REGIONAL SCAFFOLDING & HOISTING CO., INC., PETITIONER,
v.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that the regulation requiring electric contacts on hoist doors applies during the installation of hoists.
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Occupational Safety And Health Act cases and more on FLexlaw
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
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 583 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1978)
- Pratt & Whitney Aircraft v. Donovan, 715 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1983)