29 C.F.R. § 1910.1

Purpose and scope

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

(a) Section 6(a) of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1593) provides that “without regard to chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, or to the other subsections of this section, the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable during the period beginning with the effective date of this Act and ending 2 years after such date, by rule promulgate as an occupational safety or health standard any national concensus standard, and any established Federal standard, unless he determines that the promulgation of such a standard would not result in improved safety or health for specifically designated employees.” The legislative purpose of this provision is to establish, as rapidly as possible and without regard to the rule-making provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, standards with which industries are generally familiar, and on whose adoption interested and affected persons have already had an opportunity to express their views. Such standards are either (1) national concensus standards on whose adoption affected persons have reached substantial agreement, or (2) Federal standards already established by Federal statutes or regulations.

(b) This part carries out the directive to the Secretary of Labor under section 6(a) of the Act. It contains occupational safety and health standards which have been found to be national consensus standards or established Federal standards.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2021 · leading case: Umansky v. ABC Ins., 2009 WI 82 (Wis. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Umansky v. ABC Ins., 2009 WI 82 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.1 , 1910.2, 1910.5. In this case, ABC, Inc.”

Anthony J. Melerine, Jr., Cont'l Ins. Co., Intervenor-Appellant v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1981). “Comm’n 1981); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.1 , .11, .13. But the Secretary adopted only the substantive safety and health provisions of the LHWCA regulations: he did not adopt that portion stating the scope of their coverage.”

Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 505 F.2d 869 (10th Cir. 1974). · cites it 2× “” 29 CFR § 1910.1 (b). Employer is charged with violation of 29 CFR § 1910.”

Hatzel & Buehler, Inc. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 107 B.R. 34 (D. Del. 1989). “Specifically, paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Complaint will require substantial and material consideration of the regulations applicable to OSHA, including 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1 et seq., 29 C.F.R. § 1926 et seq.”

James T. CLARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCEAN DRILLING & Expl. CO., Defendant-Appellee, 609 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1980). “29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.1 , 1910.11-1910.16. Thus the trial court did not err in deciding that these regulations do not cover a crew member of a vessel in navigation and in excluding the proffered regulations from evidence.”

People v. Hegedus, 443 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 1989). “See 29 CFR 1910.1 et seq. 14 See also Sabine Consolidated, Inc v State, 756 SW2d 865 (Tex App, 1988).”

Pfeiffer v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 771 F. Supp. 1133 (D. Kan. 1991). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1 (a). The purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act is to open the administrative processes of our federal government to the scrutiny of the general public.”

Clary v. Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co., 429 F. Supp. 905 (W.D. La. 1977). “1975) the Court has held that as to those workmen covered under the safety regulations ( 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1 et seq.), the Act does not create a private right of action against an employer for violation of its terms.”

Cook v. Ancich, 119 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (W.D. Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “20 that the protective equipment provision in 29 C.F.R.1910.1 is applicable and enforceable on uninspected fishing vessels.”

Mut. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 112 F. App'x 386 (6th Cir. 2004). “”); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1 (b) (“This part carries out the directive to the Secretary of Labor under section 6(a) of the Act.”

Underhill Constr. Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 526 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1975). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1 . Finally, and perhaps most conclusively, on August 14, 1971, just two weeks before the general OSHA “adopted” standards were scheduled to become effective, the Secretary promulgated a specific effective date for the construction standards adopted by 29 C.”

Brock v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 828 F.2d 373 (6th Cir. 1987). “The Secretary has accordingly promulgated the Occupational Safety and Health Standards, otherwise known as the general industry standards.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

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.