Arizona state plan approval

Under 1952.19(a), the Arizona State plan received initial approval on November 5, 1974. This is the date OSHA records as the plan’s first approval for state administration of occupational safety and health enforcement in Arizona.

Under 1952.19(b), the Arizona State plan received final approval on June 20, 1985. Final approval reflects OSHA’s acceptance of the State’s program after required actions and adjustments were completed.

Under 1952.19(c), the approved revised compliance staffing benchmarks for Arizona are 9 safety compliance officers and 6 health compliance officers. These numbers were recommended after a reassessment and were approved by the Assistant Secretary on June 20, 1985 as necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program.

Under 1952.19(c), the revised benchmarks were established after a reassessment (completed in September 1984), a proposal of new levels (9 safety and 6 health compliance officers), an opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, and final approval by the Assistant Secretary on June 20, 1985. The process followed the requirements of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall to set staffing levels needed for a “fully effective” program.

Under 1952.19(d), the Arizona plan covers all private-sector employers and employees as well as State and local government employers and employees within Arizona, subject to several notable exceptions. For specifics on those exceptions and exact coverage details, consult the Arizona State Plan page.

Under 1952.19(d), current information about exceptions to coverage and additional plan details is available on the Arizona State Plan web page at http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/arizona.html. Visit that page for up-to-date scope, exceptions, and contact information.

Yes. 1952.19(d) states that the Arizona plan covers both private-sector employers and employees and State and local government employers and employees in Arizona, with certain exceptions. That means Arizona enforces occupational safety and health standards for covered employers and employees within the State rather than federal OSHA doing those inspections and enforcement for those groups.

Under 1952.19(c), the requirement to establish compliance staffing benchmarks comes from the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, which required that each State operating an approved State plan establish staffing levels necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program.

Under 1952.19(c), the Assistant Secretary approved the revised staffing requirements for Arizona on June 20, 1985. That approval followed reassessment, proposal of revised levels, and opportunity for public comment.

Yes. The Arizona plan approval information, including initial and final approval dates, is recorded in the OSHA regulation for part 1952: see 1952 and specifically 1952.19 which lists the Arizona entries and dates.

No. 1952.19(d) specifies coverage for private-sector employers and employees and State and local government employers and employees; federal employees are generally not covered by State plans and remain under federal OSHA jurisdiction unless otherwise indicated by separate agreement.

Under 1952.19(c), “benchmarks” refers to the compliance staffing levels (number of safety and health compliance officers) established as necessary to achieve a “fully effective” enforcement program for the State plan; for Arizona the approved benchmarks were 9 safety and 6 health officers. These benchmarks were set per the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall and approved following reassessment and public comment.

OSHA’s interpretation is that the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard applies based on the presence or reasonably anticipated presence of blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM), not simply because workers contact wastewater. The Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater interpretation explains that diluted raw sewage and normal human waste (urine, feces) are generally not OPIM unless visibly contaminated with blood; however, employers must evaluate job tasks for reasonably anticipated contact with blood or OPIM and offer hepatitis B vaccination to employees with occupational exposure (for example, first aid responders or workers who may contact used hypodermic needles). See the OSHA interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2007-07-30 for details and examples.

Yes. OSHA’s spray booth interpretation states that a small-capacity power-ventilated structure used to capture paint overspray can meet the definition of a spray booth (29 CFR 1910.107) based on the scenario described. The letter also clarifies related requirements: automatic sprinklers are required on upstream and downstream sides of filters, a dry chemical or CO2 system may be used instead if it meets OSHA requirements, and paint storage rooms must comply with the flammable and combustible liquids standard (29 CFR 1910.106). See the interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-08-12 for full context and conditions.

Yes. OSHA’s spray booth interpretation confirms that a dry chemical extinguishing system or a carbon dioxide system may be used in place of an automatic water sprinkler system for spray booths if the alternative system is installed so as to meet OSHA requirements (and the relevant requirements for dry chemical or gaseous extinguishing systems in the OSHA standards). Refer to the interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-08-12 for details.