Under 1952.4(a), what is the initial approval date for the Washington State Plan?
The Washington State Plan received initial approval on January 26, 1973. See 1952.4(a) for the recorded approval date.
OSHA 1952.4
Washington State Plan approval
Subpart A
Questions & Answers
Under 1952.4(b), what does the text say about an operational status agreement between OSHA and Washington?
The text states that OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Washington. See 1952.4(b) for the brief statement confirming that agreement.
Under 1952.4(c), which groups of employers and employees does the Washington plan cover?
The Washington plan covers all private-sector employers and employees (with several notable exceptions), and it also covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. See 1952.4(c) for the coverage statement and the link to current details.
Under 1952.4(c), where can I find the current list of exceptions and more details about Washington's State Plan?
For current information on exceptions and additional details about Washington's plan, visit the Washington State Plan page at https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/wa as referenced in 1952.4(c).
Under Part 1952, what is the overall title and purpose of this part?
Part 1952 is titled "Approved State Plans for Enforcement of State Standards," and its purpose is to list and identify OSHA-approved State Plans. See Part 1952 for the part title and scope.
Under 1952.4, does the document record any amendments or Federal Register history for the Washington plan?
Yes. The section records amendment and Federal Register history entries (for example: 39 FR 29182, Aug. 14, 1974; 42 FR 38568, July 29, 1977; 66 FR 6135, Jan. 19, 2001; 80 FR 49905, Aug. 18, 2015). See 1952.4 for the cited regulatory history.
Under 1952.4(c), if my company operates in Washington and I’m unsure whether we fall under a listed exception, what should I do?
You should check the Washington State Plan's current exception list and details on the State Plan page and contact the State Plan if needed. See 1952.4(c) for the direction to the State Plan page at https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/wa.
Under 1952, does Federal OSHA still play a role for Washington after the State Plan was approved?
The entry for Washington in Part 1952 identifies it as an OSHA-approved State Plan for enforcement of State standards, which means the State Plan is the primary enforcement authority for covered employers in Washington. See Part 1952 and 1952.4(c) describing the State Plan coverage; for specific operational arrangements see the State Plan page at https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/wa.
Under the OSHA letter “Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater” (July 30, 2007), do wastewater treatment employees automatically fall under the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030?
No—contact with diluted raw sewage alone does not by itself automatically trigger the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. OSHA's letter explains that 29 CFR 1910.1030 covers occupational exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials (OPIM), and that urine, feces, and other normal components of sewage are not OPIM unless "visibly contaminated with blood." See the OSHA interpretation "Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater" (2007-07-30) and the standard's scope in 29 CFR 1910.1030(a) as discussed in that letter.
Under the July 30, 2007 Letter of Interpretation on wastewater, what employer steps are required to determine if 29 CFR 1910.1030 applies to specific wastewater jobs?
Employers must evaluate all job classifications and tasks to determine whether employees have reasonably anticipated contact with blood or OPIM; if they do, the employer must comply with the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard for those employees. See the OSHA interpretation "Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater" (2007-07-30) which explains employer responsibility and references 29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(2) on evaluating exposure.
Under the OSHA Letter of Interpretation dated August 12, 2004 about spray booths, are automatic sprinklers required for structures that meet the definition of a spray booth?
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, per the letter's interpretation of the spray booth requirements. See the OSHA interpretation "Spray booth standards inquiry" (2004-08-12), which explains the application of the spray booth rules and cites the relevant regulatory provisions.
Under the August 12, 2004 spray booth interpretation, can dry chemical or CO2 systems be used instead of water sprinklers?
Yes—OSHA's letter states that a dry chemical extinguishing system or a carbon dioxide system may be used in place of an automatic sprinkler system if they are installed to meet OSHA requirements and provide equivalent protection. See the OSHA interpretation "Spray booth standards inquiry" (2004-08-12) for details and the referenced standards for dry chemical and gaseous systems.