29 C.F.R. §1910.1052 - Methylene Chloride

Cite as29 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
3 cases
  • Hartley v. N. Am. Polymer Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 3 Diciembre 2020
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 4 Septiembre 2008
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 3 Diciembre 2020
    ...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......

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