South Carolina state plan

Under 1952.1(a) the South Carolina State plan received initial approval on December 6, 1972.

See the text in 1952.1(a) for the official date.

Under 1952.1(b) the South Carolina State plan received final approval on December 18, 1987.

See the text in 1952.1(b) for the official date.

Under 1952.1(c) South Carolina and OSHA reassessed compliance staffing and proposed benchmarks of 17 safety and 12 health compliance officers, and the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

• This action followed the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall requiring staffing benchmarks for approved State plans.
• See the staffing discussion in 1952.1(c).

Under 1952.1(d) the South Carolina plan covers all private‑sector employers and employees, as well as State and local government employers and employees in the State, subject to several notable exceptions.

• The section notes exceptions exist but does not list them; for current details you must consult the State Plan resources referenced in that paragraph.
• See 1952.1(d).

Under 1952.1(d) you should consult the State Plan information referenced in that paragraph for current exceptions and detailed information about the plan.

• The section directs readers to the State Plan resources; see 1952.1(d) for that guidance and follow the links provided there to South Carolina’s current State Plan page.

Under Part 1952 the document identifies the part as covering "Approved State Plans for Enforcement of State Standards."

• See the Part Number and Part Title information at Part 1952 on OSHA's page.

Under 1952.1(c) staffing benchmarks were established to meet the Court Order in AFL‑CIO v. Marshall requiring each State with an approved plan to set compliance officer staffing levels necessary for a "fully effective" enforcement program.

• The section explains South Carolina reassessed and revised its benchmarks (safety and health officers) in coordination with OSHA; see 1952.1(c).

Under 1952.1 the document states that the South Carolina plan covers both private‑sector employers and employees and State and local government employers and employees, subject to exceptions.

• For the exact wording and any listed exceptions see 1952.1(d).

Under 1952.1(c) the revised staffing benchmarks were proposed after reassessment and were published after opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL‑CIO prior to the Assistant Secretary's approval.

• See the procedural description in 1952.1(c).

Under 1952.1 the GPO source for the regulatory text is the e‑CFR (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations).

• The section metadata references e‑CFR as the GPO source; see Part 1952 on OSHA's page and the linked 1952.1 entry for the citation.

Under 1952.1(c) the September 1984 reassessment proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 17 safety and 12 health compliance officers.

• The section records the proposed numbers and their subsequent approval; see 1952.1(c).

Under the July 30, 2007 letter, OSHA generally does not consider contact with diluted raw sewage or wastewater to trigger the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard unless blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) are present or reasonably anticipated.

• The letter explains that urine, feces, and common human wastes in sewage are not OPIM unless visibly contaminated with blood; see the interpretation at Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater, 2007-07-30.
• The letter also states employers must evaluate job tasks to determine whether exposure to blood or OPIM is reasonably anticipated and points out specific examples (e.g., first aid providers or handling used hypodermic needles) where the standard would apply.

Under the July 30, 2007 interpretation employers should not automatically stop offering hepatitis B vaccination to all wastewater workers; instead, employers must evaluate whether specific job classifications or tasks reasonably anticipate exposure to blood or OPIM and offer vaccination to employees with occupational exposure.

• The interpretation explains that routine contact with diluted sewage is generally not OPIM, but tasks such as providing first aid or handling used hypodermic needles may create occupational exposure; see Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater, 2007-07-30.
• Employers are responsible for that evaluation and for offering hepatitis B vaccination to employees who have occupational exposure as described in the letter.

Under the August 12, 2004 interpretation, if a structure meets the definition of a spray booth in 29 CFR 1910.107, it is required to be equipped with approved automatic sprinklers on the upstream and downstream sides of the filters.

• The letter specifically answers that question and also notes that equivalent systems (for example, dry chemical or carbon dioxide systems) may be used if they meet OSHA requirements; see Spray booth standards inquiry, 2004-08-12.

Under the August 12, 2004 interpretation a dry chemical extinguishing system or a properly installed carbon dioxide system may be used in place of an automatic water sprinkler system if it meets OSHA requirements and provides an equivalent level of protection.

• The letter references the applicability of related extinguishing standards, including 29 CFR 1910.161 and 1910.162 for dry chemical and gaseous agent systems; see Spray booth standards inquiry, 2004-08-12.

Under 1952.1(c) the 1978 Court Order in AFL‑CIO v. Marshall prompted the requirement that each State operating an approved State plan establish compliance officer staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a "fully effective" enforcement program.

• The section describes the connection between that court order and South Carolina's reassessment of staffing; see 1952.1(c).