Minnesota state plan approval

The Minnesota State plan received initial approval on June 8, 1973. See the approval date listed in 1952.8(a).

• This is the official initial-approval date recorded for Minnesota's state plan.

The Minnesota State plan received final approval on July 30, 1985. This final approval date is recorded in 1952.8(b).

• Final approval means the plan met OSHA's criteria at that time for an approved State plan.

The approved compliance staffing benchmarks for Minnesota were 31 safety compliance officers and 12 health compliance officers. These numbers are listed as the revised staffing requirements approved on July 30, 1985 in 1952.8(c).

• These benchmarks were the result of a reassessment completed in September 1984 and later approved after comment.

Staffing benchmarks were established to define the compliance staffing levels necessary for a "fully effective" enforcement program for each State operating an approved State plan. This requirement arose from the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall and is summarized in 1952.8(c).

• The benchmarks set a target number of compliance officers intended to ensure adequate enforcement capacity.

Yes. Minnesota's proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks were subject to opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO before the Assistant Secretary approved them on July 30, 1985, as noted in 1952.8(c).

• The public-comment step was part of the process before final approval of the staffing requirements.

The Assistant Secretary approved Minnesota's revised staffing requirements on July 30, 1985. This approval and date are recorded in 1952.8(c).

• The approval followed the reassessment completed in September 1984 and opportunity for comment.

The Minnesota State plan covers all private-sector employers and employees (with several notable exceptions) and also covers State and local government employers and employees within Minnesota. This scope is stated in 1952.8(d).

• To understand the exceptions and exact coverage details, consult the resources referenced in the same subsection.

Current information on exceptions and additional details about the Minnesota State plan can be found by following the guidance in 1952.8(d), which directs users to the Minnesota State Plan information maintained by OSHA.

• For the most up-to-date specifics about coverage exceptions and program details, see the Minnesota State Plan resources referenced in 1952.8(d).

The 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall required that compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a "fully effective" enforcement program be established for each State operating an approved State plan. This requirement and its application to Minnesota are described in 1952.8(c).

• The court order led to reassessments and the setting of numeric benchmarks for staffing in state plans.

Yes. The Minnesota State plan's reassessed benchmarks include separate targets for safety and health compliance staff: 31 safety compliance officers and 12 health compliance officers, as recorded in 1952.8(c).

• Having separate safety and health staffing figures recognizes the distinct enforcement needs in each area.

Yes. The Minnesota State plan covers State and local government employers and employees as well as private-sector employers and employees (with several exceptions), according to 1952.8(d).

• Employers should check the plan's current details to confirm any exceptions that may apply to specific workplaces.

OSHA Letters of Interpretation, such as the 2007 letter on bloodborne pathogens (see Bloodborne pathogens in wastewater), state OSHA's interpretation of federal standards and can help Minnesota employers understand federal enforcement views; however, whether a letter is binding in Minnesota depends on whether the Minnesota State plan enforces equivalent requirements or issues its own guidance. See the Minnesota plan coverage and directions in 1952.8(d).

• Use OSHA interpretations to inform compliance with federal standards, and confirm with Minnesota's state-plan guidance whether the state enforces identical rules or provides different guidance.