(a) Employees working in areas where there is a possible danger of head injury from impact, or from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, shall be protected by protective helmets.
(b) Criteria for head protection. (1) The employer must provide each employee with head protection that meets the specifications contained in 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 § 1926.6;
(ii) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z89.1-2003, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” incorporated by reference in § 1926.6; 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 § 1926.6.
(2) The employer must ensure that the head protection provided for each employee exposed to high-voltage electric shock and burns also meets the specifications contained in Section 9.7 (“Electrical Insulation”) of any of the consensus standards identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) OSHA will deem any head protection device that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as a head protection device constructed in accordance with one of the consensus standards identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.
[44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, as amended at 77 FR 37600, June 22, 2012; 77 FR 42988, July 23, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Donovan v. Adams Steel Erection, Inc., 766 F.2d 804 (3rd Cir. 1985).
· cites it 5× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100 (a). The Commission concluded that the Secretary must prove more than mere “access” to a zone of danger, and vacated this citation as well.”
Davenport v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 612 S.E.2d 239 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100 (a). The other three require employers to provide handrails or other forms of fall protection for employees working on elevated work platforms.”
Capeway Roofing Sys., Inc. v. Chao, 391 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2004).
“29 C.F.R. § 1926.100 (a) (2004). The company says that photographs taken by the inspectors show that some workers were wearing hardhats; but they also show that other workers were not.”
Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025).
“100, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100 (a) (“Employees working in areas where there is a possible danger of head injury from impact, or from falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, shall be protected by protective helmets.”
FAMA Constr., LLC v. U.S. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n (11th Cir. 2026).
“20 (b)(2), and failed to require employees working in potentially dangerous areas to wear hard hats, in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100 (a). The USCA11 Case: 23-12346 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 02/12/2026 Page: 4 of 15 4 Opinion of the Court 23-12346 second citation charged…”
Downrite Eng'g & Dev. Corp. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 215 F. App'x 957 (11th Cir. 2007).
“20 (b)(2) for failing to have a designated competent person make frequent and regular inspections of the worksite; (2) 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100 (a) for failing to ensure employees were protected from falling objects with protective helmets; (3) 29 C.”
MJP Constr. Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 56 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
“(MJP) for violating 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.100 (a) and 1926.501(b) by failing to ensure that “fall protection” was in place at a construction site.”
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.