29 C.F.R. § 1903.1

Purpose and scope

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590 et seq., 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) requires, in part, that every employer covered under the Act furnish to his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. The Act also requires that employers comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under the Act, and that employees comply with standards, rules, regulations and orders issued under the Act which are applicable to their own actions and conduct. The Act authorizes the Department of Labor to conduct inspections, and to issue citations and proposed penalties for alleged violations. The Act, under section 20(b), also authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to conduct inspections and to question employers and employees in connection with research and other related activities. The Act contains provisions for adjudication of violations, periods prescribed for the abatement of violations, and proposed penalties by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, if contested by an employer or by an employee or authorized representative of employees, and for judicial review. The purpose of this part 1903 is to prescribe rules and to set forth general policies for enforcement of the inspection, citation, and proposed penalty provisions of the Act. In situations where this part 1903 sets forth general enforcement policies rather than substantive or procedural rules, such policies may be modified in specific circumstances where the Secretary or his designee determines that an alternative course of action would better serve the objectives of the Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Thomas Perez v. Ohio Bell Tel., 655 F. App'x 404 (6th Cir. 2016).
Thomas Perez v. Ohio Bell Tel., 655 F. App'x 404 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1903.1 . Employers, accordingly, are tasked with assuring that employees comply with OSHA’s safety and health standards and in doing so may discipline employees who do not comply OSHA’s safety and health standards.”
Ryan v. Clonch Indus., Inc., 639 S.E.2d 756 (W. Va. 2006). · cites it 2× “[9] An example of such a regulation may be found at 29 C.F.R. § 1903.1 (2006), which is titled "Purpose and scope," and notes that the "Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ( 84 Stat.”
Blessing v. United States, 447 F. Supp. 1160 (E.D. Pa. 1978). “5 Although the Act authorizes the inspections alleged by plaintiffs to have been performed negligently, and although regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act provide some of the specifics for such inspections, see 29 CFR §§ 1903.1 -.12 (1976), neither the regulations nor the…”
Gail Merch. Irving v. United States, 162 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 1998). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1903.1 . Echoing the language of 29 U.”
Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor v. W. Waterproofing Co., Inc., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 560 F.2d 947 (8th Cir. 1977). “Western also relies on certain regulations promulgated by the Secretary to aid in implementing the Act, 29 C.F.R. §§ 1903.1 et seq., and parts of the Secretary’s Field Operation Manual, Compliance Operations Manual, Ch.”
Louisiana Chem. Ass'n v. Eula Bingham, Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., & Raymond J. Donovan, 657 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1981). “(Inspections, Citations, and Proposed Penalties) strictly as a cluster of Section 8 regulations (see “authority” preceding 29 C.F.R. § 1903.1 (1980)), yet all of these prescribed actions are arguably “practices” or “methods” appropriate to “providing” safe employment.”
Norris v. Excel Indus., Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 742 (W.D. Va. 2015). “Even moré fundamental, however, is the fact that the OSHA standards apply to employers with respect to their relationship with their employees, not the relationship between a manufacturer and a consumer. The purpose of the OSHA standards is to ensure that an employer…”
Borton, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., 566 F. Supp. 1420 (E.D. La. 1983). “, 29 C.F.R. 1903.1 et seq. V. “Confidential” as used in Exemption 7(D) refers to information given “in confidence or trust”.”
Adamo v. Manatee Condo., Inc., 548 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). “29 C.F.R. § 1903.1 . The OSHA standards applicable to construction of buildings apply to places of employment and employees engaged in construction work.”
Irving v. United States (1st Cir. 1998). “" 29 C.F.R. 1903.1. Echoing the language of 29 U.”
Samuel Adams Flores v. Oil-Tech Constr., LLC (Tex. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Flores pleaded four Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations upon which he based his negligence per se claim—29 C.F.R. §§ 1903.1, 14 1910.24, 4 1910.178(q)(1), 1926.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.