29 C.F.R. § 1926.20

General safety and health provisions

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

(a) Contractor requirements. (1) Section 107 of the Act requires that it shall be a condition of each contract which is entered into under legislation subject to Reorganization Plan Number 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267), as defined in § 1926.12, and is for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating, that no contractor or subcontractor 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.

(b) Accident prevention responsibilities. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the employer to initiate and maintain such programs as may be necessary to comply with this part.

(2) Such programs shall provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment to be made by competent persons designated by the employers.

(3) The use of any machinery, tool, material, or equipment which is not in compliance with any applicable requirement of this part is prohibited. Such machine, tool, material, or equipment shall either be identified as unsafe by tagging or locking the controls to render them inoperable or shall be physically removed from its place of operation.

(4) The employer shall permit only those employees qualified by training or experience to operate equipment and machinery.

(c) The standards contained in this part shall apply with respect to employments performed in a workplace in a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, Outer Continental Shelf lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and Johnston Island.

(d) (1) If a particular standard is specifically applicable to a condition, practice, means, method, operation, or process, it shall prevail over any different general standard which might otherwise be applicable to the same condition, practice, means, method, operation, or process.

(2) On the other hand, any standard shall apply according to its terms to any employment and place of employment in any industry, even though particular standards are also prescribed for the industry to the extent that none of such particular standards applies.

(e) In the event a standard protects on its face a class of persons larger than employees, the standard shall be applicable under this part only to employees and their employment and places of employment.

(f) Compliance duties owed to each employee—(1) Personal protective equipment. Standards in this part requiring the employer to provide personal protective equipment (PPE), including respirators and other types of PPE, because of hazards to employees impose a separate compliance duty with respect to each employee covered by the requirement. The employer must provide PPE to each employee required to use the PPE, and each failure to provide PPE to an employee may be considered a separate violation.

(2) Training. Standards in this part requiring training on hazards and related matters, such as standards requiring that employees receive training or that the employer train employees, provide training to employees, or institute or implement a training program, impose a separate compliance duty with respect to each employee covered by the requirement. The employer must train each affected employee in the manner required by the standard, and each failure to train an employee may be considered a separate violation.

[44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979; 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, as amended at 58 FR 35078, June 30, 1993; 73 FR 75588, Dec. 12, 2008; 85 FR 8735, Feb. 18, 2020; 85 FR 8735, Feb. 18, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Pelletier v. Main Street Textiles, LP, 470 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pelletier v. Main Street Textiles, LP, 470 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Pelletier argued that the district court had erred: (1) in excluding two OSHA regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 (b)(2) and (3), that provided safety standards for construction work; (2) in refusing to conduct a voir dire with his safety engineering expert in order to determine…”

Comm'r of Labor v. Weekley Homes, L.P., 609 S.E.2d 407 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “32, the part which applies to the construction industry, as a “contractor or subcontractor within the meaning of the Act.”

Jason S. Smith v. Apex Pipeline Servs., 741 S.E.2d 845 (W. Va. 2013). · cites it 4× “”16 16 The petitioner also relies upon alleged violations of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 (b)(1), (2) and (3), which are OSHA regulations identified as “General Safety and Health Provisions” and which provide as follows: (b) Accident prevention responsibilities.”

Praus Ex Rel. Praus v. MacK, 2001 ND 80 (N.D. 2001). · cites it 2× “2 [¶ 43] Praus contends the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury about 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 , regarding accident prevention responsibilities, and 29 C.”

Ed Taylor Constr. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, Elizabeth Dole, Sec'y of Labor, 938 F.2d 1265 (11th Cir. 1991). · cites it 6× “STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 12, 1988, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (or “OSHA”) issued a citation to Taylor alleging violations of: (1) 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 (b)(1) (failing to provide for frequent and regular inspections of jobsites by a competent…”

Fabi Constr. Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 370 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “2002) (employer with actual knowledge that trench-digging employees crossed busy interstate in course of work and took no steps to prevent it violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 (b)(1)). 2 I. Fabi was a subcontractor performing concrete installation and demolition work for the…”

George v. Myers, 10 P.3d 265 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “With respect to his negligence per se claim, plaintiff alleged that defendant had violated the OSEA, and specifically certain regulations pertaining to workplace accident prevention, 29 CFR section 1926.20 1 (adopted by reference, OAR 437-003-0001(3)(a)), residential…”

Hughes Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2014 UT 3 (Utah 2014). “614-1-4(B)(1) (incorporating "Section 29 CFR 1926.20 through the end of part 1926,” thus excluding part 1926.”

W.G. Fairfield Co. v. The Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n Sec'y of Labor, 285 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “During “E-Z Trial” proceedings, the ALJ dismissed one of the violations and affirmed the remaining two: a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 (b)(1), the employer’s duty to initiate and maintain safety programs; and a violation of 29 C.”

D & S Grading Co., Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 899 F.2d 1145 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “The AU found D & S in violation of six OSHA regulations: failure to maintain a trench safety program ( 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 (b)(1)), failure to train employees in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions ( 29 C.”

Bobby Duncan v. First Texas Homes & First Texas Homes, Inc., 464 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App. 2015). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20 (c) (2014). Thus, we conclude that section 1926.”

Bastian v. Carlton Cnty. High. Dep't, 555 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “The county received citations for violations of three occupational safety and health regulations: 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.20 (b)(1), (2) (requiring safety programs and regular inspections by employers), 1926.”

Show all 32 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20(b) — 2 cases

George v. Myers, 10 P.3d 265 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “With respect to his negligence per se claim, plaintiff alleged that defendant had violated the OSEA, and specifically certain regulations pertaining to workplace accident prevention, 29 CFR section 1926.20 1 (adopted by reference, OAR 437-003-0001(3)(a)), residential…”

in Re Manhattan Vaughn, JVP (Tex. App. 2015).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.20(b)(2) — 3 cases

Comm'r of Labor v. Weekley Homes, L.P., 609 S.E.2d 407 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). “32, the part which applies to the construction industry, as a “contractor or subcontractor within the meaning of the Act.”

in Re Manhattan Vaughn, JVP (Tex. App. 2015).

Anderson Rodrigues Guerini v. Vin-Rick Builders, LLC (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026).

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.