', '§ 654', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 34', '§ 652', '§ 3', '§ 652', '§ 5', '§ 654', '§ 6', '§ 655', '§ 3', '§ 652', '§ 3', '§ 652', '§ 6', '§ 655', '§ 1910', '§ 1910']

526 F2d 53 Underhill Construction Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission | OpenJurist
526 F. 2d 53 - Underhill Construction Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 526 F.2d.
526 F2d 53 Underhill Construction Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 526 F.2d 53
3 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1722, 1975-1976 O.S.H.D. ( 20,216
UNDERHILL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.SECRETARY OF LABOR AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWCOMMISSION, Respondents.
No. 122, Docket 75--4058.
Argued Oct. 6, 1975.Decided Nov. 24, 1975.
Underhill Construction Corporation ('Underhill') petitions this Court for review, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), of a final order, dated January 31, 1975, of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ('Commission'). That order sustained the respondent Secretary of Labor's ('Secretary') citation of the petitioner for a 'serious' violation of Section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ('OSHA'), 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2). An administrative law judge had initially held that the citation was invalid because the occupational safety and health standards, which were initially promulgated by the Secretary under the Construction Safety Act of 1969 ('CSA'), 40 U.S.C. § 327 et seq.,1 and which were alleged to have been violated here, were not applicable to construction projects negotiated prior to April 27, 1971. The Commission reversed the administrative law judge and held that when the Secretary adopted the CSA standards as occupational safety and health standards under OSHA, he discarded the exemption of construction projects negotiated prior to April 27, 1971. We agree with the Commission's conclusion and deny the petition for review.
As a result of the June inspection, the Secretary, on July 18, 1972, issued a citation to Underhill for a 'serious' violation of OSHA § 5(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2), for permitting its employees to work on open-sided floors of the construction site more than six feet above the ground without the appropriate protection against falling from those floors. The particular safety standard violated is codified in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(d)(1). Underhill agrees that if 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(d)(1) applied to its construction site on June 14, 1972, its failure to provide satisfactory guard rails or other appropriate protection against falls was a violation of OSHA Section 5(a)(2).3
Eleven days after the publication of the CSA regulations, OSHA became effective, Pub.L. No. 91--596, § 34. Section 3(5) of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 652(5), defines the scope of that Act by defining an 'employer' as a 'person (including corporations, see OSHA § 3(4), 29 U.S.C. § 652(4)) engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees . . ..' It further requires, in § 5(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2), that each employer 'shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.' OSHA also directed the Secretary, as soon as practicable after the effective date of the Act, to 'promulgate as an occupational safety or health standard . . . any established Federal standard, unless he determines that the promulgation of such a standard would not result in improved safety or health.' OSHA § 6(a), 29 U.S.C. § 655(a). That section of the Act further authorized the Secretary to adopt such 'established Federal standards' without compliance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. An 'established Federal standard' was defined in OSHA § 3(10), 29 U.S.C. § 652(10) as 'any operative occupational safety and health standard established by any agency of the United States and presently in effect,' while an 'occupational safety and health standard' was further defined in OSHA § 3(8), 29 U.S.C. § 652(8), as 'a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonable necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.'
Manifestly, the Secretary contemplated three possible effective dates for the OSHA standards: (1) immediate--for those employers and employments already subject to standards incorporated from other legislation, (2) August 27, 197111--for those employers and employees probably unfamiliar with the standards because they had not been subject to those standards in the past, and (3) February 15, 1972--for those areas of employment for which that date was specifically provided in order to 'adjust' to the new standards. Nowhere is there any indication in any part of the OSHA regulations that the Secretary contemplated any other effective dates. On the contrary, he correctly recognized that the legislative purpose behind OSHA § 6(a), 29 U.S.C. § 655(a), permitting him to incorporate 'established Federal standards' without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions, was to 'establish, as rapidly as possible . . . standards with which industries are generally familiar, and on whose adoption interested and affected persons have already had an opportunity to express their views.' 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1.
'(b)(1) To the extent that the standards prescribed in § 1910.12 apply to light residential construction or to other construction work . . . which is not subject to the construction safety standards published in Part (1926) of this title, their application is delayed until September 27, 1971.
Section 1926.500(d)(1), the specific standard violated by Underhill in the instant case, is codified in Subpart M. Section 1926.1050, the general effective date of the CSA regulations is codified in Subpart X