Nevada state plan approval

Under 1952.15(a) the Nevada State plan received initial approval on January 4, 1974. See 1952.15(a) for the approval date.

Under 1952.15(b) the Nevada State plan received final approval on April 18, 2000. See 1952.15(b) for the final approval date.

Under 1952.15(c) Nevada proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 11 safety and 5 health compliance officers, and those revised staffing requirements were approved by the Assistant Secretary on September 2, 1987. The reassessment and proposal were completed in July 1986. See 1952.15(c) for the staffing-benchmark history.

Under 1952.15(c) staffing benchmarks were required because the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall required establishment of compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program for each State operating an approved State plan. See 1952.15(c) which explains the court-ordered basis for those benchmarks.

Under 1952.15(d) the Nevada State plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, and it also covers State and local government employers and employees within the State, with several notable exceptions. See 1952.15(d) for the coverage statement.

Under 1952.15(d) current information on the exceptions and additional plan details is available from Nevada’s State Plan materials; the subsection directs readers to the State Plan information referenced in the paragraph. See 1952.15(d) for that referral and instructions on where to get current plan details.

Under part 1952, an "approved State plan" means Nevada operates its own occupational safety and health enforcement program under the provisions listed in part 1952 rather than relying exclusively on federal OSHA enforcement. See Part 1952 and the Nevada-specific entry at 1952.15 for the State-plan listing and context.

Under 1952.15(c) Nevada completed a reassessment in July 1986 (done in conjunction with OSHA), proposed revised staffing benchmarks of 11 safety and 5 health compliance officers, provided opportunity for public comment and service to the AFL-CIO, and then the Assistant Secretary approved the revised requirements on September 2, 1987. See 1952.15(c) for the procedural summary.

Under the Nevada entry for 1952.15 the GPO source is listed as the e-CFR, indicating the official regulatory text can be referenced via the e-CFR. See 1952 which includes the GPO/e-CFR citation used in the section metadata.

The Bloodborne Pathogens Standard generally does not apply to routine contact with diluted raw sewage, but it does apply where blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) are present or reasonably anticipated. See the OSHA interpretation at Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater | July 30, 2007 which explains that raw sewage and wastewater usually do not constitute OPIM unless visibly contaminated with blood, and that employers must evaluate job tasks to determine whether occupational exposure to blood or OPIM is reasonably anticipated.

According to the July 30, 2007 interpretation, employers must offer hepatitis B vaccination to employees who have occupational exposure to blood or OPIM—this includes workers who render first aid or medical services or those who handle used hypodermic needles where exposure is reasonably anticipated. See Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater | July 30, 2007 for the discussion of vaccination obligations and examples of tasks that may trigger them.

Under the July 30, 2007 interpretation, employees designated to render first aid as a collateral duty are considered to have occupational exposure and thus fall within the hepatitis B vaccination provisions if they are reasonably anticipated to contact blood or OPIM; however, employers who only provide first aid on an infrequent basis may follow the enforcement protocol described in the interpretation. See Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater | July 30, 2007 for the guidance about first-aid providers and vaccination timing.

Yes—the August 12, 2004 interpretation states that, based on the specified scenario, a small-capacity power-ventilated structure used intermittently met the definition of a spray booth in 29 CFR 1910.107. See Spray booth standards inquiry | August 12, 2004 for the scenario analysis and conclusion.

Yes—the August 12, 2004 interpretation confirms 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 as required by the spray booth standard. See Spray booth standards inquiry | August 12, 2004 for the discussion referencing 29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(iv).

Yes—the August 12, 2004 interpretation states that a dry chemical extinguishing system or a carbon dioxide system may be used in place of an automatic sprinkler system if it is installed to meet OSHA requirements and provide an equivalent level of protection. See Spray booth standards inquiry | August 12, 2004 which references the acceptability of alternative systems and cites the related extinguisher and system requirements.

Under the August 12, 2004 interpretation, paint storage rooms must comply with the flammable and combustible liquids standard—specifically the requirements for inside storage rooms in 29 CFR 1910.106(d)(4), which address room size limits, ventilation, fire protection, and electrical wiring/equipment. See Spray booth standards inquiry | August 12, 2004 for the reference to 29 CFR 1910.106 and the storage-room requirements.

No—the August 12, 2004 interpretation explains that OSHA standards such as 29 CFR 1910.106 and 1910.107 apply to spray scenarios and that consensus standards like NFPA 33 do not automatically become OSHA standards; OSHA must adopt such standards through rulemaking. See Spray booth standards inquiry | August 12, 2004 for the explanation about the status of NFPA standards relative to OSHA regulations.