Employers not requiring employees pouring iron to wear protective clothing may be cited for a serious violation.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

October 3, 1980

Mr. Blaine L. Cosbey
Vice President/General Manager
Modern Foundry & Manufacturing Co.
South Sixth Street
Mascoutah, Illinois 62258

Dear Mr. Cosbey:

This is in response to your letter addressed to a member of my staff concerning OSHA's protective clothing requirements for molders pouring iron.

The use of steel mesh gloves by meat cutters at both packing plant and retail levels.

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

September 1, 1978

Edward R. Killam, President
ECHR Association
1329 E. Street, N.W., Suite 543
Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Mr. Killam:

This is in response to your letter concerning the use of steel mesh gloves by meat cutters at both packing plant and retail levels.

The purpose of Program Directive #100-49 was to clarify the application of the personal protective equipment standard, 29 CFR 1910.132(a) to the cutting hazard found in the meat departments of retail food stores.

Assessing hazardous skin or eye exposure to hexavalent chromium for providing appropriate personal protective equipment.

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.


February 22, 2007

Mr. Stephen Skarvinko
APComPower, Inc.
2000 Day Hill Road
Windsor, CT 06095

Dear Mr. Skarvinko:

Training and PPE requirements for hospital staff that decontaminate victims/patients.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

December 02, 2002

Captain Kevin J. Hayden
Acting Commanding Officer
State of New Jersey
Emergency Management Section
Department of Law and Public Safety
PO Box 7068
West Trenton, NJ 08628-0068

Dear Captain Hayden:

Respiratory protection requirements for hospital staff decontaminating chemically contaminated patients.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

September 5, 2002

Francis J. Roth, MS, CSP
Supervisor, Loss Prevention
Princeton Insurance
746 Alexander Road
Princeton, NJ 08540

Dear Mr. Roth:

The OSH Act of 1970 assigns the responsibility for compliance with safety and health standards to the employer.

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

August 11, 1976

Honorable Lawton Chiles
United States Senate
Washington D. C. 20510


Dear Senator Chiles:

This is in response to the communication from your office, dated July 16, 1976, referring to 198 10, Mr. Artis A. King, Lake Worth, Florida.

Wearing of open-toed shoes in an office environment.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

August 28, 2003

Ms. Heather Siemon
4015 Estermarie Dr., Apt. 43
Cincinnati, OH 45236

Dear Ms. Siemon:

Relevance of NFPA 70E industry consensus standard to OSHA requirements; whether OSHA requirements apply to owners.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

July 25, 2003

James H. Brown
Director of Safety and Health
Associated General Contractors of Indiana, Inc.
1050 Market Tower, 10 West Market Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Relevance of NFPA 70E industry consensus standard to OSHA requirements; whether OSHA requirements apply to owners

Dear Mr. Brown:

An employer is responsible for providing personal protective equipment.

Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

September 2, 1976

Honorable Adlai E. Stevenson
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevenson:

This is in response to your correspondence dated August 13, 1976, which transmitted a letter dated August 12, 1976, from Mr. George E. Vileta from Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Vileta asked if an employer is responsible for providing personal protective equipment, such as safety glasses and hard hats, used by his employees. Mr. Vileta also asked if an employee could refuse to work more than 40 hours per week.

Concern of potential adverse affects from latex by consumers and health care patients with Hevea Natural Rubber Latex Allergy

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.

January 29, 2004

Rochelle D. Spiker, MSW, LCSW-C
Executive Director
Potomac Latex Allergy Association
PO Box 52
Greenbelt, MD 20768

Dear Ms. Spiker,