29 C.F.R. §1910.1052 - Methylene Chloride
| Cite as | 29 C.F.R. §1910.1052 |
-
- 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
3 cases
-
Hartley v. N. Am. Polymer Co.
...were fit tested prior to initial use of a respirator in the workplace."¶ 42 Third, Hartley was cited for a "serious" violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1052(c)(1) (2017) in that "[t]he employer did not ensure an employee was not exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride (MC) in ex......
-
Secretary of Labor v. Beverly Healthcare-Hillview, 06-4810.
...ground, Beverly also contends that the "without loss of pay" provisions present in a number of other OSHA standards, see, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1052(j)(2) (OSHA's methylene chloride standard provides that "[t]he employer shall provide all required medical surveillance at no cost to affecte......
-
Hartley v. N. Am. Polymer Co.
...were fit tested prior to initial use of a respirator in the workplace."¶ 42 Third, Hartley was cited for a "serious" violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1052(c)(1) in that "[t]he employer did not ensure an employee was not exposed to an airborne concentration of methylene chloride (MC) in excess of......