29 C.F.R. § 1910.101

Compressed gases (general requirements)

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

(a) Inspection of compressed gas cylinders. Each employer shall determine that compressed gas cylinders under his control are in a safe condition to the extent that this can be determined by visual inspection. Visual and other inspections shall be conducted as prescribed in the Hazardous Materials Regulations of the Department of Transportation (49 CFR parts 171-179 and 14 CFR part 103). Where those regulations are not applicable, visual and other inspections shall be conducted in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlets C-6-1968 and C-8-1962, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.

(b) Compressed gases. The in-plant handling, storage, and utilization of all compressed gases in cylinders, portable tanks, rail tankcars, or motor vehicle cargo tanks shall be in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet P-1-1965, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.

(c) Safety relief devices for compressed gas containers. Compressed gas cylinders, portable tanks, and cargo tanks shall have pressure relief devices installed and maintained in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlets S-1.1-1963 and 1965 addenda and S-1.2-1963, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.

[39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 61 FR 9236, Mar. 7, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1987–2018 · leading case: Amoco Oil Co. v. Comm'r of Labor, 726 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amoco Oil Co. v. Comm'r of Labor, 726 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “The evidence supports the Board’s finding that Amoco violated the general duty clause by failing to segregate compressed gases of different types both at the LPG rack and in the stores area adjacent to the cage, in violation of 29 CFR § 1910.101 (b), Section 3.3.3 of CGA…”

Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty., 410 P.3d 32 (Cal. 2018). “121 (2017) ), but these provisions do not appear to have any application to the allegations of the complaint, which assert that Solus removed a water heater's safety features to force it to operate beyond its capacity.”

Safeway, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 382 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “The citation was later amended to allege, alternatively, a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.101 (b). Petitioner, Safeway, Inc.”

Ferris v. V.I. Indus. Gases, Inc., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3451 (D.V.I. 1987). “See 29 C.F.R. 1910.101(b) and 1910.102(a) (1986) respectively.”

— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.101(b) — 2 cases

Amoco Oil Co. v. Comm'r of Labor, 726 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “The evidence supports the Board’s finding that Amoco violated the general duty clause by failing to segregate compressed gases of different types both at the LPG rack and in the stores area adjacent to the cage, in violation of 29 CFR § 1910.101 (b), Section 3.3.3 of CGA…”

Ferris v. V.I. Indus. Gases, Inc., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3451 (D.V.I. 1987). “See 29 C.F.R. 1910.101(b) and 1910.102(a) (1986) respectively.”

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.