29 CFR 1926.652 - Requirements for protective systems
| Cite as | 29 CFR 1926.652 |
-
- 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
87 practice notes
-
Standards Improvement Project-Phase IV
...recommended that OSHA revise the excavations standard to add the work practices that are outlined in the OSHA memorandum ``Suspension of 29 CFR 1926.652 to House Basement Excavations'' for protecting house foundation/basement excavations in either SIP-IV or a separate rulemaking. That recom......
-
Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, No. 73-1765
...29 U.S.C. Sec. 654 (1970), (the general duty section of the Act) and of the standards relating to support of trenches published at 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.652(b). 2 The Secretary of Labor's proposed sanction of $7,500.00 for this violation was reduced to $5,000.00, and penalties were assessed f......
-
Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., No. 17-60543
...mandate that excavations in this type of soil use protective systems, such as sloping, to protect employees from cave-ins. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.652(a)(1) & (b). No such protective systems were put in place at this excavation.On the rainy morning of March 4, 2015, CVI was assigned to reinst......
-
Atlas Roofing Company, Inc v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Irey v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Nos. 75-746 and 75-748
...of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2). In each case an employee's death had resulted. Petitioner Irey was cited for a willful violation of 29 CFR § 1926.652(b) and Table P-1 (1976) a safety standard promulgated by the Secretary under the Act requiring the sides of trenches in 'unstable or soft ......
Request a trial to view additional results
71 cases
-
Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, No. 73-1765
...29 U.S.C. Sec. 654 (1970), (the general duty section of the Act) and of the standards relating to support of trenches published at 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.652(b). 2 The Secretary of Labor's proposed sanction of $7,500.00 for this violation was reduced to $5,000.00, and penalties were assessed f......
-
Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., No. 17-60543
...mandate that excavations in this type of soil use protective systems, such as sloping, to protect employees from cave-ins. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.652(a)(1) & (b). No such protective systems were put in place at this excavation.On the rainy morning of March 4, 2015, CVI was assigned to reinst......
-
Atlas Roofing Company, Inc v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Irey v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Nos. 75-746 and 75-748
...of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2). In each case an employee's death had resulted. Petitioner Irey was cited for a willful violation of 29 CFR § 1926.652(b) and Table P-1 (1976) a safety standard promulgated by the Secretary under the Act requiring the sides of trenches in 'unstable or soft ......
-
Chao v. Occupational Safety and Health Review, No. 03-60958.
...at *9-10 (finding each Page 369 location at site where shoring in trench to prevent cave-in was not installed was violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(b)); Sec. of Labor v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 1993 WL 61950, at * 14 (O.S.H.R.C.) (finding each location at site lacking fall protection was vi......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
-
Fifth Circuit Last To Uphold OSHA's Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine
...of the subcontractor's employees working near the wall. OSHA cited both contractor and the subcontractor for willfully violating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) for allegedly "exposing employees to a cave-in hazard from an unprotected excavation at a construction The ALJ determined that the cont......
-
Fifth Circuit Last To Uphold OSHA’s Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine
...of the subcontractor’s employees working near the wall. OSHA cited both contractor and the subcontractor for willfully violating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) for allegedly “exposing employees to a cave-in hazard from an unprotected excavation at a construction The ALJ determined that the cont......
-
Fifth Circuit Last to Uphold OSHA’s Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine
...of the subcontractor’s employees working near the wall. OSHA cited both contractor and the subcontractor for willfully violating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1) for allegedly “exposing employees to a cave-in hazard from an unprotected excavation at a construction site.” The ALJ determined that t......
-
When Knowing Is No Sure Thing: 11th Circuit Requires OSHA to Dig Deeper Before Imputing Supervisor's Misconduct to Employer
...the company’s failure to provide any number of measures to safeguard against a collapse and then cave-in of the excavated material (29 C.F.R. §1926.652(a)(1)). OSHA's Burden in Finding a To sustain a citation against an employer, the Secretary of Labor has the affirmative obligation of demo......
Request a trial to view additional results