Back to Federal guidance

Bloodborne pathogen rule for allergists and needle removal

Summary An OSHA regional administrator asked whether allergists doing skin tests were covered by the bloodborne pathogens rule and could remove needles by hand. OSHA said the tests reasonably anticipated contact with blood or other infectious material, making the rule applicable. Needles that penetrated skin counted as contaminated; removal required a qualifying medical need or lack of a feasible alternative and use of a device or proper one-handed technique.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1992-11-04-0
Date issued
November 4, 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.

November 4, 1992

MEMORANDUM FOR: MICHAEL G. CONNORS
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

FROM: ROGER A. CLARK, Director Directorate of Compliance Programs

SUBJECT: Application of 29 CFR 1910.1030 to Allergists

This is in response to your memo of August 28 and to confirm information verbally conveyed to Mr. William Wierdt of your staff. You requested an interpretation of the applicability of the bloodborne pathogens standard to allergists and to the practice of removing needles by hand. We apologize for the delay in this response.

While a particular allergist may not experience exposure incidents, as stated in Peggy Zwever's memo to you, procedures performed in their profession do include the reasonable anticipation of contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials. This constitutes the definition of "occupational exposure" and OSHA therefore believes that the standard is applicable to allergists who perform allergen test procedures.

Furthermore, the needles which are used to inject extracts of various allergens either subcutaneously or intradermally are considered to be "contaminated", as defined by the standard. There appears to be some confusion in the correspondence addressed to Ms. Zweber concerning the issue of contamination. While the extracts which are injected under the skin are not considered to be contaminated, the needle itself, which actually penetrates the skin, would be reasonably anticipated to involve the presence of blood or other potentially infectious material. The presence of non-visible body fluids would also constitute "contamination." Therefore these needles may not be removed by hand. They may be removed if required by a specific medical procedure or if no alternative is feasible but, in such cases, mechanical recapping and removal devices or a properly performed one-handed technique must be employed.

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