C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1904—RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES › Subpart C—Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria

29 C.F.R. § 1904.8

Recording criteria for needlestick and sharps injuries

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

(a) Basic requirement. You must record all work-related needlestick injuries and cuts from sharp objects that are contaminated with another person's blood or other potentially infectious material (as defined by 29 CFR 1910.1030). You must enter the case on the OSHA 300 Log as an injury. To protect the employee's privacy, you may not enter the employee's name on the OSHA 300 Log (see the requirements for privacy cases in paragraphs 1904.29(b)(6) through 1904.29(b)(9)).

(b) Implementation—(1) What does “other potentially infectious material” mean? The term “other potentially infectious materials” is defined in the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens standard at § 1910.1030(b). These materials include:

(i) Human bodily fluids, tissues and organs, and

(ii) Other materials infected with the HIV or hepatitis B (HBV) virus such as laboratory cultures or tissues from experimental animals.

(2) Does this mean that I must record all cuts, lacerations, punctures, and scratches? No, you need to record cuts, lacerations, punctures, and scratches only if they are work-related and involve contamination with another person's blood or other potentially infectious material. If the cut, laceration, or scratch involves a clean object, or a contaminant other than blood or other potentially infectious material, you need to record the case only if it meets one or more of the recording criteria in § 1904.7.

(3) If I record an injury and the employee is later diagnosed with an infectious bloodborne disease, do I need to update the OSHA 300 Log? Yes, you must update the classification of the case on the OSHA 300 Log if the case results in death, days away from work, restricted work, or job transfer. You must also update the description to identify the infectious disease and change the classification of the case from an injury to an illness.

(4) What if one of my employees is splashed or exposed to blood or other potentially infectious material without being cut or scratched? Do I need to record this incident? You need to record such an incident on the OSHA 300 Log as an illness if:

(i) It results in the diagnosis of a bloodborne illness, such as HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C; or

(ii) It meets one or more of the recording criteria in § 1904.7.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1976–1995 · leading case: Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor v. Simplex Time Recorder Co., 766 F.2d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor v. Simplex Time Recorder Co., 766 F.2d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “In 82-301 the Secretary charged Simplex with violating Administration regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1904.8 (1984), requiring that employers notify the Administration of employment-related accidents resulting in the hospitalization of five or more employees.”
Workplace Health & Saf. Council v. Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of Labor, 56 F.3d 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1995). · cites it 4× “15,594 (April 1,1994), codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1904.8 (1994). That rule, deemed a “regulation” by OSHA in the preamble to section 1904, 29 C.”
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, & John T. Dunlop, Sec'y of Labor, 535 F.2d 371 (7th Cir. 1976). “The officer arrived at the site initially to investigate a report of two fatalities, as authorized by 29 C.F.R. § 1904.8 (1974). Subsequent to this inspection it was determined that a routine inspection of the safety conditions at the site should be conducted.”
Cox Bros., Inc., Petitioner, v. Sec'y of Labor, Respondent, 574 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1978). “See OSHA Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1904.8 (1976). As a result of the inspection, Cox was cited for three violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act), 29 U.”
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.