b'MIDWESTM I D W E S TROOFING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION f;?I\'"R O O F E R,. 1000 Power &Light Bldg.,KansasCity, Missouri64105 March,1976 PERIMETERGUARDINGCITATIONDISMISSED HamiltonRoofingco.,Inc.,Hutchinson,Kansas,wascitedforanalleged violationofOSHARegulation1926.500(d) (1)inconnectionwithitsreroofing jobonachurch"barrel "shapedroofwithapitchofapproximately4inches in12inches,borderedwitha6to12inchparapet.Atthetimeofthe inspectionbytheOSHAcompli anceofficer,th~rewerenoguardrails,lifelines,lanyards,safetynetsorwarninglinesinstalled. Thecitationallegedaseriousviolationof500(d)(1)andproposeda penaltyof$500.ThecomplaintfiledbyOSHAal l eged ,inthealternative, thatthecontractorviolatedeither500(d) (1)orOSHARegulation1926.105(a), resultingfromfailure"toprovidesafetynets,ladders,scaffolds,catch platforms,temporaryfloors,safetylinesorsafetybeltstoprotectemployees workingmorethan25feetabovethegroundorothersurface." InadecisiondatedFebruary27,1976,JudgeAlanM.Wienmanconcluded thatthecontractorwasnotinviolationofeitherr egulation. "\'Astotheallegedviolationof105(a),JudgeWienmanr easonedthatif catchplatformsarenotrequiredforgentlyslopedroofsundertheexpress provisionsofOSHARegulation1926.45l(u) (3)(whichexemptsroofsslopedno greaterthan4inchesin12fromtherequirementofinstallationofacatch platform),canplatformsorsomesubstituteformoffallingprotectionbe requiredforroofersunder105(a)?Heconcludedthat105 (a)wasnotapplicabletothejobinquestionanddismissedtheallegedviolationofthat regulation. Withrespecttothe500(d) (1)citation,JudgeWienman\'sdiscussionof theconf-lictbetweentheSeventhCircuitCourtofAppealsdecisionin LangerRoofing&SheetMetal,Inc.v.secretaryofLabor,524F.2d1337, decidedNovember20,1975(holdingthat500(d) (1)wasnotapplicableto flatroofs)andalineofCommissiondecisionsholdingthat500(d) (1 ) requiresperimeterguardingforallroofssixfeetormoreaboveground levelwasmosti nteresting .JudgeWienmanstatedinpartasfollows: "Wearenowaskedtodecidewhichauthorityshallprevail. Neitherpartysuggestsanyrecognizedguidelinestoresolve thishead-onclashbetweenaCommissionpositionandasubsequentappellatedecision.Regretfully,theCommissionhas avoidedinstructingitsjudgesastoanappropriatemethodof solvingthisdilemma.Theomission,wesuspect,isdel iberate sincetheinstantissue theapplicabilityof29CFR1926 .500 (d)(1) wasmostr ecentlyonreviewinSecretaryv.Abbott-Sommer (DocketNo.9507)buttheCommissiondecisiononFebruary17,1976,'