29 C.F.R. § 1910.335

Safeguards for personnel protection

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

(a) Use of protective equipment—(1) Personal protective equipment. (i) Employees working in areas where there are potential electrical hazards shall be provided with, and shall use, electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the specific parts of the body to be protected and for the work to be performed.

Note:

Personal protective equipment requirements are contained in subpart I of this part.

(ii) Protective equipment shall be maintained in a safe, reliable condition and shall be periodically inspected or tested, as required by § 1910.137.

(iii) If the insulating capability of protective equipment may be subject to damage during use, the insulating material shall be protected. (For example, an outer covering of leather is sometimes used for the protection of rubber insulating material.)

(iv) Employees shall wear nonconductive head protection wherever there is a danger of head injury from electric shock or burns due to contact with exposed energized parts.

(v) Employees shall wear protective equipment for the eyes or face wherever there is danger of injury to the eyes or face from electric arcs or flashes or from flying objects resulting from electrical explosion.

(2) General protective equipment and tools. (i) When working near exposed energized conductors or circuit parts, each employee shall use insulated tools or handling equipment if the tools or handling equipment might make contact with such conductors or parts. If the insulating capability of insulated tools or handling equipment is subject to damage, the insulating material shall be protected.

(A) Fuse handling equipment, insulated for the circuit voltage, shall be used to remove or install fuses when the fuse terminals are energized.

(B) Ropes and handlines used near exposed energized parts shall be nonconductive.

(ii) Protective shields, protective barriers, or insulating materials shall be used to protect each employee from shock, burns, or other electrically related injuries while that employee is working near exposed energized parts which might be accidentally contacted or where dangerous electric heating or arcing might occur. When normally enclosed live parts are exposed for maintenance or repair, they shall be guarded to protect unqualified persons from contact with the live parts.

(b) Alerting techniques. The following alerting techniques shall be used to warn and protect employees from hazards which could cause injury due to electric shock, burns, or failure of electric equipment parts:

(1) Safety signs and tags. Safety signs, safety symbols, or accident prevention tags shall be used where necessary to warn employees about electrical hazards which may endanger them, as required by § 1910.145.

(2) Barricades. Barricades shall be used in conjunction with safety signs where it is necessary to prevent or limit employee access to work areas exposing employees to uninsulated energized conductors or circuit parts. Conductive barricades may not be used where they might cause an electrical contact hazard.

(3) Attendants. If signs and barricades do not provide sufficient warning and protection from electrical hazards, an attendant shall be stationed to warn and protect employees.

[55 FR 32020, Aug. 6, 1990]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2002–2020 · leading case: Kull v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P., 592 S.E.2d 143 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kull v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P., 592 S.E.2d 143 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “333 (b)(1), failed to use insulated tools, 29 CFR § 1910.335 (a)(1)(i), or personal protective equipment properly rated for the voltage, 29 CFR § 1910.”

Jacobs Field Servs. v. Eugene Scalia, 960 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020). · cites it 7× “After investigating, the Secretary of Labor cited Jacobs for a single, serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.335 (a)(1)(i) for failing to ensure that Sky was wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (“PPE”).”

Supreme Beef Packers, Inc. v. Maddox, 67 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App. 2002). “” See 29 C.F.R. 1910.335 (2001). Each of these instructions concluded with the phrase, “A failure to comply with this law is negligence itself.”

Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 2011 Ohio 5413 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. 1910.335(a)(1)(i). {¶ 34} Just as in McKinney, in the instant case, L.”

Supreme Beef Packers, Inc. v. Ron Bartley Maddox (Tex. App. 2002). “" See 29 C.F.R. 1910.335 (2001). Each of these instructions concluded with the phrase, "A failure to comply with this law is negligence itself.”

— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.335(a)(1)(i) — 1 case

Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 2011 Ohio 5413 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. 1910.335(a)(1)(i). {¶ 34} Just as in McKinney, in the instant case, L.”

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.