Opinion ID: 197419
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violation C.

Text: 39 The Commission found that Gioioso failed to provide an adequate protective system within the trench, thereby violating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1). The petitioner again spies error. We do not. 40 It is undisputed that the petitioner neglected to furnish a support system, shield system, or other adequate safeguarding within the trench as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(c). Additionally, the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(b)(1)(i) (which delineates a protection option accomplished by the gradual sloping of the excavation's walls). But the regulations exempt some unsloped excavations that are less than five feet in depth, see id. § 1926.652(a)(1)(ii), and the petitioner seeks the shelter of this exemption. The petitioner hypothesizes that its workers never were exposed to the hazards inherent in an excavation exceeding five feet in depth because they were standing on a pipe that traversed the width of the trench. The ALJ rejected this defense: although he believed it was unlikely that the workmen were standing on the floor of the trench when the compliance officers arrived, he found that no matter where they were standing, [they] were still inside a trench that was not protected in accordance with § 1926.652(a)(1). We review this essentially legal judgment de novo. 41 In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ relied heavily on Ford Dev. Corp., 15 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 2003 (1992). There, the employer claimed that its employees were supposed to stand on a pipe while in a trench, and that in so doing they effectively would be exposed to a depth of only 3.5 feet (the distance from the upper surface of the pipe to the top of the trench). The Commission rejected this argument. It noted that the depth exception applies only if an excavation is less than 5 feet (1.52m) in depth and examination of the ground by a competent person provides no indication of a potential cave-in. 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1)(ii). The Commission then explained that [t]he standard speaks of the depth of the trench, not of the position of employees in the trench. Ford Dev. Corp., 15 O.S.H. Cas. at 2011. On this basis, the Commission held that the depth exception did not apply. See id. 42 The reasoning in Ford embodies a sensible construction of the regulation--and one that comports with its wording and purpose. The safety standard is implicated by the depth of a particular trench, without regard to an individual worker's precise position in it. 9 The notion that having workers stand on a laid pipe within a trench is a satisfactory method of protecting them from the risk of cave-ins is nonsense. While the regulations are performance-oriented, they only allow employers to choose from a limited universe of acceptable procedures, not to jury-rig convenient alternatives and impose them on an imperilled work force. See Conie Constr., Inc. v. Reich, 73 F.3d 382, 384 (D.C.Cir.1995). 43 We have said enough on this score. Because the excavation regulation applies to the trench in question whereas the depth exception does not, the Commission's resolution of Violation C must stand. 44