Under 1952.16(a) — When did the Hawaii State plan receive initial approval?
The Hawaii State plan received initial approval on January 4, 1974. See the specific statement in 1952.16(a) and the general part listing at 1952.
OSHA 1952.16
Hawaii state plan approval
Subpart A
Questions & Answers
Under 1952.16(b) — When did the Hawaii State plan receive final approval?
The Hawaii State plan received final approval on May 4, 1984. This date is stated in 1952.16(b) and is summarized in 1952.
Under 1952.16(c) — What change occurred to Hawaii's plan on September 21, 2012 and how did federal enforcement change?
On September 21, 2012, OSHA modified Hawaii's approval status from final approval back to initial approval and reinstated concurrent federal enforcement authority pending corrective actions by the State Plan. See 1952.16(c) for the official statement and explanation in 1952.
Under 1952.16(c) — What is an "operational status agreement" between OSHA and Hawaii and why was it used?
An operational status agreement is a negotiated arrangement that sets a workable division of enforcement responsibilities between OSHA and the State Plan while the State corrects deficiencies. OSHA and Hawaii entered such an agreement when Hawaii's approval was changed to initial status on September 21, 2012. See 1952.16(c) and the general part at 1952.
Under 1952.16(d) — Which employers and employees does the Hawaii plan cover, and where can I find the exceptions?
The Hawaii plan covers all private-sector employers and employees and also covers State and local government employers and employees in the State, but there are several notable exceptions. For current detail on those exceptions and additional information, consult 1952.16(d) and the general plan page at 1952.
Under 1952.16 — If Hawaii's plan is returned to initial approval, what does that mean for employers in Hawaii regarding federal OSHA inspections?
If Hawaii's plan is on initial approval status, federal OSHA retains concurrent enforcement authority and may inspect and enforce federal standards in the State while the plan corrects deficiencies. This is stated in 1952.16(c) and summarized in 1952.
Under 1952.16(d) — Where should an employer in Hawaii look for the most current details about the State Plan and its exceptions?
An employer in Hawaii should consult the information referenced in 1952.16(d) and the Hawaii State Plan page linked from 1952 for current exceptions and details about the plan.
Under 29 CFR 1910.1030 — Does OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard apply to wastewater treatment plant employees?
The Bloodborne Pathogens Standard does not automatically apply to routine contact with diluted raw sewage; it applies when there is actual or reasonably anticipated occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM). OSHA explained this in the interpretation on bloodborne pathogens in wastewater, stating that urine, feces, and ordinary sewage are not OPIM unless visibly contaminated with blood. See the OSHA interpretation Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater and review 29 CFR 1910.1030(a) and (b) for the underlying rule text.
Under 29 CFR 1910.1030(b) — When are human wastes in sewage considered "other potentially infectious materials" (OPIM)?
Human wastes in sewage (like urine and feces) are considered OPIM only if they are visibly contaminated with blood or otherwise meet the standard's definition of OPIM. OSHA's interpretation on wastewater clarifies that ordinary sewage is not OPIM unless visibly contaminated with blood. See the Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater interpretation and the definition language in 29 CFR 1910.1030(b).
Under 29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(2) — Are employees who render first aid at wastewater treatment plants covered by the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard?
Yes, employees who are assigned or reasonably expected to render first aid that could involve contact with blood or OPIM are covered by the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard and must be considered for hepatitis B vaccination and other protections. OSHA's wastewater interpretation specifically cites first-aid duties as an example of occupational exposure. See the Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater interpretation and 29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(2).
Under 29 CFR 1910.1030 — If wastewater employees might encounter used hypodermic needles, does the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard apply?
Yes, potential contact with used hypodermic needles is an example of occupational exposure that would bring the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard into play; employers must evaluate tasks and provide required protections. OSHA's interpretation about wastewater explicitly cites handling of used needles as a situation that may create occupational exposure. See Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater and 29 CFR 1910.1030.
Under 29 CFR 1910.107(a) — Does a small, intermittently used power-ventilated structure for paint overspray meet the definition of a "spray booth"?
Yes, a small-capacity power-ventilated structure used to capture paint overspray can meet the definition of a "spray booth" under 29 CFR 1910.107(a) when it meets the structural and functional elements of that definition, even if used only 1–2 times per week. OSHA confirmed this in its spray booth interpretation. See the OSHA interpretation Spray booth standards inquiry and review 29 CFR 1910.107(a).
Under 29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(iv) — Are spray booths and their ductwork required to have automatic sprinklers?
Yes, if a structure qualifies as 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 standard. OSHA confirmed this requirement in the spray booth interpretation. See Spray booth standards inquiry and 29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(iv).
Under 29 CFR 1910.161 and 1910.162 — Can a dry chemical or carbon dioxide extinguishing system be used instead of a water sprinkler system for a spray booth?
Yes, a dry chemical extinguishing system or a carbon dioxide system may be used in place of an automatic water sprinkler system if they are installed to meet the applicable OSHA requirements and provide an equivalent level of protection. OSHA's spray booth interpretation confirms these alternatives and cites the requirements in [29 CFR 1910.161] and [29 CFR 1910.162]. See the interpretation Spray booth standards inquiry for details.
Under 29 CFR 1910.106(d)(4) — What requirements apply to a paint storage room that serves a spray booth?
A paint storage room must meet the flammable and combustible liquids requirements, including limits on room size, ventilation, fire protection systems, and electrical wiring and equipment as set out in the flammable liquids standard. OSHA's spray booth interpretation points to [29 CFR 1910.106(d)(4)] and related provisions for specific design and construction requirements. See Spray booth standards inquiry and 29 CFR 1910.106.
Under OSHA policy — Does OSHA automatically adopt NFPA 33 as a binding standard for spray booths?
No, OSHA does not automatically adopt consensus standards like NFPA 33 as OSHA requirements; employers must follow the OSHA standards that apply (for spray operations, primarily [29 CFR 1910.106] and [29 CFR 1910.107]). OSHA's spray booth interpretation explains that NFPA standards may be informative but are not automatically enforceable OSHA regulations unless incorporated by rulemaking. See Spray booth standards inquiry and the applicable OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.106 and 29 CFR 1910.107.