29 CFR 1910.1029 - Coke oven emissions

Cite as29 CFR 1910.1029
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
43 practice notes
  • Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV
    • United States
    • Occupational Safety And Health Administration
    • Invalid date
    ...into part 1926 (58 FR 35256, June 30, 1993) and in 1996 revised it to be just a reference to the identical general industry standard (29 CFR 1910.1029; 61 FR 31428, June 20, 1996). In neither rulemaking did OSHA discuss, in particular, the application of the coke oven standard to constructi......
  • Safety and health standards, etc.: Standards improvement project (Phase II),
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 05, 2005
    • January 5, 2005
    ...CFR 1915.1001) and construction (1926.1101); evaluating chest x-rays for inorganic arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018) and coke oven emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029) standards; signing medical opinions in the asbestos standard for general industry (29 CFR 1910.1001) and the cadmium standards for general......
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 15, 2007
    • November 15, 2007
    ...an exception limited to uniquely personal items like safety shoes. In 1979, OSHA issued an Interpretive Instruction clarifying that 29 CFR 1910.1029(h)(1), which used the language ``shall provide,'' required employers to furnish personal protective equipment for coke oven employees at no ch......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 24, 2006
    • August 24, 2006
    ...the use of disposable respirators are controversial. Consequently, revision would require a new rulemaking. Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR 1910.1029). A 3M representative asserted that OSHA made an error when it proposed to revise the term ``single-use respirator'' to ``filtering facepiece res......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Marshall, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 11, 1980
    ...specified date, as it did in setting permanent standards for arsenic, see 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1018(g), and for coke oven emissions, see 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1029(7)(1)(i)(a). 232 Besides competing interests, OSHA had to evaluate conflicting estimates of the time necessary for compliance. 43 Fed.Re......
  • U.S. v Mead Corporation, 99-1434
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2001
    ...presented by the case nor considered in our opinion. The only question before the Court was which of two competing interpretations of 29 CFR 1910.1029 (1990)-the Secretary's or the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's-should have been deferred to by the court below. See 499 U.......
  • UNITED STATES v. MEAD CORP.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2001
    ...presented by the case nor considered in our opinion. The only question before the Court was which of two competing interpretations of 29 CFR § 1910.1029 (1990)-the Secretary's or the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's-should have been deferred to by the court below. See 499 ......
  • Vulcan Constr. Materials, L.P. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, No. 11–2860.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • October 25, 2012
    ...standards establish maximum permissible emissions levels and require the use of employee respirators in certain circumstances. See 29 CFR § 1910.1029 (1990). An investigation by one of the Secretary's compliance officers revealed that respondent CF & I Steel Corporation (CF & I) had equippe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • OSHA Announces Lockout/Tagout and Standards Improvement Project Developments
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • May 31, 2019
    ...the standards to allow, but not require, the use of digital chest x-rays in the medical surveillance provisions of 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.1018, 1910.1029, 1910.1045, 1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101, 1910.1027, and 1926.1127. In the third revision, OSHA replaced “roentgenogram” with “x-ray,” whic......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT