OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
Summary of PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY DAR
Employer contends in its petition that the ALJ's decision was not supported by findings because the walkway for which sections 3210(a) [width and access] and 3273(c) [guardrail] were sustained was on an aerial device, and the cited safety orders don't apply. Employer offers two reasons for contention. Aerial devices are covered by specific safety orders that do not mention the general, GISO standards cited, implying, to Employer, that aerial devices are not covered by those standards. The Board rejected Employer's contention. When specific safety orders are silent regarding a protective feature and the general standard does not conflict with the specific, the general standard applies. Employer also argues that the cited safety orders are building standards and that section 3202(c), which limits the applicability of the general industry safety orders to buildings built after a certain date, also makes the cited safety orders inapplicable to aerial devices and other mobile equipment. The Board rejects Employer's contention. Section 3202(c) does not address the applicability of the cited safety orders to aerial devices. Employer's petition was denied.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
(DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION) 99-R4D3-1806
July 19, 2000