29 C.F.R. § 1910.135

Head protection

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

(a) General requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee wears a protective helmet when working in areas where there is a potential for injury to the head from falling objects.

(2) The employer shall ensure that a protective helmet designed to reduce electrical shock hazard is worn by each such affected employee when near exposed electrical conductors which could contact the head.

(b) Criteria for head protection. (1) Head protection must comply with any of the following consensus standards:

(i) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-2009, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” incorporated by reference in § 1910.6;

(ii) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-2003, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or

(iii) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-1997, “American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements,” incorporated by reference in § 1910.6.

(2) Head protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as head protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.

[59 FR 16362, Apr. 6, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 9238, Mar. 7, 1996; 61 FR 19548, May 2, 1996; 74 FR 46356, Sept. 9, 2009; 77 FR 37598, June 22, 2012]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2020–2020 · leading case: Krencik v. Oakgrove Constr., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 4642 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Krencik v. Oakgrove Constr., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 4642 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “or OSHA regulations must be dismissed because plaintiff was not an employee of defendant ( see Pellescki v City of Rochester , 198 AD2d 762, 763 [4th Dept 1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 752 [1994]), and we therefore further modify the order by granting that part of the motion seeking…”

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.