The purpose of Part 1920 is to set out the procedure for granting variations from safety and health regulations issued under section 41 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. This part makes the same procedural options available under that Act as are available for variances under the Williams‑Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act. See the purpose statement in 1920.1 for the exact wording.
The variance procedure in Part 1920 applies to variations from safety and health regulations that were established under section 41 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act—so it covers employers and workplaces subject to those regulations. The rule states this part “governs the procedure for the granting of variations from the safety and health regulations established pursuant to section 41 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.” See 1920.1.
No—Part 1920 does not create new substantive safety requirements; it governs the procedure for granting variations (i.e., departures) from existing regulations that were issued under section 41 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The part describes procedural authority rather than adding substantive rules. See the purpose language in 1920.1.
Yes—Part 1920 provides the same procedures for considering variances under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act as are available for variances under the Williams‑Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The rule explicitly states this parity. See 1920.1.
You can read the official regulatory text at OSHA’s standards pages for the part and the section: the Part 1920 index is at 1920 (Part) and the specific purpose section is at 1920.1. These are the official OSHA web locations for the part and section.
OSHA’s multi‑employer policy can result in more than one employer being cited for a hazardous condition on a multi‑employer worksite, but the policy uses a role-based analysis to decide who has responsibilities. The policy identifies four employer roles—"exposing," "creating," "correcting," and "controlling"—and a compliance officer first determines an employer’s role and then whether that employer took sufficient steps to meet its obligations. See the NFPA 70E and multi-employer policy letter of July 25, 2003 for the detailed explanation of the policy and how it is applied.
OSHA does not automatically require an owner or general contractor to enforce NFPA 70E for subcontractors, but an owner or contractor may be cited if they meet one of the multi‑employer role categories and fail to take sufficient steps to meet their responsibilities. NFPA 70E is a recognized industry consensus standard, but OSHA’s letter explains that whether an owner or contractor has an OSHA obligation depends on the employer’s role at the site and the steps they took to prevent or correct hazards. See the July 25, 2003 NFPA 70E and multi‑employer policy letter for the policy and application guidance.
No—OSHA does not automatically adopt NFPA 70E as an OSHA regulation, but OSHA may rely on NFPA 70E as an industry consensus standard when evaluating whether an employer met its obligations. The July 25, 2003 letter explains that NFPA 70E is one of many consensus standards that OSHA recognizes, and its relevance depends on the situation and the employer’s responsibilities. See the July 25, 2003 NFPA 70E and multi‑employer policy letter for details.
Reinforcing steel of any length must be guarded when there is a hazard that an employee could fall onto the bar and be impaled. The March 18, 1993 letter of interpretation states that when employees could fall onto protruding rebar and face impalement, guarding is required regardless of the bar’s length. See the rebar impalement hazard guarding letter, March 18, 1993 for the agency’s clarification.
Pneumatically operated staplers in general industry must meet the specific guarding provisions of 29 CFR 1920.243(b)(1) and (2), and when there is a point‑of‑operation hazard the general point‑of‑operation guard standard at 29 CFR 1910.212 also applies; staplers used in construction must meet the Construction Standards at 29 CFR 1926.302(b). The May 14, 1979 letter explains these standard applications and notes that other hazards not covered may be cited under the General Duty Clause. See the pneumatic stapler guarding letter, May 14, 1979 for the agency’s guidance.
Yes—OSHA can cite employers under Section 5(a)(1) (the General Duty Clause) for hazardous conditions that are not specifically covered by existing standards when those conditions create a recognized hazard likely to cause death or serious harm. The May 14, 1979 letter about pneumatic staplers notes that hazards not specifically covered by standards may be cited under the General Duty Clause. See the pneumatic stapler guarding letter, May 14, 1979 for that explanation.
Only an "exposing" employer—an employer whose own employees are exposed to the hazard—can be cited for a General Duty Clause violation. The multi‑employer policy distinguishes roles and specifies that only exposing employers can receive General Duty Clause citations. See the July 25, 2003 NFPA 70E and multi‑employer policy letter for the policy details.