Ezel / Agency Decisions / 14139-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 14139 Decided April 28, 1977 Citations vacated

S. Puma Co., Inc.

Flat-roof perimeter guarding citation vacated

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1977, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1977
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The judge affirmed a citation alleging that S. Puma failed to install perimeter guarding on a flat roof. The Commission applied its prior holding in Central City Roofing that the cited open-sided floor standard did not apply to flat roofs. It therefore vacated the citation and associated penalty.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(d)(1)
  • Outcome: The flat-roof perimeter guarding citation and its penalty were vacated.
  • Key point: The cited open-sided floor standard did not apply to flat roofs under the Commission's controlling precedent.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 14139

S. PUMA CO., INC.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 14139

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

April 28, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Francis V. LaRuffa, Reg. Sol., USDOL

Albert Puma, President, S. Puma Company, Inc., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

The decision of Administrative Law Judge Jerome C. Ditore in this case is before the Commission pursuant to section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. �
�
651 et seq.

Judge Ditore affirmed a citation that alleged that respondent had violated 29 U.S.C. �
�
654(a)(2) by failing to install perimeter guarding on a flat roof in contravention of 29 U.S.C. �
�
1926.500(d)(1).

In Central City Roofing, Co., BNA 4 OSHC 1286, CCH 1976-77 OSHD para. 20,761 (No. 8173, 1976), a divided Commission held that 29 CFR �
�
1926.500(d)(1) does not apply to flat roofs.
�
That decision is dispositive of this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the citation for failure to comply with 29 CFR �
�
1926.500(d)(1) and the penalty assessed therefor are vacated.
�

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1977. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.