Opinion ID: 523167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violation of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.500(g)(1).

Text: 11 In order to comply with 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.500(g)(1), when working on a roof more than 50 feet in width, an employer must use either (i) a motion-stopping device, such as safety nets or guardrails, at the edge of the roof, or (ii) a warning line which an employee will bump into when he or she is within 6 feet of the edge of the roof. 2 At the time the instant citation was issued, Phoenix admits that it was working on a roof more than 50 feet in total width without employing either type of approved safety measure. Instead, it was using a monitor system whereby two experienced employees had as their sole responsibility the duty to watch those working on the roof and to warn them if they approached the edge. 12 Under the regulations, such a safety system is acceptable as an exclusive safety measure only as to work on a roof less than 50 feet in total width. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.500(g)(1)(iii). On wider roofs, the visual difficulties in monitoring, and the problem of hearing far-away monitors, are thought by the agency to be too great for this method to be effective. See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.502(p)(7); 45 Fed.Reg. 75,621 (Nov. 14, 1980). 13 Phoenix acknowledges this consideration but argues that it constructively complied with the requirements in that the roof section it was working on was without question less than 50 feet wide, so that workers were never spread over an area of more than 50 feet. Moreover, Phoenix maintains, apparently without contradiction from OSHA, that it was physically impracticable or impermissible under Federal Aviation Administration regulations to use any of OSHA's approved methods during phase three because of the characteristics of the building and the type of work being performed. 3 14 Finally, Phoenix reminds us that safety monitors are a permissible form of protection for employees working within 6 feet of the edge where only a warning line is in place. Here, the citation was issued based upon the compliance officer's observation of employees working 4 feet from the edge. 4 Thus, even though there was no warning line, the monitors provided at least the same protection which the workers in question would have received if there had been a warning line in place. 5 In fact, Phoenix's system likely provided greater protection, since Phoenix assigned at least two employees to monitor a work area for which the regulations would require only one. 6 15 While it is evident that Phoenix was in compliance with the spirit of the regulations, and that the safety measures taken equaled or exceeded the protections afforded by the approved methods, we nevertheless cannot reverse on such a basis. 7 This is because as a matter of undisputed fact, Phoenix's actions did violate OSHA's interpretation of the regulation that the entire roof, rather than the effective work area, must be measured in determining the applicability of the 50-foot convention. 16 Moreover, under the above standard of review, we are not free to overrule this plain-meaning interpretation and substitute our own. See Austin Commercial v. OSHRC, 610 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Diamond Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 528 F.2d 645, 649 (5th Cir.1976). Section 1926.500(g)(1)(iii) explicitly provides that the width of the roof controls; section 1926.502(p)(6) defines roof as the exterior surface on the top of a building. Phoenix's common-sense argument that work area width should control simply cannot be sustained once OSHA has chosen to issue citations based upon the literal wording of the regulation. 17 It would also be improvident for us to overrule OSHA's interpretation of its regulations, for to do so would send employers the message that they could ignore the obvious mandates of the safety regulations and independently determine what, if any, measures should be undertaken in a given situation. In this case, we are satisfied that the measures taken provided protection equal to or greater than those required by regulation. 8 In its brief on appeal, OSHA does not appear to contend otherwise. However, under our settled precedent, an employer must follow the law even if it has a good faith belief that its own policy is wiser. RSR Corp. v. Brock, 764 F.2d 355, 363 (5th Cir.1985). 18