C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1918—SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING › Subpart J—Personal Protective Equipment

29 C.F.R. § 1918.105

Other protective measures

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

(a) Protective clothing. (1) The employer shall provide and shall require the wearing of special protective clothing for each employee engaged in work where protective clothing is necessary.

(2) When necessary, protective clothing shall be cleaned and disinfected before reissuance.

(b) Personal flotation devices (PFDs). (1) The employer shall provide and shall require the wearing of PFDs for each employee engaged in work in which the employee might fall into the water.

(2) PFDs (life preservers, life jackets, or work vests) worn by each affected employee must be United States Coast Guard (USCG) approved pursuant to 46 CFR part 160 (Type I, II, III, or V PFD) and marked for use as a work vest, for commercial use, or for use on vessels.

(3) Personal flotation devices shall be maintained in safe condition and shall be considered unserviceable when damaged in a manner that affects buoyancy or fastening capability.

[62 FR 40202, July 25, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 40946, June 30, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1976–1977 · leading case: Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 534 F.2d 541 (3d Cir. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 534 F.2d 541 (3d Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1918.105 (a) (1975). On April 10-11, 1973 an OSHA compliance officer inspected the Camden, New Jersey docks and discovered that nearly all of petitioners’ longshoremen were working without hardhats.”
I.T.O. Corp. of New England v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & W. J. Usery, Jr., Sec'y of Labor, 540 F.2d 543 (1st Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1918.105 (a) (1975). I.T.O. contends that it took all economically feasible steps to comply and that OSHRC erred in concluding it violated the regulation.”
O. T. Brown v. Mitsubishi Shintaku Ginko, a Foreign Corp., Daninichi Kaiun Kaish, Ltd., a Foreign Corp., 550 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. 1977). “Brown was not wearing a protective hat prescribed by 29 C.F.R. § 1918.105 (a). Brown asserts two bases for his negligence action against the shipowner.”
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.