b'SAFETYNETSREGULATIONIMPRECISE- CITATIONDISMISSED OSHARegulation1926.l0S(a)readsinpartasfollows: "Safetynetsshallbeprovidedwhenworkplacesariemorethan 25feetabovethegroundorwatersurface,orothersurfaces, wheretheuseofladders,scaffolds,catchplatforms,temporary floors,safetylines,orsafetybeltsisimpractical." Doesthismeanthatif youuseascaffoldortemporaryfloor,youdon\'t needtouseasafetynetevenif thetemporaryfloororscaffolddoesnot havesafetyfeatureswhichwouldpreventfalls?Ordoesitmeanthatyou arerelievedfromtherequirementofsafetynetswhenyouremployeesare workingonascaffoldortemporaryflooronlyifthescaffoldortemporary floordoeshavesafetyfeatureswhichwouldpreventfalls?InBrennanv. OSAHRCandRonM.Fiegen,Inc.,CA8,No,74-1643,April18,1975,the EighthCircuitCourtofAppealsaffirmeddismissalofacitationbythe reviewcommissiononthebasisthatthelanguageoftheregulationwas imprecise.Thecourtagreedwiththereviewcommissionthattheterm "impractical"inthestandardsimplyisnotprieciseenoughtobesynonymous eitherwithabsenceofuseofotherdevicesorwithineffectiveuseofthem. Thecourtagreedwiththereviewcommissionthattheregulation,aspresentlydrawn,doesnotnecessarilymakeillegalafailuretousesafetynets "whereemployeesareworkingonascaffoldortemporaryfloor,regardless ofthesafetyfeaturesofsuchfloororscaffold."TheSecretaryofLabor hadarguedthatthewordingofthesafetynetregulationcontemplatedscaffoldsandtemporaryfloorswhichservethefunctionofpreventingfalls,anc_, thatascaffoldortemporaryfloorwhichdoesnotpreventfallsdoesnot relieveanemployerofthedutytoinstallasafetynet. Thecontractorinquestionwasthesteelcomponentssubcontractorofa buildingontheSouthDakotaStateUniversitycampusatBrookings,South Dakota.AnOSHAinspectorobservedthatthreeofthecompany\'sempl oyees wereworkingonthebuilding\'sunfinishedroofsome65feetabovetheground andtwootherswereonanoutriggerscaffoldatthesameheight.The inspectorcitedthecontractorforhisfailuretoprovide"safetynetsor equivalentprotectiveequipmentoremployeesworkingonoutriggerscaf. ffoldandunguardedroofinexcessof25feetabovegroundlevelThe . 11reviewcommissionadministrativelawjudgefoundthatfiveofthesubcontractor\'semployeeshadbeenworkingontheroofandscaffoldingwithout safetynetsandwereexposedtothedangeroffalling.Hefurtherfound that"itwasnotpossibletotieoffontopofthesteelroof;hencetheuse ofladders,scaffolds,catchplatforms,temporaryfloors,safetylinesor safetybeltswasnotpractical."Heassessedapenaltyof$500fortheviolation. Inaffirmingdismissalbythereviewcommissionofthecitation,the EighthCircuitCourtofAppealsconcludedthatthecommission\'sreadingof theregulationwasreasonable.Thecourtaddedthat , ."Moreover,wedeclinetoadopttheSecretary\'sinterpretati::nof theregulationforreasonsofdueprocess.Where,ashere,the interpretationderiveslittlesupportfromthelanguageofthe regulation,it wouldbefundamentallyunfairtoimposeuponan employercivilpenaltiesforitsviolation.Todosowouldsubjecthimtoliability withoutadequatewarningthathisconduct isprohibited."'