Utah state plan approval

The Utah State plan received initial approval on January 10, 1973. See 1952.3(a) for the approval date.

The Utah State plan received final approval on July 16, 1985. See 1952.3(b) for the final approval date.

Utah's reassessed compliance staffing benchmarks approved effective July 16, 1985, were 10 safety compliance officers and 9 health compliance officers. See 1952.3(c) for the staffing benchmark information.

Compliance staffing benchmarks were required to establish the levels of compliance staffing necessary for a "fully effective" enforcement program under the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall. See 1952.3(c) which explains the Court Order requirement and Utah's reassessment.

Under 1952.3(d), the Utah State plan covers all private‑sector employers and employees as well as State and local government employers and employees within the State, subject to several notable exceptions. See 1952.3(d) for the coverage statement and guidance to find current exceptions.

You should consult the information referenced in 1952.3(d) for the most current information on exceptions and additional plan details. The section directs readers to the State Plan resources for up-to-date exception lists and further information.

The initial approval date (January 10, 1973) and the final approval date (July 16, 1985) indicate that Utah's State plan has been formally approved by OSHA and later finalized, showing a long‑standing, OSHA‑approved state enforcement program. See 1952.3(a) and 1952.3(b) for the dates and 1952.3(c) for the staffing context.

The staffing numbers were developed through a reassessment completed by Utah in conjunction with OSHA and after opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL‑CIO, resulting in revised compliance staffing benchmarks that the Assistant Secretary approved effective July 16, 1985. See 1952.3(c) for the reassessment and approval process.

Employers in Utah should follow the rules and enforcement applicable under the Utah State plan because Utah operates an OSHA‑approved State plan that covers private‑sector and State/local government employees as described in 1952.3(d). For specifics about which standards or exceptions apply, consult the Utah State Plan resources referenced in 1952.3(d).

No, OSHA does not generally consider routine contact with diluted raw sewage to be covered by the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. The letter explains that coverage under 29 CFR 1910.1030 is triggered by the presence or a reasonable anticipation of blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM), and that urine, feces, and other typical components of sewage are not OPIM unless they are visibly contaminated with blood. See the OSHA interpretation "Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater" (July 30, 2007) for details and guidance.

Wastewater treatment employees should be offered the hepatitis B vaccine if their job duties reasonably anticipate contact with blood or OPIM, such as providing first aid or handling used hypodermic needles. The employer must evaluate job tasks to determine occupational exposure and offer the vaccination accordingly. See the OSHA interpretation "Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater" (July 30, 2007) and the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard 29 CFR 1910.1030 for the employer's evaluation responsibilities.

No, a worker who only cleans diluted sewage is not generally covered by the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard unless the employer reasonably anticipates contact with blood or OPIM (for example, if the sewage is visibly contaminated with blood or the worker handles used needles). See the OSHA interpretation "Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater" (July 30, 2007) which explains when sewage-related tasks fall under 29 CFR 1910.1030.

Yes, OSHA confirmed that a typical small-capacity power‑ventilated structure used to capture paint overspray and vent it to the outside meets the definition of a spray booth under 29 CFR 1910.107 based on the scenario provided. See the OSHA interpretation "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004) for the specific scenario and reasoning.

Yes, if a structure meets the definition of a spray booth, it is required to have approved automatic sprinklers on the upstream and downstream sides of the filters as specified in 29 CFR 1910.107(b)(5)(iv). The OSHA interpretation confirms this requirement for the scenario presented. See "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004) for details.

Yes, a dry chemical extinguishing system or a carbon dioxide system may be used in place of an automatic sprinkler system if installed to meet OSHA requirements and provide an equivalent level of protection. The interpretation points to the requirements for dry chemical systems in 29 CFR 1910.161 and gaseous agent systems in 29 CFR 1910.162. See "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004) for the explanation.

Paint storage rooms must comply with the flammable and combustible liquids standard, 29 CFR 1910.106, including the specific design and construction requirements for inside storage rooms found at 29 CFR 1910.106(d)(4). The OSHA interpretation directs readers to 1910.106 for ventilation, room size, fire protection, and electrical requirements. See "Spray booth standards inquiry" (August 12, 2004) for the related guidance.