Virginia state plan approval

The Virginia State plan received initial approval on September 28, 1976. See 1952.21(a) for the recorded approval date.

The Virginia State plan received final approval on November 30, 1988. This date is recorded in 1952.21(b).

The 1984 reassessment proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 38 safety compliance officers and 21 health compliance officers. Those proposed benchmarks and the approval process are summarized in 1952.21(c).

• The Assistant Secretary approved the revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

Compliance staffing benchmarks were required under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall to establish levels necessary for a "fully effective" enforcement program. This requirement and Virginia's subsequent reassessment and approval are described in 1952.21(c).

• The Virginia reassessment was completed in September 1984, and revised staffing levels were later approved on January 17, 1986.

The Virginia State plan covers all private-sector employers and employees (with several notable exceptions) and also covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. See 1952.21(d).

• For details on the noted exceptions and the current scope of coverage, refer to the plan information referenced in that paragraph.

You can find current information on the plan exceptions and additional details by consulting the resource referenced in 1952.21(d).

• The 1952.21(d) entry directs users to the State plan information page for Virginia for the most up-to-date exceptions and program details.

Part 1952, Subpart A is titled "Approved State Plans for Enforcement of State Standards" and 1952.21 is the listing for Virginia within that subpart. See the overall part listing at 1952 and the specific Virginia entry at 1952.21.

The Assistant Secretary approved Virginia's revised compliance staffing requirements on January 17, 1986. This approval and the background reassessment are described in 1952.21(c).

The current 1952.21 entry for Virginia includes the Federal Register citation [80 FR 49906, August 18, 2015]. That citation is shown at the end of the 1952.21 text and is accessible via 1952.21.

Yes. The Virginia plan explicitly covers State and local government employers and employees within the State, in addition to most private-sector employers and employees, as stated in 1952.21(d).

• Remember that the paragraph also notes several notable exceptions; consult the Virginia plan information for current details.

No. OSHA generally does not consider routine contact with diluted raw sewage or wastewater to be covered by the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard because coverage is triggered by the presence or reasonably anticipated presence of blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM). See the interpretation "Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater" (July 30, 2007).

• The letter explains that urine, feces, and other typical human wastes in sewage are not OPIM unless they are visibly contaminated with blood, per the standard discussed in the interpretation.

Employers should offer hepatitis B vaccination to employees who have occupational exposure to blood or OPIM—for example, staff who render first aid, treat wounds, or have reason to handle used hypodermic needles—because those job duties create a reasonable anticipation of contact with blood or OPIM. See "Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater" (July 30, 2007).

• The interpretation emphasizes that employers must evaluate all job classifications and tasks to determine which employees have occupational exposure and therefore must be offered the vaccine.

The employer is responsible for evaluating job classifications and tasks to determine which employees are reasonably anticipated to come into contact with blood or OPIM and therefore have occupational exposure. See "Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater" (July 30, 2007).

• The letter gives examples such as first-aid providers and workers who may encounter used hypodermic needles as roles that can create occupational exposure.

Yes. OSHA concluded that the described small-capacity power-ventilated structure meets the definition of a spray booth in 29 CFR 1910.107 based on the facts presented. See the interpretation "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004).

• The interpretation applies when the structure is used to capture paint overspray and conveys that material to the outside, among other factors.

Yes. If a structure meets the definition of a spray booth, it must be equipped with approved automatic sprinklers on the upstream and downstream sides of the filters as indicated in the interpretation, which cites the relevant spray booth provisions. See "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004).

• The interpretation specifically references the requirement found in the spray booth standard provisions discussed in that letter.

Yes. The 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. See "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004).

• The letter notes that requirements for dry chemical systems are found in the standards it cites and that equivalent protection is allowed.

Paint storage rooms must meet the requirements of the flammable and combustible liquids standard, specifically the inside storage room provisions cited in the interpretation. See "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004).

• The interpretation points to the detailed inside storage room requirements for flammable liquids, including room size limits, ventilation, fire protection, and electrical wiring considerations.

No. OSHA explained in the interpretation that consensus standards such as NFPA 33 do not automatically become OSHA standards; OSHA enforces its own standards (e.g., the spray booth and flammable liquids provisions) unless OSHA has specifically adopted a consensus standard through rulemaking. See "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004).

• The letter clarifies that the applicable OSHA standards are those it enforces rather than NFPA provisions unless OSHA has formally incorporated them.

Yes. 1952.21(c) mentions the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall and describes how that order required establishment of compliance staffing benchmarks, and it summarizes Virginia's reassessment and approval actions. See 1952.21(c).

• That paragraph provides historical context about staffing benchmark development and approval dates.

Yes. The 1952.21(d) entry directs readers to the State program information for current exceptions and additional details, making the entry a starting point to find the authoritative contact or program page for Virginia. See 1952.21(d).

• For practical compliance questions about coverage or exceptions, follow the plan information referenced there.