The Architecture of Autonomy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Requirements and Obligations for OSHA-Approved State Plans

Part I: Foundational Framework of OSHA State Plans

The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 established a national framework for workplace safety, primarily enforced by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

However, Section 18 of the Act created a unique pathway for states to assume responsibility for occupational safety and health within their own borders.¹

This provision for “State Plans” was not a mere delegation of authority but the establishment of a complex federal-state partnership governed by specific legal doctrines and structural models.

Understanding these foundations is essential to comprehending the requirements and obligations inherent in operating a state-run program.

A. The “At Least As Effective As” (ALAE) Doctrine: A Floor, Not a Ceiling

The central pillar of the State Plan system is the legal mandate that any state-run program must be “at least as effective as” (ALAE) the federal OSHA program in protecting workers.¹

This principle is the continuous standard against which State Plans are developed, approved, and monitored.

The ALAE doctrine, however, does not demand simple mimicry of federal regulations.

Instead, it establishes federal standards as a protective floor, or a baseline minimum, explicitly permitting states to enact more stringent, expansive, or innovative protections.⁴

This design allows states to be more responsive to local needs, tailoring regulations to address hazards prevalent in specific regional industries, such as agriculture, mining, or manufacturing.⁷

A state may choose to adopt federal standards verbatim, incorporating them by reference into state law.⁹

Alternatively, a state can develop unique standards for hazards that federal OSHA does not regulate, such as workplace violence or ergonomic injuries, or it can set more protective limits for hazards that both regulate, such as by lowering the permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic chemicals.³

This flexibility has allowed certain states, notably California, to become national leaders in occupational safety, pioneering standards that federal OSHA later considers for nationwide adoption.¹¹

The inherent condition is that any deviation from the federal model must result in worker protection that is equal to or greater than the federal standard; a state cannot create a more lenient rule.⁴

To ensure this core principle is upheld, federal OSHA continuously monitors and evaluates all State Plans on an annual basis.¹

The ALAE doctrine thus creates a dynamic and varied regulatory landscape.

It encourages a “race to the top” among proactive states that invest in and prioritize worker safety.

At the same time, it creates a constant tension for states that may struggle to meet even the baseline requirements due to budgetary or political constraints.

The result is not a uniform elevation of safety standards across the country, but a patchwork of protection levels, all tethered to the federal minimum, where the interpretation and application of the ALAE principle become the focal point for debates over state resources and political will.

B. Federal Preemption and the Invitation to State Sovereignty

Under the U.S. Constitution, federal law typically preempts, or overrides, state law in areas where the federal government has chosen to regulate.

The OSH Act is one such area.

However, Section 18 of the Act provides a specific exception to this rule.

It effectively removes the barrier of federal preemption for any state with a federally approved plan, granting that state the sovereign authority to adopt and enforce its own occupational safety and health laws in areas also regulated by OSHA.¹

Without an approved plan, any state attempt to enforce such laws would be legally invalid.

This structure reflects a congressional vision for a cooperative federal-state partnership rather than a federal monopoly on workplace safety.⁷

The system was designed to leverage state resources, local expertise, and proximity to regional workplaces, with federal OSHA providing significant financial support—up to 50% of a plan’s operating costs—and continuous oversight to ensure national standards are M.T.¹

Even with an approved State Plan, federal OSHA’s jurisdiction is not entirely eliminated.

Federal OSHA typically retains direct authority over specific, carved-out areas.

These often include maritime operations (shipyard employment and longshoring), work on federal military bases, federal government employees (including the U.S. Postal Service), and certain activities on tribal lands.⁹

Furthermore, federal OSHA universally retains enforcement authority for the anti-retaliation provisions of the OSH Act (Section 11(c)) with respect to private sector employees, ensuring that workers who report safety concerns are protected from employer reprisal, even in State Plan states.¹⁰

C. Typology of State Plans: Comprehensive vs. Public-Employee-Only

States can choose between two distinct models for their plans, a decision that fundamentally shapes the jurisdictional landscape within the state.⁵

1. Comprehensive “Full” State Plans: These plans are the most common type. They cover the vast majority of workplaces within a state, including nearly all private sector employers and all state and local government employees.² In these jurisdictions, employers and employees interact almost exclusively with the state agency (e.g., Cal/OSHA in California, MIOSHA in Michigan) for safety standards, inspections, and enforcement. As of 2024, there are 22 jurisdictions with comprehensive State Plans.¹
2. Public-Employee-Only Plans: These plans limit their jurisdiction to public sector workplaces, covering employees of state, county, and municipal governments (such as public school staff, police officers, and sanitation workers).²⁰ These workers are a critical group, as they have no safety and health protections under federal OSHA.¹ In states with this model, federal OSHA retains full and direct jurisdiction over all private sector employers and workers.⁵ As of 2024, there are seven jurisdictions with public-employee-only plans.²

The existence of this dual-track system creates significant operational complexity for businesses that operate across multiple states.

A national corporation with facilities in Texas (a federal OSHA state), California (a comprehensive plan state), and New York (a public-only plan state) must simultaneously navigate three distinct regulatory regimes.

Its compliance and legal teams must maintain expertise in federal regulations, Cal/OSHA’s more stringent and unique standards, and the federal regulations that apply to its New York operations.

This fragmentation of authority requires a sophisticated, multi-layered approach to corporate safety policy and risk management, somewhat undercutting the OSH Act’s original goal of nationalizing standards by creating a complex compliance patchwork.³

Plan Type	Jurisdiction
Comprehensive (Private & Public Sector)	Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming
Public Sector Only	Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Virgin Islands

Table 1: Roster of OSHA-Approved State Plans, categorized by jurisdictional coverage.

Data compiled from.¹

Part II: The Path to Approval: A Multi-Stage Process

A state cannot simply declare its intent to run its own OSHA program.

It must undergo a rigorous, multi-year federal approval process designed to ensure that any state assuming this responsibility is fully prepared, legally authorized, and structurally sound.

This process unfolds in four distinct stages, each representing a deeper level of state autonomy and a corresponding withdrawal of direct federal enforcement.

A. Stage 1: The Developmental Plan – Laying the Foundation

The journey begins with the state’s submission of a “developmental plan” to federal OSHA.¹⁴

This document is the formal application and blueprint for the proposed program.

It does not need to be a fully operational program at the outset.

Instead, the state must provide “satisfactory assurances” that it will take all necessary steps to meet federal criteria within a three-year developmental period.¹

The core components of this initial submission are mandated by federal regulation and include ²⁵:

• Legal Authority: The state must demonstrate that it has, or will have, the necessary legal foundation. This typically involves submitting a copy of enacted or proposed legislation, a statement of support from the Governor, and a formal legal opinion from the State Attorney General affirming that the plan is consistent with state law and meets federal requirements.²⁵ This legislation must designate a state agency to run the program and grant it the requisite powers for enforcement and standard-setting.²⁴
• Structural Elements: The plan must outline the proposed administrative structure, including the regulations and procedures for setting standards, conducting inspections, issuing citations, adjudicating contested cases, and protecting worker rights.¹
• Resource Commitment: The state must provide a timetable and plan for hiring and training a “sufficient number of qualified enforcement personnel” to staff the program adequately.¹

B. Stage 2: Certification – Structural Completeness

Once a state has successfully enacted the necessary legislation and put all the required administrative procedures and regulations in place, it becomes eligible for “Certification”.¹

Federal OSHA reviews the state’s documentation to verify that all developmental steps have been completed.

If they have, OSHA formally certifies the plan, an action that is officially announced in the Federal Register.¹⁶

Certification is a critical milestone, but its meaning is precise and limited.

It attests only to the structural completeness of the plan—that is, the state has successfully built the required legal and administrative scaffolding.

Certification renders no judgment on the plan’s actual performance or its effectiveness in practice.¹

C. Stage 3: The Operational Status Agreement (OSA) – The Transfer of Power

At any point after initial approval, once it appears that a State Plan is capable of enforcing standards independently, OSHA may enter into an “Operational Status Agreement” (OSA) with the state.¹

An OSA is a formal bilateral agreement wherein federal OSHA acknowledges the state’s operational capacity and, in turn, commits to suspending most of its discretionary federal enforcement activities in the areas covered by the plan.¹⁶

The signing of an OSA marks the primary transfer of power from the federal government to the state.

From this point forward, the state agency becomes the principal face of occupational safety enforcement for employers and employees.

Federal enforcement becomes the exception, typically reserved for the specific jurisdictional carve-outs or in cases where the state is unable to act effectively.¹⁶

D. Stage 4: Final Approval – Full Autonomy

The ultimate stage in the approval process is “Final Approval” under Section 18(e) of the OSH Act.

A state becomes eligible to seek this status at least one year after it has achieved certification.¹

Unlike certification, which is a structural assessment, Final Approval is a performance-based judgment.

To grant it, federal OSHA must conduct a thorough evaluation of the State Plan’s track record and determine that the program in actual operation is providing worker protection that is at least as effective as federal OSHA.¹

This involves an intensive review of the state’s inspection data, standards, enforcement actions, and overall effectiveness.

Upon receiving Final Approval, OSHA relinquishes its authority for concurrent federal enforcement in the subject areas covered by the plan.¹

The federal role transitions almost entirely to one of monitoring, evaluation, funding, and technical assistance, with the state holding full operational autonomy.

The entire approval pathway is intentionally long and deliberative, forcing states to demonstrate a sustained commitment of political, legal, and financial capital before federal authority is fully ceded.

This graduated process acts as a crucial safeguard, preventing the hasty creation of under-resourced or legally deficient programs.

Stage	Key State Actions	OSHA’s Determination	Resulting Jurisdictional Status
1. Developmental Plan	Submits plan with assurances to meet criteria within 3 years. Enacts legislation, drafts procedures, plans for staffing. 25	Grants “Initial Approval” if assurances are satisfactory. 24	Concurrent federal and state jurisdiction. Federal OSHA enforcement remains active.
2. Certification	Completes all developmental steps (legislation, regulations, procedures are in place). 1	Certifies that the plan is “structurally complete.” 1	Concurrent jurisdiction continues, but state is recognized as having a complete program structure.
3. Operational Status Agreement (OSA)	Demonstrates capacity for independent and effective enforcement. 1	Enters into an agreement to suspend most discretionary federal enforcement. 16	State assumes primary enforcement authority. Federal OSHA enforcement becomes limited/discretionary.
4. Final Approval	Operates an effective program for at least one year post-certification. 1	Determines the plan is “at least as effective” in actual operation. 1	OSHA relinquishes authority for concurrent enforcement. Federal role shifts to monitoring and evaluation. 1

Table 2: The Federal Approval Pathway for State Plans, summarizing the key actions, determinations, and jurisdictional shifts at each stage.

Part III: Core Components and Structural Mandates of a State Plan

To be approved and maintain its status, every State Plan, regardless of its type, must contain a set of non-negotiable programmatic elements.

These core components operationalize the “at least as effective as” doctrine across the essential functions of a modern occupational safety and health system.

A. Standards and Variances

A State Plan must have a robust process for adopting and enforcing safety and health standards.

When federal OSHA issues a new or revised permanent standard, the state is required to adopt a standard that is at least as effective within six months.⁸

For emergency temporary standards, the timeframe is 30 days.²⁶

States have two primary options for meeting this requirement: they can adopt the federal standard identically, often by reference, or they can promulgate their own, more stringent version.¹⁰

A key advantage and defining feature of the State Plan system is the authority to regulate hazards not specifically addressed by federal standards.³

This has led to the creation of innovative and highly protective state-specific rules.

Prominent examples include:

• California’s mandatory Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP), Heat Illness Prevention standard, and Workplace Violence Prevention in Healthcare standard.¹¹
• Washington’s standards for preventing backovers in construction and its more protective hearing conservation standard that covers the construction industry.¹¹
• New Mexico’s unique standard to address workplace violence in convenience stores.²⁸
• Wyoming’s requirement for fire-resistant clothing for oil and gas workers.¹¹

In addition to standards, states must have a system for granting variances.

This allows an employer to use an alternative device, method, or process if it can prove that its proposed alternative provides a workplace that is as safe and healthful as one that complies with the standard.²⁵

B. Enforcement and Adjudication Infrastructure

A plan is meaningless without the power to enforce it.

Therefore, a state must establish a comprehensive enforcement and adjudication system.

This includes:

• Sufficient Resources: The plan must provide for a “sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified personnel” for inspection and enforcement.¹ This requirement, while fundamental, is also one of the most significant challenges for State Plans. It is a subjective benchmark directly linked to state legislative appropriations, making it a point of chronic vulnerability and a primary focus of federal monitoring. A failure to adequately fund and staff the program can lead to a determination that the state is not meeting its ALAE obligations.²⁹
• Inspection Authority: The designated state agency must possess the legal authority to enter and inspect any workplace covered by the plan without delay and at reasonable times.²⁴ The plan must also include procedures for obtaining compulsory process, such as an administrative warrant, if an employer refuses entry.²⁵
• Enforcement Program: The state must operate an active inspection program, with established priorities that mirror the federal model: imminent danger situations receive top priority, followed by investigations of fatalities and catastrophes, and responses to worker complaints and referrals.²¹
• Citations and Penalties: The state agency must have the authority to issue citations detailing alleged violations and to propose monetary penalties.²⁵ While the state’s penalty policies and structures must be judged ALAE, they do not have to be identical to federal OSHA’s.¹ This flexibility can lead to significant differences in enforcement philosophy. For example, some states may emphasize corrective action over punitive fines for certain violations, as Massachusetts has done with its “Written Warning and Order to Correct” approach.²¹ This can create major disparities in deterrence, where a multi-state employer could face a simple warning in one jurisdiction and a substantial fine in another for the same hazard, complicating corporate risk assessment.⁵
• Contest and Review: The state must provide an independent and impartial administrative or judicial review process. Employers must have the right to contest citations, penalties, and abatement periods, and employees must have the right to contest the reasonableness of the abatement period set for a violation.¹

C. Guaranteed Worker Rights and Protections

A State Plan must afford workers the same fundamental rights and protections guaranteed by the federal OSH Act.¹

These are non-negotiable and include:

• The right to file a confidential complaint with the state agency to request an inspection of their workplace.⁴
• The right for an employee representative to accompany the state inspector during the physical inspection of the workplace (the “walkaround right”).²¹
• The right to receive information and training about workplace hazards, prevention methods, and applicable standards, provided in a language and vocabulary they can understand.¹
• The right to access employer-maintained records of work-related injuries and illnesses (e.g., the OSHA 300 Log) and any records of their exposure to toxic substances.¹
• Protection from discrimination or retaliation for exercising any of their safety and health rights.²⁵

D. Mandatory Coverage of Public Sector Employees

A cornerstone requirement of the State Plan program is the mandatory extension of coverage to all state and local government employees.¹

In states that do not have an approved plan, these public servants—including teachers, firefighters, police officers, and public works employees—have no federal OSHA protection.

The State Plan system is the only mechanism under the OSH Act to provide these millions of workers with the legal right to a safe and healthful workplace.

This requirement applies to both comprehensive plans and public-employee-only plans.⁶

E. Voluntary Compliance and Cooperative Programs

Beyond standards and enforcement, states are required to engage in proactive efforts to promote workplace safety.

Every plan must operate occupational safety and health training and education programs for employers and employees.³

Most states also offer free and confidential on-site consultation services, largely funded by OSHA, to help employers—especially small businesses—identify and correct hazards without the threat of citations or penalties.⁹

Many states also run cooperative programs, similar to federal OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) and Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP), to partner with and recognize employers with exemplary safety and health management systems.³¹

Part IV: Ongoing Obligations and Federal Oversight

Approval of a State Plan is not the end of federal involvement; it is the beginning of a continuous cycle of monitoring, evaluation, and reporting that defines the mature federal-state partnership.

This oversight ensures that states continue to meet their ALAE obligations long after initial approval.

A. The Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation (FAME) Process

The primary tool for federal oversight is the Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation (FAME).¹

Each year, the responsible OSHA Regional Office conducts a comprehensive review of the State Plan’s performance and issues a public FAME report.

The purpose of the FAME is threefold:

1. To determine if the State Plan is continuing to operate at a level that is “at least as effective as” federal OSHA.¹
2. To track the state’s progress in achieving the goals laid out in its own strategic and annual performance plans.¹
3. To ensure the state is meeting all of its mandated responsibilities under the OSH Act and relevant regulations.¹

B. Performance Planning and Reporting

The modern oversight system has evolved from a rigid comparison of state-to-federal activity numbers to a more flexible, results-oriented partnership centered on strategic planning.²⁶

• Strategic and Annual Plans: Each state must develop a five-year strategic plan in negotiation with its OSHA Regional Administrator. This plan establishes high-level goals and priorities tailored to the state’s specific conditions. Based on this, the state creates a more detailed annual performance plan that outlines the specific activities, strategies, and performance measures for the upcoming fiscal year.²⁶
• State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR): At the conclusion of each fiscal year, the state must conduct a self-assessment and submit a State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR) to its federal counterparts. This report details the state’s accomplishments, analyzes its performance against the goals in its annual plan, and discusses any challenges encountered.²⁶ The SOAR is a key input for the federal FAME report.
• Quarterly Monitoring: The evaluation process is ongoing, not just a year-end event. State officials and their regional OSHA partners are required to hold formal discussions at least quarterly to review performance data, discuss progress toward goals, address emerging issues, and follow up on corrective actions.²⁶

This shift to a strategic planning model represents a significant evolution in federal oversight.

It allows states the flexibility to customize their programs and innovate while still holding them accountable for achieving measurable results, reflecting a more sophisticated and collaborative model of governance.

C. The Role of State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMMs)

To provide objective data for the evaluation process, OSHA uses a set of key performance indicators known as State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMMs).

These metrics track state performance on core, non-negotiable activities.²⁶

Examples of SAMMs include ²⁶:

• The percentage of fatality/catastrophe investigations initiated within one working day.
• The average number of days to initiate inspections in response to formal complaints.
• The percentage of initial inspections where violations are identified.
• The percentage of federal standards adopted by the state within the mandated timeframe (where the performance standard is 100%).

This data provides a quantitative basis for the quarterly discussions and the annual FAME report, allowing monitors to quickly identify potential performance issues.

D. The Complaints About State Program Administration (CASPA) Process

A critical check on State Plan performance comes directly from stakeholders on the ground.

Any person, including an employee or union representative, who believes a State Plan is failing to fulfill its obligations can file a Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA) with federal OSHA.⁴

OSHA has a formal process for logging, investigating, and resolving these complaints.²⁶

A CASPA might allege, for example, that a state agency failed to respond to a complaint, improperly categorized a violation, or failed to protect a worker’s walkaround rights.

This process serves as a vital, ground-level feedback loop.

A pattern of valid CASPAs can alert federal monitors to systemic problems within a state program that might not be immediately apparent from high-level performance data, triggering deeper investigation and corrective action.

Part V: Challenges, Deficiencies, and the Consequences of Non-Compliance

Despite the structural requirements and ongoing oversight, State Plans face significant operational challenges.

When these challenges lead to performance deficiencies, federal OSHA has a range of responses, from collaborative assistance to the ultimate threat of plan withdrawal.

A. Systemic Challenges: The GAO Findings

Independent audits by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) have consistently identified a core set of challenges that plague many state-run programs.²⁹

These issues are often interconnected and create a cycle of underperformance.

• Staffing Crisis: The most persistent and critical challenge is staffing. States report significant difficulty in recruiting, training, and retaining a sufficient number of qualified safety and health inspectors. Key drivers of this crisis include non-competitive state salaries relative to the private sector, state-imposed hiring freezes, and high turnover rates as experienced inspectors leave for better-paying jobs. The GAO found that in nearly half of the states surveyed, at least 40% of their safety inspectors had fewer than five years of experience.²⁹
• Funding Constraints: The staffing crisis is a direct consequence of constrained state budgets. Inadequate funding from state legislatures directly impacts a plan’s ability to offer competitive salaries, cover travel costs for essential inspector training at the OSHA Training Institute, and maintain the staffing levels needed to meet inspection goals.²⁹ This creates a fundamental structural vulnerability: the effectiveness of a State Plan, a federally mandated program, is almost entirely dependent on the political and financial will of the state government, something over which federal OSHA has no direct control.
• Training Gaps: Even when positions are filled, states struggle to get their inspectors the necessary training. This is due both to a lack of state travel funds and to capacity issues at OSHA’s own national training facilities.²⁹

B. Federal Response to Deficient Plans

When monitoring reveals that a State Plan is failing to perform effectively, OSHA employs a graduated response.

• Enhanced Monitoring and Assistance: The initial response is typically collaborative. OSHA may increase the frequency of its monitoring, provide additional technical assistance and training, or have federal staff accompany state inspectors on inspections to provide on-the-job guidance.²⁹
• Corrective Action Plans: If problems are more serious or persist, OSHA will require the state to develop a formal Corrective Action Plan. This document must identify the root causes of the deficiencies and outline specific steps and timelines for remediation.³⁴
• Resuming Concurrent Enforcement: In cases of significant failure, OSHA holds the authority to resume concurrent federal enforcement in the state. This is a serious step that effectively signals a loss of confidence in the state’s ability to operate independently. This tool was notably threatened during a dispute with Arizona after the state refused to adopt a COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that was binding on other State Plans, with federal OSHA arguing the refusal meant the plan was no longer ALAE.³⁵

C. The “Death Penalty”: Reconsidering or Withdrawing Plan Approval

The most powerful tool in OSHA’s arsenal is the authority to initiate formal proceedings to withdraw approval of a State Plan.³⁰

This is often referred to as the “death penalty” because it would result in the termination of the state program and a full resumption of federal jurisdiction.

The legal threshold for withdrawal is extremely high, requiring a showing that the state “consistently fails to provide effective enforcement” or fails to “comply substantially” with the provisions of its plan.³⁰

This ultimate sanction is so drastic and so legally and politically fraught that it is almost never used.

This reluctance to use the death penalty creates a significant accountability gap.

A state can exhibit serious performance problems for years without triggering this ultimate consequence.²⁹

This lack of effective intermediate enforcement tools—something more forceful than a corrective action plan but less drastic than full withdrawal—is a recognized weakness in the OSH Act’s statutory framework, creating a “too big to fail” dynamic that can allow mediocrity to persist and leave workers in underperforming states with substandard protection.²⁹

Part VI: The State Plan in Practice: Comparative Case Studies

The abstract principles governing State Plans come to life when examining how different states have implemented their programs.

The choices made by states in exercising their autonomy have resulted in a wide spectrum of approaches to worker protection.

A. California (Cal/OSHA): The Pace-Setter

California’s State Plan, administered by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), is widely regarded as the most comprehensive and stringent in the nation.⁴

It serves as a prime example of a state using its authority to go far beyond the federal baseline.

• Injury & Illness Prevention Program (IIPP): Perhaps the most significant difference is that Cal/OSHA mandates nearly every employer to develop and implement a written, effective IIPP.²⁷ This proactive standard requires employers to systematically identify, evaluate, and correct workplace hazards. Federal OSHA only recommends such programs. The IIPP is one of the most frequently cited standards in California, demonstrating its central role in the state’s enforcement philosophy.⁸
• Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs): While federal OSHA’s PELs for most airborne contaminants have remained largely unchanged since 1970, Cal/OSHA has updated its PELs more than 20 times, resulting in far more protective exposure limits for hundreds of hazardous substances.³⁶
• Unique Standards: Cal/OSHA has pioneered numerous standards for which there is no federal counterpart, including groundbreaking regulations for Heat Illness Prevention, Workplace Violence Prevention in Healthcare, and Aerosol Transmissible Diseases.¹¹

B. Michigan (MIOSHA) & Washington (DOSH): Industry-Specific Tailoring

Other states have used their flexibility to tailor standards to their unique economic and industrial profiles.

• Michigan: The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) reflects the state’s heavy manufacturing and construction base. It has established unique standards that differ from or add to federal rules, including its own Bloodborne Infectious Diseases standard and specific requirements for medical services, first aid, and illumination at construction sites.³⁸
• Washington: The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has standards that are more protective than federal OSHA’s in areas critical to the state’s economy, such as logging and construction. It has a hearing conservation standard that, unlike the federal rule, covers construction, and a standard to prevent vehicle backover incidents.¹¹ Like California, Washington also requires employers to have a written safety program, known as an Accident Prevention Program (APP).⁴⁰

C. Massachusetts & New York: The Public-Sector-Only Model

The public-employee-only model creates a bifurcated system of enforcement within a single state.

In Massachusetts, for example, the Workplace Safety and Health Program (WSHP) has jurisdiction only over public employers like municipalities and state agencies.²¹

All private sector employers in Massachusetts remain under the direct authority of federal OSHA.⁵

This leads to different operational realities.

The penalty structure for a public school under the state plan, which historically emphasized warnings before fines, is substantially different from the penalty structure a private construction company across the street would face from federal OSHA for a similar violation.²¹

Standard/Requirement	Federal OSHA	California (Cal/OSHA)	Washington (DOSH)	Minnesota (MNOSHA)
Written Safety Program	Recommended (Safety & Health Program Management Guidelines) 41	Mandatory: Injury & Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) required for nearly all employers. 27	Mandatory: Accident Prevention Program (APP) required. 40	Mandatory: A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction (AWAIR) program required for employers in designated high-hazard industries. 42
Heat Illness Prevention	No specific standard; enforced under the General Duty Clause. 36	Specific, detailed standard with requirements for water, shade, rest, and training that trigger at specific temperatures. 11	Specific standard with requirements for water, shade, training, and monitoring. 11	No specific heat illness standard mentioned.
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)	Primarily based on 1970s scientific data for most chemicals. 36	Maintains its own list of PELs, updated over 20 times to be more protective than federal OSHA’s. 36	Has adopted some PELs more protective than federal OSHA’s.	Enforces the more protective 1989 federal PELs that federal OSHA later rescinded. 42
Fall Protection (Residential Construction)	Required at heights of 6 feet or more. 11	Aligns with federal 6-foot requirement.	Aligns with federal 6-foot requirement.	Aligns with federal 6-foot requirement.
Recordkeeping (Small Employer Exemption)	Employers with 10 or fewer employees are generally exempt from keeping OSHA 300 logs. 6	Aligns with federal 10-or-fewer employee exemption.	Aligns with federal 10-or-fewer employee exemption.	All employers with more than 10 employees must comply, regardless of industry classification. 42

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Select State vs. Federal Standards, illustrating how State Plans can be more stringent or have unique requirements.

Part VII: Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The OSHA State Plan system, born from a desire to foster a federal-state partnership, represents a complex and evolving experiment in regulatory federalism.

It is a system defined by a foundational tension between the OSH Act’s goal of nationalizing workplace safety standards and its simultaneous invitation for states to innovate and exercise local autonomy.

The analysis shows that the system has achieved notable successes, primarily by extending mandatory safety and health protections to millions of public sector employees who would otherwise have none and by serving as a laboratory where progressive states can pioneer new and more effective protective standards.

However, the system’s effectiveness is profoundly variable, contingent on the unpredictable currents of state-level political will and financial capacity.

The chronic challenges of inadequate funding and staffing, documented extensively by the GAO, represent a structural weakness that can lead to a “patchwork of protection,” where the safety of a worker is dependent on their geographic location.

Federal OSHA’s oversight mechanisms, while sophisticated, are often reactive, and its most powerful enforcement tool—plan withdrawal—is too blunt an instrument for practical use in most cases of underperformance.

A. Strategic Recommendations

Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following strategic recommendations are offered to key stakeholders:

• For State Officials Contemplating a Plan: The decision to pursue a State Plan must be viewed as a long-term, generational commitment, not a short-term political or financial calculation. Prospective states must secure broad, bipartisan legislative support for sustained funding and competitive salaries for technical staff. The initial legal and administrative setup is the easiest part of the journey; maintaining a fully funded, adequately staffed, and effective program over decades is the real challenge.
• For Existing State Plans: State Plan leaders should engage in proactive and transparent collaboration with their federal OSHA regional partners. This includes using the state’s own internal evaluation programs to continuously self-assess performance and identify deficiencies before they become critical findings in a federal FAME report. States should view the annual planning and quarterly review processes not as bureaucratic hurdles, but as opportunities to demonstrate effectiveness and secure ongoing federal support.
• For Federal OSHA: The agency, in concert with Congress, should explore the development of more flexible, intermediate enforcement mechanisms. These could include the authority to temporarily resume concurrent federal enforcement in specific, problematic sectors of a state’s jurisdiction without having to initiate the “death penalty” of full plan withdrawal. Furthermore, as recommended by the GAO, OSHA should systematically document and analyze the lessons learned from its interventions in struggling states to build a more effective and consistent institutional response to future challenges.²⁹
• For Multi-State Employers: Compliance in the modern regulatory landscape requires a flexible, tiered approach. Corporations should establish federal OSHA standards as the universal, non-negotiable safety baseline for all U.S. operations. Layered on top of this, they must implement a robust system for identifying and adhering to the more stringent requirements applicable in each State Plan jurisdiction. This requires dedicated legal and safety resources with state-specific expertise to manage the significant compliance variations in standards, training, and reporting.

Works cited

1. State Plan Frequently Asked Questions | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/faqs
2. State Plans | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans
3. OSHA-Approved State Plans: How They’re Different | Wolters Kluwer, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/oshaapproved-state-plans-how-theyre-different
4. A Complete Overview of OSHA’s State-Specific Plans, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.oshaeducationcenter.com/osha-state-plans/
5. Understanding the Difference between Federal OSHA and State Plans – Nelson Mullins, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.nelsonmullins.com/insights/blogs/the-hr-minute/osha/understanding-the-difference-between-federal-osha-and-state-plans
6. OSHA Regulations – State Vs. Federal – JJ Safety, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://jjsafetyllc.com/safety/osha-regulations-state-vs-federal/
7. The Difference Between Federal and State OSHA – Blog – BHS Industrial Equipment, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://na.bhs1.com/blog/post/the-difference-between-federal-and-state-osha
8. OSHA Federal Regulations vs. Individual State Plans | e-Training Inc., accessed on August 10, 2025, https://etraintoday.com/blog/osha-federal-regulations-vs-individual-state-plans/
9. Maryland State Plan | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/md
10. Washington State Plan | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/wa
11. The State of State OSH Plans – LHSFNA, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://lhsfna.org/the-state-of-state-osh-plans/
12. 1953.3 – General policies and procedures. | Occupational Safety and Health Administration – OSHA, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1953/1953.3
13. All About OSHA, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3302.pdf
14. State OSHA Programs, Establishment and Advantages – Rigid Lifelines, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.rigidlifelines.com/blog/state-osha-programs-establishment-and-advantages/
15. Oregon State Plan | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/or
16. Michigan State Plan | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/mi
17. California State Plan | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/ca
18. OSHA Offices by State | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/contactus/bystate
19. How Many States Have Their Own OSHA Plans? | OshaEducationCenter.com, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.oshaeducationcenter.com/state-specific-osha/
20. Maine State Plan | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/me
21. Learn about the Massachusetts State Plan | Mass.gov, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/learn-about-the-massachusetts-state-plan
22. A Closer Look at the Massachusetts State Plan. – United Alliance Services, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://unitedallianceservices.com/massachusetts-state-plan/
23. OSHA FAQs: Approved State Plans – Veritas Risk Management & Insurance Services Blog, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://education.veritasrm.com/osha-faqs-approved-state-plans-1
24. Massachusetts State Plan for State and Local Government Employers; Initial Approval Determination – Federal Register, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/18/2022-17803/massachusetts-state-plan-for-state-and-local-government-employers-initial-approval-determination
25. Outline for the Submission and Review of State Plans | Occupational …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/planoutline
26. State Plan Policies and Procedures Manual | Occupational Safety …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/csp-01-00-002
27. Does CAL OSHA Supersede Federal OSHA? What Power Does CAL OSHA Have? – Hard Hat Training, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.hardhattraining.com/does-cal-osha-supercede-federal-osha-what-power-does-cal-osha-have/
28. New Mexico State Plan | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/stateplans/nm
29. Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA Can Better Respond to State …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-320
30. Union Demands that OSHA Revoke Failing South Carolina OSHA Program – Power At Work, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://poweratwork.us/union-petition-osha-south-carolina
31. Process and Benefits | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/smallbusiness/program-info
32. OSHA Challenge | Occupational Safety and Health Administration, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/vpp/challenge
33. GAO-13-320, WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH: OSHA Can Better Respond to State-Run Programs Facing Challenges, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-320.pdf
34. State Plan Poliies and Procedures Manual – OSHA, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CSP_01-00-004_1.pdf
35. Arizona Gets to Keep Its State-Operated Workplace Safety and Health Program – Ogletree, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/arizona-gets-to-keep-its-state-operated-workplace-safety-and-health-program/
36. Differences Between OSHA and Cal OSHA: What is Cal OSHA? – 360 Training, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.360training.com/blog/cal-osha
37. Cal/OSHA vs. Federal OSHA – NES – NES, Inc., accessed on August 10, 2025, https://nes-ehs.com/ehs-compliance/cal-osha-vs-federal-osha/
38. Michigan Difference – Three Sixty Safety, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://threesixtysafety.com/about-us/michigan-difference/
39. OSHA Enforcement: A Guide to Federal OSHA and State OSH Programs – AHCA/NCAL, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.ahcancal.org/News-and-Communications/Blog/Pages/OSHA-Enforcement-A-Guide-to-Federal-OSHA-and-State-OSH-Programs.aspx
40. OSHA vs. WISHA for Dental Offices: What’s the Difference? – Gamma Compliance Solutions, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.gammacompliance.com/compliance101/osha-vs-wisha-for-dental-offices-whats-the-difference
41. OSHA approved state plans (State-plan-states) – J. J. Keller® Compliance Network, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://jjkellercompliancenetwork.com/regsense/osha-approved-state-plans-state-plan-states
42. MNOSHA Compliance: Differences between Minnesota and federal OSHA, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.dli.mn.gov/business/workplace-safety-and-health/mnosha-compliance-differences-between-minnesota-and-federal