WORKPLACE 

SAFETY AND 

HEALTH

OSHA Can Better 

Respond to State-Run 

Programs Facing 

Challenges

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2013

GAO-13-320

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-320, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2013

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

OSHA Can Better Respond to State-Run Programs 

Facing Challenges 

Why GAO Did This Study

OSHA is generally responsible for 

setting and enforcing occupational 

safety and health standards in the 

nation’s workplaces. OSHA carries out 

enforcement directly in 34 states and 

territories, while the remaining 22 have 

chosen to administer their own 

enforcement programs (referred to as 

state-run programs) under plans 

approved by OSHA. GAO was asked 

to review issues related to state-run 

programs. This report examines (1) 

what challenges states face in 

administering their safety and health 

programs, and (2) how OSHA 

responds to state-run programs with 

performance issues. GAO reviewed 

relevant federal laws, regulations and 

OSHA policies; conducted a survey of 

22 state-run programs; and interviewed 

officials in OSHA’s national office, all 

10 OSHA regions, and from a 

nongeneralizable sample of 5 state-run 

programs; and interviewed labor and 

business associations and safety and 

health experts.

What GAO Recommends

Congress should consider giving

OSHA a mechanism to expedite 

assistance to states experiencing 

challenges. In addition, OSHA should 

take a number of actions, including 

facilitating access to training; 

establishing time frames for resuming 

enforcement if states do not address 

challenges in a timely manner; and 

documenting lessons from its past 

experiences in resuming federal 

enforcement of state-run programs. In 

response, OSHA agreed with the 

recommendations and said it will 

explore ways to implement them.

What GAO Found

State-run programs face several challenges that primarily relate to staffing, and 

include having constrained budgets, according to OSHA and state officials. 

States have difficulty filling vacant inspector positions, obtaining training for 

inspectors, and retaining qualified inspectors. Recruiting inspectors is difficult due 

to the shortage of qualified candidates, relatively low state salaries, and hiring

freezes. Although OSHA has taken steps to make its courses more accessible to 

states, obtaining inspector training continues to be difficult. According to an 

agency official, OSHA’s Training Institute faces several challenges in delivering 

training, including recruiting and retaining instructors, difficulty accommodating 

the demand for training, and limitations in taking some courses to the field due to 

the need for special equipment and facilities. These challenges are further 

exacerbated by states’ lack of travel funds, which limit state inspectors’ access to 

OSHA training. Retaining qualified inspectors is another challenge among states. 

Officials noted that, once state inspectors are trained, they often leave for higher 

paying positions in the private sector or federal government. GAO’s survey of the 

22 state-run programs that cover private and public sector workplaces showed 

that turnover was more prevalent among safety inspectors than health 

inspectors. Nearly half of these states reported that at least 40 percent of their 

safety inspectors had fewer than 5 years of service. In contrast, half of the states 

reported that at least 40 percent of their health inspectors had more than 10 

years of service. These staffing challenges have limited the capacity of some 

state-run programs to meet their inspection goals.

OSHA has responded in a variety of ways to state-run programs with 

performance issues. These include closely monitoring and assisting such states, 

such as accompanying state staff during inspections and providing additional 

training on how to document inspections. OSHA has also drawn attention to poor 

state performance by communicating its concerns to the governor and other 

high-level state officials. In addition, OSHA has shared enforcement 

responsibilities with struggling states or, as a last resort, has resumed sole

responsibility for federal enforcement when a state has voluntarily withdrawn its 

program. Although OSHA evaluates state-run programs during its annual 

reviews, GAO found that OSHA does not hold states accountable for addressing 

issues in a timely manner or establish time frames for when to resume federal 

enforcement when necessary. In addition, the current statutory framework may

not permit OSHA to quickly resume concurrent enforcement authority with the 

state when a state is struggling with performance issues. As a result, a state’s 

performance problems can continue for years. OSHA officials acknowledged the 

need for a mechanism that allows them to intervene more quickly in such 

circumstances. GAO also noted that OSHA does not compile lessons learned 

from its past experiences when it has resumed federal enforcement in a state. 

This prevents the agency from building on previous experiences in responding to 

future situations. 

View GAO-13-320. For more information, 

contact Revae Moran at (202) 512-7215 or 

moranr@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Letter 1 

Background 3

The Primary Challenges Affecting States’ Ability to Administer 

Their Occupational Safety and Health Programs Relate to 

Staffing 9

OSHA Has Responded in Various Ways to States with Performance 

Issues, but It Lacks an Established Time Frame for Resuming 

Federal Enforcement When Needed 18

Conclusions 26

Matter for Congressional Consideration 27

Recommendations for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28

Appendix I GAO Survey of the State-Run Programs 30

Appendix II Staffing Levels for State Safety and Health Inspectors, 

Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 35

Appendix III Salary Ranges for Federal and State Safety and Health 

Inspectors, 2012 36

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Labor 37

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 39

Related GAO Products 40

Figure

Figure 1: Map Showing Whether OSHA or the State Provides 

Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement, Fiscal Year 

2012 5

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Abbreviations

FAME Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation 

OSH Act Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OTI OSHA Training Institute

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 16, 2013

The Honorable George Miller

Ranking Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Joe Courtney

House of Representatives

States are facing severe budget constraints that have jeopardized their 

ability to effectively administer state-run occupational safety and health 

programs. In addition, from January 2008 through June 2009, Nevada 

experienced 25 workplace fatalities, raising concerns about the way 

Nevada and other states with their own state-run safety and health 

programs administer them. The Department of Labor’s Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is generally responsible for 

setting and enforcing employer compliance with occupational safety and 

health standards in the nation’s workplaces under the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act).1 The OSH Act also permits 

states to assume responsibility for setting and enforcing their own safety 

and health standards by submitting a state plan to OSHA for approval.2

Currently, 22 states have chosen to administer their own OSHA-approved 

occupational safety and health programs that cover workers in the private 

sector as well as workers in the state and local public sector.3 The other 

states rely on OSHA to enforce compliance with federal safety and health 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 553, 651-78. 

2

Although OSHA refers to states with approved state plans as “state-plan states,” in this 

report we refer to them as “state-run programs.” Under the OSH Act, “state” is defined to 

include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, 

and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. See 29 U.S.C. § 652(7).

3

Although the OSH Act does not apply to state and local public sector employers, states 

that operate a state-run program are required to cover state and local public sector 

workers. Five additional states (Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the 

Virgin Islands) have OSHA-approved programs that cover state and local public sector 

workers only; OSHA provides enforcement for the private sector in these states. Our 

report does not include these states because their programs are not comparable to those 

of the other state-run programs.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

standards, which apply to employees in the private sector, but not those 

in the state and local public sectors.

Under the OSH Act, OSHA is required to monitor state-run programs and 

withdraw approval of a state’s program if it finds that the state has failed 

to comply substantially with any provision of its state plan, including those 

required by the federal statute and regulations.4 A state may voluntarily 

withdraw its program for any reason, such as lack of political support. 

However, a state’s inability to effectively operate its program can create 

gaps in protection for workers in the state and place a burden on OSHA if 

federal intervention is required. In response to your request that we 

review worker protection in states that face challenges administering their 

own safety and health programs, this report examines (1) challenges 

states face in administering their safety and health programs, and (2) how 

OSHA responds to state-run programs with performance issues.

To address our objectives, we reviewed applicable federal laws and 

regulations and OSHA policies related to the administration of state-run 

programs. We interviewed officials from OSHA’s national office and all 10 

OSHA regional offices about how the agency monitors selected aspects 

of state-run programs and responds to states’ performance issues and 

how OSHA prepares for potential state-run program withdrawals. We 

reviewed the 22 state-run programs that cover both private sector and 

state and local public sector workers. To better understand the challenges 

faced by states, we interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable sample 

of five states selected to illustrate a range of program performance: 

California, Hawaii, Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington. We 

interviewed state officials in person in California, Hawaii, Nevada, and 

Washington, and by phone in South Carolina. To gather the perspectives 

of OSHA regional officials, we visited two regional offices and two area 

offices—Region 9 in San Francisco and the region’s area offices in 

Honolulu and in Las Vegas, and Region 10 in Seattle. We visited Region 

9 because it oversees three of the states we selected for review—

California, Hawaii, and Nevada—and Region 10 because it oversees one 

of the states we selected—Washington. We also interviewed regional 

administrators and other managers in the remaining eight regional offices 

by phone. In addition, we discussed state-run programs with 

representatives of labor and business organizations; the Occupational 

 

4

29 U.S.C. § 667(f). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Safety and Health State Plan Association, which represents the interests 

of states with state-run programs; and academic experts in safety and 

health.5

To gather additional information about the states with state-run programs 

that cover both private sector and state and local public sector workers, 

we surveyed state officials in the 22 states with these programs and 

obtained responses from all of them. We requested information about 

their sources of state funding, state occupational safety and health 

standards, the experience levels of their inspectors, and the perceived 

likelihood of the withdrawal of their state plan in the near future. See 

appendix I for more information on our survey of the state-run programs.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to April 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The OSH Act was enacted to ensure safe and healthful working 

conditions, in part by providing for the adoption and enforcement of 

federal occupational safety and health standards and by assisting and 

encouraging states to adopt programs of their own. OSHA develops and 

enforces federal safety and health standards under the OSH Act. In 

addition, OSHA reviews, approves, and evaluates the plans and 

operations of states that have chosen to operate their own occupational 

safety and health programs.6 According to OSHA, benefits of state-run 

occupational safety and health programs include coverage of state and 

 

5

We selected organizations, academic experts, and stakeholders for interviews based on 

the recommendations of OSHA officials and other experts versed in OSHA and labor 

issues. 

6

To receive initial approval, state plans must meet certain criteria specified in the OSH Act 

and OSHA’s regulations. Once OSHA has determined that the operations of a state-run 

program meet the requirements of the OSH Act, including the development and 

enforcement of state standards that are at least as effective as the federal standards, it 

may grant the state final approval and exclusive enforcement authority. See generally 29 

U.S.C. § 667, 29 C.F.R. pts. 1902, 1952, and 1956. 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

local public sector workplaces, the resources provided by states to 

supplement federal resources, familiarity with local working conditions 

and industries, and the innovative approaches states can provide.

State-run programs vary in their scope of coverage and division of 

enforcement authority between OSHA and the state. A state-run program 

may define its scope of coverage according to the type of workplace or 

worker, within certain limits. For example, a state may exclude private

contractors on military bases. However, all state-run programs are 

required to cover state and local government (public sector) workers in 

the state. Figure 1 shows the states without a state-run program, for 

which OSHA provides enforcement for private sector workplaces; the 

states with state-run programs that cover only the public sector, for which 

OSHA provides enforcement for private sector workplaces; and the 22 

states we reviewed with state-run programs that cover both private and 

public sector workplaces.7

 

7

As noted previously, the OSH Act defines “state” to include Puerto Rico, the Virgin 

Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, so the 22 

state-run state programs we reviewed include those in 21 states and Puerto Rico.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Figure 1: Map Showing Whether OSHA or the State Provides Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2012

Note: In all states, OSHA generally has authority to conduct safety and health inspections of federal 

agencies. With some exceptions, federal agencies are generally responsible for maintaining their own 

occupational safety and health programs, consistent with OSHA’s regulations.

The OSH Act requires that state-run programs provide for the 

development and enforcement of safety and health standards that are “at 

least as effective” in providing safe and healthful employment as the 

Selected Requirements of 

State-Run Programs

Occupational Safety and Health 

Standards
 

Page 6 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

federal standards.8 States may adopt standards that are identical to 

OSHA’s, or that are different from, but determined by OSHA to be at least 

as effective as, OSHA’s standards. This may include state standards that 

are more stringent or that address hazards not covered by federal 

standards. Seventeen of the 22 state-run programs we surveyed reported 

that they had established state standards that are substantively different 

from OSHA’s standards or that cover hazards for which there are no 

corresponding federal standards. (See the responses to survey question 

4 in app. I for information on state standards reported by state-run 

programs.)

The OSH Act and OSHA regulations require state-run programs to 

employ a sufficient number of qualified and adequately trained personnel 

necessary for the enforcement of safety and health standards.9 Personnel 

who enforce occupational safety and health standards include safety 

officers (hereafter referred to as safety inspectors) and industrial 

hygienists (hereafter referred to as health inspectors). (See app. II for 

information on staffing levels for state safety and health inspectors.)

Enforcement activities include inspecting worksites, typically on a 

schedule that reflects the relative risks among industries, testing 

workplace conditions such as occupational noise and air quality, 

documenting workplace hazards, investigating accidents and complaints, 

and issuing citations and penalties for violations. OSHA’s Directorate of 

Training and Education administers OSHA’s national training and 

education policies and procedures. One of OSHA’s directives details the 

training program for federal safety and health inspectors and requires 

state-run programs to establish their own training programs for their 

safety and health inspectors that are at least as effective as OSHA’s 

training program.

10 OSHA officials told us that all states, including those 

that have developed their own training programs, may also avail 

themselves of training courses offered by the OSHA Training Institute 

(OTI). OTI, the agency’s national training center near Chicago, conducts 

training courses for both federal and state safety and health inspectors. 

Officials from several states told us that their state-run programs train 

 

8

29 U.S.C. § 667(c)(2). OSHA’s regulations further specify various “indices of 

effectiveness” that OSHA will use in making this determination. 29 C.F.R. § 1902.4.

9

29 U.S.C. § 667(c)(4), 29 C.F.R. §§ 1902.3(h), 1956.10(g).

10OSHA, “Initial Training Program for OSHA Personnel”, Directive number 01-00-018 

(August 6, 2008).

Staffing and Training
 

Page 7 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

their inspectors through a combination of courses taught in-house and by 

OSHA at OTI.11 In addition, OTI’s Education Centers—a network of nonprofit organizations throughout the mainland United States and in Puerto 

Rico—deliver occupational safety and health training to state and local 

public and private sector workers, supervisors, and employers. These 

Education Centers rely on tuition, rather than financial assistance from 

OSHA, to fund their training, according to an OTI official.

The OSH Act also requires each state-run program to provide adequate 

funds for the administration and enforcement of the state’s occupational 

safety and health program.12 (See states’ responses to survey question 1 

in app. I for information on sources of state funds.) The size and cost of 

state-run programs vary. When a state initially submits its plan to OSHA 

for approval, OSHA reviews the state’s proposed budget to ensure it is 

reasonable and complete. The budget forms the baseline funding level for 

that state, according to OSHA officials. Subsequently, each state-run 

program applies annually to OSHA for federal grant funds of up to 50 

percent of this baseline amount, which is subject to the availability of 

appropriated funds. The state must match the federal grant funds 

received.13

OSHA approves the state plans and reviews the operations of state-run 

safety and health programs. The first step in the process, initial approval, 

begins by obtaining OSHA approval for a developmental plan whereby a 

state must assure OSHA that, within 3 years, it will have in place the 

necessary elements for an effective occupational safety and health 

program. Once a state has completed and documented all of its 

developmental steps, it is eligible for certification whereby OSHA attests 

to the structural completeness of the plan. At least 1 year following 

certification, during which OSHA monitors the program’s operations, the 

 

11OSHA officials stated that training for state-run program staff is provided at no charge at 

OTI.

1229 U.S.C. § 667(c)(5). 

13Section 23(g) of the OSH Act authorizes grants to states to assist them in administering 

and enforcing their state-run programs. The federal share may not exceed 50 percent of 

the costs of the state-run program. 29 U.S.C. § 672(g). Some states may choose to 

provide additional state funding beyond the amount they provide to match the federal 

grant. 

Funding

Approval of State-Run 

Programs
 

Page 8 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

state may become eligible for final approval. For at least the first 3 years 

after initial approval, OSHA retains discretionary enforcement authority 

and may enforce federal standards to the extent necessary to assure 

occupational safety and health. OSHA may grant a state-run program 

final approval if it determines, on the basis of actual operations, that the 

program meets the criteria specified in the OSH Act and OSHA’s 

regulations. By granting a state plan final approval, OSHA relinquishes 

exclusive enforcement authority to the state in areas covered by the 

plan.14 Currently, 15 of the 22 states’ programs have been granted final 

approval by OSHA, while the agency has granted the remaining 7 states’ 

programs initial approval.

OSHA may withdraw approval of a state-run program entirely and resume 

sole enforcement responsibility if the state fails to comply substantially 

with the provisions of its plan.15 In state-run programs with initial approval 

status, OSHA retains concurrent enforcement authority and may directly 

enforce federal safety and health standards in those states.16 However, 

before OSHA can reassume concurrent enforcement authority in a staterun program with final approval status, the program must be returned to 

initial approval status, either by the state voluntarily giving up its final 

approval status, or by OSHA revoking final approval of the state’s plan.17

State-run occupational safety and health programs are monitored by 

OSHA’s national office, its 10 regional offices and the regions’ area 

offices. In the national office, the Directorate of Cooperative and State 

 

1429 U.S.C. § 667(e).

15In addition to determining that a state has failed to comply substantially with its plan, 

OSHA must also follow certain notice and hearing procedures in order to entirely withdraw 

approval of a state-run program. 29 U.S.C. § 667(f), 29 C.F.R. pt. 1955. 

16OSHA may enter into an operational status agreement with states that have initial 

approval, in which OSHA agrees to suspend the exercise of some or all of its concurrent 

enforcement authority. Such an agreement may need to be modified before OSHA 

resumes enforcement. 

17When a state-run program is granted final approval status, OSHA’s enforcement 

authority is statutorily suspended and OSHA has no authority to conduct enforcement in 

areas covered by the state plan. Withdrawing final approval and returning the state to 

initial approval status reinstates concurrent federal enforcement authority. OSHA’s 

regulations require certain notice and hearing procedures to withdraw a state’s final 

approval status. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1902.47-1902.53. 

Monitoring of State-Run 

Programs
 

Page 9 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Programs oversees the grants provided to state-run programs. OSHA 

regional and area offices work directly with states to set inspection goals, 

taking into account staffing and funding levels in each state. The regional 

and area officials review state-run program performance reports and meet 

with state officials to monitor their progress toward meeting their 

inspection goals. OSHA’s regions also conduct reviews of each state-run 

program called Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation (FAME) reviews. 

These reviews cover several areas related to state performance, such as 

inspections and staffing, and can also include on-site case file reviews of 

the state program.18 OSHA’s Directorate of Cooperative and State 

Programs examines the results of the FAME reviews and other reports on 

mandated state activities, according to OSHA officials.

Regional and area officials also meet quarterly with state managers to 

review states’ performance. During these quarterly meetings, OSHA 

regional and area officials review several types of reports that compare a 

state’s progress across multiple performance measures with federal and 

national data for the same period. OSHA officials told us that the national 

office stays in contact with the regions through regularly scheduled 

meetings and other contacts, as needed, to discuss any state program 

issues. Regions generally elevate any issues to the national level, as 

needed. For example, regional officials will contact the national office 

about early warning signs of a challenged state program, such as 

decreases in staffing levels or not meeting performance goals.

States face several challenges that affect their ability to adequately staff 

their state-run occupational safety and health programs, including finding 

staff to fill vacant inspector positions, retaining qualified inspectors, and 

obtaining necessary training for their inspectors. The budget shortfalls 

that many of the states face and their human resource policies can 

contribute to these staffing challenges, which have also limited some 

states’ ability to meet their inspection goals.

 

18For more information on OSHA’s monitoring activities, see GAO, Workplace Safety and 

Health: Further Steps by OSHA Would Enhance Monitoring of Enforcement and 

Effectiveness, GAO-13-61 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2013). 

The Primary 

Challenges Affecting 

States’ Ability to 

Administer Their 

Occupational Safety 

and Health Programs 

Relate to Staffing
 

Page 10 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

According to officials from OSHA’s national office, four regional offices, 

and several state-run programs, filling vacant inspector positions is a key 

challenge for states due, in part, to the shortage of job candidates with 

the necessary qualifications such as a bachelor’s degree, technical 

expertise, and a sufficient level of experience to independently carry out 

inspections. OSHA officials in Region 4 said state-run program officials in 

their region prefer to hire health inspectors with a health-related 

bachelor’s degree, preferably in chemistry or biology, although such a 

degree is not required. Officials with California’s state-run program said it 

can be difficult to recruit candidates with expertise in fast growing 

industries such as biotechnology—a specialty that would be particularly 

helpful for a growing number of worksites—or candidates with fluency in 

more than one language. In addition, the administrator of Hawaii’s staterun program said that, when the program needed to hire 13 inspectors in 

2012, too few applicants with the desired level of experience applied; 

consequently, the job announcement was modified to consider applicants 

with no prior experience.

Filling vacant inspector positions is also difficult due to relatively low state 

salaries and limited opportunity for salary increases. Officials from staterun programs told us that state salaries for inspectors are generally lower 

compared to those offered by the private sector or federal government, 

even though a 1980 OSHA report on state-run program requirements 

stated that salary levels for state inspectors should be competitive 

enough to attract and maintain a fully qualified inspection staff.19 (See 

app. III for salary ranges for federal and state safety and health 

inspectors.) The starting point of the salary scale for entry level staff 

averaged $39,724 in 2012 for safety inspectors in all state-run 

programs.20 OSHA officials said that, in contrast, federal inspectors are 

typically hired at the midpoint of the salary scale, which ranged from 

$38,511 to $47,103 in 2012. Officials from Nevada’s state-run program 

said that some applicants turned down employment interviews with the 

state after learning the starting salary. In addition, 6 of the 22 states we 

reviewed (Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Vermont, and 

 

19Report to the Court, AFL-CIO v. Marshall, No. 74-406, 1980 WL 29284 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 

1980). OSHA prepared this report in response to a federal court order directing OSHA to 

define staffing and funding levels necessary for a fully effective state-run program. See 

AFL-CIO v. Marshall, 570 F.2d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

20Based on OSHA’s 2012 survey of salaries in state-run programs. 

Difficulty Filling Vacant 

Inspector Positions
 

Page 11 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Wyoming) have a general salary system that does not allow staff to 

progress to higher salary levels, which further contributes to their difficulty 

in attracting applicants, according to OSHA officials.

Some state-run programs have attempted to address the issue of 

inspector pay by revising their compensation policies to allow for higher 

salaries, but they have had mixed success with their policies. For 

example, officials from South Carolina’s state-run program said that they 

raised their salaries to try and reduce staff turnover. In contrast, according 

to OSHA officials in Region 8, Utah tried to raise inspector salaries for its 

state-run program, but the state government did not approve the state 

officials’ request. While OSHA officials said that they cannot directly 

address the issue of low salaries for state personnel, they told us OSHA 

surveyed state-run programs on their 2012 salary levels to help identify 

disparities in salaries between state and federal inspectors, so that staterun programs could provide this information to their respective 

legislatures when requesting salary increases.

States’ constrained budgets and human resource policies can also 

contribute to challenges in recruiting qualified inspectors.21 OSHA officials 

in Region 4 told us that constrained state budgets had previously resulted 

in furloughs in two of the states with state-run programs in their region: 

Kentucky and Tennessee. OSHA officials in Region 10 also told us that 

state-wide pay cuts and furloughs have contributed to staffing challenges 

in the state-run programs in their region: Alaska, Oregon, and 

Washington. Further, in an effort to decrease costs to the state, Nevada’s

governor issued a directive in 2010 imposing a hiring freeze and reducing 

or eliminating certain pay increases for state employees. In addition, 

OSHA’s 2011 FAME report on Nevada’s state-run program noted that the 

state legislature imposed a 2.5 percent wage reduction for all state 

 

21For more information on the effect of the most recent recession on state budgets, see 

GAO, State and Local Governments: Knowledge of Past Recessions Can Inform Future 

Federal Fiscal Assistance, GAO-11-401 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2011).
 

Page 12 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

employees in July 2011.22 OSHA officials from several regions and one 

state-run program said that state-wide hiring freezes have prevented 

some state-run programs from filling vacant positions, including 

California, Michigan, and New Mexico. Such state-wide policies are 

outside the control of state-run programs because they affect personnel 

across all state programs.

Officials in 7 OSHA regions and the 4 states we contacted identified staff 

turnover as a challenge to administering state-run programs. According to 

agency officials, once a state provides its inspectors with training, they 

become more marketable and often leave for higher paying positions in 

the private sector and with federal OSHA. For example, according to 

OSHA officials in Region 10, staffing levels in Alaska’s state-run program 

declined by 54 percent from fiscal years 2009 to 2011 as state inspectors 

left to work for oil companies.

In addition, our survey of the 22 state-run programs that cover both public 

and private sector workplaces showed that, as of the end of calendar year 

2011, turnover was more prevalent among safety inspectors than health 

inspectors. Specifically, almost half of the states (10 of 22) we surveyed 

reported that 40 percent or more of their safety inspectors had fewer than 

5 years of service in their roles. In contrast, half (11 of 22) of the states 

we surveyed reported that 40 percent or more of their health inspectors 

had more than 10 years of service. While turnover was less prevalent 

among health inspectors, state-run programs are comprised mostly of 

safety inspectors: there were close to twice as many safety inspectors 

(667) than health inspectors (369), based on OSHA data for fiscal year 

2012. (See responses to survey question 2 in app. I for information on the 

average years of service for state safety and health inspectors.)

 

22During an October 2009 oversight hearing before the U.S. House Committee on 

Education and Labor, the administrator of the Nevada state-run program said that the 

state would have to dedicate resources toward improving the pay structure and noted that 

the state legislature had created a subcommittee to pursue this issue. In its 2011 FAME 

review of Nevada, OSHA noted that its recommendation to increase staff salaries was the 

only open recommendation remaining from its 2009 special study of Nevada. 

Subsequently, the governor acknowledged the difficulty in recruiting and retaining

experienced and qualified inspectors by including a 10 percent pay increase for safety 

inspectors in the state’s budget request for fiscal years 2013-2015. 

Difficulty Retaining 

Inspectors 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

According to OSHA and state officials, one result of high turnover is that 

states regularly invest money and time training new staff on introductory 

courses—the higher the turnover, the greater the resource investment. In 

addition, officials from Nevada’s state-run program noted that, in the 

absence of high turnover, the state program’s resources could have been 

spent on other high priority needs, such as providing advanced courses 

for experienced inspectors. Finally, OSHA officials from Region 9 said 

that the three state-run programs in their region that face difficulty 

recruiting and retaining staff (Arizona, Hawaii, and Nevada) may end up 

having to return to OSHA any unspent federal funds that had been 

associated with salaries for these positions.

Some states’ inspection staff have difficulty obtaining the training needed 

to conduct effective inspections and enforce compliance with safety and 

health standards because of challenges OTI faces in delivering training 

and because of state restrictions on travel. The challenges OTI faces 

include:

• Difficulty recruiting and retaining instructors. OTI uses multiple 

instructors in each course, including contractor staff, to provide 

training to state inspectors. Over the past 5 years, OTI contract 

instructor expenditures have been reduced by about two-thirds, 

according to an OTI official. The official also noted difficulty with 

recruiting enough instructors with adequate experience and that there 

was high turnover due to retirements and transfers to other positions 

within the agency.

• Difficulty accommodating demand. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, 

OSHA hired about 150 additional federal inspectors, according to an 

OTI official, who also noted that the number of inspectors from staterun programs registering for OTI courses increased. As a result of the 

rise in newly hired federal and state inspectors, training demand 

greatly increased at a time when OTI’s resources were reduced, 

according to an OTI official. As a result, some OTI courses are in high 

demand and short supply and fill up quickly. For example, an OSHA 

official said Nevada has had difficulty enrolling staff for OTI’s 

Difficulty Obtaining 

Training for Inspectors
 

Page 14 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

whistleblower course given that the waiting list is a year long.23

According to OTI, additional courses cannot be scheduled quickly 

given that its training schedules are developed 6 to 18 months in 

advance.

• Limited capacity for webinars. Although OSHA inquired whether 

OTI could double the frequency of its webinars from once a month to 

twice per month, OTI officials told us they could not because of staff 

capacity and the number of technology licenses they currently hold. 

Furthermore, OTI officials said that there will be limited development 

of new online courses because they have started a 5-year process of 

revising their online courses.

• Limits on offering certain courses in the field. OTI has a limited 

number of courses it can bring to states with state-run programs. 

According to OSHA, the courses increasingly use site visits and 

workshops that are more difficult to set up in the field. Much of the 

training OTI provides to state inspectors is hands-on training given onsite in the five laboratories contained in its building: (1) construction, 

(2) hazardous materials, (3) small equipment (such as woodworking 

machinery), (4) heavy equipment (such as power presses), and (5) 

industrial hygiene. According to OSHA officials, few states have the 

equipment and laboratories needed to support providing training offsite.

In addition to the challenges OTI faces, states also face challenges in 

sending staff to OTI for training. According to regional and state officials, 

some state inspectors have difficulty travelling to OTI, especially in recent 

years, because states have had limited travel funds, including freezes on 

out-of-state travel as part of state-wide austerity measures.

 

23OSHA is responsible for enforcing the “whistleblower protection” provisions of a variety 

of federal laws, including the OSH Act. These provisions generally prohibit employers from 

discriminating against employees for taking certain actions protected by these laws. In 

January 2009, GAO reported that OSHA faces two key challenges in administering its 

whistleblower program—it lacks a mechanism to adequately ensure the quality and 

consistency of investigations, and many investigators lack certain resources they need to 

do their jobs, including training. See GAO, Whistleblower Protection Program: Better Data 

and Improved Oversight Would Help Ensure Program Quality and Consistency, 

GAO-09-106 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27, 2009). Similarly, in August 2010, GAO reported 

that OSHA has struggled to provide its whistleblower investigators with the skills and 

resources they need to effectively do their jobs. See GAO, Whistleblower Protection: 

Sustained Management Attention Needed to Address Long-standing Program 

Weaknesses, GAO-10-722 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2010). 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

In response to the difficulties states have faced in funding travel, OTI has 

taken steps to make its courses more accessible, such as:

• Taking courses to the field when feasible. State-run programs may 

request that OTI courses be brought to them, provided the states can 

pay for OTI staff’s travel expenses. OTI officials told us that they will 

take a course to a state if instructors are available, scheduling is 

feasible, and hands-on components and workshops can be 

transported. OTI also considers whether required training facilities and 

equipment are available in the field. However, they also said they will 

not take a course to a state unless a minimum number of participants 

are scheduled to attend. When OTI agrees to take a course to a state, 

it takes 6 to 12 months from the date of the state’s request to 

schedule a course, according to OTI. In fiscal year 2012, OTI held five 

courses for state inspectors on-site in four states.24 In fiscal year 

2013, OTI plans to conduct six courses for state inspectors in six 

states.25

• Accommodating urgent training needs. An OTI official 

acknowledged that required courses for newly hired inspectors 

typically have waiting lists, and in response they have accommodated 

state-run programs that demonstrated an urgent training need by 

allowing staff in these states to enroll before staff in other states.26 For 

example, OTI gave priority enrollment to new state inspectors in 

Hawaii following a hiring surge in 2012.

• Sharing electronic training materials. OTI also periodically sends 

electronic materials for mandatory courses to all state-run programs 

and for other courses to states upon request, according to an OTI 

official.

 

24In fiscal year 2012, the five courses were (1) demolition (Washington); (2) Environmental 

Protection Agency’s health and safety course (Utah); (3) evaluation of safety and health 

management systems (Vermont); (4) maritime and longshoring (Virginia); and (5) OSHA’s 

technical assistance for emergencies (Utah).

25In fiscal year 2013, the six courses are (1) applied welding principles (Washington); (2) 

concrete, forms, and shoring (Iowa, Nevada, and Washington); (3) permit-required 

confined space entry (Arizona, California, and Iowa); (4) cranes and rigging safety for 

construction (South Carolina); (5) fall arrest systems (Arizona and Nevada); and (6) 

cranes and materials handling for general industry (Iowa).

26According to OTI, courses with consistent waiting lists include initial compliance, legal 

aspects and inspection techniques, and investigative interviewing. 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

• Surveying state training needs. Every year, OTI surveys state-run 

programs to gauge their training needs based on actual and planned 

numbers of safety and health staff. The survey also solicits the level of 

interest in certain training topics and courses. OTI uses this 

information to plan and schedule its training courses for the coming 

year.

Despite OTI’s efforts to make training more accessible to state-run 

programs, officials and experts told us that high staff turnover, combined 

with constrained state budgets, has hurt states’ ability to ensure they 

have adequately trained inspectors. Consequently, states have leveraged 

the expertise of other states and OSHA regions to meet their own training 

needs in a more cost-efficient manner. An OTI official told us that when 

OTI could not bring a refinery course to Washington at the state’s 

request, a trainer from the state-run program in California traveled to 

Washington to help the state of Washington conduct the course and was 

reimbursed by the Washington state program for travel. In addition, 

according to the administrator of Hawaii’s state-run program, two of the 

state’s newly hired health inspectors were sent to California to 

accompany experienced state inspectors on inspections. Similarly, when 

Hawaii’s new hires travelled to OTI for training, they received in-person 

mentoring by accompanying inspectors from OSHA’s Region 5 area 

offices on inspections, according to an OSHA official. Some states 

located near OTI’s Education Centers have sent their inspectors to these 

centers to obtain needed training. Unlike training provided by OTI, 

courses completed at these centers do not count toward OSHA’s 

mandatory inspector training requirements described in its training 

directive; however, some states have sent inspectors to a nearby center 

to save travel costs and obtain training. An OTI official noted that, 

although Education Center courses place less emphasis on OSHA 

standards and enforcement, they provide training on hazard recognition 

and abatement. OTI Education Centers are not authorized to deliver 

courses on conducting inspections.

Another resource available to states to facilitate information sharing and 

obtain training in lieu of traveling to OTI is the library of state training 

materials posted on OSHA’s website. The website also allows state 

inspectors to access other states’ online training resources.
 

Page 17 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA’s annual reviews of state-run programs show that staffing 

challenges have limited the capacity of some state-run programs to meet 

their inspection goals. For example, in its 2011 FAME review of Arizona’s 

state-run program, OSHA found that the state conducted 913 

inspections—65 percent of its inspection goal of 1,400 inspections for that 

year. OSHA noted that one of the reasons the state did not meet its goal 

was the number of staff who were capable of performing inspections on 

their own.27 Similarly, in its 2011 FAME review of Nevada’s state-run 

program, OSHA found that the state conducted 1,254 inspections in fiscal 

year 2011—59 percent of its goal of 2,132 inspections. An OSHA official 

noted that the state completed 1,203 inspections in fiscal year 2012—63 

percent of its goal of 1,900 inspections. Nevada’s challenges have 

persisted, even though the state matched its federal OSHA grant of 

$1,505,900 and provided an additional $3,450,003 and $3,886,951 in 100 

percent state funding in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, respectively. State 

officials attributed the state’s inability to meet its inspection goals to high 

staff turnover, which necessitated diverting experienced inspectors from 

conducting inspections to training and mentoring new staff. The state 

officials added that having fewer experienced staff meant that they could 

not conduct as many programmed (scheduled) inspections as they would 

have liked because they were required to respond to higher priorities, 

such as situations that involved imminent danger, fatalities, and 

complaints. As a result, according to an OSHA official, the number of 

programmed inspections the state completed comprised about 17 percent 

of the total inspections (199 of 1,203) completed in fiscal year 2012.28

According to Nevada officials, they are aware of the challenges in 

completing inspections, but they told us they are limited in their ability to 

address high inspector turnover. Nonetheless, OSHA urged Nevada in its 

2011 FAME report to work with the state legislature to increase inspector 

salaries and explore other available options that may affect staff retention.

 

27Arizona exceeded its inspection goal in fiscal year 2012. According to officials from 

OSHA Region 9, the state-run program completed 1,138 inspections—103 percent—of its 

goal of 1,103 inspections after adding staff and improving training.

28An OSHA official said that programmed inspections are considered to be more effective 

and efficient in reaching high hazard industries and establishments than just focusing on 

complaint inspections. Complaint inspections will not always lead to the high hazard 

areas. 

Staffing Challenges Affect 

Some States’ Ability to 

Meet Their Inspection 

Goals
 

Page 18 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

When OSHA identifies issues in state-run programs, such as when they 

are having difficulty meeting their inspection goals, OSHA has responded 

in a variety of ways. OSHA’s responses may include recommending 

corrective action by states to address performance issues; increasing its 

monitoring activities; providing extra training and technical assistance to 

state program staff; communicating with the governor or other high-level 

state officials about poor performance; sharing joint enforcement 

responsibility with the state; and, as a last resort, withdrawing OSHA’s 

approval of the program and resuming sole federal enforcement. OSHA 

officials told us they prefer to work collaboratively with states using a 

graduated approach—providing guidance and support before taking any 

higher level actions.

OSHA must be prepared to step in quickly to resume responsibility for 

enforcement if a state voluntarily withdraws its program. OSHA officials 

told us that they rely on their contact with states to obtain advance notice 

and status updates about any potential voluntary withdrawals of state 

programs.29 Officials in all 10 OSHA regions told us that, as of June 2012, 

no state other than Hawaii was at high risk of voluntarily withdrawing its 

state program within the next 3 years. Nevertheless, in states facing 

budget constraints, the state may consider budget cuts that could result in 

discontinuing the state’s occupational safety and health program, 

 

29OSHA’s regulations provide that a state may voluntarily withdraw its plan by notifying 

OSHA in writing, setting forth the reasons for the withdrawal, and providing a letter 

terminating the state’s grant application. 29 C.F.R. § 1955.3(b). 

OSHA Has Responded 

in Various Ways to 

States with 

Performance Issues, 

but It Lacks an 

Established Time 

Frame for Resuming 

Federal Enforcement 

When Needed

OSHA Has Responded in a 

Variety of Ways to States 

Having Difficulty Meeting 

Their Performance Goals
 

Page 19 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

requiring OSHA to resume safety and health enforcement in the state. For 

example, in 1987, when the governor of California discontinued funding 

for the state’s occupational safety and health program covering private 

sector employers, OSHA had to quickly resume this enforcement 

responsibility. OSHA provided this enforcement coverage until 1989, 

when the state resumed private sector enforcement activities.

30 We 

previously reported on both of these situations.31 (See responses to 

survey question 3 in app. I for information on legislative or administrative 

actions affecting state-run programs.)

The following examples illustrate the various methods OSHA has used to 

respond to state-run programs with issues.

OSHA has been closely monitoring Nevada’s state-run program since 

2009, when a number of fatalities in the construction industry in the state 

raised concerns about the adequacy of the state’s safety and health 

program. OSHA recommended that Nevada address issues in meeting its 

state performance goals, including re-evaluating the state’s inspection 

goals and modifying them, if appropriate, to reflect changes in policy and 

declining industries in the state, pursuing all available options to increase 

the salaries of state inspectors, and providing clear guidance for 

organizing the state’s case files. In addition, OSHA asked the state to 

specify in its fiscal year 2014 grant application a goal for the number of 

programmed inspections it plans to conduct. An official from OSHA’s 

Region 9 told us they continue to monitor the state closely. The official 

said the office is also considering accompanying state staff during 

inspections to get a first-hand account of how the state conducts and 

documents inspections.

 

30See California State Plan; Resumption of Concurrent Federal Enforcement, 52 Fed. 

Reg. 21,952 (June 10, 1987) and California State Plan, 55 Fed. Reg. 28,610 (July 12, 

1990). 

31GAO, OSHA’s Resumption of Private Sector Enforcement Activities in California,

GAO/T-HRD-88-19 (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 1988) and Occupational Safety and 

Health: California’s Resumption of Enforcement Responsibility in the Private Sector,

GAO/HRD-89-82 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 1989).

Nevada - OSHA recommended 

corrective action 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

In the 2011 FAME report, OSHA identified persistent issues in Vermont’s 

program due to the failure of program management and staff to 

understand or follow OSHA’s policies, procedures, and basic inspection 

and investigatory techniques. The report also cited a lack of training and 

supervision provided by state officials. In response, OSHA’s Region 1 

officials said they plan to enhance their monitoring of the state’s program 

to ensure compliance with OSHA policies and procedures, including 

reviewing randomly selected inspection files and all investigations of 

whistleblower complaints. Also, the Region will review all cases involving 

worker fatalities before they are closed. In addition, regional officials told 

us they have been closely monitoring the state’s performance through 

regular phone calls and visits, and that they also provided additional 

training to state inspectors, such as training on how to document 

inspections and investigate whistleblower complaints. OSHA’s regional 

staff also arranged for on-site training of state inspectors by OTI because 

of the state’s restrictions on out-of-state travel, according to OSHA 

officials. For example, OTI conducted the safety and health management 

class, which is required by the state plan for all new inspectors, in 

Burlington, Vermont. In addition, OSHA Region 1 officials met with the 

Vermont state labor commissioner to discuss their concerns about the 

state-run program’s performance.

OSHA’s response to the challenges Hawaii has faced in running its staterun program illustrates the graduated approach OSHA can take to help a 

state address its challenges, beginning with recommending corrective 

action to address issues identified through its monitoring of the state-run 

program, notifying the governor about the state’s continued poor 

performance, and developing an agreement to share enforcement with 

the state. Due to a lack of political support in Hawaii in 2009, funding and 

staffing for the state’s safety and health program were cut roughly in half, 

resulting in the state’s failure to complete required inspections and meet 

other key performance goals. One official from OSHA’s Region 9 said he 

has had frequent contact with the state and involved OSHA’s national 

office when problems persisted. Because the state had not adequately 

addressed its performance problems, in September 2010, OSHA elevated 

the issue by sending a letter to the governor expressing concerns about 

poor program performance. Over the next year and a half, OSHA 

exchanged letters with two successive Hawaii governors and the 

administrator of the state-run program, offering enforcement assistance if 

the state voluntarily suspended its final approval status. According to 

Vermont - OSHA recommended 

corrective action and increased 

monitoring, provided extra 

training, and communicated 

with high-level state officials 

Hawaii - OSHA recommended 

corrective action, increased 

monitoring, provided extra 

training, communicated with 

high-level state officials, and 

shared enforcement with the 

state
 

Page 21 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

OSHA officials, the state was reluctant to give up its final approval status 

because Hawaii was the first state to obtain this status and it was a 

source of state pride.32 Hawaii state officials said that they preferred the 

autonomy provided under final approval status. An OSHA official noted 

that the business and labor communities were also concerned about the 

state having to relinquish final approval status, in part because of 

confusion over who would have jurisdiction over which workplace. An 

official from the Hawaii state-run program said that the state would have 

preferred obtaining OSHA’s assistance without giving up its final approval 

status. Nevertheless, Hawaii notified OSHA of its decision to do so in 

February 2012 in order to obtain OSHA’s assistance with enforcement. In 

September 2012, after several months of negotiations, OSHA and Hawaii 

finalized an agreement that specified the division of enforcement 

responsibilities between OSHA and the state; stipulated that OSHA would 

assist with recruiting, retaining, and training of state inspectors; and 

established time frames for the state to resume sole enforcement 

authority.33

In September 1991, a fire at a chicken processing plant in Hamlet, North 

Carolina, killed 25 workers. OSHA responded by quickly reasserting 

concurrent enforcement jurisdiction with the state the following month.34

Because the state’s occupational safety and health plan had not been 

granted final approval, OSHA was able to reassume federal enforcement 

activity without first following the procedural requirements for revoking 

final approval or asking the state to voluntarily give up its final approval 

status. In addition, OSHA issued a special evaluation report on North 

Carolina’s state-run program in January 1992, finding significant issues 

and giving the state 90 days to take corrective action. OSHA maintained 

an enforcement presence until it determined that North Carolina had 

taken sufficient corrective action, such as increasing funding and staffing 

for its program. Because the state plan had not yet been granted final 

approval status at the time of the incident, OSHA was able to expediently 

 

32Hawaii obtained final approval status in 1984.

33See Hawaii State Plan for Occupational Safety and Health, 77 Fed. Reg. 58,488 (Sept. 

21, 2012). 

34Termination of Operational Status Agreement for North Carolina State Plan, 56 Fed. 

Reg. 55,192 (Oct. 24, 1991). OSHA terminated its existing operational status agreement 

with North Carolina and reinstituted federal enforcement in certain areas, such as 

responding to safety and health and whistleblower complaints.

North Carolina - OSHA 

recommended corrective 

action, increased monitoring, 

and shared enforcement with 

the state
 

Page 22 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

intervene and conduct certain enforcement activities while the state 

rebuilt its program. OSHA suspended concurrent jurisdiction in 1995, 

following a series of evaluations that documented the state’s substantial 

progress in improving safety and health enforcement.35

In June 2011, South Carolina enacted a law to require that all 

whistleblower complaints received by the state-run program from 

employees in the private sector be referred to the federal Department of 

Labor, eliminating any remedy under state law for such complaints.36

OSHA informed the state of its responsibility under the OSH Act to 

continue its whistleblower program. OSHA’s 2011 FAME report stated 

that South Carolina no longer met federal requirements for approval of its 

state-run program because it did not provide these workers with 

whistleblower coverage. Officials from OSHA’s national office and Region 

4 told us that they worked with South Carolina program staff to have the 

legislature restore the state’s whistleblower program. In June 2012, South 

Carolina amended the law, authorizing the state agency to investigate 

private sector whistleblower complaints and pursue legal remedies for 

violations in state court. Regional officials told us that they plan to closely 

monitor the state’s whistleblower program as it is restored to ensure that 

the state is adequately screening and responding to complaints.

OSHA regional officials consult with the national office when responding 

to state-run programs with performance issues, according to OSHA 

officials, and the agency may withdraw approval of a state-run program 

and resume federal enforcement if a state fails to comply substantially 

with any provision of its state plan. However, officials told us there is no 

specific point at which OSHA would consider withdrawing approval of a 

 

35North Carolina State Plan; Suspension of Limited Concurrent Federal Enforcement, 60 

Fed. Reg. 12,416 (Mar. 7, 1995). North Carolina subsequently received final approval 

status in 1996. North Carolina State Plan; Final Approval Determination, 61 Fed. Reg. 

66,593 (Dec. 18, 1996).

36The OSH Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for taking 

certain actions protected under the act, and requires OSHA to investigate whistleblower 

complaints and pursue legal remedies for violations in court. 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). OSHA 

regulations require states with state-run programs to enact state whistleblower laws that 

are at least as effective as the federal law to protect employees from discrimination. 29 

C.F.R. § 1977.23. Although, by law, OSHA retains jurisdiction over whistleblower 

complaints in state-run programs, in practice it refers complaints it receives to the 

appropriate state-run program.

South Carolina - OSHA 

recommended corrective 

action, increased monitoring, 

and shared enforcement with 

the state

OSHA Lacks a Time Frame 

for Resuming Federal 

Enforcement in States with 

Performance Issues
 

Page 23 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

state-run program, or changing a state’s status from final to initial 

approval so that OSHA can resume concurrent enforcement 

responsibility.37 Officials in OSHA’s national office and some of its regions 

said there is usually a pattern of problems with a state’s performance over 

time that alerts them to issues with the state-run program. OSHA’s 

national office told us the regions will notify them far in advance about 

poor performance that could signal consideration of withdrawing a staterun program’s approval.

While OSHA evaluates state-run programs as part of its annual reviews, it 

does not hold states accountable for developing and implementing plans 

to address issues within a prescribed period. In accordance with the OSH 

Act, state-run programs must provide for the development and 

enforcement of safety and health standards that are at least as effective 

in providing safe and healthful employment as the federal standards.38 In 

March 2011, the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General 

reported that OSHA lacks a definition of effectiveness and measures to 

evaluate the effectiveness of state-run programs.39 In particular, the report 

stated that OSHA lacks measures to quantify the effect of state-run 

programs on occupational safety and health. The report added that OSHA 

needs to define when state-run programs would be deemed performance 

failures, to serve as a basis for using its ultimate authority to withdraw 

approval of a state program. In addition, for states with final approval 

status, OSHA cannot step in and conduct enforcement activities because 

it lacks the statutory authority to do so unless the state voluntarily 

withdraws its plan entirely, OSHA withdraws approval of the state’s plan, 

or the state is returned to initial approval status, either voluntarily or by 

OSHA, consistent with the procedures in its regulations. However, 

revoking final approval can be a time-consuming process that could entail 

certain notice and hearing procedures if a state does not immediately 

 

37OSHA’s regulations describe the general circumstances that are cause for initiating 

withdrawal proceedings. For example, “Where a State over a period of time consistently 

fails to provide effective enforcement of standards,” or “Where a State fails to comply with 

the required assurances on a sufficient number of qualified personnel and/or adequate 

resources for administration and enforcement of the program.” 29 C.F.R. § 1955.3(a). 

3829 U.S.C. § 667(c)(2). 

39U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General-Office of Audit, OSHA Has Not 

Determined If State OSH Programs Are at Least as Effective in Improving Workplace 

Safety and Health as Federal OSHA’s Programs, 02-11-201-10-105 (Washington, D.C.: 

March 2011).
 

Page 24 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

agree to give up its final approval status. Under these circumstances, 

staffing challenges and other issues can affect states’ performance for 

years. OSHA officials acknowledged the need for a mechanism to more 

quickly intervene in state-run programs with final approval status and 

performance issues.

Furthermore, while OSHA has had experience in resuming enforcement 

in states with state-run programs, the agency does not compile lessons 

learned from these experiences to inform its future responses. OSHA 

national officials told us they would meet with the regions to discuss 

lessons learned when it steps in to resume enforcement in a state, but 

they do not find it useful to document these conversations, including 

capturing details such as questions raised, problems faced, options 

available to respond to the state’s challenges, or the type and amount of 

federal resources required to resume federal enforcement in the state.

Organizations can benefit by learning from past experience and adapting 

their practices based on what is learned. In OSHA’s case, although every 

situation involves different circumstances in each state, knowledge of 

prior OSHA responses to challenges faced by state-run programs 

provides guideposts for the agency to consider as it designs strategies to 

respond to future situations. More specifically, knowledge of the results, 

challenges, and unintended consequences of past federal responses can 

inform its deliberations as agency officials determine whether and how to 

intervene in response to states facing challenges in the future.

According to government standards for internal controls, agencies should 

assess and manage the risks they face.40 This includes having 

mechanisms in place to anticipate, identify, and react to risks that can 

affect the achievement of goals and objectives. Internal control standards 

also state that agencies should record information related to external and 

internal events and communicate it to management. However, OSHA’s 

lack of documentation of its experiences in resuming enforcement in 

states with challenged state-run programs and sharing these documents 

across the agency leaves the agency vulnerable to gaps in institutional 

knowledge, particularly with turnover of OSHA staff due to retirements, 

office transfers, or other attrition. During our discussions about OSHA’s 

 

40See GAO, Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and Evaluation 

Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August 2001). 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

recent response to the challenges faced by Hawaii’s state-run program, 

an OSHA regional official said that capturing the details of Hawaii’s 

situation and OSHA’s response would be beneficial in providing OSHA 

with concrete steps to follow if faced with a situation with another state in 

the future.

When resuming enforcement in a state, OSHA may not be able to devote 

the same level of staff resources and conduct as many inspections as the 

state would have conducted, according to OSHA officials. Also, when 

OSHA takes over enforcement, state and local public sector workers may 

lose the safety and health enforcement coverage that only state-run 

programs can provide. Furthermore, OSHA has authority to enforce only 

federal standards, not state-specific standards, which can be more 

stringent than federal standards or provide protections for hazards not 

covered by federal standards.

The level of resources required from OSHA to provide enforcement 

depends on various factors such as the number of employers and 

workers in a state, the number and type of industries, the location and 

staffing of existing OSHA offices, the scope of enforcement coverage to 

be provided by OSHA, and the current performance of the state-run 

program, according to OSHA officials. For example, OSHA officials in 

Region 4 told us that Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee have 

more heavy industry than South Carolina, so those states would require a 

larger number of OSHA staff to provide adequate enforcement. When 

California—the largest state-run program—ceased private sector 

enforcement in 1987, OSHA temporarily sent about one-third of its federal 

inspectors and supervisory staff to California and reassigned staff from 

other activities to ensure continued coverage nationwide. More recently, 

an OSHA official told us that in assisting Hawaii in rebuilding its state-run 

program, the agency plans to pay travel expenses for federal inspectors 

who will be assigned to work with state inspectors on a 60-day rotational 

basis over a 3-year period from fiscal years 2013 through 2015.41 The 

costs to OSHA of staff travel, renting office space, acquiring supplies, and 

 

41Federal inspectors assigned to Hawaii include both safety and health inspectors. 

According to an OSHA regional official, in the first year, OSHA will provide three safety 

inspectors and one health inspector; in the second year, OSHA will provide two safety 

inspectors and one health inspector; and, in the third year, OSHA will provide one safety 

and one health inspector. 

Resuming OSHA 

Enforcement Can Reduce 

State-Run Programs’ Scope 

and Strain Federal 

Resources
 

Page 26 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

providing equipment are projected to be about $1.5 million over a 4-year 

period from fiscal years 2012 through 2015. Some of the federal funds not 

matched by Hawaii will be redirected to support OSHA assistance to the 

state-run program.

To provide needed staffing for a state-run program considering 

withdrawal, OSHA might be able to use federal staff already in a nearby 

regional or area office, reassign staff from another region on a temporary 

basis, or hire new staff. According to OSHA officials, the agency would 

use a short-term response immediately after a state withdraws to respond 

quickly to cases such as worker fatalities, and would then arrange for 

more permanent staffing in the long term. According to its regional 

officials, OSHA has experience in adjusting its resources temporarily to 

respond to emergencies and changes. For example, in 2011, after the 

Midwest was hit by a devastating tornado, OSHA’s Region 7 had staff in 

place to oversee occupational safety and health during recovery work the 

next day. However, when OSHA resumes enforcement in a state, the 

reallocation of resources could affect the agency’s ability to maintain 

enforcement and other activities in the states for which OSHA has 

primary enforcement responsibility. When OSHA provided enforcement in 

California, OSHA’s inspection volume nationwide was generally 

maintained, but some other activities were disrupted, including its 

monitoring of other state-run programs.

OSHA has noted that state-run occupational safety and health programs 

can be beneficial to workers because of the additional types of workers 

covered, the familiarity states have with local working conditions and 

industries, and the innovative approaches states can provide in 

addressing safety and health hazards. In addition, these programs can be 

cost-effective for the federal government because of the resources states 

provide that supplement federal resources. However, when states face 

challenges in administering their programs, it can lead to performance 

issues which, if not addressed in a timely manner, may persist and result 

in inadequate safety and health protection for workers.

OSHA cannot resolve many of the root causes of states’ staffing 

challenges because it does not control how states set their compensation 

policies, but the agency ultimately remains responsible for protecting the 

safety and health of workers in those states and can take steps to support 

them in addressing their challenges. When these steps are not adequate 

to address states’ performance issues, it is imperative that OSHA hold 

states accountable for developing concrete plans that address their 

Conclusions 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

specific challenges and performance issues, and if necessary, step in 

quickly to shore up the state-run programs so that they are at least as 

effective as the federal program. OSHA’s ability to intervene quickly, 

however, depends on whether states have obtained final approval for 

their state-run programs because it does not have the authority to 

conduct enforcement in states with final approval without having the state 

agree to voluntarily relinquish its final approval status, revoking the state’s 

final approval status, or withdrawing approval of the state plan entirely, all 

of which can be very time-consuming processes, some of which could 

also entail certain notice and hearing procedures. Moreover, OSHA is 

cautious about reassuming concurrent enforcement authority in states 

with final approval status given the resources required for OSHA to do so, 

including devoting the time of its inspectors and setting up operations in 

the state. Equipping OSHA with additional tools for intervening more 

quickly in such situations could expedite its ability to provide assistance to 

challenged states without jeopardizing the safety and health of workers.

In addition, OSHA has had experience in resuming federal enforcement 

of state-run programs and, while circumstances may differ from one state 

to the next, not documenting lessons learned could leave the agency 

without the critical institutional knowledge needed to respond to situations 

in the future.

Congress should consider amending the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act to provide a mechanism for OSHA to more quickly intervene in staterun occupational safety and health programs with final approval status, as 

appropriate, to expedite federal OSHA assistance when necessary to 

ensure adequate enforcement of those programs that are experiencing 

challenges.

To better assist states in ensuring they have sound occupational safety 

and health programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct 

the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to take steps 

to help address challenges that have posed long-standing risks to states 

with state-run occupational safety and health programs in training staff to 

administer their programs. These steps could include leveraging existing 

federal and state resources to develop more effective and efficient ways 

to access and deliver training, such as partnering with OTI’s Education 

Centers and systematically coordinating opportunities for newly hired 

state inspectors to obtain on-the-job training, such as by shadowing 

experienced inspectors from OSHA or other state-run programs.

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 28 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

We also recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant 

Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to identify states with 

challenges that need to be addressed and require those states to develop 

timely plans for addressing their challenges, and if such plans are not 

developed, to establish time frames for when OSHA would resume sole 

or concurrent federal enforcement responsibility for the state-run 

program. This process should be tailored to the state’s unique 

circumstances.

Finally, to better position the agency to respond to states facing 

challenges, we also recommend that OSHA document lessons learned 

from its experiences in assisting states with their enforcement 

responsibilities and resuming federal enforcement of state-run programs.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Labor for review and 

comment. We received written comments from OSHA, which are 

reproduced in their entirety in appendix IV. OSHA acknowledged the 

major staffing challenges that state-run programs face and agreed with 

our recommendations. In particular, OSHA noted it has taken steps to 

help address states’ training challenges and will explore more effective 

and efficient ways to access and deliver training. Furthermore, OSHA 

pointed out that it will continue to use a variety of strategies to ensure that 

the states successfully and quickly address their challenges. However, 

the agency cited resource limitations, legal obstacles, and states’ unique 

circumstances as factors that limit its ability to move quickly to resume 

federal enforcement responsibility. In addition, OSHA welcomed the 

recommendation to document lessons learned and cited it as instrumental 

in providing insight for future instruction and guidance to regions and 

states. Finally, OSHA provided technical comments which we 

incorporated into the report, as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 29 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix V.

Revae Moran, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: GAO Survey of the State-Run 

Programs

Page 30 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

To learn about sources of state funding, state staff experience levels, 

state legislation or administrative actions affecting state-run programs, 

and state occupational safety and health standards, we surveyed the 22 

state-run programs that cover both private sector and state and local 

public sector workers, and obtained a 100 percent response rate.1

We conducted this survey via e-mail from May 2012 to June 2012. GAO 

staff designed the questionnaire in collaboration with a GAO survey 

specialist and a GAO attorney. To ensure the questions were relevant 

and clearly stated, we pretested the questionnaire with two officials from 

the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association, who also 

serve as administrators of the state-run programs in New Mexico and 

North Carolina. In addition, during a site visit to one state-run program 

(California), we discussed the survey questions and the state’s responses 

to ensure the questions were correctly interpreted.

Which of the following sources of funds did your state use in federal fiscal 

year 2011 to meet the funding requirements to obtain a federal grant 

under section 23(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act?

State State general fund

Workers’ 

compensation fund Other sources Description of other sources

Alaska X X X Small portion from general fund program 

receipts from asbestos certification fees

Arizonaa X 

Californiaa X 

Hawaii X 

Indiana X 

Iowa X 

Kentucky X 

Maryland X 

Michigana X X Corporation fees and security fees

Minnesota X 

Nevada X X OSHA penalties and fees

New Mexico X 

 

1

For purposes of this review, we excluded the five state-run programs that cover only 

state and local public sector workers. 

Appendix I: GAO Survey of the State-Run 

Programs

Survey Question (1)
Appendix I: GAO Survey of the State-Run 

Programs

Page 31 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

State State general fund

Workers’ 

compensation fund Other sources Description of other sources

North Carolina X 

Oregon X 

Puerto Rico X 

South Carolina X X Earmarked and restricted accounts 

within the agency

Tennesseea X 

Utah X 

Vermont X 

Virginiab X 

Washington X 

Wyoming X 

Source: Responses to GAO’s survey.

a

Arizona, California, Michigan, and Tennessee specified a tax on workers’ compensation premiums 

as the state funding source.

b

Virginia state-run program officials reported that they are in discussions with the Virginia Workers’ 

Compensation Commission on a proposal in which they would provide matching funds to the state for 

one full-time equivalent staff member as a pilot project to assist industries and employers identified by

the commission.

Approximately what percentage of safety and health inspectors, that were 

employed by your state occupational safety and health program as of 

December 31, 2011, had the following years of service?

State 

Safety inspectors Health inspectors

Less

than 5 years 5-10 years

More

than 10 years

Less

than 5 years 5-10 years

More

than 10 years

Alaska 70% 20% 10% 70% 10% 20%

Arizona 55% 30% 15% 37% 37% 27%

California 28% 34% 38% 0% 8% 92%

Hawaii 20% 40% 40% 80% 20% 0%

Indiana 42% 8% 50% 47% 6% 47%

Iowa 20% 50% 30% 25% 25% 50%

Kentucky 33% 29% 38% 35% 30% 35%

Maryland 40% 32% 28% 33% 50% 17%

Michigan 25% 50% 25% 30% 60% 10%

Minnesota 41% 36% 23% 37% 19% 44%

Nevada 54% 39% 7% 29% 0% 71%

New Mexico 17% 33% 50% 0% 100% 0%

Survey Question (2)
Appendix I: GAO Survey of the State-Run 

Programs

Page 32 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

State 

Safety inspectors Health inspectors

Less

than 5 years 5-10 years

More

than 10 years

Less

than 5 years 5-10 years

More

than 10 years

North Carolina 44% 38% 18% 29% 29% 42%

Oregon 29% 29% 43% 8% 22% 70%

Puerto Rico 4% 28% 68% 5% 21% 74%

South Carolina 50% 6% 44% 75% 25% 0%

Tennessee 15% 37% 48% 18% 29% 53%

Utah 56% 19% 25% 45% 36% 19%

Vermont 16% 50% 34% 0% 75% 25%

Virginia 27% 38% 35% 28% 28% 44%

Washington 30% 23% 47% 17% 17% 67%

Wyoming 67% 33% 0% 67% 0% 33%

Source: Responses to GAO’s survey.

In your state, has there been any legislation or administrative action, 

either proposed or enacted in calendar years 2010, 2011, or 2012, that 

would partially or fully limit the state’s responsibility for occupational 

safety and health (e.g., returning enforcement authority to OSHA for a 

certain group of workers or withdrawing the state plan altogether)?

State Yes No Description

Alaska X 

Arizona X 

California X 

Hawaii X The program’s designation has been changed from final 

approval to initial approval status.

Indiana X 

Iowa X 

Kentucky X 

Maryland X 

Michigan

X 

Legislation was introduced to eliminate the state-plan 

program and return responsibility to OSHA. This legislation 

has not been acted on. Legislation was introduced and 

passed to limit state-plan program rules to rules identical to 

OSHA unless there is a clear and convincing need to go 

beyond. 

Minnesota X 

Nevada X 

New Mexico X 

Survey Question (3)
Appendix I: GAO Survey of the State-Run 

Programs

Page 33 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

State Yes No Description

North Carolina X 

Oregon X 

Puerto Rico X 

South Carolina X South Carolina returned whistleblower program coverage to 

OSHA.a 

Tennessee X 

Utah X 

Vermont X 

Virginia X 

Washington X 

Wyoming X 

Source: Responses to GAO’s survey.

a

The OSH Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for taking certain actions 

protected under the act, and requires OSHA to investigate whistleblower complaints and pursue legal 

remedies for violations in court. 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). OSHA regulations require states with state-run 

programs to enact state whistleblower laws that are at least as effective as the federal law to protect 

employees from discrimination. 29 C.F.R. § 1977.23. 

Does your state have occupational safety and/or health standards that 

are substantively different from federal standards or that cover hazards 

for which there are currently no federal standards?

• Seventeen state-run programs responded “yes” 

• Five state-run programs responded “no” 

State Yes No

Alaska X 

Arizona X 

California X 

Hawaii X 

Indiana X 

Iowa X 

Kentucky X 

Maryland X 

Michigan X 

Minnesota X 

Nevada X 

New Mexico X 

North Carolina X 

Survey Question (4)
Appendix I: GAO Survey of the State-Run 

Programs

Page 34 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

State Yes No

Oregon X 

Puerto Rico X 

South Carolina X 

Tennessee X 

Utah X 

Vermont X 

Virginia X 

Washington X 

Wyoming X 

Source: Responses to GAO’s survey.

Examples of state occupational safety and health standards that 

respondents indicated differ substantively from federal standards include 

states’ requirements for employers to have written safety programs, 

permissible exposure limits for hazardous substances at different levels 

or for substances not covered by federal standards, and agricultural 

standards that cover additional areas not addressed by the federal 

standards.

Examples of State 

Responses Regarding State 

Occupational Safety and 

Health Standards That 

Differ from the Federal 

Standards 
Appendix II: Staffing Levels for State Safety 

and Health Inspectors, Fiscal Years 2012 and 

2013

Page 35 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Statea

Number of Safety Inspectors Number of Health Inspectors Total Inspectors

Allocatedb On boardc Allocatedb On boardc Total allocated Total on board 

FY12 FY13 FY12 FY13 FY12 FY13 FY12 FY13 FY12 FY13 FY12 FY13 

Alaska 7 7 6 6 5 5 2 4 12 12 8 10

Arizona 15 18 11 18 11 10 10 10 26 28 21 28

California 196 173 159 164 71 63 71 32 267 236 230 196

Hawaii 9 9 5 9 9 9 7 9 18 18 12 18

Indiana 47 44 20 20 23 21 16 18 70 65 36 38

Iowa 14 14 14 13 12 12 12 11 26 26 26 24

Kentucky 25 26 22 25 15 15 14 14 40 41 36 39

Maryland 36 39 36 35 18 16 14 11 54 55 50 46

Michigan 45 42 45 42 30 26 28 25 75 68 73 67

Minnesota 41 43 39 40 18 16 18 15 59 59 57 55

Nevada 30 32 28 21 11 13 11 11 41 45 39 32

New Mexico 8 8 7 7 3 3 3 3 11 11 10 10

North Carolina 70 70 55 55 50 50 42 42 120 120 97 97

Oregon 48 48 42 37 28 28 23 23 76 76 65 60

Puerto Rico 27 32 22 24 15 21 14 17 42 53 36 41

South Carolina 17 17 16 14 10 12 8 7 27 29 24 21

Tennessee 22 22 21 19 14 14 12 11 36 36 33 30

Utah 12 12 12 10 10 12 9 9 22 24 21 19

Vermont 6 6 5 6 4 4 4 4 10 10 9 10

Virginia 38 38 32 35 20 20 17 16 58 58 49 51

Washington 78 79 67 72 35 36 33 30 113 115 100 102

Wyoming 6 6 4 5 2 3 2 3 8 9 6 8 

Source: OSHA state-run program grant applications (section 23(g) grant applications) for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

a

Some states’ staffing figures include 100 percent state-funded positions.

b

“Allocated” is the number of staff positions specified in the state’s section 23(g) grant application that 

the state will fund, according to OSHA officials.

C

“On board” is the actual number of positions filled by the state that year, according to OSHA officials.

Appendix II: Staffing Levels for State Safety 

and Health Inspectors, Fiscal Years 2012 and 

2013
Appendix III: Salary Ranges for Federal and 

State Safety and Health Inspectors, 2012

Page 36 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Federal (OSHA)a

Safety Inspectors Health Inspectors

Low

(entry level)

High (senior level,

non-supervisory)

Low

(entry level)

High (senior level,

non-supervisory)

$27,431 $78,355 $27,431 $78,355

State 

Safety Inspectors Health Inspectors

Low

(entry level)

High (senior level,

non- supervisory

Low

(entry level)

High (senior level,

non-supervisory)

Alaska $55,224 $76,011b $58,740 $83,424b

Arizona $46,963 $62,692 $46,963 $68,155

California $63,312 $118,308 $49,236 $87,696

Hawaii $33,756 $65,784 $38,988 $67,488

Indiana $36,374 $63,882 $36,374 $63,882

Iowa $41,870 $63,627 $49,442 $76,690

Kentucky $26,483 $53,929 $26,483 $53,929c

Maryland $38,354 $74,725 $46,268 $79,693

Michigan $39,770 $63,565 $40,622 $72,363

Minnesota $37,793 $70,971 $37,793 $73,539

Nevada $35,997 $66,002 $39,108 $69,029

New Mexico $34,050 $60,528 $34,050 $60,528

North Carolina $41,667 $71,346 $47,195 $81,872

Oregon $46,056 $73,956 $46,056 $81,396

Puerto Rico $24,084 $37,632 $24,084 $37,632

South Carolina $30,902 $70,204 $34,300 $45,913

Tennessee $34,896 $56,484 $34,896 $56,484

Utahd $46,259 $73,361 $46,259 $73,361

Vermont $38,335 $63,232 $38,335 $63,232

Virginia $31,278 $109,280b $31,278 $109,280b

Washington $40,260 $56,892 $46,728 $61,296

Wyoming $50,244 $70,920 $50,244 $70,920

Average $39,724 $69,242 $41,066 $69,900

Source: GAO analysis of OSHA’s 2012 survey of salaries in state-run programs.

a

OSHA’s salary survey refers to “Compliance Safety and Health Officer” (labeled as “safety 

inspectors” in the table above) and “Industrial Hygienist” (labeled as “health inspectors” in the table 

above). OSHA officials stated that federal inspectors are typically hired at the midpoint of the salary 

scale, which ranged from $38,511 to $47,103 in fiscal year 2012.

b

System has no official salary cap for this position in these states.

c

Increases depend on annual incremental increases funded by the general assembly for state 

employees. No incremental increases have been funded since 2010.

d

In its technical comments on our report, OSHA provided Utah’s responses to its salary survey.

Appendix III: Salary Ranges for Federal and 

State Safety and Health Inspectors, 2012
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 37 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Labor
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 38 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 39 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Revae E. Moran, (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Meeta Engle, Assistant Director; 

Linda Siegel, Analyst in Charge; Bryan Rogowski; and Suzanne Rubins 

made significant contributions to this report. In addition, assistance and 

guidance were provided by Susan Aschoff, Sarah Cornetto, Mary 

Crenshaw, Gretta Goodwin, DuEwa Kamara, Stu Kaufman, Lara Laufer, 

Kathleen Peyman, Kathy Leslie, Luann Moy, Mimi Nguyen, Carol Patey, 

Paul Schearf, and Kathleen van Gelder.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products

Page 40 GAO-13-320 Workplace Safety and Health

Workplace Safety and Health: Further Steps by OSHA Would Enhance 

Monitoring of Enforcement and Effectiveness. GAO-13-61. Washington, 

D.C.: January 24, 2013.

Whistleblower Protection: Sustained Management Attention Needed to 

Address Long-standing Program Weaknesses. GAO-10-722. 

Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2010.

Occupational Safety and Health: Changes Needed in the Combined 

Federal-State Approach. GAO/HEHS-94-10. Washington, D.C.: February 

28, 1994.

Occupational Safety and Health: Changes Needed in the Combined 

Federal-State Approach. GAO/T-HRD-94-3. Washington, D.C.: October 

20, 1993.

Occupational Safety & Health: Inspectors’ Opinions on Improving OSHA 

Effectiveness. GAO/HRD-91-9FS. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 

1990.

Occupational Safety & Health: Options for Improving Safety and Health in 

the Workplace. GAO/HRD-90-66BR. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 1990.

Occupational Safety & Health: California’s Resumption of Enforcement 

Responsibility in the Private Sector. GAO/HRD-89-82. Washington, D.C.: 

April 17, 1989.

OSHA’s Resumption of Private Sector Enforcement Activities in 

California. GAO/T-HRD-88-19. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 1988.

OSHA’s Monitoring and Evaluation of State Programs. 

GAO/T-HRD-88-13. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 1988.

Related GAO Products

(131120)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.