29 C.F.R. § 1910.133

Eye and face protection

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

(a) General requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.

(2) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses eye protection that provides side protection when there is a hazard from flying objects. Detachable side protectors (e.g. clip-on or slide-on side shields) meeting the pertinent requirements of this section are acceptable.

(3) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee who wears prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye hazards wears eye protection that incorporates the prescription in its design, or wears eye protection that can be worn over the prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or the protective lenses.

(4) Eye and face PPE shall be distinctly marked to facilitate identification of the manufacturer.

(5) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses equipment with filter lenses that have a shade number appropriate for the work being performed for protection from injurious light radiation. The following is a listing of appropriate shade numbers for various operations.

Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy
Operations	Electrode Size ¹⁄₃₂ in.	Arc Current	Minimum* Protective Shade
Shielded metal arc welding	Less than 3	Less than 60	7
	3-5	60-160	8
	5-8	160-250	10
	More than 8	250-550	11
Gas metal arc welding and flux cored arc welding		less than 60	7
		60-160	10
		160-250	10
		250-500	10
Gas Tungsten arc welding		less than 50	8
		50-150	8
		150-500	10
Air carbon	(Light)	less than 500	10
Arc cutting	(Heavy)	500-1000	11
Plasma arc welding		less than 20	6
		20-100	8
		100-400	10
		400-800	11
Plasma arc cutting	(light)**	less than 300	8
	(medium)**	300-400	9
	(heavy)**	400-800	10
Torch brazing			3
Torch soldering			2
Carbon arc welding			14

Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy
Operations	Plate thickness—inches	Plate thickness—mm	Minimum* Protective Shade
Gas Welding:
Light	Under 1/8	Under 3.2	4
Medium	1/8 to 1/2	3.2 to 12.7	5
Heavy	Over 1/2	Over 12.7	6
Oxygen cutting:
Light	Under 1	Under 25	3
Medium	1 to 6	25 to 150	4
Heavy	Over 6	Over 150	5
* As a rule of thumb, start with a shade that is too dark to see the weld zone. Then go to a lighter shade which gives sufficient view of the weld zone without going below the minimum. In oxyfuel gas welding or cutting where the torch produces a high yellow light, it is desirable to use a filter lens that absorbs the yellow or sodium line in the visible light of the (spectrum) operation.
** These values apply where the actual arc is clearly seen. Experience has shown that lighter filters may be used when the arc is hidden by the workpiece.

(b) Criteria for protective eye and face protection. (1) Protective eye and face protection devices must comply with any of the following consensus standards:

(i) ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2010, Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices, incorporated by reference in § 1910.6;

(ii) ANSI Z87.1-2003, Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices, incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or

(iii) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection, incorporated by reference in § 1910.6;

(2) Protective eye and face protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as protective eye and face protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.

[59 FR 16360, Apr. 6, 1994; 59 FR 33911, July 1, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 9238, Mar. 7, 1996; 61 FR 19548, May 2, 1996; 74 FR 46356, Sept. 9, 2009; 81 FR 16090, Mar. 25, 2016]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 745 N.W.2d 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 745 N.W.2d 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. 1910.133 through 138. The employer must perform a hazard assessment in order to determine what PPE is needed.”

Dep't of Labor v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, Goltra Castings, Inc., Real Party in Interest, 938 F.2d 1116 (10th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “(Goltra), asserting a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 (a)(1) in the operation of Goltra’s steel foundry for failure to require its employees to wear face shields when pouring molten metal.”

Anderson v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (M.D. Ala. 2009). “95 (earplugs); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 (safety glasses). 14 One meaning of “necessary” is “[r]equired by obligation, compulsion, or convention.”

Morales v. City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 02386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “132(a) and 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1)—were inapplicable to the facts of this case ( see Herman v Lancaster Homes , 145 AD2d 926 ).”

Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & Raymond Hendrix, D/B/A Alsea Lumber Co., 511 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir. 1975). “5”— 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1) — Failure of worker to wear eye goggles while subjected to flying sawdust and splinters from the saws.”

Fisher v. City of New York, 48 A.D.3d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “The relevance of federal OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.133, concerning “eye and face protection,” to plaintiffs respiratory injury, is not apparent, and plaintiffs argument that the City failed to provide necessary protective equipment, i.”

Gen. Elec. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 540 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “The first is a repeated serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 (a)(1) concerning protective eye equipment, and the second is a willful serious violation of 29 C.”

Carlyle Compressor Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 683 F.2d 673 (2d Cir. 1982). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 (a)(1) (1981). There was evidence, conceded by Carlyle to be accurate, that the barrier guard itself would prevent many of the fragments from being strewn around the work area.”

Veneris v. Domtar Paper Co., LLC (N.C. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to the compensation increase because his injury was caused by the willful failure of his employer, Domtar Paper Company, LLC (“Defendant”), to comply with 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 (2013). For the following reasons, we disagree and affirm the…”

Nordam Grp., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 37 F. App'x 959 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “Contreras’ inspection, OSHA issued a citation to NORDAM for violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 (a)(1), which provides: “The employer shall ensure that each affected employee use appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten…”

Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact____’’ 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 is a more specific provision concerning eye and face equipment.”

— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133(a)(1) — 3 cases

Nordam Grp., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 37 F. App'x 959 (10th Cir. 2002). “Contreras’ inspection, OSHA issued a citation to NORDAM for violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 (a)(1), which provides: “The employer shall ensure that each affected employee use appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten…”

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.