Opinion ID: 355864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Applicability of the OSHA Standard

Text: 16 Throughout this litigation, Pike has contested the applicability of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(b) to the operation of installing shoring in a trench. The regulation requires that the sides of trenches be shored . . . or otherwise supported by means of sufficient strength to protect the employees working within them. Pike contends that the Commission's interpretation of the regulation puts an employer in an impossible situation: he must violate the regulation in order to comply with it. Additionally, Pike points out that the regulation requires shoring, but does not specify any particular method of installing it. 17 The Commission rejected Pike's argument by a vote of 2-1, Commissioner Moran dissenting. 3 The Commission accepted the Secretary's interpretation of the standard: 18 By its plain terms, the standard applies when employees are working in trenches of unstable or soft material. There is no express limitation as to the type of work being performed which may be extending the shoring itself, and none is implied. 19 We agree. In the first instance, we note that the Secretary's interpretation of an OSHA regulation is entitled to great deference. We have held that the promulgator's interpretation is controlling as long as it is one of several reasonable interpretations, although it may not appear as reasonable as some other. Brennan v. Southern Contractors Service, 492 F.2d 498, 501 (5th Cir. 1974). 4 20 The Secretary's interpretation of the shoring standard is certainly a reasonable one. There is no dispute between the parties that shoring can be accomplished without exposing employees to the hazards of working in the unshored portions of the trench. 5 The Secretary's interpretation of the regulation thus prevents the employer from needlessly exposing the employees to the very risk which the regulation is designed to minimize. The Secretary's interpretation is thus consonant with the overall purpose of OSHA, prevention of all preventable work-related accidents, see Horne Plumbing and Heating Co. v. OSHRC, 528 F.2d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 1976), and with specific purposes of the shoring regulation. In contrast, the interpretation urged by Pike, rather than eliciting greater responsiveness on the part of employers would condone greater neglect. Brennan v. Southern Contractors Service, supra, 492 F.2d at 501.