Oregon state plan approval
Subpart A
Questions & Answers
Under 1952.2(b), when did the Oregon State plan receive final approval?
Under 1952.2(c), what compliance staffing benchmarks were approved for Oregon and when were they approved?
Under 1952.2(c) Oregon’s approved benchmarks are 28 health compliance officers and 47 safety compliance officers, and the Assistant Secretary approved the revised requirements on August 11, 1994. The section explains the health benchmark resulted from an October 1992 reassessment and that Oregon retained the safety benchmark from the 1980 report.
Under 1952.2(c), what did the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall require regarding state plans?
Under 1952.2(c) the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall required that each State operating an approved State plan establish compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program. The section records how those benchmarks were reassessed and approved for Oregon.
Under 1952.2(d), who is covered by the Oregon State plan?
Under 1952.2(d), where can I find current information about exceptions to Oregon's State plan coverage?
Under 1952.2(c), what process did Oregon follow before the Assistant Secretary approved the revised staffing requirements?
Under 1952.2(c) Oregon proposed revised staffing benchmarks, provided opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, and then received approval from the Assistant Secretary on August 11, 1994. The section documents that public comment and stakeholder notification were part of the approval process.
Under Part 1952, what is the Part Number Title and Subpart Title related to state plans?
Under 1952.2(c), what are the numeric values for the health and safety compliance officer benchmarks and their historical origins?
Under 1952.2(c) the health benchmark is 28 health compliance officers (revised after an October 1992 reassessment) and the safety benchmark is 47 safety compliance officers (retained from the 1980 report to the Court). The section explains these numbers resulted from the Court‑ordered benchmarking process and subsequent reassessment and approval.
Under 1952.2(d), does Oregon’s State plan apply to State and local government employees?
How does OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens interpretation affect wastewater workers under an approved State plan like Oregon's?
Employers covered by an OSHA‑approved State plan such as Oregon’s must evaluate job tasks for occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials; if exposure is reasonably anticipated, the Bloodborne Pathogens requirements apply. OSHA’s interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2007-07-30 clarifies that raw sewage and routine wastewater are generally not considered OPIM unless visibly contaminated with blood, but employers must still assess tasks (for example, first aid duties or handling used hypodermic needles) that could reasonably involve blood or OPIM.
If I operate a spray booth in Oregon, which OSHA interpretation or standard should I consult and what fire‑protection options are acceptable?
If you operate a spray booth in Oregon, you should follow the applicable OSHA spray‑booth requirements and recognized enforcement guidance; OSHA’s spray‑booth interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-08-12 confirms that structures meeting the definition of a spray booth must have approved automatic sprinklers on upstream and downstream sides of filters per the standard, and that a dry chemical or CO₂ system meeting OSHA fire‑protection requirements may be used as an acceptable alternative. Employers in Oregon should ensure compliance consistent with their State plan coverage as described in 1952.2(d).
Under 1952.2, how is the Oregon entry in the federal registry identified and where is the official text located?
Under 1952.2 the Oregon entry is the official federal reference for Oregon’s approved State plan; the entry includes metadata such as the Part Number and Subpart and provides the approval history and links to plan details. The official regulatory text and federal record for Oregon’s approval are available through 1952.2.
Under 1952.2(c), how did Oregon arrive at a revised health benchmark and who collaborated on the reassessment?
Under 1952.2(c) Oregon completed a reassessment of the health staffing level in October 1992 in conjunction with OSHA and proposed a revised health benchmark of 28 health compliance officers; this revised benchmark was approved by the Assistant Secretary after public comment and service on the AFL‑CIO. The section documents that the revision was a cooperative reassessment with OSHA.