Back to Federal guidance

Bloodborne pathogen rule for oil drilling first aid

Summary An oil drilling trade group asked whether its industry was covered by the bloodborne pathogens standard. OSHA said coverage depended on an employee's reasonably anticipated contact with blood during assigned duties, including designated first aid work, rather than on the industry's label. It described a then-current enforcement policy for collateral first aid providers and said other rule requirements still applied to designated responders.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1992-10-02-0
Date issued
October 2, 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.

October 2, 1992

Mr. Kenneth L. Fischer
Director, Committee Operations
Accident Prevention Committee
International Association
of Drilling Contractors
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Fischer:

This is in response to your letter of August 10, regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation, 29 CFR 1910.1030, "Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens." Specifically, you expressed concern that the standard is applicable to the oil drilling industry and other non-health care industries.

The bloodborne pathogens standard addresses the broad issue of occupational exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials and is not meant solely for employees in health care settings. Since there is no population that is risk free for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus infectivity, any employee who has occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials is included within the scope of this standard.

It is important to note that occupational exposure is defined as reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance of an employee's duties. OSHA anticipates that this standard will impact upon your industry in a similar fashion as upon other non-health care industries, i.e., that employees who are designated as responsible for rendering first aid or medical assistance as part of their job duties are to be covered by this standard. This is because it is reasonable to anticipate that an employee designated to render first aid will have occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials. Employees who perform unanticipated "Good Samaritan acts" are not covered by the standard since such actions do not constitute occupational exposure as defined by the standard.

OSHA has issued a policy statement specifying that, while designated first aiders are covered under the scope of the standard, failure to offer the hepatitis B vaccine on a pre-exposure basis to persons who render first aid only as a collateral duty will be considered a de minimis violation carrying no penalties, provided that a number of conditions are met (see enclosed news release). All other requirements of the standard continue to apply to designated first aid providers.

You also expressed concern that compliance with the requirements of the standard may be burdensome and divert resources from other safety efforts. You should note, however, that it is the employer's responsibility to determine which job classifications involve occupational exposure, and that the employer is only required to provide the protections of the standard to those employees having occupational exposure. In workplace facilities such as in you have described in your industry, only certain designated employees may have duties which involve occupational exposure. Employees who do not have occupational exposure are not covered by the scope of this standard. Costs associated with recordkeeping and other requirements may therefore be limited and controlled by the employer.

We hope this information is responsive to your concerns and the concerns of your constituents. Thank you for your interest in employee safety and health.

Sincerely,
Roger A. Clark,
Acting 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