Iowa state plan approval

The Iowa State plan received initial approval on July 20, 1973. See the statement in 1952.6(a).

The Iowa State plan received final approval on July 2, 1985. This date is shown in 1952.6(b).

The approved compliance staffing benchmarks were 16 safety compliance officers and 13 health compliance officers. These revised benchmarks and their effective date are stated in 1952.6(c).

Staffing benchmarks were required because a 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall required each State operating an approved State plan to establish compliance staffing levels necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program. This requirement and its implementation for Iowa are described in 1952.6(c).

The Iowa 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. For this coverage statement see 1952.6(d).

For current information on exceptions and additional details about the Iowa plan, you should consult the Iowa State Plan information referenced in 1952.6(d). The regulation points users to the State Plan resources for the most up‑to‑date exceptions and plan details.

The revised benchmarks were developed after a reassessment (completed in September 1984) done by Iowa in conjunction with OSHA, were proposed publicly, were provided for comment and service on the AFL‑CIO, and were then approved by the Assistant Secretary effective July 2, 1985. This process is summarized in 1952.6(c).

OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens Standard applies only where there is occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) or where such exposure is reasonably anticipated; it does not generally apply simply because an employee works with diluted raw sewage. See the explanation in the Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater letter of interpretation (July 30, 2007). The letter notes:

• Employers must evaluate job classifications and tasks to determine whether workers are reasonably anticipated to contact blood or OPIM.
• Examples of covered tasks include first aid duties involving blood and handling used hypodermic needles.

For the interpretation and examples, see https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2007-07-30.

Employers must offer the hepatitis B vaccination to employees who have occupational exposure to blood or OPIM or who are reasonably anticipated to have such exposure (for example, employees designated to provide first aid or to handle used hypodermic needles). This requirement and the examples are explained in the Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater letter of interpretation (July 30, 2007). Employers are responsible for evaluating tasks and job classifications to determine who is covered under 29 CFR 1910.1030, as described in that interpretation.

No, employees who only handle diluted raw sewage that does not originate from a health care facility and is not visibly contaminated with blood are generally not covered by the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard; coverage is triggered by the presence or reasonably anticipated presence of blood or OPIM. See the Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater letter of interpretation (July 30, 2007) which explains that urine, feces, and similar components are not OPIM unless visibly contaminated with blood.

Yes, a small-capacity power‑ventilated structure used for paint spraying can meet the OSHA definition of a spray booth if it fits the defining features in the standard; OSHA confirmed this in the Spray booth standards inquiry letter of interpretation (Aug. 12, 2004). The letter examined a specific scenario and concluded the structure was a spray booth under the applicable OSHA provisions discussed in the interpretation.

Yes, if a structure meets the definition of a spray booth, it is required to be equipped with approved automatic sprinklers on the upstream and downstream sides of the filters, as confirmed in the Spray booth standards inquiry letter of interpretation (Aug. 12, 2004). The letter specifically addresses sprinkler requirements for the scenario it reviewed.

Yes, a properly installed dry chemical extinguishing system or a carbon dioxide system that meets OSHA requirements may be used in place of an automatic sprinkler system for spray booths, as stated in the Spray booth standards inquiry letter of interpretation (Aug. 12, 2004). The letter notes applicable OSHA requirements for alternative extinguishing systems.

Paint and flammable materials stored for spray operations must meet the requirements of the flammable and combustible liquids standard (29 CFR 1910.106), including design and construction rules for inside storage rooms; this guidance is given in the Spray booth standards inquiry letter of interpretation (Aug. 12, 2004). The letter points readers to 1910.106 for specifics on room size, ventilation, fire protection, and electrical equipment.