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

29 C.F.R. § 1926.400

Introduction

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

This subpart addresses electrical safety requirements that are necessary for the practical safeguarding of employees involved in construction work and is divided into four major divisions and applicable definitions as follows:

(a) Installation safety requirements. Installation safety requirements are contained in §§ 1926.402 through 1926.408. Included in this category are electric equipment and installations used to provide electric power and light on jobsites.

(b) Safety-related work practices. Safety-related work practices are contained in §§ 1926.416 and 1926.417. In addition to covering the hazards arising from the use of electricity at jobsites, these regulations also cover the hazards arising from the accidental contact, direct or indirect, by employees with all energized lines, above or below ground, passing through or near the jobsite.

(c) Safety-related maintenance and environmental considerations. Safety-related maintenance and environmental considerations are contained in §§ 1926.431 and 1926.432.

(d) Safety requirements for special equipment. Safety requirements for special equipment are contained in § 1926.441.

(e) Definitions. Definitions applicable to this subpart are contained in § 1926.449.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1978–2000 · leading case: Edison Elec. Inst. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., 849 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edison Elec. Inst. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., 849 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 4× “Following' an informal rulemaking, OSHA promulgated revised standards that became effective on October 9, 1986, and are now codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400 et seq. (1987). EEI, an association of investor-owned electric utilities, challenges three separate provisions of revised…”
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Oil, Chem., & Atomic Workers Int'l Union & Its Local 4-23, 718 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Citation 2 charged the company with two nonserious violations based on (1) failure to guard electrical equipment (29 C.F.R. 1926.400(a)), and (2) using defective ladders (29 C.”
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Daniel Constr. Co., Inc., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 692 F.2d 818 (1st Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “§ 654 (a)(2) (1976) and 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400 (a) (1981). 2 OSHA assessed no penalty for the violation, but did demand prompt abatement of the defect.”
Joann Angel, Adm'x of the Est. of Jerry Angel v. United States, 775 F.2d 132 (6th Cir. 1985). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400 (c)(1) provides, as relevant: “No employer shall permit an employee to work in .”
Carl T. Madsen, Inc. v. Babler Bros., 610 P.2d 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “) 5 One relevant regulation reads as follows: "(c) Protection of Employees: (1) No employer shall permit an employee to work in such proximity to any part of an electric power circuit that he may contact the same in the course of his work unless the employee is protected against…”
9 O.S.H. Cas.(bna) 1718, 1981 O.S.H.D. (Cch) P 25,389 Austin Bldg. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor, 647 F.2d 1063 (10th Cir. 1981). “25 (a) and 29 C.F.R. 1926.400(a) for exposing employees to a tripping hazard and for permitting employees to use electrical equipment with unprotected electrical leads.”
Martin Painting & Coating Co. v. Marshall, 629 F.2d 437 (6th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “The Commission affirmed the Secretary of Labor’s finding that Martin Painting and Coating Company had committed a serious violation of the electrical power safety regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400 (c)(1), issued pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.”
Nat'l Constructors Ass'n v. Marshal, 581 F.2d 960 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “These same standards are made explicitly applicable to construction jobsites by 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400 (b) (1977). As adopted under OSHA, the NEC required a three-wire grounding system for *187 protection against ground faults.”
Brooks v. Dover Elevator Co., 379 S.E.2d 707 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). “95-131(a), provides in pertinent part: (c)(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,…”
B & B Insulation, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 583 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1978). “B&B was also cited for a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400 (c) for permitting employees to work in close proximity to electric power lines which had not been de-energized or effectively insulated.”
J.A.M. Builders, Inc. v. Alexis Herman, 233 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1926.400 (c)(1) was the lineal ancestor of 29 C.”
J.A.M. Builders, Inc. v. Alexis Herman, 233 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2000). “29 C.F.R. § 1926.400 (c)(1) was the lineal ancestor of 29 C.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400(a) — 2 cases
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Oil, Chem., & Atomic Workers Int'l Union & Its Local 4-23, 718 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1983). “Citation 2 charged the company with two nonserious violations based on (1) failure to guard electrical equipment (29 C.F.R. 1926.400(a)), and (2) using defective ladders (29 C.”
9 O.S.H. Cas.(bna) 1718, 1981 O.S.H.D. (Cch) P 25,389 Austin Bldg. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor, 647 F.2d 1063 (10th Cir. 1981). “25 (a) and 29 C.F.R. 1926.400(a) for exposing employees to a tripping hazard and for permitting employees to use electrical equipment with unprotected electrical leads.”
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.