(a) Construction loads. No construction loads shall be placed on a concrete structure or portion of a concrete structure unless the employer determines, based on information received from a person who is qualified in structural design, that the structure or portion of the structure is capable of supporting the loads.
(b) Reinforcing steel. All protruding reinforcing steel, onto and into which employees could fall, shall be guarded to eliminate the hazard of impalement.
(c) Post-tensioning operations. (1) No employee (except those essential to the post-tensioning operations) shall be permitted to be behind the jack during tensioning operations.
(2) Signs and barriers shall be erected to limit employee access to the post-tensioning area during tensioning operations.
(d) Riding concrete buckets. No employee shall be permitted to ride concrete buckets.
(e) Working under loads. (1) No employee shall be permitted to work under concrete buckets while buckets are being elevated or lowered into position.
(2) To the extent practical, elevated concrete buckets shall be routed so that no employee, or the fewest number of employees, are exposed to the hazards associated with falling concrete buckets.
(f) Personal protective equipment. No employee shall be permitted to apply a cement, sand, and water mixture through a pneumatic hose unless the employee is wearing protective head and face equipment.
[53 FR 22643, June 16, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 40730, Aug. 9, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Bragunier Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. Maryland Comm'r of Labor & Indus., 684 A.2d 6 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Because rebar exposed in this fashion presents a potential risk of causing injury, MOSH guidelines require the bars to be “capped” pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1926.701 (b), a Federal OSHA standard enforced by MOSH, which states: “All protruding reinforcing steel, onto and into which…”
Noble Steel, Inc. v. Williams Bros. Concrete Constr. Co., 2002 OK CIV APP 66 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002).
“13 During the time that Noble Steel was installing the rebar on the project, an OSHA representative visited the construction site and cited both Williams Brothers and Noble Steel with OSHA violations, including a citation for failing to cover the vertical rebar during…”
S. Pan Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 685 F. App'x 692 (11th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 9× “In the first willful violation, the Secretary found that Southern Pan violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.701 (a) by failing to “have a qualified person determine if the formwork .”
Cordero v. Ghilotti Constr. Co., Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “” The notice went on to say the proposed language “consist[ed] largely of consensus document-based regulatory text specifically addressing post-tensioning operations in greater detail than that addressed by Federal OSHA in its 29 CFR 1926.701(c) standards which consist of…”
Christopher E. Johnson v. Brayman Constr. (W. Va. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Third, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.701 (f), entitled “personal protective equipment” in Subpart Q, which addresses “Concrete and Masonry Construction,” states that “[n]o employee shall be permitted to apply a cement, sand, and water mixture through a pneumatic hose unless the employee is…”
Whittier v. Seattle Tunnel Partners (W.D. Wash. 2022).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.701 (“All protruding 24 reinforcing steel, onto and into which employees could fall, shall be guarded to eliminate the 25 hazard of impalement.”
Cordero v. Ghilotti Constr. Co. CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
“” The notice went on to say the proposed language “consist[ed] largely of consensus document-based regulatory text specifically addressing post-tensioning operations in greater detail than that addressed by Federal OSHA in its 29 CFR 1926.701(c) standards which consist of…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.701(a) — 1 case
S. Pan Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 685 F. App'x 692 (11th Cir. 2017).
“In the first willful violation, the Secretary found that Southern Pan violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.701 (a) by failing to “have a qualified person determine if the formwork .”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.701(b) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.701(c) — 2 cases
Cordero v. Ghilotti Constr. Co., Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
“” The notice went on to say the proposed language “consist[ed] largely of consensus document-based regulatory text specifically addressing post-tensioning operations in greater detail than that addressed by Federal OSHA in its 29 CFR 1926.701(c) standards which consist of…”
Cordero v. Ghilotti Constr. Co. CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
“” The notice went on to say the proposed language “consist[ed] largely of consensus document-based regulatory text specifically addressing post-tensioning operations in greater detail than that addressed by Federal OSHA in its 29 CFR 1926.701(c) standards which consist of…”
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.