29 CFR 776.26
§ 776.26 Relationship of the construction work to the covered facility.
United States · 29 CFR — Labor · Status: effective
Cite this
- Citation
- 29 CFR 776.26, § 776.26 Relationship of the construction work to the covered facility, United States, version 1 as recorded 2026-07-09, yourstate.us, https://yourstate.us/provision/125994
- Permanent ID
ys:prov:125994@1- SHA-256
6311abc9a8f1a990c19099c5c163abcdb916cd9348d6247cd275748c67c3c15c
The hash is SHA-256 of this version's text, with every run of whitespace collapsed to a single space and the ends trimmed. The ID always leads back here, and checking it says whether the text you cited is still the current version.
Full text
Unless the construction work is physically or functionally integrated or closely identified with an existing covered facility it is not regarded as covered construction because it is not closely enough related to or integrated with the production of goods for commerce or the engagement in commerce. For this reason the erection, maintenance or repair of dwellings, apartments, hotels, churches and schools are not covered projects. 15 Similarly the construction of a separate, wholly new, factory building, not constructed as an integral part or as an improvement of an existing covered production plant, is not covered (Cf. § 776.27(c)). Coverage of any construction work, whether new or repair work, depends upon how closely integrated it is with, and how essential it is to the functioning of, existing covered facilities. Neither the mere fact that the construction is “new construction” nor the fact that it is physically separated from an existing covered plant, is determinative. Moreover, the court decisions make it clear that the construction project itself need not be actually employed in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce during the time of its construction in order to be covered. 16 Such factors may be considered in determining whether as a practical matter the work is directly and vitally related to the functioning of the covered facility but would not be decisive.
15 Cf. § 776.18(b).
16 Mitchell v. Vollmer, ante; Bennett v. V. P. Loftis Co., ante; Mitchell v. Chambers Const. Co., 214 F. (2d) 515 (C.A. 10); Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante; Tobin v. Pennington-Winter Const. Co., 198 F. (2d) 334 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 915.
Legislative history
This is a federal regulation, adopted through agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act — not enacted by a recorded vote of Congress.