C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1915—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT › Subpart A—General Provisions

29 C.F.R. § 1915.2

Scope and application

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

(a) Except where otherwise provided, the provisions of this part shall apply to all ship repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking employments and related employments.

(b) This part does not apply to matters under the control of the United States Coast Guard within the scope of Title 52 of the Revised Statutes and acts supplementary or amendatory thereto (46 U.S.C. secs. 1-1388 passim) including, but not restricted to, the master, ship's officer, crew members, design, construction and maintenance of the vessel, its gear and equipment; to matters within the regulatory authority of the United States Coast Guard to safeguard vessels, harbors, ports and waterfront facilities under the provisions of the Espionage Act of June 17, 1917, as amended (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 401 et seq.); including the provisions of Executive Order 10173, as amended by Executive Orders 10277 and 10352 (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., pp. 356, 778 and 873); or to matters within the regulatory authority of the United States Coast Guard with respect to lights, warning devices, safety equipment and other matters relating to the promotion of safety of lives and property under section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1333).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1977–2019 · leading case: Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Raymond E. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, 727 F.2d 1358 (4th Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Raymond E. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, 727 F.2d 1358 (4th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1915.2 (s), now codified at 29 C.”
Clary v. Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co., 429 F. Supp. 905 (W.D. La. 1977). “Title 29 C.F.R. §§ 1915.2 (d) and 1916.1(b) 4 .”
Kopczynski v. The Jacqueline, 742 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1984). “The Shipyard Employment Regulations themselves recognize this limited scope: This part does not apply to matters under the control of the United States Coast Guard within the scope of Title 52 of the Revised Statutes and Acts supplementary or amendatory thereto .”
Romero v. Cajun Stabilizing Boats, Inc., 501 F. Supp. 2d 816 (W.D. La. 2007). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1915.2 . As such, the application of the OSHA regulations cited in the report is not appropriate and, thus, Ziegler’s report, at least as it applies to the defendant, does not create any material issue of fact sufficient to survive summary judgment.”
Gary v. N. Barge Line Co., 440 F. Supp. 260 (E.D. La. 1977). “29 CFR 1915.2(k)(l) states “[t]he term ‘competent person’ for purposes of this part means a person who is capable of recognizing and evaluating employee exposure to hazardous substances or to other unsafe conditions and is capable of specifying the necessary protection and…”
Rhodes v. Genesis Marine, LLC of Delaware (E.D. La. 2019). “”36 Genesis further argues “29 C.F.R. §1915.2 provides that OSHA regulations do not apply to matters under the control of the Coast Guard, including the construction and maintenance of the vessel and its gear and equipment.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1915.2(k)(l) — 1 case
Gary v. N. Barge Line Co., 440 F. Supp. 260 (E.D. La. 1977). “29 CFR 1915.2(k)(l) states “[t]he term ‘competent person’ for purposes of this part means a person who is capable of recognizing and evaluating employee exposure to hazardous substances or to other unsafe conditions and is capable of specifying the necessary protection and…”
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.