August 17. 2026

Kamryn Johnson
1241 Harrisburg Pike,
PO Box 3245
Lancaster, PA 17604

Dear Kamryn Johnson:

Thank you for your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), requesting an interpretation of OSHA's head protection requirements under 29 CFR 1910.135 and how these requirements apply to the selection and use of Type II safety helmets that meet ANSI Z89.1. You also asked how OSHA applies these requirements when employees may be exposed to lateral or off-center head impact hazards, and how OSHA's March 6, 2024, Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB), Head Protection: Safety Helmets in the Workplace, relates to enforcement. Your questions and our responses are below.

Question 1: Under 29 CFR 1910.135, will OSHA require employers to use Type II helmets when a hazard assessment identifies lateral or off-center impact hazards (e.g., equipment swing, vehicle traffic, slips/trips/falls leading to side impacts), on the basis that Type I protection is not adequate for those hazards under ANSI Z89.1?

Response: The OSHA standard at 29 CFR §1910.135(b) requires that employers ensure protective helmets comply with ANSI Z89.1-2009, ANSI Z89.1-2003, or ANSI Z89.1-1997, or that the head protection devices provided is at least as effective as head protection devices constructed in accordance with one of the referenced consensus standards. 29 CFR §1910.135(b) does not require employers to use a particular ANSI helmet type, such as Type II. However, ANSI Z89.1 distinguishes between helmet types based on the impact protection they are designed to provide. Type I helmets are designed to reduce force of impact resulting from a blow to the top of the head. Type II helmets are designed to reduce the force of impact resulting from a blow to the top or side of the head.

Under 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1), employers must assess the workplace for hazards that are present, or are likely to be present, requiring personal protective equipment (PPE). Specifically, §1910.132(d)(1)(i) requires the employer select and ensure that each affected employee uses the types of PPE that will protect against the hazards identified in the hazard assessment. Additionally, §1910.135(a) requires employers to ensure that employees wear protective helmets where there is a potential for head injury from falling objects, and to ensure head protection that reduces electrical shock hazards where applicable.

Accordingly, where a hazard assessment conducted pursuant to §1910.132(d)(1) identifies blow to the top or side of the head hazards, head protection that provides only top-impact protection may not be adequate to protect employees from those hazards. In such circumstances, OSHA will require employers to provide proper PPE (for example, Type II) that will protect the affected employee from the specific hazards identified in the hazard assessment.

Question 2: If OSHA determines during an inspection that lateral (side) impact hazards are present and the employer issued only Type I helmets, would OSHA cite the employer under §1910.135 for failure to provide PPE appropriate to the hazards?

Response: Citations issued by OSHA are dependent on the hazards assessed at the time of the inspection and specific facts of each inspection. However, during an inspection, OSHA would generally evaluate whether the employer assessed under §1910.132(d)(1) the workplace for hazards that are present, or are likely to be present, requiring PPE. If OSHA determines that lateral (side) impact hazards are present and the employer issued only Type I helmets, OSHA may cite the employer under §1910.132(d)(1)(i) for failure to provide PPE appropriate to the hazards.

Question 3: How does OSHA's March 6, 2024, Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) and OSHA's public recommendation for Type II helmets in construction/high-risk settings influence enforcement discretion? Specifically, does OSHA consider the SHIB's discussion of lateral impact risk factors (e.g., equipment contact, slips/trips/falls) as evidence that Type II is the expected control where such hazards are reasonably anticipated?

Response: OSHA's March 6, 2024, SHIB is advisory in nature and does not create new legal requirements. The SHIB may be referenced as guidance describing common hazard scenarios and injury mechanisms, but OSHA's enforcement determinations would be based on the facts of the workplace and applicable standards, not on the SHIB itself.

Question 4: In scenarios such as crane operations, rigging, signal work, industrial fabrication, and welding, involving tight clearances, heavy components, suspended loads, rotating equipment, and moving materials, does OSHA consider Type II protection to be the expected selection outcome of a compliant hazard assessment?

Response: The presence of these operations does not automatically require Type II helmets; the determination depends on the specific employee exposure scenarios and whether the selected head protection adequately protects against those hazards. The activities you list may present foreseeable lateral or multidirectional impact hazards. A hazard assessment under §1910.132(d)(1) must evaluate these hazards and if lateral impact protection is needed, the employer must, under section 1910.132(d)(1)(i), select, and have each employee use, head protection that addresses those hazards. In many cases, Type II helmets may be an appropriate means of protection, but they are not the only acceptable option. Employers can use any head protection that provides equal or greater protection.

Question 5: If an employer elects to issue Type I helmets where lateral hazards are present, could OSHA rely on the General Duty Clause, in addition to or in lieu of 29 CFR 1910.135, given industry recognition through ANSI Z89.1 and OSHA's SHIB that Type II is the appropriate protection for lateral impacts?

Response: No. Pursuant to section 1910.5(f), where a condition is addressed by applicable PPE and head protection standards, OSHA would cite those standards rather than Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act. The General Duty Clause applies only where a specific condition, practice, means, method, operation, or process is not covered by an existing OSHA standard.

Question 6: What documentation elements would OSHA expect to see in the employer’s hazard assessment and PPE selection rationale to demonstrate that the selection of Type II, or if justified Type I, is adequate and compliant where lateral impact hazards may be present?

Response: OSHA's PPE hazard assessment requirements in §1910.132(d) are performance based. Other than the certification requirement in §1910.132(d)(2), OSHA does not require a specific format. However, documentation used to demonstrate compliance should, as appropriate, identify the workplace areas, tasks, or operations evaluated; the hazards considered, including any foreseeable lateral or off-center impact hazards; the basis for the protection selected; and, where relevant, any product performance information, manufacturer instructions, or equipment limitations considered. OSHA may also consider whether the employer evaluated the feasibility of other controls and whether affected employees were trained with proper use, care, and limitations of the selected equipment. In addition, 29 CFR 1910 Subpart I, Appendix B, provides Non-mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection that employers may find helpful.

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA's requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our letters of interpretation do not create new or additional requirements but rather explain these requirements and how they apply to circumstances. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. From time to time, letters are affected when the agency updates a standard, a legal decision impacts a standard, or changes in technology affect the interpretation. To assure that you are using the correct information and guidance, please consult OSHA's website at www.osha.gov.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Directorate of Enforcement Programs at (202) 693-2100.

Sincerely,

Erin Gilmore, Acting Director
Directorate of Enforcement Programs