Back to Federal guidance

Janitorial workers and the bloodborne pathogens rule

Summary A lawyer asked whether janitorial workers at non-health-care workplaces fell under the bloodborne pathogens rule. OSHA said those workers generally were not assumed to have occupational exposure, but employers must assess specific jobs and tasks for reasonably anticipated contact with blood or other infectious material. OSHA also cautioned that California's state program could have stricter rules.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1992-04-17
Date issued
April 17, 1992
Status
Active
Status last verified October 9, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

April 17, 1992

Peter W. Michaels
Cooper, White & Cooper
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Michaels:

This is in response to your letter of February 24, in which you requested clarification concerning the scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation on "Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens", 29 CFR 1910.1030. Specifically, you requested an interpretation on the coverage of janitorial workers.

OSHA does not generally consider maintenance personnel/janitorial /housekeeping staff employed in non-health care facilities to have occupational exposure. "Occupational exposure" is defined as "reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious material which may result from the performance on an employee's duties."

At the same time, it is the employer's responsibility to determine which job classifications or specific tasks and procedures involve occupational exposure. If OSHA determines, on a case-by-case basis, that sufficient evidence exists of reasonably anticipated exposure, the employer will be held responsible for providing the protections of 29 CFR 1910.1030 to the employees with occupational exposure.

As you are no doubt aware, the State of California administers its own occupational safety and health program which is overseen and monitored by federal OSHA. State plan regulations must be at least as effective as federal OSHA regulations, and the state may choose to promulgate and enforce requirements which are stricter than federal OSHA's. We, therefore, recommend that you contact your state plan regarding this issue as well. They may be reached at the following address and phone number:

Dr. John Howard, Chief
California Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Room 5202
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Phone: (415) 703-4341

We hope this information is responsive to your concerns. Thank you for your interest in worker safety and health.

Sincerely,
Patricia K. Clark, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace