REGIONAL SCAFFOLDING & HOISTING CO., INC., PETITIONER,
v.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, RESPONDENT

2d Cir. | 1988-10-20
Nos. 145, Docket 88-4080
Before OAKES, MINER and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges.
865 F.2d 16 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1988)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the regulation requiring electric contacts on hoist doors applies during the installation of hoists.


Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner was cited for disabling a safety mechanism on a personnel hoist during its installation to transport a tie beam. The regulation requires el…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Co., Inc., seeks review of a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Petitioner was cited for violating a regulation during erection of a personnel hoist at a construction site. The only issue on appeal is whether the regulation applies during the installation of hoists. We find that it does.

The regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.552(c)(8) (1987), provides that personnel hoist “[d]oors or gates shall be provided with electric contacts which do not allow movement of the hoist when door or gate is open.” Petitioner was cited for disabling the safety mechanism on a hoist to carry a tie beam that would not fit in the elevator with the door closed. The beam was to be used to attach the top of the hoist to the building.

We must affirm the Commission’s interpretation of the regulation unless it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the law. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft v. Donovan, 715 F. 2d 57, 61 (2d Cir.1983); General Elec. Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 583 F. 2d 61, 64 (2d Cir.1978). Petitioner argues that the regulation does not apply during the installation of hoists. We find, however, that the plain language of the regulation indicates that it is not limited to any particular phase of construction. We therefore deny the petition to review.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw