29 CFR 1910.5 - Applicability of standards
| Cite as | 29 CFR 1910.5 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
62 practice notes
-
Confined Spaces in Construction
...more detailed and comprehensive than the welding standard in its protection of employees from those other hazards for purposes of 29 CFR 1910.5(c).\6\ Although Page 25378 welding standard has a section designed to address the hazards of welding in a confined space, the Agency is applying th......
-
Brennan v. Gilles & Cotting, Inc., No. 73-2471
...regulation limiting the effect of the safety regulations promulgated under 5(a)(2) of the Act to the employment relationship, see 29 C.F.R. 1910.5(d), 2 we do not reach the question of whether Congress has granted the Secretary authority under 5(a)(2) to require employers in multiple-employ......
-
Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, No. 81-1740
...does not preclude application of the slightly more generalized, albeit explicitly comprehensive, command of another regulation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.5(c)(2) (1980). The courts that have considered the relationship between section 1910.217 and section 1910.212 have unanimously concluded that......
-
Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, No. 76-1278
...is specifically applicable * * *, it shall prevail over any different general standard which might otherwise be applicable * * * *," 29 C.F.R. § 1910.5(c)(1), Diebold contends that in relation to power presses (and therefore press brakes 9 the general guarding requirements of § 1910.212 are......
Request a trial to view additional results
51 cases
-
Brennan v. Gilles & Cotting, Inc., No. 73-2471
...regulation limiting the effect of the safety regulations promulgated under 5(a)(2) of the Act to the employment relationship, see 29 C.F.R. 1910.5(d), 2 we do not reach the question of whether Congress has granted the Secretary authority under 5(a)(2) to require employers in multiple-employ......
-
Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, No. 81-1740
...does not preclude application of the slightly more generalized, albeit explicitly comprehensive, command of another regulation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.5(c)(2) (1980). The courts that have considered the relationship between section 1910.217 and section 1910.212 have unanimously concluded that......
-
Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, No. 76-1278
...applicable * * *, it shall prevail over any different general standard which might otherwise be applicable * * * *," 29 C.F.R. § 1910.5(c)(1), Diebold contends that in relation to power presses (and therefore press brakes 9 the general guarding requirements of § 1910.212 are pre-empted......
-
Kiewit Power Constructors Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, No. 18-1282
...were meant to fill in regulatory gaps left by particular standards, like the construction standards prescribed in Subpart B. See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.5(c)(2) ("[A]ny standard shall apply according to its terms to any employment and place of employment in any industry , even though particul......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
-
OSHRC Agrees with Ogletree Deakins’ Argument That Construction Eyewash Standard Is Invalid
...continue to apply only to manufacturing. The regulation that so limited the Walsh-Healey Act-derived manufacturing standards was 29 C.F.R. § 1910.5(e). But several months later, OSHA changed its mind. Without any explanation, without giving the public an opportunity to comment, and without ......
-
OSHRC Agrees With Ogletree Deakins' Argument That Construction Eyewash Standard Is Invalid
...continue to apply only to manufacturing. The regulation that so limited the Walsh-Healey Act-derived manufacturing standards was 29 C.F.R. § 1910.5(e). But several months later, OSHA changed its mind. Without any explanation, without giving the public an opportunity to comment, and without ......