C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1926—SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION › Subpart B—General Interpretations

29 C.F.R. § 1926.10

Scope of subpart

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

(a) This subpart contains the general rules of the Secretary of Labor interpreting and applying the construction safety and health provisions of section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (83 Stat. 96). Section 107 requires as a condition of each contract which is entered into under legislation subject to Reorganization Plan Number 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267), and which is for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating, that no contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work shall require any laborer or mechanic employed in the performance of the contract to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to his health or safety, as determined under construction safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary by regulation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Leonard v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 771 A.2d 1238 (Pa. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Leonard v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 771 A.2d 1238 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “To place responsibility on both Kiewit/Perini and High Steel, Leonard relies on 29 C.F.R. § 1926.10 (a), which provides that "no contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work shall require any laborer or mechanic employed in the performance of the…”
Tallman v. City of Hurricane, 1999 UT 55 (Utah 1999). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.10 (1997); Utah Code Ann.”
Slisze v. Stanley-Bostitch, 979 P.2d 317 (Utah 1999). “' § 34A-6-102 (1997); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.10 . The district court properly admitted the regulation to establish a rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness under Utah Code Ann.”
James T. CLARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCEAN DRILLING & Expl. CO., Defendant-Appellee, 609 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1980). “The regulations pertain to construction work, 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.10 , 1926.-25, 1926.26, 1926.”
Davenport v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 612 S.E.2d 239 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “The CWHSS Act predated the OSHA and applies to federally funded contracts for construction described at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.10 . When Congress passed OSHA, it included at 29 U.”
Leonard v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 723 A.2d 735 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998). “Leonard relies on 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.10 and 1926.16 in making this assertion.”
Christopher Creech v. RMRTN Chatt, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Creech’s alleged violation of three Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) regulations, 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.10 , 1926.20, and 1926.”
Su v. Arps (D. Neb. 2023). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.10 (a) and § 1926.500 et seq.”
Su v. Arps (D. Neb. 2023). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.10 (a) and § 1926.500 et seq.”
Lowrey v. Jervis B. Webb Co., 31 Pa. D. & C.4th 570 (1996). “29 C.F.R. §1926.10 (a) requires that: “No contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work shall require any laborer or mechanic employed in the performance of the contract to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary,…”
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.