1910.1030 Bloodborne Pathogens Rules for Industrial Plants

Federal OSHA issued 239 citations under the bloodborne pathogens standard in the twelve months of citations dated October 2024 through September 2025, across 90 inspections, totaling $509,868 in penalties. Health care and social assistance accounted for 152 of those citations, 48 of the inspections and $311,052. Everything else happened somewhere a hospital compliance officer never looks: food service, manufacturing, waste handling, trucking terminals, wholesale distribution. Run the subtraction and 87 citations, 42 inspections and $198,816 landed outside health care (OSHA IMIS Industry Profile, 1910.1030).

Forty-seven percent of OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens inspections last year were not at healthcare employers.

That is the whole argument for reading further. 29 CFR 1910.1030 has a reputation as a hospital rule, and the reputation is wrong in a way that costs industrial employers money. The standard’s first sentence settles it: the section “applies to all occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials as defined by paragraph (b) of this section” (29 CFR 1910.1030(a)). There is no healthcare limitation in that sentence, no SIC or NAICS gate, and no exemption for manufacturers. Coverage turns on one question only: does an employee have reasonably anticipated contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials as part of the job?

A metal finishing plant with a trained first aid team is inside the standard on the same terms as a clinic. So is the maintenance tech who mops up after a laceration, and so is the crew sorting a municipal waste stream that contains sharps nobody declared.

What OSHA’s FY2025 enforcement data shows about who gets cited

Here is the sector breakdown behind those totals, for citations issued October 2024 through September 2025 under federal jurisdiction. The page metadata carries a 09/01/2026 date.

NAICS sector	Citations	Inspections	Penalty
62 Health Care and Social Assistance	152	48	$311,052
72 Accommodation and Food Services	21	10	$39,923
33 Manufacturing (3 of 3)	16	4	$11,333
56 Administrative/Support and Waste Management and Remediation	12	6	$61,572
32 Manufacturing (2 of 3)	11	6	$18,382
48 Transportation and Warehousing (1 of 2)	6	3	$4,748
81 Other Services (except Public Administration)	6	2	$3,565
42 Wholesale Trade	3	2	$28,646
49 Transportation and Warehousing (2 of 2)	3	1	$5,202
54 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	2	2	$12,495
92 Public Administration	2	2	$0
44 Retail Trade (1 of 2)	2	1	$2,000
71 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation	1	1	$10,950
45 Retail Trade (2 of 2)	1	1	$0
31 Manufacturing (1 of 3)	1	1	$0
Total	239	90	$509,868

The arithmetic is worth doing yourself, because the conclusion depends on it rather than on anyone’s characterization.

Non-healthcare citations: 239 minus 152 equals 87, or 36.4 percent. Non-healthcare inspections: 90 minus 48 equals 42, or 46.7 percent. Non-healthcare penalty dollars: $509,868 minus $311,052 equals $198,816, or 39.0 percent.

Manufacturing alone, across NAICS 31, 32 and 33: 16 plus 11 plus 1 equals 28 citations; 4 plus 6 plus 1 equals 11 inspections; $11,333 plus $18,382 plus $0 equals $29,715.

Two patterns inside that table matter more than the headline.

Waste management and remediation carries the highest cost per citation. NAICS sector 56 drew 12 citations in 6 inspections for $61,572, which works out to $5,131 per citation. Health care averaged $311,052 divided by 152, or $2,046 per citation. Wholesale trade is nominally higher at $28,646 divided by 3, or $9,549, though three citations is too thin a base to read anything into. Sector 56 is not thin: twelve citations in six inspections is roughly two citations per inspection at more than double health care’s unit cost. The operational reason is the one a remediation supervisor already knows. A clinic knows what is in its sharps container. A waste or recycling crew is working an unscreened stream, and the needle in it arrived without a label.

Manufacturing is consistently present and consistently cheap. Twenty-eight citations and $29,715 works out to $1,061 per citation, the low end of the whole table. Read together with sector 56, the pattern looks like this: manufacturers get written up for paperwork-grade gaps, meaning no plan, no annual review, no signed declination, no training record. Waste handlers get written up for things OSHA prices as serious.

Construction does not appear in the FY2025 table at all. Sector 23 is absent, which is consistent with 1910.1030 being a general industry standard.

A serious or other-than-serious violation carries a 2026 maximum of $16,550, and a willful or repeated violation a maximum of $165,514 with a willful minimum of $11,823 (OSHA memorandum, May 21, 2026; 29 CFR 1903.15(d)). Those are the 2025 figures carried into 2026 unchanged, because the May memo states there was no inflation-based increase this year, citing OMB Memorandum M-26-11. The detail is covered in the cancelled 2026 penalty adjustment.

Does OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens standard apply to a manufacturing plant?

Yes. 29 CFR 1910.1030(a) states the section applies to all occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials, with no healthcare limitation anywhere in the scope paragraph. OSHA’s FY2025 enforcement data shows 28 citations across the three manufacturing sectors, plus citations in transportation, wholesale trade and waste management, 87 of 239 citations outside health care.

The practical version of the scope test is four questions, and a plant manager can work through them in about five minutes.

Do we have designated or trained first aid responders? If a written emergency plan, a job description, or a training roster names people who are expected to respond to injuries, those people are inside the standard. OSHA’s standard interpretation of May 16, 2011 states that designated first aiders are generally regarded as covered, citing section XIII.A.2 of the enforcement directive.

Does anyone clean up after an injury? Maintenance or janitorial staff assigned to decontaminate a work area after a laceration have occupational exposure. “Regulated waste” under §1910.1030(b) starts with liquid or semi-liquid blood or other potentially infectious materials and extends to contaminated items that would release blood when compressed, items caked with dried blood, contaminated sharps, and pathological and microbiological waste.

Does our waste stream contain sharps? Waste handling, recycling and remediation crews encounter needles in commercial and municipal streams. This is the sector with the highest penalty per citation in OSHA’s FY2025 data.

Do we handle human tissue, blood products, or research cultures? A laboratory inside a manufacturing company is covered the same as a clinical lab. Other potentially infectious materials under §1910.1030(b) include unfixed human tissue or organs other than intact skin, HIV or HBV cultures and culture media, and tissues or blood from infected experimental animals.

Answer yes to any one of those and the standard applies in full, with one narrow exception on the recordkeeping side that is covered further down.

What counts as “occupational exposure” to blood under 1910.1030?

29 CFR 1910.1030(b) defines it as “reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood” or other potentially infectious materials resulting from the performance of an employee’s duties. The test is reasonable anticipation from job duties, not whether an exposure has ever actually happened at that facility.

That distinction decides most arguments about this standard. “We have never had a blood exposure here” is a true statement that does not answer the regulatory question. If the job description or the practice of the plant puts a person in the path of blood, the exposure is reasonably anticipated and the obligations attach on the day of assignment. The determination also has to be written down: §1910.1030(c)(2) requires an exposure determination listing job classifications in which all employees have occupational exposure, and job classifications in which some employees do, with the tasks and procedures identified for the second group. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is explicit that the determination is made without regard to the use of personal protective equipment. Gloves in the first aid cabinet do not take anyone out of scope.

What has to be in a bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan?

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(ii) requires at minimum the exposure determination under (c)(2), the schedule and method of implementing paragraphs (d) through (h), and the procedure for evaluating the circumstances surrounding exposure incidents under (f)(3)(i). Paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(B) adds annual documentation of the consideration and implementation of safer medical devices.

Paragraph (c)(1)(i) requires the plan to be written and “designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure,” and (c)(1)(iii) requires it to be accessible to employees. Three parts of that list are where industrial plans come apart.

The exposure determination is usually missing or generic. A plan that says “employees who may be exposed” without naming job classifications has not made the determination the rule asks for.

The “schedule and method of implementing” language is a commitment, not a summary. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) wants the plan to say how and when the facility carries out engineering controls, personal protective equipment, hepatitis B vaccination, post-exposure follow-up, training and recordkeeping. A plan that recites the regulation back without saying who does what and when does not meet it.

The safer-device documentation at (c)(1)(iv)(B) exists only because of the 2001 revision following the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act (66 FR 5325). It is a once-a-year written record that the employer looked at commercially available safer devices and decided what to implement. Paragraph (c)(1)(v) pairs with it: input has to be solicited from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient care who are potentially exposed to contaminated sharps, and that solicitation has to be documented in the plan.

How often must the exposure control plan be reviewed?

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(iv) requires review and update at least annually, and whenever new or modified tasks and procedures affect occupational exposure or employee positions change. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) is the fourth most frequently cited paragraph in the standard, according to OSHA’s citation-frequency listing covering October 2013 through August 2025.

Across the industrial bloodborne pathogens engagements iSi has run since 2014, the same defect shows up more often than any other: a competent exposure control plan, written years ago by someone no longer at the plant, with no review signature after the first year. The plan is not wrong. It is unreviewed, which is itself the citable condition, and it is the condition the (c)(1)(iv) citation count reflects.

The annual review has a second function worth using. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(A) requires the plan to reflect changes in technology that eliminate or reduce exposure. In a plant, that usually means the first aid kit contents, the sharps container placement in the maintenance shop, the spill kit on the forklift, and whatever the waste contractor changed about container specifications since the last look.

How often is bloodborne pathogens training required?

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(ii) requires training at the time of initial assignment and “At least annually thereafter,” with (g)(2)(iv) requiring annual training within one year of the previous session. Training must be at no cost, during working hours, and cover all fourteen elements in (g)(2)(vii), including an interactive question-and-answer opportunity.

Paragraph (g)(2)(v) adds training whenever tasks or procedures change in a way that affects exposure. The fourteen required content elements run (A) through (N), and a training record that cannot show all fourteen is a gap on its face:

(A) an accessible copy of the regulatory text and an explanation of its contents
(B) a general explanation of the epidemiology and symptoms of bloodborne diseases
(C) an explanation of the modes of transmission
(D) an explanation of the employer’s exposure control plan and how to obtain a copy
(E) an explanation of the appropriate methods for recognizing tasks that may involve exposure
(F) an explanation of the use and limitations of methods that prevent or reduce exposure
(G) information on the types, proper use, location, removal, handling, decontamination and disposal of personal protective equipment
(H) an explanation of the basis for selecting that equipment
(I) information on the hepatitis B vaccine, including that it is provided free of charge
(J) information on the appropriate actions to take in an emergency involving blood or other potentially infectious materials
(K) an explanation of the procedure to follow if an exposure incident occurs
(L) information on the post-exposure evaluation and follow-up the employer must provide
(M) an explanation of the signs, labels and color coding required by the standard
(N) an opportunity for interactive questions and answers with the person conducting the session

Element (N) is the one that disqualifies the most common industrial arrangement. A video assigned through a learning management system, with no live trainer and no channel for questions, does not satisfy (g)(2)(vii)(N). Bloodborne pathogens is one of a short list of OSHA topics with a genuine annual cadence, and it belongs on the same calendar as respiratory protection and hearing conservation. If you are building that calendar, see which annual safety training requirements belong on it and the broader EHS compliance calendar.

How soon after assignment must we offer the hepatitis B vaccine?

29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(2)(i) requires the vaccination series made available within 10 working days of initial assignment, and after the training required by (g)(2)(vii)(I). Note that OSHA’s own bloodborne pathogens enforcement webpage states “within 10 days of hire,” which differs from the regulation on both counts. The regulation controls.

This is worth thirty seconds of your own verification, because it is the kind of defect that quietly propagates into onboarding checklists.

The regulation at §1910.1030(f)(2)(i): the vaccine is made available “within 10 working days of initial assignment.”

OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens enforcement page: “within 10 days of hire.”

Those differ twice over. Calendar days are not working days, and the date of hire is not the date of assignment to tasks with occupational exposure. A facility that builds its new-hire packet from the agency summary page can end up wrong in both directions at once: on a shorter fuse than the rule actually gives, and keyed to the wrong triggering event. A maintenance tech hired in March and added to the first aid team in September starts the clock in September, and a program keyed to hire date will have missed it by six months.

The rule to take from this is not that OSHA’s website is unreliable. It is that the Code of Federal Regulations is the operative text and an agency summary page is a convenience. When a date drives a compliance obligation, read the paragraph.

Two more provisions in paragraph (f) travel with the deadline. The vaccination and all post-exposure evaluation and follow-up are provided at no cost to the employee, under §1910.1030(f)(1)(ii)(A). Antibody prescreening may not be made a condition of receiving the vaccine, under (f)(2)(ii). Employees who decline sign the declination statement in Appendix A, titled “Hepatitis B Vaccine Declination (Mandatory),” per (f)(2)(iv), and under (f)(2)(iii) an employee who declines and later changes their mind has to be offered the vaccine then.

Do our designated first aiders need the hepatitis B vaccine before an exposure happens?

Not necessarily. Under OSHA’s de minimis policy at section XIII.F.8 of enforcement directive CPL 02-02-069, OSHA will not cite an employer for failing to offer the pre-exposure series to a collateral-duty first aider if specific conditions are met. The full series must then be made available “as soon as possible, but in no event later than 24 hours” after the employee renders aid (OSHA letter of November 1, 2000).

Most industrial employers land on one of two wrong answers here. Either they ignore the standard because they are not a hospital, or they over-comply by vaccinating the entire maintenance department. The actual answer is narrower and better than both, and it comes with a clock.

The 24-hour window is the part that gets lost. The de minimis policy is not a waiver. It defers the pre-exposure offer in exchange for a fast post-event offer, which means someone has to be reachable on a Saturday night and the occupational health provider has to be arranged in advance. A facility that invokes the policy without a named provider and a weekend path to the vaccine has traded a planned obligation for an unplanned one.

What conditions does OSHA attach to deferring the hepatitis B vaccine for first aiders?

Per OSHA’s interpretations of November 1, 2000 and May 16, 2011: the employee’s primary job is not rendering first aid; aid is rendered only as a collateral duty responding solely to injuries from workplace incidents; and the exposure control plan must specifically address vaccination, post-exposure evaluation, prophylaxis and follow-up, plus a same-shift reporting procedure, an available incident report, and training on that procedure.

Read that list as a set of disqualifiers, because that is how it functions in practice. A plant with a staffed first aid station or a dispensary has employees whose primary job includes rendering first aid, and the de minimis policy does not reach them. A facility whose responders also handle off-site or non-workplace incidents has stepped outside the “solely” condition. And a facility whose exposure control plan does not contain the reporting procedure and the post-exposure path in writing has not met the condition that the policy is built on, which means the deferral was never available to it.

The same analysis applies to any collateral-duty responder program, including the naloxone and emergency medical response questions covered in OSHA’s naloxone guidance for workplace first aid programs.

What do we do after an employee is exposed to blood at work?

29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(3) requires a confidential medical evaluation and follow-up made immediately available, including documentation of the exposure route, identification and testing of the source individual, testing of the exposed employee, post-exposure prophylaxis, counseling, and evaluation of reported illnesses. Paragraph (f)(5) requires the written opinion within 15 days of the evaluation’s completion.

“Immediately available” is the operative phrase, and it is an operational requirement rather than a paperwork one. The sequence in (f)(3)(i) through (vi) is specific: document the route of exposure and the circumstances; identify and document the source individual unless identification is infeasible or prohibited by law; test the source individual’s blood as soon as feasible after consent, or document that consent could not be obtained; make the results available to the exposed employee; collect and test the exposed employee’s blood after consent; and provide post-exposure prophylaxis as recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, counseling, and evaluation of reported illnesses.

Paragraph (f)(4)(ii) requires the employer to give the evaluating healthcare professional a copy of the regulation, a description of the exposed employee’s duties as they relate to the incident, documentation of the route and circumstances of exposure, results of the source individual’s blood testing if available, and all relevant medical records the employer is responsible for maintaining. That packet is what makes the 15-day written opinion under (f)(5) possible. Assembling it for the first time during an actual exposure, on a night shift, is how the 15 days gets missed.

Do we have to keep a sharps injury log?

Only if you must keep an OSHA 300 log. 29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(5)(ii) limits the requirement to “any employer who is required to maintain a log of occupational injuries and illnesses” under 29 CFR part 1904. Where it applies, (h)(5)(i) requires the device type and brand, the department or work area, and an explanation of how the incident occurred.

This is the one genuine carve-out in the standard, and it runs the opposite direction from the scope error most employers make. An employer that is partially exempt from the Part 1904 injury and illness log, by size or by industry classification, is not required to keep a sharps injury log. Every other provision of 1910.1030 still applies to it in full: the plan, the annual review, the vaccination offer, the training, the post-exposure follow-up, the thirty-year medical records.

So the two most common claims in commercial bloodborne pathogens training are both wrong, and they are wrong in opposite directions. The standard is not a healthcare rule, and not every covered employer owes a sharps log. Where the log does apply, it is maintained to protect employee privacy by not recording identifying information, and retained per 29 CFR 1904.33.

How long do we keep bloodborne pathogens medical and training records?

Two different periods. 29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(1)(iv) requires medical records “for at least the duration of employment plus 30 years.” Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) requires training records for 3 years from the date the training occurred. Mixing the two up is the most common recordkeeping error in this standard.

The direction of the error matters. A facility that applies the three-year rule to medical records has destroyed records it owes for decades, and there is no way to reconstruct a hepatitis B vaccination history or a declination signature after the fact. A facility that applies the thirty-year rule to training records has only wasted filing space.

The medical record contents are specified at (h)(1)(ii): the employee’s name and social security number, hepatitis B vaccination status including dates and any medical records related to the employee’s ability to receive vaccination, the results of examinations, medical testing and follow-up procedures, the healthcare professional’s written opinion under (f)(5), and a copy of the information provided to that professional. Those records are confidential under (h)(1)(iii). Training records under (h)(2)(i) hold the dates of the sessions, the contents or a summary, the names and qualifications of the trainers, and the names and job titles of attendees.

Which 1910.1030 paragraphs does OSHA cite most often?

OSHA’s enforcement page ranks citations from October 2013 through August 2025 in frequency order: (c)(1)(i) exposure control plan, (g)(2)(i) training, (f)(1)(i) vaccination availability, (c)(1)(iv) annual plan review, (f)(2)(i) the 10-working-day window, (d)(2)(i) controls, (f)(2)(iv) declination, (c)(1)(v) employee input, (c)(1)(iv)(B) safer-device documentation, and (g)(2)(ii)(B) annual training.

Read that list for what it is. OSHA labels it “Most Frequently the Subject of Citations” and notes that the citations run October 2013 through August 2025 in order of frequency. It is a frequency count. The page states no targeting directive, no National Emphasis Program, and no inspection priority, and this post does not claim one for it.

What the count does tell you is where the standard actually fails in the field. Seven of those ten paragraphs are documentation: having a written plan, reviewing it annually, documenting safer-device consideration, soliciting and documenting employee input, holding annual training, documenting the annual cadence, and collecting a signed declination. None of them requires a blood exposure to have occurred. All of them are verifiable from a file cabinet in the time it takes a compliance officer to read a binder, which is exactly why they top the list.

One item on that list, (c)(1)(iv)(B), exists only because of the 2001 needlestick revision. A program binder assembled before 2001 and never rebuilt will be missing it structurally, and no amount of annual signature pages will put it there.

The standard nothing happened to

There is a version of this topic that opens with “regulations are changing.” It would be false here, and the truth is more useful.

OSHA’s deregulatory rulemaking page lists 23 notices of proposed rulemaking, including benzene (RIN 1218-AD59), asbestos (AD58), lead (AD66), formaldehyde (AD64), cadmium (AD60), ethylene oxide (AD63), methylene chloride (AD67), 1,3-butadiene (AD55), acrylonitrile (AD57), inorganic arsenic (AD65), vinyl chloride (AD69), coke oven emissions (AD61), cotton dust (AD62), the 13 carcinogens standard (AD56), DBCP (AD54), methylenedianiline (AD68), the respiratory protection medical evaluation standard (AD48) and the General Duty Clause interpretation (AD71). Most published at 90 FR 282xx through 284xx on July 1, 2025, and the page states the informal hearings concluded on August 26, 2026.

1910.1030 appears nowhere on that list. The only healthcare-adjacent item is removal of the COVID-19 healthcare emergency temporary standard (AD36), which is a separate matter entirely. Meanwhile OSHA’s infectious diseases rulemaking page still says only that “In the Spring, 2017 Regulatory Agenda the ID NPRM has been placed under long term action.” It has been parked for nine years.

So the regulatory picture is this. A 1992 standard, substantially amended once in 2001, untouched by the 2025 and 2026 deregulatory wave, enforced at a steady 90 inspections a year. The compliance risk is not a rule change you might miss. It is a program written in 1997 that nobody has reviewed annually since, in a plant where the people named in it retired.

That is also why these obligations get missed when others do not. Every deadline in 1910.1030 is rolling and employee-triggered: ten working days from an individual’s assignment, twelve months from an individual’s last training session, fifteen days from the completion of an individual’s medical evaluation, twenty-four hours from an individual rendering aid. Nothing on an annual compliance calendar fires when a maintenance tech joins the first aid team on a Tuesday.

What to do with this at an industrial facility

Pull the exposure determination. If no document names job classifications under §1910.1030(c)(2), the plan is incomplete regardless of how thick the binder is.
Compare the first aid roster against the vaccination and declination file, person by person. Every name on the roster needs a vaccination record, a signed Appendix A declination, or a documented prior series or immunity.
Date the last annual review of the exposure control plan. If there is no signature inside the last twelve months, (c)(1)(iv) is already unmet, and it is the fourth most cited paragraph in the standard.
Fix the vaccination trigger in the onboarding checklist. It runs 10 working days from assignment to exposure tasks, per (f)(2)(i), not from hire date.
Check the training records for all fourteen elements in (g)(2)(vii), especially the interactive question-and-answer opportunity in (N). A video with no live trainer does not satisfy it.
Decide, in writing, whether you are relying on the de minimis deferral for collateral-duty first aiders. If you are, name the occupational health provider who can deliver the series within 24 hours on any day of the week, and put the reporting procedure in the plan.
Separate the two retention clocks. Medical records are employment plus 30 years under (h)(1)(iv). Training records are 3 years under (h)(2)(ii).
If you keep an OSHA 300 log, open a sharps injury log. If you are partially exempt under Part 1904, document that you are, and skip it.
If any crew touches an unscreened waste or recycling stream, treat the sharps exposure pathway as the priority engineering control problem. That is where OSHA’s FY2025 penalties per citation were highest.

Across five industrial engagements on this standard between 2014 and 2025, none of them at a healthcare client, the same two gaps came up: a plan nobody had reviewed since it was written, and a first aid roster that had grown past the vaccination file. Both are fixable in a single pass, and both are visible to a compliance officer in under an hour.

iSi builds and reviews exposure control plans for industrial facilities, runs the annual bloodborne pathogens training with a live trainer so element (N) is actually met, and sets up the post-exposure path with an occupational health provider before anyone needs it. That work sits inside safety consulting and on-site safety training, and where no one at the plant can carry a rolling, employee-triggered program on top of a day job, the EHS cooperative program, or EHS COOP, puts an iSi project manager on it. Call iSi at (316) 264-7050 or contact us and you will get a response the same day.

One note on jurisdiction before you file this. Federal 29 CFR 1910.1030 applies as written to private-sector general industry under federal jurisdiction. Employers in states that run an OSHA-approved State Plan should confirm whether their state has adopted a more stringent analogue, since a State Plan standard may be at least as effective as the federal rule and may go further.

Sources

29 CFR 1910.1030, Bloodborne pathogens, full section text (scope at (a), definitions at (b), exposure control plan at (c), methods of compliance at (d), hepatitis B vaccination and post-exposure follow-up at (f), training at (g), recordkeeping at (h), effective dates at (i); original final rule 56 FR 64004, December 6, 1991, effective March 6, 1992 per (i)(1); needlestick revision 66 FR 5325, January 18, 2001): https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1030 (verified 2026-11-11)
29 CFR 1910.1030 Appendix A, Hepatitis B Vaccine Declination (Mandatory): https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1030AppA (verified 2026-11-11)
66 FR 5325, Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens; Needlestick and Other Sharps Injuries; Final Rule, January 18, 2001: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/18/01-1207/occupational-exposure-to-bloodborne-pathogens-needlestick-and-other-sharps-injuries-final-rule (verified 2026-11-11)
OSHA, Bloodborne Pathogens and Needlestick Prevention: Enforcement (enforcement directive CPL 02-02-069, November 27, 2001; most frequently cited paragraphs, October 2013 through August 2025; also the page stating “within 10 days of hire”): https://www.osha.gov/bloodborne-pathogens/enforcement (verified 2026-11-11)
OSHA IMIS Industry Profile for 1910.1030, FY2025 citations by NAICS sector (239 citations, 90 inspections, $509,868; citations issued October 2024 through September 2025, federal jurisdiction): https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/industryprofile.stand?p_stand=19101030&p_esize=&p_state=FEFederal&p_type=2 (verified 2026-11-11)
OSHA standard interpretation, November 1, 2000, hepatitis B vaccination requirements for employees who provide first aid as a collateral duty (quotes CPL 02-02-069 section XIII.F.8 and the 24-hour window): https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2000-11-01 (verified 2026-11-11)
OSHA standard interpretation, May 16, 2011, providing the hepatitis B vaccine to employees who may provide first aid as a collateral duty (cites CPL 02-02-069 sections XIII.A.2 and XIII.F.8): https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2011-05-16-1 (verified 2026-11-11)
OSHA directive CPL 2-2.44D, November 5, 1999, archived and superseded by CPL 02-02-069: https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/cpl-2-244d (verified 2026-11-11)
OSHA Deregulatory Rulemaking page, 23 notices of proposed rulemaking, informal hearings concluded August 26, 2026, with no bloodborne pathogens item: https://www.osha.gov/deregulatory-rulemaking (verified 2026-11-11)
OSHA Infectious Diseases Rulemaking page, under long term action since the Spring 2017 regulatory agenda: https://www.osha.gov/infectious-diseases/rulemaking (verified 2026-11-11)
OSHA memorandum, 2026 Annual Adjustments to OSHA Civil Penalties, May 21, 2026 (2026 maximums and the statement that there is no inflation-based increase for 2026, citing OMB Memorandum M-26-11): https://www.osha.gov/memos/2026-05-21/2026-annual-adjustments-osha-civil-penalties (verified 2026-11-11)
29 CFR 1903.15(d), adjusted civil monetary penalties for penalties proposed after January 15, 2025 (90 FR 1861, January 10, 2025): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1903/section-1903.15 (verified 2026-11-11)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is 29 CFR 1910.1030 only for hospitals and clinics?

No. Paragraph (a) applies the section to all occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials, with no healthcare limitation. In FY2025, 87 of 239 federal citations under the standard and 42 of 90 inspections were outside health care and social assistance.

When does the hepatitis B vaccine have to be offered?

Within 10 working days of initial assignment to tasks with occupational exposure, and after the training required by (g)(2)(vii)(I), under 1910.1030(f)(2)(i). OSHA’s own enforcement webpage says “within 10 days of hire,” which does not match the regulation. The regulation controls.

Does a plant with a trained first aid team have to vaccinate everyone in advance?

Not necessarily. OSHA’s de minimis policy at CPL 02-02-069 section XIII.F.8 allows deferral for collateral-duty first aiders under specific conditions, including a written exposure control plan that addresses post-exposure follow-up and a same-shift reporting procedure. The full series then has to be available within 24 hours of rendering aid.

Does every covered employer need a sharps injury log?

No. Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) limits the sharps injury log to employers required to keep an injury and illness log under 29 CFR part 1904. An employer partially exempt from the Part 1904 log by size or industry owes the rest of the standard in full but not the sharps log.

How long are bloodborne pathogens records kept?

Two clocks. Medical records run the duration of employment plus 30 years under (h)(1)(iv). Training records run 3 years from the date of the session under (h)(2)(ii). Applying the three-year period to medical records destroys records the employer owes for decades.