Tennessee State Plan approval

Under 1952.10(a), the Tennessee State Plan received initial approval on July 5, 1973. See the official statement at 1952.10(a).

Under 1952.10(b), the Tennessee State Plan received final approval on July 22, 1985. This date and approval are recorded at 1952.10(b).

Under 1952.10(c), the revised compliance staffing benchmarks approved on July 22, 1985, were 22 safety compliance officers and 14 health compliance officers. The approval and benchmark numbers are described at 1952.10(c).

Under 1952.10(c), compliance staffing benchmarks were established because the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall required each State operating an approved State plan to set staffing levels necessary for a "fully effective" enforcement program. The background and requirement are summarized at 1952.10(c).

Under 1952.10(d), the Tennessee State Plan covers all private‑sector employers and employees (with several notable exceptions) and also covers State and local government employers and employees within Tennessee. For the coverage statement, see 1952.10(d).

Under 1952.10(d), current information about exceptions and additional plan details is available from OSHA's Tennessee State Plan resources; the statutory note refers users to the Tennessee State Plan page on OSHA's website as summarized in 1952.10(d).

Regarding the July 30, 2007 Letter of Interpretation, OSHA's view is that the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard generally does not apply to routine contact with diluted raw sewage because sewage, urine, and feces normally do not meet the definition of "other potentially infectious materials" unless they are visibly contaminated with blood. See the interpretation at Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater (2007-07-30) for details and rationale.

Regarding the July 30, 2007 Letter of Interpretation, employers must offer hepatitis B vaccination to employees who have occupational exposure — for example, employees who render first aid or medical services or who have reasonably anticipated contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials. The interpretation explains employer responsibility to evaluate job tasks and to offer vaccination where occupational exposure exists; see Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater (2007-07-30).

Regarding the July 30, 2007 Letter of Interpretation, potential contact with used hypodermic needles (sharps) in sewage is identified as an example of occupational exposure that could trigger coverage under the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. The letter discusses this risk and the need for employers to evaluate tasks for reasonably anticipated exposure; see Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater (2007-07-30).

Regarding the August 12, 2004 Letter of Interpretation, OSHA replied that the described small power‑ventilated structure does meet the definition of a spray booth under 29 CFR 1910.107. The interpretation explains the facts considered and concludes the structure qualifies as a spray booth; see Spray booth standards inquiry (2004-08-12).

Regarding the August 12, 2004 Letter of Interpretation, OSHA confirmed that if a structure meets the definition of a spray booth, it is required to be equipped with approved automatic sprinklers on the upstream and downstream sides of the filters per the spray booth rule. See the interpretation at Spray booth standards inquiry (2004-08-12).

Regarding the August 12, 2004 Letter of Interpretation, OSHA stated that a dry chemical extinguishing system or a carbon dioxide system that meets OSHA requirements may be used in place of an automatic sprinkler system to provide an equivalent level of protection. The letter cites applicable requirements and discusses acceptable alternatives; see Spray booth standards inquiry (2004-08-12).

Regarding the August 12, 2004 Letter of Interpretation, OSHA advised that paint storage rooms must comply with the flammable and combustible liquids standard, including the specific provisions for inside storage rooms (for example, 1910.106(d)(4)). The interpretation points to the flammable liquids requirements and design considerations; see Spray booth standards inquiry (2004-08-12).

Regarding the August 12, 2004 Letter of Interpretation, OSHA explained that its standards at 29 CFR 1910.106 and 1910.107 are the controlling requirements; a consensus standard like NFPA 33 does not automatically become an OSHA standard without rulemaking. The interpretation discusses how NFPA guidance relates to OSHA requirements; see Spray booth standards inquiry (2004-08-12).