Abstract-1

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration

DIRECTIVE NUMBER: CSP 01-00-005 EFFECTIVE DATE: 05/06/2020

SUBJECT: State Plan Policies and Procedures Manual

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To provide Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

offices and State Plans with the policies and procedures for establishing, 

monitoring, supporting, and withdrawing State Plans.

Scope: This instruction applies OSHA-wide. 

References: PL 91-596, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; Cooperative 

and State Programs (CSP) 02-00-002, Consultation Policies and 

Procedures Manual, January 18, 2008; 29 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Parts 1902, 1908, and 1952-1956; Compliance and Enforcement 

(CPL) 02-03-007, Whistleblower Investigations Manual (WIM), January 

28, 2016.

Cancellations: OSHA Instruction CSP 01-00-004, dated September 22, 2015.

State Plan Impact: This instruction discusses parts of 29 CFR to which State Plans must 

adhere. Additionally, this instruction provides policy guidance to OSHA 

personnel regarding their role in the creation, oversight, support, and 

withdrawal of OSHA State Plans. The implementation of this policy 

guidance will affect the interactions between OSHA and State Plans. No 

State Plan response to this instruction is necessary.

Action Offices: National, Regional, and Area Offices involved in State Plan monitoring 

and liaison duties.

Originating Office: Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs

Contact: Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs

Office of State Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-3700

Washington, D.C. 20210

(202) 693-2244

Approval: By and Under the Authority of
Abstract-2

Loren Sweatt

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Abstract-3

Changes to the Manual

This manual cancels OSHA Instruction CSP 01-00-004, dated September 22, 2015, and 

subsequent changes. The updated State Plan Policies and Procedures Manual provides 

clarifications on procedures, updated terms and definitions, and revised templates for Federal 

Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (FAME) reports. The changes in the current document 

are:

 Updates the term “public sector” to “state and local government” throughout the 

manual.

 Updates Automated Tracking System (ATS) to State Plan Application (SPA).

 Provides clarification of adoption requirements of Federal Program Changes (FPC)

for State Plans.

 Updates the Complaint About State Plan Administration (CASPA) procedure to

include sending a copy of the incoming CASPA and the opening letter to the 

Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs (DCSP) via a designated email 

address.

 Incorporates the revised templates for Comprehensive and Follow-up FAME reports 

into the manual’s appendices.

 Adds updates to the definitions in Appendix A.

 Updates references to OIS instead of IMIS.

 Updates listing of measures on the State Indicator Report (SIR).

Executive Summary

This manual cancels and replaces OSHA Instruction CSP 01-00-004. It lays out the overall 

policy framework for administering, monitoring, evaluating, and funding State Plans. This 

manual operationalizes the policy governing the partnership between OSHA and the State 

Plans. The procedures place primary emphasis on achieving significant program results 

through a common approach of strategic planning and making progress toward strategic and 

annual goals. This approach allows State Plans to customize their programs to state-specific 

priorities and conditions. It also focuses OSHA’s monitoring in a way that supports State 

Plan efforts toward positive program impact and performance improvement. 
i

Table of Contents

Acronyms.................................................................................................iii

Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................1

I. Purpose...........................................................................................1

II. Scope.............................................................................................1

III. Action Information..............................................................................1

IV. Actions Required............................................................................... 1

V. Cancellation...................................................................................... 1

VI. References......................................................................................1

VII. State Plan Impact...............................................................................1

Chapter 2: Coverage – Currently Reserved.........................................................2

Chapter 3: State Plan Establishment and Approval...............................................3

I. Introduction. ...................................................................................3

II. Submission of Draft State Plans..............................................................3

III. Review and Approval of Draft State Plans................................................18

Chapter 4: State Plan Changes.......................................................................27

I. Introduction. ...................................................................................27

II. Types of Plan Changes. ........................................................................27

III. Plan Change Supplements Review.......................................................... 30

IV. State Plan Change for State Standards..................................................... 34 

Chapter 5: Mandated Activities – Grant Application.............................................. 40

I. Introduction. ....................................................................................40

II. Basic Principles of Strategic and Performance Plans .........................................40

III. Strategic Plan Requirements..................................................................41

IV. Annual Performance Plan Requirements....................................................43

V. Grant Application Process Requirements.................................................... 45

Chapter 6: Tools for Federal Oversight and Quarterly Monitoring............................. 51

I. Introduction. .................................................................................. 51

II. Criteria for Acceptable State Performance................................................. 51

III. Tools for Federal Oversight..................................................................53

IV. Quarterly Monitoring..........................................................................65

V. Developing an Annual Monitoring Plan....................................................69

VI. Monitoring Against Annual Performance Plans.......................................... 71

Chapter 7: Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation and Annual Reports..................... 72

I. Introduction....................................................................................72

II. Annual Reports. ............................................................................... 72
ii

Chapter 8: Modifying and Withdrawing State Plan Approval....................................78

I. Introduction.................................................................................. 78

II. Reconsideration of State Plan Final Approval – 29 CFR 1902.......................... 78

III. Withdrawal of State Plan Approval.........................................................82

Chapter 9: Complaint About State Program Administration.....................................89

I. Introduction. ....................................................................................89

II. Confidentiality.................................................................................. 89

III. Filing a CASPA................................................................................ 90

IV. Determining Whether an Investigation is Warranted. ....................................90

V. CASPA Investigation Warranted. ...........................................................92

VI. Significant CASPAs.. .........................................................................95

VII. Sensitive CASPAs.............................................................................96

VIII. Workplace Retaliation Related CASPAs and Dual-Filing................................98

IX. Timeframes.....................................................................................100

X. Tracking of CASPAs.........................................................................100

XI. Documentation of CASPA Investigations.................................................101

XII. Records Disposition...........................................................................101

Appendix A: Definitions............................................................................. A-1

Appendix B: State Plan Approval Process......................................................... B-1

Appendix C: State Standard Adoption Submission and Review Process......................C-1

Appendix D: Examples of Well-Written Performance Goals................................... D-1

Appendix E: Suggested Procedures for Performing Random Sampling...................... E-1

Appendix F: State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR) Template ...................................F-1

Appendix G: Comprehensive FAME Report Template .........................................G-1

Appendix H: Follow-up FAME Report Template..................................................H-1

Appendix I: State Plan Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Template................................I-1

Appendix J: Sample CASPA Letters..................................................................J-1
iii

Acronyms

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act

ALAE - At Least As Effective

ALJ – Administrative Law Judge

AO – OSHA Area Office

ASP – Office of the Assistant Secretary of Policy

BLS – Bureau of Labor Statistics

CAP – Corrective Action Plan

CAPR - Consultation Annual Project Report

CASPA - Complaint About State Plan Administration

CEC – Core Executive Committee

CCU – Correspondence Control Unit

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CPL – Compliance Directive

CPPM – Consultation Policies and Procedures Manual

CSHO – Compliance Safety and Health Officer

CSP – Cooperative and State Programs Directive

DAP – Directorate of Administrative Programs

DAS – Deputy Assistant Secretary

DCSP - Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs

DEP – Directorate of Enforcement Programs

DOC – Directorate of Construction

DSG – Directorate of Standards and Guidance

DTSEM – Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

DWPP – Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs

EEOC – Equal Employment Opportunities Commission

FAME - Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report

FOIA – Freedom of Information Act

FOM – Field Operations Manual

FPC – Federal Program Change

FRL – Further Review Level

FRN – Federal Register Notice

FTE – Full-time Equivalent

GPRA – Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

IMIS – Integrated Management Information System

MARC - Mandated Activity Reports for Consultation

NAICS - North American Industrial Classification System

NPRM – Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NRTLs – Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories

OAS – Office of the Assistant Secretary

OIG – Office of the Inspector General

OIS – OSHA Information System

OSA – Operational Status Agreement

OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration
iv

OSH Act – Occupational Safety and Health Act

OSHSPA - Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association

OSP – Office of State Programs

OMB – Office of Management and Budget

PMR - Performance Measurement Reports

RA – Regional Administrator

RACER - Regional Annual Consultation Evaluation Report

SAMM - State Activity Mandated Measures

SHARP – Safety and Health Achievement and Recognition Program

SIC - State Initiated Change

SIEP - State Internal Evaluation Program

SIR - State Indicator Report

SOAR - State OSHA Annual Report

SOL – Office of the Solicitor

SPA – State Plan Application

VPP – Voluntary Protection Programs

WIM – Whistleblower Investigation Manual
1

Chapter 1

Introduction

I. Purpose. To provide Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

offices and State Plans with the policies and procedures for establishing, monitoring, 

supporting, and withdrawing State Plans.

II. Scope. This instruction applies OSHA-wide. 

III. Action Information.

A. Responsible Office. Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs (DCSP), 

Office of State Programs (OSP).

B. Action Offices. National, Regional, and Area Offices involved in State Plan 

monitoring, acting as liaisons, and State Plans.

IV. Actions Required. All offices must implement the policies and procedures contained 

in this instruction.

V. Cancellation. OSHA Instruction CSP 01-00-004, dated September 22, 2015.

VI. References. 

A. Public Law (PL) 91-596, The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(OSH Act).

B. CSP 02-00-002, Consultation Policies and Procedures Manual (CPPM), 

January 18, 2008.

C. 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1902, 1908, and 1952-1956.

D. CPL 02-03-007, Whistleblower Investigations Manual (WIM), January 28, 

2016.

VII. State Plan Impact. This instruction discusses parts of 29 CFR to which State Plans 

must adhere. Additionally, this instruction provides policy guidance to OSHA 

personnel regarding their role in the creation, oversight, support, and withdrawal of 

OSHA State Plans. The implementation of this policy guidance will affect the 

interactions between OSHA and State Plans. No State Plan response to this 

instruction is necessary.
2

Chapter 2 

Coverage

Reserved – Pending 
3

Chapter 3

State Plan Establishment and Approval

I. Introduction. Section 18 of the OSH Act gives states an opportunity to administer their 

own occupational safety and health programs upon OSHA approval of a State Plan 

and sets out the general criteria for establishing one. More detailed criteria are 

established in 29 CFR Part 1902 for State Plans covering both state and local government 

and private sector employment and in 29 CFR Part 1956 for State Plans covering state 

and local government employment only. 

States interested in developing an OSHA-approved State Plan should contact their 

Regional point of contact for guidance and assistance. Contact information for OSHA 

Regions and individual State Plans is available on OSHA’s State Plan webpage. The

Region must notify DCSP of the state’s interest. The Region and DCSP will provide 

support to the state during the development of draft State Plan documents. 

II. Submission of Draft State Plans. In general, a state must have the legal basis (i.e., basic 

legislation) for a State Plan prior to pursuing initial approval and submitting a State Plan 

Narrative. The state should then inform OSHA of its interest in pursuing initial approval. 

The state shall submit the necessary documentation and draft a State Plan proposal to the 

Region for review. The proposal shall include a State Plan Narrative in a concise form 

that clearly explains the state’s policies and procedures, and should provide 

documentation in an appendix to each section of the narrative. A detailed outline of the 

required contents of the narrative is included. At this point, the legal authority for the 

State Plan and its policies and procedures will be reviewed by OSHA and discussed with 

the state. The State Plan approval process involves much time and coordination between 

the state and OSHA. 

For developmental plans, the State Plan Narrative shall include satisfactory assurances 

that the State Plan will conform to the criteria established under 29 CFR Part 1902 (for 

comprehensive plans, covering state and local government and private sector employees) 

or in 29 CFR Part 1956 (for state and local government State Plans) within three years 

from the commencement of the State Plan’s operation. The State Plan Narrative should 

also describe the specific actions the state proposes to take and include a comprehensive 

developmental schedule describing the timeline for completion of these actions within 

three years.

As final actions are taken by the state with respect to the developmental aspects of the 

State Plan, documentation of these items should be submitted to OSHA for insertion in 

the appropriate State Plan appendix throughout the life of the State Plan. The procedures 

for completion of developmental steps and certification may be found in 29 CFR 

1902.33, 1902.34, and 1902.35.

The draft State Plan Narrative must include:

Table of Contents. The table of contents should list each of the headings below and the 

corresponding page numbers, along with the accompanying appendices.
4

A. General Background and Legal Authority.

1. History. Describe the history of state activities relating to occupational 

safety and health conditions.

2. Existing Legal Basis for the State Plan. Identify the existing legal basis 

for the State Plan. Basic legislation must be in place and approved by 

OSHA. If the State Plan is a developmental plan, and if program changes 

are necessary which require further executive or legislative action to meet 

OSHA’s requirements, identify such changes, and submit the following:

a. A copy of the appropriate order, a copy of the bill, or a draft of the 

legislation that has been or will be proposed for enactment; 

b. A statement of the governor’s support of the legislation or order; 

c. A legal opinion that the proposed legislation or executive action 

will meet the requirements of OSHA and 29 CFR Part 1956 for 

state and local government State Plans or 29 CFR Part 1902 for 

comprehensive State Plans in a manner consistent with the state’s 

constitution and laws; and 

d. A timetable for the adoption of the legislation or order.

3. Employee Coverage. Describe the scope of coverage with respect to 

employees under the State Plan, including the following: 

a. Identify those state and local government employee groups who 

are covered under the State Plan, as well as the private sector 

employee groups covered for comprehensive State Plans;

b. If any political subdivision employees are excluded from the State 

Plan’s scope of coverage, identify the limitation in either the state

law or constitution which prohibits the state from regulating 

occupational safety and health conditions in political subdivisions; 

c. Provide a breakdown of employment by agency and subdivision,

as well as industry for comprehensive State Plans; and

d. Describe the types of work performed. Assignment of North 

American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) to each 

workplace is encouraged. 

4. Issue Coverage. Identify any occupational, industrial, or hazard grouping 

excluded from coverage under the State Plan, and provide details as to 

why coverage is unnecessary in these excluded areas. 

5. Appendix A. Appendix A must include the following:

a. Enacted legislation or executive order;

b. A draft of any proposed supplemental legislation or order; 

c. A statement of the governor’s support of the proposed legislation 

and/or order; and
5

d. A legal opinion (i.e., from the State Attorney General). 

B. Designated State Agency.

1. State Designee. Identify the state agency or agencies responsible for 

administering the State Plan throughout the state. 

2. Concurrent Authority and Responsibilities. Describe the concurrent 

authority and responsibilities of the designated agency other than

regulation of occupational safety and health conditions. 

3. Delegation. If delegation to or contracts with other statewide agencies is 

intended by the designated state agency, describe those responsibilities 

subject to delegation or contracts, as well as the controls over the 

delegated or contracted agency which the designated state agency intends 

to implement. 

4. Appendix B. Appendix B must include the following:

a. A letter from the governor designating the state agency; and

b. Contracts and/or agreements with delegated agencies, or a 

timeframe and the nature of intended contracts if in the 

developmental stage, where applicable. 

C. Standards and Variances.

1. Identical Standards. Indicate whether the state agency has adopted or 

intends to adopt the same standards established by the Assistant Secretary 

for OSHA or whether alternative standards will be adopted by the state. 

2. Procedures for Identical Standards. Describe the procedures for the 

adoption of the same permanent standards established under Section 6 of

the OSH Act. 

3. Procedures for Alternative Standards. Describe the procedures for the 

development and adoption of (29 CFR 1902.4(b)(2)(iii) and 29 CFR 

1956.11(b)(2)(iii)) alternative standards, including: 

a. Consideration of expert technical knowledge;

b. Provision for interested persons to submit information requesting 

the development or promulgation of new standards, or the 

modification or evaluation of existing standards; and

c. Provision for interested persons to have an opportunity to 

participate in any hearing on the development, modification, or 

establishment of standards. 

4. Emergency Temporary Standards. Describe the procedures for prompt 

and effective standards-setting actions for the protection of employees 

against new and unforeseen hazards, including the authority to establish 

emergency temporary standards. This authority should include those 

situations where employees are exposed to unique hazards for which 

existing standards do not provide adequate protection. 
6

5. Issues to Be Addressed by Standards. Identify how the state standards 

provide for the following: 

a. In the case of any state standards dealing with toxic material or 

harmful physical agents, describe how the standards in this area 

will adequately ensure, to the extent feasible, that no employee will 

suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even if 

such employee has regular exposure to the hazard addressed by 

such standard for the period of his working life. In responding to 

the above, also address how the development of state standards in 

this area considers the best available evidence through such 

avenues as research, demonstration, experiments, and experience 

under OSHA and any other safety and health laws.

b. Identify how state standards contain appropriate provisions for the 

furnishing to employees of information regarding hazards in the 

workplace, including information about suitable precautions, 

relevant symptoms, and emergency treatment in case of exposure. 

In addition, the procedures for furnishing this information should 

include labeling, posting, and, where appropriate, the results of 

medical examinations being furnished only to the appropriate state 

officials and, if the employee so requests, to his/her physician. 

c. Describe how the state standards contain, where appropriate, 

specific provisions for the use of suitable protective equipment and 

for control or technological procedures with respect to such 

hazards, including the monitoring or measuring of such exposure.

d. If the state adopts standards identical to existing OSHA standards, 

such standards will be deemed to meet the above requirements. 

However, since states may also establish standards in areas not yet 

addressed by OSHA, the state should respond to the issues raised 

above for those standards. 

6. Assurance for Continued Effectiveness. Provide assurances that the State

Plan will continue to develop or adopt standards which are or will be at 

least as effective (ALAE) as those established under Section 6 of the OSH

Act. In providing the above, the State Plan should address the following 

issues: 

a. Adoption of state permanent standards within six months from the 

promulgation (publication) of the federal regulation establishing 

the standard under Section 6 of the OSH Act.

Note: State Plans must also adopt injury and illness recording and 

reporting requirements within six months; however State Plans 

must promulgate recordkeeping and reporting regulations that are 

“substantially identical” to those set forth in 29 CFR part 1904. 

(State Plans may promulgate other injury and illness recording and 

reporting requirements that are more stringent than, or 
7

supplemental to, 29 CFR part 1904, after consulting with, and 

obtaining approval from, federal OSHA.) 29 CFR 1904.37 and 

1902.7. In addition, Section 18(c)(7) of the OSH Act and relevant 

OSHA regulations require affected employers to submit injury and 

illness data in the Injury Tracking Application (ITA) online portal, 

even if the employer is covered by a State Plan that has not 

completed adoption of its own state rule.

b. Adoption of emergency temporary standards within 30 days from 

the promulgation (publication) of the emergency temporary 

standard under Section 6 of the OSH Act. 

7. Procedures for Granting Variances. Describe the procedures for the 

granting of variances, including how the State Plan provides authority for 

the granting of variances from state standards upon application of an

employer which corresponds to variances authorized under OSHA (see 29 

CFR Part 1905 and Section 6 of the OSH Act). In addition, describe how 

the procedures allow for the modification, revocation, and renewal of 

variances. In describing the variance procedures, the following issues 

should be addressed: 

a. That any variance granted may only have future effect; 

b. There must be a procedure for public notice for every action 

granting a variance, limitation, variation, tolerance, or exemption;

c. Employer notice procedures to the employees or authorized 

representatives where the employer has applied for the variance,

including giving a copy of the application to the employees’

authorized representatives, posting a statement, giving a summary 

of the application, and specifying where a copy may be examined 

(at the places where notices to employees are normally posted), 

and by other appropriate means;

d. Procedures which allow for the consideration of the views of 

interested parties when a variance has been applied for, including: 

giving affected employees both notice of and the opportunity to 

participate in hearings (such as procedures which allow affected 

employers and employees to request a hearing while the 

application is pending) or other appropriate proceedings relating to 

the applications for variances;

e. Procedures for the conduct of a hearing, including the following: 

i. Procedures which allow for the modification, revocation, and 

renewal of variances; 

ii. Procedures which allow for the official conducting the hearing 

to hold pre-hearing conferences, as well as establishment of 

consent findings, discovery;

iii. Procedures which allow for the filing of exceptions to the 
8

decision of the hearing official, and the transmission of the 

hearing record to the state administrative authority for its 

review and decision; and

iv. Procedures which allow for judicial reviews of the state

administrative authority’s final agency action.

f. Describe the procedures for the granting of temporary variances, as 

well as the modification, revocation, or renewal of the variances 

(see Section 6 of the OSH Act and 29 CFR Section 1905.10), 

including how such procedures address the following criteria 

before a variance can be granted:

i. The employer is unable to comply with a standard by its 

effective date because of the unavailability of professional or 

technical personnel or of materials and equipment needed to 

come into compliance with the standard or because necessary 

construction or alterations of facilities cannot be completed by 

the effective date; 

ii. The employer is taking all available steps to safeguard his 

employees against the hazards covered by the standard; and 

iii. The employer has an effective program for coming into 

compliance with the standard as quickly as possible.

g. Describe the procedures for the granting of permanent variances, 

as well as the modification, revocation, or renewal of these 

variances (see Section 6(d) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR Section 

1905.11). Procedures for the granting of permanent variances 

should address the issue as to whether the proponent of the 

variance has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that 

conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes 

used or proposed to be used by an employer will provide 

employment and places of employment to the employees which are 

as safe and healthful as those which would prevail if the employer 

complied with the standard. 

8. Appendix C. Appendix C must include the following: 

a. Standard promulgation procedures (such as the state’s 

Administrative Procedure Act) that are ALAE as 29 CFR Part 

1911 or a timeframe for the development of such procedures; 

b. State standards that are ALAE as existing OSHA standards, or a 

timetable for the development thereof; 

c. Standards comparisons for alternative standards (in a specified 

format) or a timetable for the development and submission thereof; 

and

d. Variance regulations that are ALAE as 29 CFR Part 1905 or a 

timetable for the development thereof.
9

Note: As new standards are adopted over the life of the State Plan, they should 

be added to this appendix.

D. Enforcement.

1. Regulatory Basis for Enforcement Program. Identify how the state law 

and/or regulations include the provisions set forth below, as well as how 

the State Plan intends to implement these provisions through its 

enforcement program. 

2. Inspection Procedures. The State Plan should address the following issues 

(see Section 8 of the OSH Act, 29 CFR Part 1903, and the FOM): 

a. Identify the State Plan’s authority to inspect covered workplaces,

including inspections in response to complaints where there are 

reasonable grounds to believe a hazard exists.

b. Identify the State Plan’s authority to enter without delay, and at 

reasonable times, any factory, plant, establishment, construction 

site, or other area, workplace, or environment where work is 

performed by an employee.

c. Describe the State Plan’s procedures for termination of inspections 

when an employer refuses to permit an inspection, and appropriate 

action by the enforcement agency (such as obtaining a compulsory 

order) when there has been a refusal.

d. Describe the procedures which permit the State Plan to question 

privately any employer, operator, agent, or employee.

e. Describe the State Plan’s right to review records which are 

required to be maintained under the State Plan and other records 

which are directly related to the purpose of the inspection.

f. Identify the prohibitions against advance notice of inspections, 

except in special, defined circumstances (see 29 CFR Section 

1903.6).

g. Describe how the State Plan establishes a mechanism whereby a 

representative of the employer and a representative of the 

employees have an opportunity to accompany the inspector during 

the physical inspection of the workplace. If there is no authorized 

representative for the employees, then there should be a provision 

for consultation by the inspector with a reasonable number of 

employees.

h. Describe the procedures for the prompt restraint or elimination of 

any conditions or practices in covered places of employment which 

could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical 

harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be 

eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise 

established in the State Plan. Such procedures should address the 

following issues:
10

i. Immediately informing employees and employers of such 

hazards, and that the State Plan is recommending a civil action 

to restrain such conditions or practices; 

ii. Taking steps to obtain immediate abatement of the hazard by 

the employer; and 

iii. Authority to initiate necessary legal proceedings to require 

such abatement, such as judicial restraint of the conditions or 

practices. 

3. Complaint Procedures. The State Plan should address the following 

issues: 

a. Describe how the State Plan provides an opportunity for 

employees and their representatives to bring possible violations to 

the attention of the designated state or local agency with 

responsibility before, during, and after inspections.

b. Identify how the State Plan provides for notification of employees 

(or their representatives) when the State Plan decides not to take 

compliance action where violations are alleged by the employees 

or their representatives.

c. When a decision not to take compliance action is made, describe 

the informal review process, which should include: written 

notification of the decision not to take compliance action, the 

accompanying reasons, a description of the informal review 

process, and written statements of the dispositions of such reviews.

d. Describe how the State Plan protects the confidentiality of the 

complainant employee, such as the withholding of the names of 

complainants from the employer upon the request of the 

complainant employee.

e. Describe the State Plan’s non-formal complaint procedures. 

4. Workplace Retaliation Protections. Identify those provisions in the State 

Plan which provide for the following workplace retaliation protections and 

procedures (ALAE as 29 CFR 1977): 

a. Necessary and appropriate protection to an employee against 

discharge or workplace retaliation with respect to terms and 

conditions of employment for filing a complaint, testifying, or 

otherwise acting to express his rights under the State Plan;

b. Filing of a workplace retaliation complaint within a specified time;

c. A specified timeframe in which state agency decisions regarding a 

workplace retaliation complaint will be rendered;

d. Ability of the state agency to initiate compensatory actions,

including back pay and reinstatement of the employee; and
11

e. An appropriate mechanism for ensuring that no further workplace 

retaliation will occur. 

5. Methods for Compelling Compliance. Identify those methods which the 

State Plan uses or intends to use in compelling employer compliance, as 

well as the procedures for abatement of hazards. Such methods and 

procedures should address the following issues: 

a. Prompt notice to employers and employees is provided when an 

alleged violation of standards has occurred, including the proposed 

abatement requirements. Such notice should include the issuance 

of a written citation to the employer and posting of the citation at 

or near the site of the violation. Citations should describe with 

particularity the nature of the alleged violation, including a 

reference to the provision of the state law, standard, rule, 

regulation, or order alleged to be violated. Any citation should 

also fix a reasonable time or times for the abatement of the alleged 

violation. If the citation is a result of an employee-requested 

inspection or employer notification of a violation, a copy should 

also be sent to the employee or representative of employees who 

made such a request or notification; 

b. Advising the employer of any proposed sanctions, wherever 

appropriate, including a notice to the employer by certified mail 

within a reasonable time of any proposed sanctions. Such notices 

should be after or concurrent with the issuance of a citation, and 

within a reasonable time after the termination of the inspection. 

The employer should also be notified of its right to contest the 

citation or the notification of the proposed penalty;

c. Submission by interested persons of data relating to the abatement 

of a hazard and a consideration by the State Plan of such data prior 

to the issuance or modification of an abatement order; 

i. If a system of monetary penalties is not the most appropriate 

enforcement mechanism for state and local government

employers under the State Plan, describe the alternative 

enforcement mechanism, and address the following issues, 

which may include: administrative orders; judicial orders and 

mandamus actions; red tag procedures; expanded employee 

rights and participation in enforcement, including: the right to 

contest citations, as well as abatement periods; mandatory 

agency self-inspection procedures; and employee complaint 

procedures.

d. The proposed first instance sanctions or penalties and the 

relationship between these penalties and the gravity of the 

violation, including penalties or “alternative sanctions” (for state 

and local government State Plans) for: 
12

i. Repeated violations; 

ii. Serious violations; 

iii. Other than serious violations; 

iv. Failure to abate a violation within the period permitted for its 

correction; 

v. Willful violations; 

vi. Willful violations which lead to the death of any employee; 

and

vii. Factors for assessment and reduction of penalties, including 

due consideration of the appropriateness of the penalty with 

respect to the size of the employer’s activity being charged, 

the gravity of the violation, the fault of the employer, and the 

history of previous violations. 

6. Review System for Contested Cases. Identify the review system for 

contested cases with respect to violations alleged by the State Plan, as well 

as abatement periods, proposed penalties, or alternative sanctions. The 

review system should include the following: 

a. A timeframe for the filing of contested cases;

b. Procedures whereby an employer has a right to contest a citation or 

citations, penalty, and abatement periods;

c. Procedures whereby an employee has a right to question the 

reasonableness of abatement periods;

d. Procedures which permit employees or their authorized 

representatives to have an opportunity to participate in the review 

proceedings;

e. Informal (pre-contest) review procedures;

f. Formal review proceedings, including the right of review from the 

decision of the hearing examiner;

g. Procedures for reviews of administrative decisions to a judicial 

body; and

h. The ability of the state agency to obtain, through the appropriate 

compulsory process, necessary evidence or testimony in 

connection with inspection and enforcement proceedings, such as 

discovery depositions, interrogatories, and subpoenas. 

7. Employee Access to Information. Describe how the State Plan addresses 

the issue of employee access to information and posting of notices to 

employees. Identify the provision whereby employees have access to 

information on their exposure to toxic materials or harmful physical agents 

and how employees receive prompt information when they have been or 

are being exposed to such materials or agents at levels in excess of those 
13

prescribed by the applicable safety and health standards. The provision 

should incorporate the following mechanisms: 

a. Observation by employees of the monitoring or measuring of such 

materials or agents;

b. Employee access to the records of such monitoring or measuring;

c. Prompt notification by an employer to any employee who has been 

or is being exposed to such agents or materials in excess of the 

applicable standard or standards; and

d. Informing employees of corrective action being taken. 

8. Other Prohibited Actions and Sanctions. Identify how the State Plan 

provides penalties for the following types of prohibited actions: 

a. Penalties for any person who gives advance notice of any 

inspection without authority from the designated agency;

b. Penalties for any person who makes any false statement in any 

application, record, plan, or other document filed or required to be 

maintained under the State Plan; and

c. Penalties for employers who violate any of the required posting 

requirements. 

9. Inspection Scheduling System. Describe how the State Plan provides for 

an inspection scheduling system, including how the system addresses the 

following priorities: 

a. Priorities by type of inspection (i.e., programmed and

unprogrammed); and

b. Priorities by hazard, workplace, and equivalent NAICS.

10. Voluntary Compliance Program. Identify how the State Plan will 

undertake programs to encourage voluntary compliance by state and local 

government employees and employers, including the following: 

a. Training and education of state and local government employees 

and employers, including types of courses;

b. Priorities for the scheduling of training programs;

c. Public information programs;

d. On-site consultations to state and local government employees and 

private sector sites for those states with 21(d) private sector 

consultation programs; and

e. Encouragement of agency self-inspection programs. 

11. Laboratory Support Services. Describe how the State Plan provides for 

and utilizes laboratory support services. 

12. Assurances for Continued Effectiveness. Provide assurances that the State 
14

Plan will continue to be ALAE as OSHA. 

13. Appendix D. Appendix D must include the following: 

a. Regulations or procedures equivalent to 29 CFR Part 1903 or a 

timetable for their development; 

b. Regulations or procedures equivalent to 29 CFR Part 1977 or a 

timetable for their development; 

c. Inspection scheduling system (high hazard first) or timetable for its

development; 

d. Procedures for on-site consultation or a timetable for their 

development; 

e. Regulations or procedures which are equivalent to 29 CFR Part 

2200 or a timetable for their development; and

f. State FOM and Industrial Hygiene Manual or timetable for their 

development (this may be a separate volume if desired).

E. Recordkeeping and Reports. 

1. Record and Report Requirements. Describe how the State Plan compiles 

injury and illness statistics and addresses the following requirements.

a. Provide assurances and identify how employers covered by the 

State Plan will maintain records and make reports of occupational 

injuries and illnesses in a manner similar to those required of 

employers under OSHA (see Section 24(e) of the OSH Act and 29 

CFR Part 1904), including: 

i. Annual summary of occupational illnesses and injuries; 

ii. Retention of records for five years; 

iii. Reporting of all work-related fatalities within eight hours;

iv. Reporting of all work-related inpatient hospitalizations, all 

amputations, and all losses of an eye within 24 hours; 

v. Penalties for falsification or failure to keep records and 

reports; and

vi. Description of the state’s statistical program and Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) activity.

2. Annual Survey. Conduct an annual survey to establish incidence rates 

through participation in the BLS program. 

3. Management Information System. Describe the State Plan’s management 

information system, and address the following issues: 

a. Stage in development (manual, automated); and

b. How data is used for managing the State Plan. 
15

4. Form and Content of Reports. Provide assurances that the designated 

agency shall make such reasonable reports to the Assistant Secretary 

containing such information as he or she may from time to time require, 

including the following: 

a. Quarterly reports to be submitted to the Assistant Secretary within 

10 days from the close of the quarterly period;

b. Participation in the annual BLS survey;

c. Data and information on the implementation of the specific 

inspection and voluntary compliance activities included within the 

State Plan;

d. Statistical information pertaining to work-related deaths, injuries, 

and illnesses in employment and places of employment covered by 

the State Plan as the Assistant Secretary may from time to time 

require; and

e. Periodic reports to the Assistant Secretary on the extent to which 

the State Plan, in the implementation of its State Plan, has attained 

those goals established for the State Plan which are consistent with 

OSHA’s goals, including: 

i. Measures of performance; 

ii. Measures of output; and

iii. Results which will determine the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the State Plan. 

5. Appendix E. Appendix E must include the following: 

a. Regulations or procedures equivalent to 29 CFR Part 1904 or a 

timetable for the development thereof; 

b. Management information system; and

c. Reporting requirements.

F. Personnel.

1. Sufficient Numbers of Personnel. Provide assurances that the designated 

agency or agencies and all government agencies to which authority has 

been delegated have, or will have, a sufficient number of adequately 

trained and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement and 

administration of the State Plan. With respect to sufficient numbers of 

personnel, the following issues should be addressed: 

a. Number of present safety compliance officers and the anticipated 

number of safety compliance officers over the next three years;

b. Number of present health compliance officers (industrial 

hygienists) and the anticipated number of health compliance 

officers over the next three years;
16

c. Number of other compliance officers at the present time (specify 

the different classifications) and the anticipated number of such 

inspectors over the next three years;

d. Number of present on-site consultants and the anticipated number 

of such consultants over the next three years;

e. Number of anti-retaliation personnel at the present time and the 

anticipated number of anti-retaliation personnel over the next three

years;

f. Number of training and educational staff;

g. Total funded staff; and

h. If under or over OSHA’s benchmark, provide a justification for 

this result. 

2. Organization of Staff. Describe the organization of the staff, including 

supervisors and support staff. 

3. Qualified Staff Requirements. With respect to whether the staff is 

adequately trained and qualified, provide the following information: 

a. Minimum qualifications for state administrative and enforcement 

positions; and

b. Training programs for staff, including: 

i. Attendance at OSHA Training Institute courses; 

ii. On-the-job training; and 

iii. In-house training programs. 

4. State Plan’s Merit and Hiring Systems. Describe the State Plan’s merit 

system and hiring system, and address the following issues.

a. Conformance with the merit system requirements described below.

i. Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration, 

45 CFR Part 70, issued by the Secretary of Labor, including 

any amendment thereto; and

ii. Any standards by the U.S. Civil Service Commission, 

pursuant to Section 208 of the Intergovernmental Personnel 

Act of 1970, modifying or superseding the above standards;

and

b. The State Plan’s commitment to affirmative action in the hiring of 

state employees. 

5. Appendix F. Appendix F must include the following: 

a. A current staffing or organizational chart (including cooperating 

agencies), as well as a chart which describes the State Plan’s 

staffing and organization as projected over a three-year period; 
17

b. State job descriptions for all positions in the State Plan; 

c. Supplemental assurances required for merit system approval or a 

timetable for submission thereof; and

d. Affirmative action plan or a timetable for the development of the 

plan.

G. Budget and Funding.

1. Commitment of Adequate Funds. In order for a State Plan to be approved, 

Congress must authorize additional funding to OSHA to support the State 

Plan. In addition, the state must provide satisfactory assurances that the 

state will devote adequate funds to the administration and enforcement of 

the State Plan, and include the following: 

a. Funds available for the administration and enforcement of the State 

Plan;

b. Source of the state’s funding for the State Plan; and

c. Fifty percent commitment of state funds to the overall costs of the 

State Plan. 

2. Appendix G. Appendix G must include the following: 

a. A detailed budget for the State Plan’s first year of operations 

(using the grant format); 

b. Projection for the next two years’ budgets for the administration 

and enforcement of the State Plan.

H. Comprehensive Developmental Schedule.

1. If a state submits a State Plan that does not fully meet all of the criteria

under 29 CFR 1902 or 1956, it must include satisfactory assurances that 

the state will take the necessary steps to meet the criteria within the threeyear period immediately following the commencement of the State Plan’s 

operation.

a. The specific actions the state proposes to take and a time schedule 

for their accomplishment—not to exceed three years—at the end of 

which the State Plan will meet the criteria in 29 CFR 1902.3 for 

full State Plans or 29 CFR 1956.10 for state and local government 

State Plans. For each item addressed in the narrative section which

is in a developmental stage, provide a comprehensive schedule 

which indicates the following.

i. Specific actions the state proposes to take;

ii. A schedule for the completion of such actions within three 

years; 

iii. The dates within which intermediate and final action will be 

taken; and
18

iv. If necessary, program changes include legislative action by a 

state, a copy or a draft of the legislation, accompanied by: 

(1) A statement of the governor’s support of the legislation;

and

(2) A statement of legal opinion that the proposed 

legislation will meet the requirements of the Act in a 

manner consistent with the state’s constitution and 

laws.

III. Review and Approval of Draft State Plans. This section provides detailed information 

on the various stages of State Plan approval. A concise reference to the below 

information is available as a flow chart in Appendix B.

A. Regional and National Review. The Region is responsible for conducting the 

initial review of a draft State Plan in consultation with DCSP and Department of 

Labor’s Office of the Solicitor (SOL). The Region must notify the state when 

changes or corrections to the State Plan are required and provide technical 

assistance to the state, if necessary. The Region must ensure that the State Plan 

completely meets the criteria as set out in 29 CFR 1902 or 1956. The Region

must review the draft plan to ensure that all of the program elements outlined 

above in the State Plan Narrative are ALAE as the comparable OSHA programs. 

If changes are required, the Region will work with the state to ensure that the 

necessary modifications are made. During the review process, the Region must 

also work with the state on the development of the first 23(g) grant and inform the 

National Office of proposed funding needs. The Region must maintain liaison 

with the state to track state actions, such as the status of legislation. After the 

state makes all required changes to the plan, and after final Region review, the 

Regional Administrator (RA) must submit a final copy of the plan in electronic 

format to DCSP. The RA must submit all comments and recommendations to 

DCSP at the time of plan submission. In addition to reviewing the draft plan with 

the Region, DCSP must coordinate the review of the State Plan within the 

National Office and obtain appropriate clearance within the agency. DCSP is 

responsible for making a recommendation regarding initial approval of the plan to 

the Assistant Secretary, based on the comments from the Regional and National 

Office. 

B. Initial Approval. A Section 18(b) determination, usually called initial approval, is 

an official finding by the Assistant Secretary that the State Plan meets the 

structural criteria for initial approval as set forth in Section 18(c) of the OSH Act.

1. Notice of Proposed Initial State Plan Approval. Based on all information 

received, DCSP must determine, in coordination with the Region, whether

to recommend to the Assistant Secretary that the State Plan receive initial 

approval. DCSP must prepare for the Assistant Secretary’s signature, and 

have published, a Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). This notice must be in accordance with Subpart C of 29 CFR 
19

Part 1902 or Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 1956. The notice must:

a. Explain and describe the submission of the State Plan; 

b. Identify any State Plan-related matters on which public comment 

would be of benefit to the Agency; 

c. Request written public comment; 

d. Notify the public of availability of the written State Plan for 

inspection and copying; and

e. Inform interested parties of the right to request formal or informal 

hearings. Such requests must present specific written objections to 

the proposed initial State Plan approval, and the Assistant 

Secretary must decide whether the objections raised are substantial 

and, if so, must publish a notice of the time and place of the 

scheduled hearing.

2. State Notification. The state agency must publish a plan submission 

notice in an equivalent statewide publication within five days of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

3. Copies of the Plan for Public Inspection. DCSP will upload all plan 

documents on the Federal Register’s electronic docket for public 

inspection and comment. This will occur no later than five days 

following the publication of the notice. 

4. Federal Register Notice of Initial Determination. After consideration of 

the public comments received, state responses, subsequent amendments, 

and other information provided, the Assistant Secretary will make a 

determination about whether the State Plan should be initially approved, 

and then DCSP will publish a Federal Register Notice (FRN).

a. Approval of the State Plan. If the Assistant Secretary determines 

that the State Plan should be approved, DCSP will publish a FRN

granting initial approval of the plan under Section 18(c) of the 

OSH Act and codifying the approval by establishing a new subpart 

of 29 CFR Part 1952. Initial approval permits the State Plan to 

adopt and enforce workplace safety and health standards for issues 

covered by the State Plan under authority of state law. 

b. Disapproval. If the determination is to not approve, the FRN must 

indicate that the determination was for disapproval and document 

where the State Plan was unable to meet the criteria and indices of 

effectiveness under Section 18(c) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 

1902 or 1956.
20

5. Grant Approval. Concurrent with State Plan approval or on an agreedupon date shortly thereafter, OSHA will approve the first 23(g) grant to 

fund the State Plan. 

C. Progress of Developmental Plans. A state has three years from the 

commencement of operations (initiation of enforcement activity) under a State 

Plan to complete all of the developmental steps specified in the State Plan as 

approved. The date of “commencement of operations” is ordinarily the State Plan 

approval date (the date the FRN is signed by the Assistant Secretary) but must be 

no later than the effective date of the grant approved under Section 23(g) of the 

Act.

1. Certification of Completion of Developmental Steps. Generally, 

whenever a State Plan completes a developmental step, it must submit to 

the Region either documentation or a Plan Change Supplement. Upon the 

completion of all of the developmental steps in a State Plan, the Region

must prepare and send to DCSP a memo certifying that the State Plan has 

completed all of the developmental steps. If the Assistant Secretary finds 

that the state has completed all the developmental steps specified in the 

State Plan, DCSP will prepare a notice announcing the certification for 

publication in the Federal Register.

Note: This is the final step of approval for State Plans covering the state

and local government only.

2. Timeframe of the Evaluation Period for 18(e) Determination (Final 

Approval). An 18(e) determination, or final State Plan approval, cannot 

be made for at least three years after initial State Plan approval. There is 

no maximum time limit within which a State Plan must receive final 

approval. 

D. Concurrent Enforcement. After initial approval of a State Plan, but prior to final 

approval, Section 18(e) of the Act provides for a period of concurrent 

enforcement coverage in comprehensive State Plans. During this period of 

concurrent authority, the Assistant Secretary may, but is not required to, exercise 

federal enforcement authority with respect to standards promulgated under 

Section 6 of the OSH Act where the State Plan has comparable standards. 

1. Level of Federal Enforcement. Regulations at 29 CFR Part 1954 establish 

the factors to be considered in determining how federal enforcement 

authority should be exercised. These factors include:

a. Whether the State Plan is developmental or complete;

b. The results of evaluations conducted by OSHA;

c. Whether the State Plan has adopted standards that are ALAE as 

OSHA’s standards; and

d. Any other relevant matters, which may include: 
21

 Coordinated utilization of federal and state resources to provide 

effective worker protection throughout the nation;

 The necessity for clarifying the rights and responsibilities of 

employers and employees with respect to federal and state 

authority;

 Progressively greater responsibility and state ability to enforce 

in particular issues subject to evaluation for effectiveness; and

 The need to react promptly to a State Plan’s failure to provide 

effective enforcement of standards. 

2. Recognition of State Procedures. If there are differences between federal 

and state procedures, OSHA will defer to approved state procedures in 

areas, such as variances, informing employees of their rights and 

obligations, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Subject to 

pertinent findings of effectiveness under this part, federal enforcement 

proceedings will not be initiated where: 

a. An employer is in compliance with: 

 a state standard that has been found to be ALAE as the 

comparable OSHA standard; 

 any temporary or permanent variance from such state standard 

granted to that employer with regard to the employment or 

place of employment; 

 any order or interim order in connection with such state 

variance; or 

 any modification or extension of such state variance, provided 

that such variance action was taken under the terms and 

procedures required under 29 CFR 1902.4(b)(2)(iv), and the 

employer has certified that he has not filed for such variance on 

the same set of facts with the Assistant Secretary. 

b. An employer has posted the approved State Plan poster in 

accordance with the applicable provisions of an approved State 

Plan and 29 CFR 1952.10. 

c. An employer is in compliance with the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of an approved State Plan as provided in 29 

CFR 1952.4.

E. Operational Status Agreements (OSAs). Operational status marks the 

implementation by a State Plan of its basic private sector enforcement program, 

including standards, qualified inspectors, and a review system for contested 

enforcement actions. OSHA may voluntarily suspend its concurrent enforcement 

authority for issues covered by the State Plan by means of an OSA signed by the 

RA and State Plan designee (see 29 CFR 1954.3).
22

1. Criteria for OSAs.

a. Enabling Legislation. A state with an approved State Plan must 

have enacted enabling legislation substantially in conformance 

with the requirements of Section 18(c) and 29 CFR Part 1902 in 

order to be considered operational. This legislation must have 

been reviewed and approved by OSHA under 29 CFR Part 1902. 

States without such legislation, or where state legislation as 

enacted requires substantial amendments to meet the requirements 

of 29 CFR Part 1902, will not be considered operational. 

b. Approved State Standards. A State Plan must have standards 

promulgated under state law that: are identical to OSHA standards; 

or are ALAE as the comparable OSHA standards; or have been 

found by OSHA to provide protection ALAE as comparable 

OSHA standards. Where a State Plan has not promulgated 

standards in an area or has promulgated standards that OSHA has 

found not to provide protection as effective as that provided by the 

comparable OSHA standards, the State Plan will not be considered 

operational in that area. 

c. Whistleblower Investigation. The State Plan must have the ability 

to investigate whistleblower complaints under the state’s provision 

analogous to OSH Act Section 11(c). The investigative procedures 

must follow the instructions in the State Plan’s Whistleblower 

Manual and must be ALAE as the federal whistleblower 

investigation system. 

d. Personnel. While the State Plan must have a sufficient number of 

qualified personnel to enforce the standards in accordance with the 

state’s enabling legislation, the State Plan is not required to meet 

its staffing benchmarks in order to achieve operational status. 

However, where a State Plan lacks the qualified personnel to 

enforce in a particular area, the State Plan will not be considered 

operational in that area even though it has enabling legislation and

appropriate standards. 

e. Review of Enforcement Actions. Provisions for a system for 

reviewing and hearing employer and employee contests of state 

citations and penalties must be in effect. 

f. Evaluation Reports. In making the determination of the 

appropriate level of federal enforcement, the RA must consider the 

results of OSHA’s ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the State 

Plan.
23

2. Procedures. In order to be considered operational, a State Plan must 

demonstrate to the RA that it has met all of the criteria at 29 CFR 1954.3.

a. OSAs. When a State Plan is determined to be operational, the RA 

and the State Plan designee should sign an OSA setting forth the 

federal-state coverage responsibilities. The RA shall consult with 

DCSP concerning all required elements and format. At a 

minimum, OSAs must cover all of the following: 

 The scope of the State Plan’s operational status and 

delineation of coverage responsibilities, including the 

issues excluded from the State Plan, the issues where state 

enforcement will not be operational at the time of the 

agreement, and the dates for commencement of such 

operations;

 Procedures for referral, investigation, and enforcement of 

employee requests for inspections.

 Procedures for reporting fatalities and other designated 

major incidents to the responsible enforcing authority; 

 Provision for resumption of concurrent federal enforcement 

activity for failure to substantially comply with the 

agreement as a result of evaluation or other relevant 

factors; 

 Procedures for limited resumption of federal enforcement 

authority where both the State Plan and OSHA agree it is in 

the best interests of safety and health; and

 Procedures for addressing whistleblower complaints.

b. With the signing of an OSA, the State Plan assumes responsibility 

for conducting all enforcement activities related to issues where 

the State Plan is operational, and federal enforcement authority is 

not exercised over those issues. 

c. Federal Register Notice. Upon approval of an OSA, DCSP, in 

coordination with the Region, must prepare a notice of the 

operational status of the approved State Plan for the Assistant 

Secretary’s signature and publication in the Federal Register. 

d. Changes in the Level of Federal Enforcement. If changes in the 

level of enforcement are required, the RA and the State Plan 

designee must sign appropriate amendments to the agreement and 

submit them to DCSP, which will prepare a notice for the Assistant 

Secretary’s signature and publication in the Federal Register.
24

F. Final Plan Approval. A Section 18(e) determination, usually referred to as final 

approval, is an official finding by the Assistant Secretary that the State Plan meets 

the criteria for approval as set forth in Section 18(c) of the OSH Act in actual 

operation. With final approval, OSHA formally relinquishes concurrent authority 

for safety and health issues covered by the State Plan. 

1. Assistant Secretary Determination. When the Assistant Secretary has 

determined that a State Plan meets the eligibility criteria listed below and 

meets the statutory and regulatory approval criteria on the basis of actual 

operations of the State Plan, the Assistant Secretary may, upon request 

from the state, make a Section 18(e) determination granting final approval 

of the State Plan. Final approval results in formal relinquishing of federal 

enforcement authority in all areas covered by the State Plan, with the 

exception of federal workplace retaliation protection authority covered by 

Section 11(c) of the OSH Act. 

2. Eligibility Criteria. The Region, in coordination with DCSP, shall 

determine whether the State Plan meets the following criteria for final 

approval. The State Plan: 

a. Has been certified as having completed all of the developmental 

steps and successfully operated for at least three years;

b. Has allocated staff sufficient to meet safety and health compliance 

staffing benchmarks; and

c. Provides ongoing data on program activities at a sufficient level of 

detail to be comparable to federal data that OSHA can extract from 

the computerized OSHA data system. State Plan participation in 

OSHA’s computerized data system meets this requirement. 

3. Review of Effectiveness. If the State Plan meets the eligibility criteria, the 

Assistant Secretary must then determine whether the State Plan, in actual 

operation, meets the specific criteria in 29 CFR 1902.37. The following 

are done concurrently:

a. 18(e) Evaluation Report. The Region must prepare an evaluation 

report that includes a review of the State Plan’s performance for 

each index of effectiveness in 29 CFR 1902.4, as well as 

discussion of any issues. The Region must send the draft report to 

DCSP and the State Plan for comment and then transmit the final 

evaluation report to the State Plan. 

b. State Plan Changes and Standards. The Region works with DCSP 

and utilizes the State Plan Application (SPA) to determine whether 

the State Plan is current on adoption of all State Plan Changes and 

standards and whether all State Plan Changes and standards are
25

ALAE as OSHA’s requirements. Any significant outstanding 

State Plan Change and standard issues that affect State Plan 

effectiveness must be resolved prior to the granting of final 

approval. 

4. Federal Register Notice (FRN) of Eligibility for Final Approval. 

a. In consultation with the Region and based on the 18(e) evaluation 

report, DCSP must determine whether the State Plan’s 

performance meets all indices of effectiveness contained in 29 

CFR 1902.4 and whether OSHA should proceed with publishing a 

FRN proposing final approval and seeking public comment. 

b. If the recommendation is affirmative, DCSP must establish a 

record of all relevant State Plan documents for public review and 

comment (for inclusion in the official docket). These include the 

most recent version of all documents listed in Section II of this 

chapter that outline the requirements for a State Plan, the two most 

recent 23(g) grants, and all evaluation reports since the 

Certification of Completion of Developmental Steps. Copies of 

the docket also must be made available in the Regional and State 

Plan Offices. DCSP also must prepare and publish, in coordination 

with the Region, a FRN of eligibility for final approval for the 

Assistant Secretary’s signature. 

5. State Notification. The State Plan must publish a summary of the FRN of 

eligibility for final approval in an equivalent statewide notice within 10 

days of publication of the FRN. DCSP and the Region must coordinate 

with the State Plan concerning publication of the state notice sufficiently 

in advance to avoid any potential delays that could arise from state register 

publication schedules.

6. Public Comments and Requests for Hearing.

a. DCSP must review any public comments received and obtain 

comments from the Region and state. The state must be afforded 

an opportunity to submit to the public record a response to the 

public comments. If the state submits a response, DCSP must 

place it in the docket, even if the 30-day comment period has 

ended. 

b. If OSHA receives a request for an informal hearing that it 

considers reasonable and based on evidence, DCSP must publish a 

FRN of informal hearing within 30 days of the close of the 

comment period. 

7. Informal Hearing. If so requested, OSHA must hold an informal hearing 

following the procedures in 29 CFR 1902.40. 
26

8. Federal Register Notice on Determination of Final Approval. Based on 

all information received, DCSP must determine, in coordination with the 

Region, whether to recommend to the Assistant Secretary that the State 

Plan receive final approval. DCSP must prepare for the Assistant 

Secretary’s signature and have published a FRN of Final Determination. 

a. Approval. If the determination is for approval, the FRN must give 

notice of final approval, document that the State Plan meets the 

criteria and indices of effectiveness, and codify the final approval 

under the appropriate subpart of 29 CFR Part 1952.

b. Disapproval. If the determination is to not approve, the FRN must 

state that the determination was for disapproval and document 

where the State Plan was unable to meet the criteria and indices of 

effectiveness. 

 Effect of Negative 18(e) Determination. If the Assistant 

Secretary determines that the State Plan (or any severable 

portion of the State Plan) has not met the criteria of 

effectiveness, then the Assistant Secretary may retain standards 

and enforcement authority for those issues covered by the State 

Plan (or those portions of the State Plan) that do not meet the 

criteria of effectiveness, as indicated in the Operational Status 

Agreement. On the basis of this finding, the Assistant 

Secretary may either: (1) begin proceedings to withdraw 

approval of the State Plan or a portion of it (see Chapter 8), or 

(2) afford the State Plan a reasonable amount of time to meet 

the criteria of effectiveness, after which time approval would 

be granted or withdrawal proceedings would take place, 

according to the following process: 

 Establish a timeframe for meeting the eligibility criteria, 

generally not less than one year; set the conditions for 

continuing coverage of the State Plan; and afford the state 

an opportunity to agree to these conditions. 

 Publish a FRN outlining the reasons for not making an 

affirmative 18(e) determination at the time, setting forth the 

timeframe for meeting the eligibility requirements and any 

conditions on continuing the State Plan in the interim. 

 At the end of the established timeframe, initiate 

proceedings to make the final 18(e) determination.
27

Chapter 4

State Plan Changes

I. Introduction. Each State Plan provides assurances that they will continue to meet the 

requirements in Section 18(c) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR Part 1902 or 29 CFR Part 

1956 to maintain a program that is ALAE as OSHA. From time to time after initial plan 

approval, State Plans will need to make changes to their plans. This chapter outlines the 

various changes that State Plans will need to make to fulfill their assurances, including 

adoption of federal and state standards.

II. Types of Plan Changes. Federal and state actions relating to changes to approved State 

Plans are categorized as State Plan Changes, generally and include the following subcategories: Federal Program Change (FPC), State-Initiated Change (SIC), developmental 

change, or evaluation change. Each of these State Plan Changes are documented in SPA. 

A. Federal Program Change (FPC). A FPC is a change made to a State Plan when 

OSHA determines that an alteration in the federal program could render a State 

Plan less effective than OSHA’s if it is not similarly modified. (29 CFR 1953.2)

When an alteration in the federal program is denoted as adoption required or 

equivalency required, State Plans are required to respond by adopting and 

implementing a change that is either identical, or different, but ALAE as OSHA’s, 

or by showing that they already have an ALAE standard or policy in place. When 

an alteration to the federal program is denoted as adoption encouraged (not 

required), the State Plan can choose whether or not to adopt a corresponding

change. Whether an alteration to the federal program is adoption required, 

equivalency required, or adoption encouraged (not required) is generally indicated

in the FRN or directive itself, as well as in the notification issued from SPA. 

1. The following are examples of federal program alterations requiring a

FPC: 

a. A change in the OSH Act that impacts Section 18 as it relates to 

State Plan elements that are mandated by the OSH Act;

b. A change in the OSHA regulations (for example, 29 CFR Parts 

1903, 1904, 1905, and 1977) or OSHA standards that necessitate a 

parallel change in state regulations, laws, or standards related to a 

state program; or

c. A change in OSHA’s core policies that may have an impact on

effectiveness.

2. Notice of Intent:

a. For all changes to the federal program requiring a FPC, State Plans 

must notify OSHA in SPA within 60 days from the effective date 

of the directive or the publication date of the FRN whether the 

State Plan intends to adopt, and whether adoption will be different 

from or identical to OSHA’s program change, or whether the State 

Plan already has an ALAE standard or policy in place.
28

b. When adoption is encouraged (but not required), the State Plan 

must notify OSHA in SPA within 60 days from the effective date 

of the directive or the publication date of the FRN whether it 

intends to adopt, and whether adoption will be different from or 

identical to OSHA’s program change, or whether it elects to not 

adopt at all. If adoption is encouraged and the State Plan does not 

adopt at first, but at some later point decides to adopt this change 

(in some form), the State Plan must notify OSHA of this change in 

intent.

3. Adoption:

a. When a change to the federal program is designated as adoption 

required or equivalency required, State Plans must adopt the FPC 

within six months from the effective date of a directive, or from 

the publication date of a federal standard. (29 CFR 1953.4(b)(3); 

1953.5(a)(1)).

b. If the State Plan adopts a FPC that is identical to the federal 

change, it must submit an electronic copy of the state standard or 

policy and the date of adoption, to OSHA within 60 days of 

adoption. (29 CFR 1953.4(b)(5); 1953.5(a)(1)).

c. When a State Plan does not adopt an identical FPC, the State Plan 

must also complete the following steps:

i. If adoption is required, the State Plan must submit a Plan 

Change Supplement to OSHA, including an electronic copy 

of the regulation, with a comparison document clearly

identifying any differences between the federal and State 

Plan changes, within 60 days of adoption, as specified in 29 

CFR 1953.4(b)(4). 

ii. If equivalency is required, a State Plan does not have to 

submit a Plan Change Supplement, but is required to 

provide OSHA with an electronic copy of the state’s policy

and identify differences, if any, between its policy and 

OSHA’s. 

iii. If adoption is encouraged (but not required), and the State 

Plan elects to adopt, the State Plan does not have to submit 

a Plan Change Supplement, but is required to provide 

OSHA with an electronic copy of the state’s policy and 

identify differences, if any, between its policy and

OSHA’s. 

d. Whether the federal program alteration is designated as adoption 

required, equivalency required, or adoption encouraged (but not 

required), documentation of State Plan adoption, whether identical 

or different, must be submitted within 60 days of the adoption. A 
29

State Plan must either post its standard or directive on its State 

Plan website and provide the link to OSHA, or provide OSHA with 

information on how the public may obtain a copy. (29 CFR 

1953.4(b)(4); 1953.4(b)(5); 1953.5(a)(1)).

B. State-Initiated Changes (SIC). Any change to a State Plan that is undertaken at 

the State Plan’s option or on its own volition and is not necessitated by federal 

requirements is a SIC. A significant change is any change which impacts the 

effectiveness of the State Plan, including those changes that increase the State 

Plan’s effectiveness. SICs which are not considered significant include updated 

references, minor revisions to verbiage, and minor editorial changes to formatting 

of State Plan directives or manuals. SICs and FPCs are mutually exclusive.

1. The following are examples of a significant SIC:

a. Change in personnel levels or funding;

b. Changes in State Plan coverage limitations that could require a 

change in the level of federal enforcement; or

c. Major legislative, regulatory, judicial, or administrative policy 

changes (see Section IV for state-initiated standards changes).

2. Upon determination that a significant change will be made to a State Plan, 

the following actions must be taken:

a. The State Plan must notify the Region as soon as it becomes aware 

of any significant change. State Plans must also enter all 

significant SICs in the SIC Log in the SPA. Minor SICs do not 

need to be tracked in the SPA if they do not impact the 

effectiveness of the program and its policies and are only minor in 

nature.

b. Plan Change Supplements must be submitted within 60 days of 

state adoption as set out in 29 CFR 1953.4(b)(4). For significant 

changes, the timeframe may be shorter if agreed upon by the 

Region and State Plan. 

c. Where the SIC establishes a program for which there is no federal 

parallel, any legislation, regulations, and procedures must be 

submitted, along with a description of how this program will relate 

to existing State Plan activities and responsibilities. 

d. To incorporate a change to the Annual Performance Plan the State

Plan must propose, after consultation with the Region, 

performance measures for evaluation of major new State Plan 

activities for which there is no federal parallel and federal 

monitoring data are not sufficient to evaluate the program’s 

effectiveness.
30

C. Developmental Change. A developmental change is a change made to a 

developmental State Plan that documents the completion of a program component 

which was not fully developed at the time of initial plan approval.

1. Completed Developmental Changes. The State Plan must submit Plan 

Change Supplements or documentation of adoption as set out in 29 CFR 

1953.4(a)(2) within 60 days of completion of developmental steps, in 

accordance with its approved developmental schedule. 

2. Missed Developmental Steps. When a developmental step is missed, the 

State Plan must immediately document the reasons in writing to the 

Region. This document must include an explanation of why the step was 

not completed and a request for approval of a new completion date, 

generally within 90 days. The State Plan must describe any current impact 

on the program of not completing the step and specific actions that the 

State Plan proposes to take to ensure completion by the new date.

D. Evaluation Change. An evaluation change is a change made to a State Plan when 

OSHA reveals that some substantive aspect of a State Plan has an adverse impact 

on the implementation of the State Plan and needs revision. 

1. The following items are examples of activities that may lead to evaluation 

changes:

 FAME Report 

 CASPA

 Special Study

 An element discovered through quarterly meeting discussions between 

the State Plan and OSHA, or discovered at any other time, which may 

impact the effectiveness of the State Plan

2. The Region will provide an appropriate report or letter that contains 

specific recommendations required to be met by the State Plan. The State

Plan must submit documentation of adoption of a Plan Change 

Supplement in accordance with Section III below and 29 CFR 1953.4(c)

or a timetable for completion of the change. The documentation will 

include a description of the change that impacts the State Plan and how it 

meets the recommendations in the federal evaluation report, special study, 

or CASPA.

III. Plan Change Supplements Review. The Region is responsible for conducting a review 

of program changes. The Region must notify a State Plan when a required Plan Change 

Supplement submission is overdue and request that the State Plan submit the required 

documentation within a reasonable time period. If necessary, the Region may provide 

assistance in developing a timetable for adoption, submission, and implementation of 

interim procedures to maintain program effectiveness. If a State Plan still does not 

submit the required documentation within the new timetable, a report shall be submitted 
31

to DCSP assessing the impact on State Plan effectiveness and recommending appropriate 

action.

A. Plan Change Supplements must include all of the following components (For Plan 

Change Supplements related to standards, see Section IV):

1. A cover letter describing the State Plan Change;

2. A revised table of contents for the State Plan, if necessary;

3. Dated replacement pages with an indication of page number and/or 

placement, to be inserted in the State Plan Narrative document;

4. A listing of each significant difference (with page numbers);

5. For each difference listed, a rationale for the adoption of an alternative 

provision, including a statement on how the State Plan Change meets the 

statutory and regulatory approval criteria;

6. The web address for the State Plan’s change, if posted on the State Plan’s 

webpage, or information on how the public may obtain a copy of the 

change; and

7. The State Plan point of contact.

B. Identical State Plan Submissions. If a State Plan adopts a change identical to the 

corresponding federal program component, the State Plan’s implementing memo 

will be filed in the official State Plan file, and the Region shall ensure that the 

SPA Log is updated as appropriate. The Region is not required to submit an 

approval memo to the National Office when the State Plan identically adopts a 

program change.

C. Different or Alternative Approach State Submissions. Upon receipt of a State 

Plan Change Supplement, the Region or Area Office shall conduct a thorough 

review, consisting of:

1. Ensuring that any independent State Plan provisions and substantive 

differences from OSHA provisions have been identified and explained by 

the State Plan, with appropriate reference to page numbers and sections of 

the OSHA provision, directive, and the State Plan’s submission in its 

comparison document;

2. Addressing whether the State Plan Change is ALAE as the corresponding 

federal program component and, therefore, should be approved. If there is 

no specifically comparable component, the Region should examine the 

policies that OSHA would apply in similar circumstances (e.g., the federal 

general industry, construction, or other standard(s) or compliance policies, 
32

application of the general duty clause or other programs that OSHA would 

use in a comparable enforcement situation) and assess the impact of the 

change on the effectiveness of the State Plan as a whole;

3. Discussing Regional comments with the State Plan as appropriate;

4. Determining whether concurrent review by the National Office is 

appropriate;

5. If the initial review indicates that clarification or supplementary

information is necessary, the State Plan shall be notified in writing of any 

additional information required and the timeframe for its submission, 

generally not to exceed 30 days; and

6. Upon completion of the Region’s review, a preliminary determination 

shall be made on whether the State Plan Change is ALAE as the 

comparable federal program component.

a. If the RA concludes that the State Plan policy or procedure does 

not appear to meet OSHA approval criteria, the State Plan must be 

afforded the opportunity to submit written comments within 30 

days of notification. Extensions may be granted, if appropriate.

b. If there are questions about the effectiveness of the State Plan 

Change, or if there has been controversy within the State Plan

about the adoption of the State Plan Change, the RA may send a 

copy of the Plan Change Supplement to DCSP to coordinate a 

National Office review of the Plan Change Supplement. The 

National Office will provide advice and guidance to the RA in 

determining the acceptability of the Plan Change Supplement. 

c. The RA must determine whether public comment should be sought 

to assist the agency in deciding to approve or disapprove the State

Plan Change (see Section 1953.6(c)). A public comment period is 

generally not required for a Plan Change Supplement, except 

where State Plan policy differs significantly and its effectiveness is 

not clear. If public comment is necessary, the RA must prepare a 

FRN providing a reasonable period for submission of comments. 

d. The RA must determine whether to approve or disapprove the 

State Plan Change, upon consideration of any public comments 

and additional information or comments submitted by the State

Plan. 

D. Approval of Plan Change Supplements. The RA must notify the State Plan and 

DCSP of the acceptability of the Plan Change Supplement and prepare a FRN of 

approval (see Section 1953.6(d)). The FRN should briefly identify any 
33

differences between the State Plan’s change and the comparable federal program 

component. The Region should work closely with DCSP on the preparation of 

the notice, and DCSP will process the FRN.

E. Disapproval of Plan Change Supplements. If, following the preliminary 

determination, consideration of public comment, and any revisions by the State 

Plan, the RA and DCSP still find that the State Plan Change is not ALAE as the 

federal program, the RA must begin disapproval procedures. The RA must 

consult with DCSP on this decision and work closely with DCSP and SOL during 

all phases of disapproval proceedings, including preparation of the FRNs.

1. “Show Cause” Letter to the State Plan. The RA must prepare a letter to 

the State Plan that is cleared by DCSP and give the State Plan 30 days to 

correct or clarify the supplement or show cause why OSHA should not 

begin formal proceedings disapproving the supplement. 

2. Request for Public Comment. If the State Plan’s response to the “show 

cause” letter is unsatisfactory to OSHA, a FRN announcing that the Plan 

Change Supplement is subject to disapproval and that OSHA is inviting 

public comment must be issued. If, after review of the public comments, 

OSHA decides that the record supports approval of the Plan Change, a

FRN will be issued approving the change.

3. Informal Hearing. If the RA and DCSP determine that the record is 

inconclusive or that their review supports disapproval of the Plan Change, 

an informal hearing will be scheduled. If a hearing is scheduled, the RA 

must prepare a FRN for the Assistant Secretary’s signature announcing the 

hearing on the possible disapproval of the Plan Change. The State Plan

must publish a similar notice within five days of the publication of the

FRN.

4. Tentative Decision. On the basis of the entire record of written comments 

received, as well as the informal hearing, the Assistant Secretary must 

publish a tentative decision in the Federal Register, upon the advice of the 

RA and DCSP, either approving or disapproving the State Plan Change in 

accordance with 29 CFR 1902.21 (unless the State Plan waives the 

tentative decision). Interested persons participating in the hearing must 

have an opportunity to file exceptions to the tentative decision and 

objections to such exceptions, in accordance with 29 CFR 1902.22.

5. Formal Decision. The Assistant Secretary must then publish a formal 

decision in the Federal Register ruling on exceptions and objections filed, 

and making the final decision either approving or disapproving the State 

Plan Change in accordance with 29 CFR 1902.22.
34

6. Discussions with the State Plan after a final decision to disapprove a State 

Plan Change must cover the effect of the decision and appropriate actions 

the State Plan must take, including a specific timeline. If the State Plan is 

unwilling or unable to make necessary and timely changes that impact the 

effectiveness of its initial or final approval, action may be taken to allow 

for resumption of federal coverage. See Chapter 8 for further information 

on modifying and removing a State Plan.

IV. State Plan Change for State Standards. Due to their complexity and significance, 

there are specific State Plan adoption procedures for standards, as outlined in this section. 

State Plan changes for standards are documented in SPA.

A. State Adoption of Federal Standards. A new or revised state standard is 

enforceable by the State Plan upon adoption under authority of state law, prior to 

OSHA review and approval of the standard. If OSHA determines that the 

standard is not approvable, and the State Plan does not make revisions to address 

OSHA’s concerns, the revised state standard would remain in effect until 

completion of the rejection process. The notification and timeframe for adoption 

of a FPC is set forth in Section II of this Chapter.

1. Effective Dates of State Standards. Under 29 CFR 1953.5(a)(1), “in order 

to avoid delays in worker protection, the effective date of the state 

standard and any of its delayed provisions must be the date of state 

promulgation [publication] or the federal effective date, whichever is 

later.” The Assistant Secretary may permit a longer time period if the 

State Plan makes a timely demonstration that good cause exists for 

extending the time limit. 

2. Interim Enforcement Relating to New Federal Standards. During the 

period prior to State Plan adoption of a new federal standard, or more 

stringent amendment, the following must occur:

a. State Plans under 18(e) shall make every effort to enforce the new 

or revised standard through existing state standards, the general 

duty clause, or other enforcement mechanism. Although State 

Plans with final 18(e) approval have sole enforcement authority in 

responding to complaints and other issues, the Regions must 

ensure that 18(e) State Plans respond effectively to hazards 

involving new federal standards or requirements. The Regions 

should provide technical assistance and monitor the State Plan’s 

response closely to ensure that the State Plan takes all actions 

necessary to address the hazards and enforce the new or revised 

standard through existing state standards, the general duty clause, 

or other enforcement mechanisms. 
35

b. State Plans under 18(b) shall make every effort to enforce the new 

or revised standard through existing state standards, the general 

duty clause, or other enforcement mechanism. Since State Plans 

with interim approval do not have sole enforcement authority, the 

Region can conduct enforcement activities when a State Plan is 

unable to timely and effectively address hazards involving new 

federal standards or requirements, pursuant to the operational 

status agreement established with that State Plan. 

B. State Adoption of Independent State Standards. Independent state standards have 

no directly comparable federal standard, but may involve an issue covered 

federally through general standards provisions or written compliance policies. 

OSHA must determine whether such state standards contain major or minor 

differences to determine whether public comment is necessary. A standard 

contains minor differences if its requirements do not differ significantly from 

OSHA’s enforcement requirements. A State Plan that adopts an independent 

standard must compare the standard with the federal general industry, 

construction, or other standard(s) or compliance policies that OSHA would use in 

a comparable enforcement situation to demonstrate that the State Plan’s 

requirements are ALAE as OSHA’s requirements.

1. Standards Review Procedures. The RA holds primary responsibility for 

the review and approval of state standards. DCSP is responsible for 

providing technical assistance to the Regions, including coordinating with 

other OSHA Directorates for technical expertise, as needed, and 

facilitating the Federal Register process, if needed. 

2. State Plans must submit all supplement packages for OSHA review and 

approval within 60 days of adoption (except emergency standards, which 

must be submitted within five days). The State Plan must provide the 

following to the RA:

a. A copy of the standard’s adoption order or link to the posted 

version, including text of the standard or amendment.

b. If the standard is different, a copy of the summary of the public 

comments and of the hearing transcript.

c. The numbering conversion table (if applicable) showing numbers 

for state standards sections and corresponding federal numbers.

d. The standards comparison document. The State Plan must submit 

a standards comparison document unless the standard is identical. 

The comparison document must list each federal provision 

affected, the corresponding state provision, and a rationale for each 

provision that differs substantively from the federal version as to 
36

why it is ALAE as the federal standard (see Appendix C for 

additional information).

e. Standards Table. State Plans must also notify the Directorate of 

Administrative Programs (DAP) of adoption of new standards so 

that the OSHA Information System (OIS) standards table can be 

updated.

3. For all different or independent state standards the RA must determine 

whether the standard is ALAE as the OSHA standard.

a. Review the Standard. If it appears that the standard may not be 

ALAE, then the RA must determine if National Office review is 

appropriate; if so, then the RA will discuss the issues with DCSP. 

In addition, the Directorate of Standards and Guidance (DSG) will 

assist for general industry or maritime standards, and the 

Directorate of Construction (DOC) will assist for construction 

standards. 

b. Negotiate Changes. If it is determined that the standard is not 

ALAE, the Region must negotiate corrections with the State Plan. 

If the State Plan disputes the Region’s determination and does not 

want to change the standard, the Region must follow the standards 

disapproval procedures outlined in Section C.

c. If Public Comment Is Required. The RA, in consultation with the 

National Office, shall determine whether the standard requires 

public comment (see Appendix C). If public comment is required, 

the RA will: 

i. Request for Public Comment. In consultation with DCSP 

and SOL, prepare a FRN requesting public comment. 

Transmit the FRN to DCSP for publication.

ii. Review the Docket. After the public comment period has 

ended, review all comments in the docket, and send copies 

to the State Plan and DCSP for review and comment. After 

consultation with DCSP and SOL, inform the State Plan of 

changes that must be made (if any). 

iii. Approval Decision. Decide, after consultation with DCSP

and SOL (and, if appropriate, DSG and DOC), whether to 

approve the standard.

iv. Preparation and Transmittal of Federal Register Notices. 

Transmit FRNs to DCSP for review and for publication in 

the Federal Register. Send all notices electronically, and 
37

send three signed original hard copies of the Notices and 

one copy each of the standard or standards comparison and 

the documentation of the standard’s adoption. DCSP will 

review and publish the FRNs received from the Regions 

concerning standards approval, request for comment, and 

approval following public comment.

v. Regional Press Releases. Publish a Regional press release, 

if appropriate, when the FRN is published. 

C. Standards Disapproval and Rejection Process. A determination is initially made 

by the RA, DSG, or DOC, the Directorate of Enforcement (DEP), and DCSP, in 

consultation with the Assistant Secretary and SOL that a state standard is not 

ALAE as the comparable federal standard and that initiation of a formal rejection 

process is appropriate. The final decision is made by the Assistant Secretary.

1. “Show Cause” Letter to the State. The RA notifies the State Plan by letter 

(in concurrence with DCSP) that the state standard has been determined to 

be less effective than the federal standard and gives the State Plan at least 

30 days to respond and agree to correct or clarify the standard or show 

cause why OSHA should not begin formal proceedings to reject the 

standard in accordance with 29 CFR 1953.6(e) and 29 CFR 1902.17-.23. 

DCSP must circulate the State Plan’s response to the 30-day “show cause” 

letter to involved Directorates and SOL, as appropriate. If the State Plan

agrees to make appropriate changes to the standard, the rejection action is 

deferred based on an agreed-upon timetable. If the response provides no 

new information, the rejection process proceeds.

2. Intent to Reject, Request for Public Comment, and Opportunity to Request 

a Hearing. If the State Plan’s response to the “show cause” letter is 

determined to be unsatisfactory, the Region in coordination with the 

National Office shall prepare a FRN announcing that the Plan Change is 

subject to disapproval and that OSHA is inviting public comment. A FRN

shall be prepared and signed announcing OSHA’s preliminary 

determination that the state standard is less effective and requesting public 

comment. The FRN will provide the background on the standard and the 

reasons for rejection. It shall also include the State Plan’s response to the 

“show cause” letter. The FRN should describe the technical differences in 

the state and federal standards and explain in appropriate detail why the 

standard is considered less effective. DCSP coordinates clearance of the 

FRN and review of the comments in the National Office and shall process

the FRN for publication. 

3. The State Plan must publish a similar statewide notice within five days of 

the federal publication. The State Plan must be provided an opportunity to 

respond to all comments received.
38

4. Decision to Proceed. Based on review of the comments received, 

including any State Plan responses, a decision is made whether the record 

supports approval of the standard or proceeding with a formal rejection 

process.

a. Approval. If sufficient evidence on the record has been provided 

to support approval of the standard, a FRN is prepared and signed 

approving the standard and terminating the rejection process. 

b. Rejection. If the record is inconclusive or supports rejection of the 

standard, formal rejection proceedings in accordance with 29 CFR 

1902.17 shall be initiated.

5. Notice of Hearing. A FRN shall be prepared and signed announcing the 

time and place for a public hearing. This FRN will establish the hearing 

procedures, including notice of intent to appear, statement of position, and 

whether data or other documentary evidence will be submitted. (Hearing 

procedures must comply with 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557.) 

a. Hearing. The hearing is held in the state. An Administrative Law 

Judge (ALJ) assigned by the Chief ALJ presides over the hearing,

and after opportunity for review of the transcript by any interested 

party, the ALJ certifies the record, including the transcript and all 

relevant written submissions. Within 30 days of notice of the 

certification of the record, interested parties may submit proposed 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed decision, 

together with a supporting brief, to OSHA.

b. Tentative Decision. On the basis of the entire record of written 

comments received, the hearing record, and any post-hearing 

submissions, and after consultation with the National Office, a

FRN shall be prepared and signed announcing the Assistant 

Secretary’s tentative decision either approving or rejecting the state

standard, in accordance with 29 CFR 1902.21. The tentative 

decision may be waived by the State Plan and participating 

interested parties. 

 The tentative decision must include findings of fact and 

conclusions of law supporting the decision. The decision

must also be served on the State Plan and participating 

parties in addition to publication in the Federal Register.

 Interested persons participating in the hearing must be 

afforded an opportunity to file exceptions to the tentative 

decision (30 days). Opportunity to file objections to such 

exceptions (15 days thereafter) can also be offered. 
39

c. Final Decision. Thereafter, the Assistant Secretary issues a final 

decision on the matter in the Federal Register, including ruling on 

any exceptions or objections filed to the tentative decision and

summarizing the public comments submitted to the record.

d. Level of Federal Enforcement. The Assistant Secretary’s final 

decision also will determine the appropriate nature and level of 

federal enforcement authority for conditions previously covered by 

the disapproved state standard. Depending on the nature of the 

rejected state standard, reconsideration or withdrawal of approval 

of the State Plan, in whole or in part, may be necessary (see 

Chapter 8 for further information on modifying and withdrawing a 

State Plan).

D. Assurances. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.3(c) a State Plan shall include or provide 

for the development or adoption of, and contain assurances that the State Plan will 

continue to develop or adopt, standards which are or will be ALAE as those 

promulgated under Section 6 of the OSH Act. When standards rely on 

certification of equipment or processes, OSHA requires certification by 

Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs). If a State Plan relies on a 

different certification organization, then the State Plan must use only state funds 

and must assure OSHA that the certification applies only within that state and that 

no reciprocity of recognition outside the state is promised or implied. 

Additionally, if a State Plan elects to rely on different certification organizations, 

the grant application must clearly specify this. The State Plan must also honor 

OSHA certifications if the OSHA and state safety requirements are the same.

 Pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.3(c) and 1953.5(a)(2), standards that specifically apply 

to products distributed or used in interstate commerce or that have been 

designated by OSHA as a product standard (e.g., hazard communication) must 

meet the product clause test of Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act. The product 

clause test mandates that state standards must be required by compelling local 

conditions and must not unduly burden interstate commerce. 

 Additionally, 29 CFR 1902.37(b)(4) requires State Plans to interpret an identical 

standard in a manner consistent with OSHA’s interpretation of its own standard 

(and/or appropriate appellate court decisions) and a different standard in a manner 

ALAE as OSHA’s interpretation of its own standard. State Plans must have the 

ability to provide clarification and/or interpretations when provisions of a state 

standard do not clearly express the requirement.
40

Chapter 5

Mandated Activities - Grant Application

I. Introduction. This manual, as well as the annual grant application directive, specifies 

the requirements and procedures by which State Plans, in partnership with their RAs and 

the National Office will complete annual grant applications and develop Five-Year 

Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans comparable to those developed by OSHA 

in its approach to meeting the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) 

requirements. GPRA shifted OSHA’s monitoring to a strategic planning, goal-based, 

data-driven system with an emphasis on outcome-based measures. State Plans are

expected to self-audit and self-report through use of the State OSHA Annual Report 

(SOAR) and the State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Report. Each State Plan 

develops a Five-Year Strategic Plan and an Annual Performance Plan with activities that 

reflect the shared vision of reducing workplace injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. State 

Plans have the option of adopting performance goals that are identical to those of OSHA. 

All parties should stay focused on their commitment to achieving the shared mission. 

Instructions for completing the required financial documents and developing Annual 

Performance Plans, which are part of the Application for Federal Assistance (Section 

23(g) grant application), are included in this chapter. Definitions of strategic planning 

terms used in this instruction can be found in Appendix A.

II. Basic Principles of Strategic and Performance Plans. The following basic principles 

govern State Plans’ development of Strategic and Annual Performance Plans:

A. All State Plans must, at a minimum, adopt OSHA’s strategic goal of “improv[ing]

workplace safety and health for all workers, as evidenced by fewer hazards, 

reduced exposures, and fewer injuries, illnesses, and fatalities” as part of their 

Strategic Plans, either using identical performance goals and indicators or ones 

tailored to state-specific needs or issues.

B. State Plans may choose to adopt OSHA’s other strategic goals or develop their 

own. However, each state’s occupational safety and health program must continue 

to satisfy the mandated activities of the OSH Act and 29 CFR Parts 1902 and 

1956 (e.g., standards, enforcement program, prohibition against advance notice).

C. State Plans must develop performance goals that are broad enough to encompass 

all major components of the state program, including private sector and state and 

local government enforcement, consultation, and compliance assistance even if 

they choose to adopt only one strategic goal. 

Note: As required by §1908.1(a), State Plans operating private sector 

consultation programs under the authority of Section 18 of the OSH Act and 

funded under Section 23(g) of the Act must be ALAE as consultation programs 

operated under the authority of Section 21(d) of the OSH Act. All State Plans 

operating 23(g) consultation programs must amend their programs to reflect the 

revised federal consultation program.
41

Although state and local government consultation programs are not funded under 

Section 21(d) or directly subject to the requirements of 29 CFR 1908, State Plans 

are encouraged to apply, to the greatest extent feasible, the principles established 

in the revised federal private sector consultation program. State Plans may, but 

are not required, to establish a recognition and exemption program for the state 

and local government.

D. As part of the 23(g) grant application, each State Plan must develop an Annual 

Performance Plan describing the specific actions to be undertaken by the State 

Plan to accomplish the strategic and performance goals during that fiscal year. 

This Annual Performance Plan will serve as the required grant narrative.

E. OSHA will evaluate each State Plan’s performance on whether it makes 

reasonable progress towards accomplishing the strategic and performance goals 

contained in its Strategic Plan and the significance of the actual results achieved. 

OSHA will review state performance using the methods agreed upon by OSHA 

and the State Plan in the Annual Monitoring Plan. 

F. State Plans developing Strategic Plans with strategic and performance goals that 

differ from OSHA’s (e.g., targeting reductions based on data from state-based 

systems, such as workers’ compensation) are responsible for identifying the data 

necessary to establish an appropriate measurement and reporting system. These 

data are to be agreed upon by the State Plans and Regions. Guidelines for state 

reporting and inclusion of state results in OSHA’s Annual Report to Congress are 

presented in Chapter 7 of this manual.

G. The focus of a state’s occupational safety and health program, as identified by the 

State Plan’s strategic and performance goals, establishes the parameters within 

which the State Plan’s operations will be evaluated to determine whether they are 

ALAE as OSHA’s. The State Plan will still be expected to meet its mandated 

responsibilities under the OSH Act.

H. The Assistant Secretary will continue to address any significant issues or 

problems that impact a State Plan’s ability to carry out its mandated activities or 

substantially comply with its State Plan commitments. Examples of 

modifications and withdrawal of State Plan approvals are located in Chapter 8. 

III. Strategic Plan Requirements. Each State Plan must develop a Five-Year 

Strategic Plan containing outcome-oriented strategic and performance goals. Strategic 

and performance goals and baselines for comparison may be tailored to the State Plan’s 

own circumstances, subject to negotiation and OSHA approval. States should develop 

their Strategic Plans in cooperation with their Regions communicating early in the 

process to agree upon strategic goals, performance goals, and baselines. State Plans may 

consider the views of their key stakeholders and partners in the development of their 

Strategic Plans.
42

The following basic principles govern a State Plan’s development of a Strategic Plan:

A. If a State Plan’s Five-Year Strategic Plan expires in the federal fiscal year in 

which it is submitted, the grant application must include a new Five-Year 

Strategic Plan or a one-year extension of the current Strategic Plan.

B. In addition to its strategic and performance goals, each State Plan must continue 

to satisfy the mandated activities of the OSH Act and 29 CFR Parts 1902 or 1956 

(e.g., standards, enforcement program, prohibition against advance notice) and so 

certify in its application and demonstrate in actual performance.

C. State Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans must contain outcome- or 

results-oriented goals. If a goal is measured only by activity-level data, the lack 

of an outcome- or results-oriented goal must be justified. Plans relying solely on 

activity-level data-based goals and measures will not be acceptable. The Annual 

Performance Plans must describe the specific activities the State Plan will 

perform to accomplish its performance goals, must be aligned with the State

Plan’s Five-Year Strategic Plan, and must identify the expected outcome of these 

activities. Each Annual Performance Plan must include a section that addresses 

the data elements and informational needs outlined in this section. 

D. State Plans are responsible for identifying the data necessary to establish an 

appropriate measurement and reporting system for their strategic and performance 

goals. These data, including baselines, are to be agreed upon by the State Plans 

and Regions.

E. Annual Review of Strategic Plans.

1. State Plans must review their Strategic Plans with their Regions each year 

as part of the performance planning process. 

2. Changes to Strategic Plans should be limited to major shifts in policies, 

programs, or implementation strategies. Formal, written changes to a State

Plan’s Strategic Plan may be made no more than once a year. State Plans 

may not change the end-dates of their Strategic Plans as a result of the 

annual review process. 

3. If, during the annual review of its Strategic Plan, the State Plan elects to 

make formal, written changes to its Strategic Plan, the State Plan must 

submit a written rationale for the changes and a copy of the revised 

Strategic Plan to the RA at the same time as the State Plan’s annual 23(g) 

grant is submitted, and must not change the end date of the Strategic Plan 

or make changes more than once a year. Changes are approved by the RA

as part of the sign-off process of the annual grant. 
43

4. If, during the annual review of its Strategic Plan, the State Plan elects to 

make no formal, written changes to its Strategic Plan, the State Plan must 

continue managing its program according to its original plan.

F. Third-Year Review of Strategic Plans.

1. Following the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

requirements, each State Plan is required to conduct a comprehensive 

review of its Strategic Plan at least once every three years. The State Plan

may either make changes to its plan at the three-year point or continue 

managing its program according to its original plan until the end date of 

that plan. 

2. If, during the third-year review of its Strategic Plan, the State Plan elects 

to make significant changes (e.g. selects new performance goals or targets) 

to its Strategic Plan, then the State Plan must submit a revised Strategic 

Plan along with the state’s annual 23(g) application, effectively marking 

the beginning of a new Strategic Plan, covering the performance period of 

five years from the start of the new fiscal year. 

3. If, during the third-year review of its Strategic Plan, the State Plan elects 

not to make significant changes to its Strategic Plan, then the State Plan 

must continue managing its program according to its original plan and 

submit a new Five-Year Strategic Plan by the 23(g) grant application 

deadline of the final year of its current Strategic Plan. 

G. Changes to a State Plan’s Strategic Plan resulting from either the annual or thirdyear review process must be negotiated and approved by the OSHA RA, subject 

to further review by DCSP and DAP. 

IV. Annual Performance Plan Requirements. Each State Plan must describe how it will 

align its 23(g) activities, including private sector and state and local government

consultation, with its annual performance goals. State Plans providing consultation 

services under 21(d) agreements should identify how those activities relate to the 

accomplishment of their overall strategic and performance goals. Each Annual 

Performance Plan must include the following elements.

A. Overview of the State Plan’s Occupational Safety and Health Program. This must 

be a comprehensive overview of the State Plan’s current occupational safety and 

health program, to include the following information.

1. Profile of the State Agency. Total number of allocated staff and breakout of 

compliance and consultation staff, expressed in full-time equivalents (FTEs).

The profile must also include an organizational chart. 

2. State Demographic Profile. Number of employers and number of covered 

employees by major NAICS divisions.
44

3. Identification of Covered Issues. List those issues that the State Plan’s 

occupational safety and health program covers and those that it does not.

4. Statement of compliance or non-compliance with appropriations riders.

B. Mandated Activities. Because activities mandated under the OSH Act (e.g., 

inspections, citations, employee rights) are considered core elements of an 

effective occupational safety and health program, they should be tied to 

achievement of the State Plan’s strategic goals. The Annual Performance Plan 

should link the performance of mandated activities to strategic tools wherever 

doing so is appropriate to achieving the goals. For example, standards, 

inspections, and citations are among the tools that could be used to achieve the 

strategic goal of reducing injuries and illnesses. 

Where the mandated activities are neither tied to specific strategic goals nor 

addressed through the SAMM Report (see Chapter 6) or the Mandated Activity 

Report for Consultation, the Annual Performance Plan should contain assurances 

that these activities will be accomplished. These assurances should address: 

1. Prohibition against advance notice;

2. Employee access to hazard and exposure information;

3. Safeguards to protect an employer’s trade secrets;

4. Employer recordkeeping;

5. Legal procedures for compulsory process and right of entry;

6. Posting of employee protections and rights;

7. Right of an employee representative to participate in walkarounds;

8. Right of an employee to review a decision not to inspect (following receipt of 

a complaint from that employee); and

9. Voluntary compliance programs (see Chapter 1 in the Consultation Policies 

and Procedures Manual, CSP 02-00-002, for fundamental program 

requirements relevant to 23(g) private sector consultation activities). 

C. Annual Performance Goals. For each performance goal in the State Plan’s 

Strategic Plan that is to be addressed during that program year, the State Plan 

must: 

1. Establish objective and measurable annual performance goals to be achieved 

by the State Plan during the program year. 
45

2. Identify the performance indicators (including activity, intermediate 

outcome, and primary outcome measures) that will be used to assess progress 

toward achievement of the State Plan’s performance goals during that 

program year.

3. Describe the mix of program activities (strategies) that will be applied to 

accomplish the State Plan’s performance goals (e.g., enforcement, standards 

development, and compliance assistance). This section should consist of a 

complete, succinct, state-specific discussion of how the State Plan will apply 

resources and strategies to accomplish its goals. 

If the section above is in a narrative format, include, as an appendix, a summary 

chart outlining the annual performance goals and performance indicators that will 

be used to measure state performance. The summary chart should be prepared in 

the format presented in the Annual 23(g) Grant Instructions.

D. Changes to Annual Performance Plans:

1. A State Plan may make adjustments or changes in strategy during the year, 

subject to discussion and negotiation with OSHA Regional staff. Such 

changes do not require a formal, written revision of the State Plan’s Annual 

Performance Plans. 

2. A State Plan must describe and explain any major deviations from its 

current year’s Annual Performance Plans in the following year’s plan. The 

State Plan may also include this discussion in its SOAR to include 

justifications or rationale for the deviations. If there are justified reasons for 

the deviation which are reasonable to OSHA, corrective action may not be 

warranted. State Plans shall be encouraged to expand the focus of their next 

SOAR to include a broader assessment of their enforcement program, going 

beyond the goals in the Annual Performance Plans, and including the results 

of their internal audit. 

3. Regions must document any major strategy changes in the Federal Annual 

Monitoring and Evaluation Report (see Chapter 7).

V. Grant Application Process Requirements. Each State Plan must provide specific 

information in their grant application, as required by the annual grant instructions.

A. Basic Requirements.

1. All required financial documents and instructions for completing the annual grant 

application are available on the State Programs Limited Access Page. Each year, 

funding levels and requirements will be communicated through the OSHA 

Directives System. 
46

2. The 23(g) grant application includes an Annual Performance Plan describing the 

specific actions to be undertaken by the State Plan to accomplish its strategic and 

performance goals during the period covered, as well as meeting all program 

requirements. This Annual Performance Plan will serve as the required grant 

narrative and must include performance goals that are broad enough to encompass 

all major components of the State Plan, including private sector and state and 

local government enforcement programs, 23(g) on-site consultation programs, and 

any compliance assistance activities. 

In addition to providing information on compliance activities and projections as to 

the number of inspections (separately for private sector and state and local 

government, as well as for construction and non-construction) and on-site 

consultation state and local government visits anticipated during the upcoming 

performance year, State Plans must provide projections regarding the following 

compliance assistance entities and activities: Voluntary Protection Programs

(VPP) participants, cooperative programs (with and without enforcement 

incentives), and outreach participants, who constitute the total number of trainees

and participants anticipated to be affected by state outreach activities during the 

period, such as formal training, workshops, seminars, speeches, conferences, and 

informal worksite training. State Plans with 23(g) On-Site Consultation programs 

for the private sector should also include the number of Safety and Health 

Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) participants in their reports. The 

State Plan’s Annual Performance Plan must be aligned with the State Plan’s 

Strategic Plan and describe the specific activities the State Plan will perform to 

accomplish its annual performance goals. 

3. All grant applications must be submitted electronically using Grants.gov. State

Plans must ensure that their registration information is up-to-date in Grants.gov. 

State Plans must meet all the requirements detailed in this chapter and the annual 

grant application directive when submitting the application. State Plans are 

responsible for coordinating with their federal monitor on an agreed-upon 

schedule to allow electronic submission of an application package, approved by 

the Region, to the National Office through Grants.gov by the deadline specified in 

the annual Application for Federal Assistance (Section 23(g) grant application).

B. Grant Application Instructions. Outlined below are the contents of the grant 

application.

1. Financial Documents. Each State Plan is required to complete and submit the 

following financial documents on Grants.gov with the grant application:

a. Form OSHA 110. The Grant Agreement form (OSHA110) should be 

submitted on Grants.gov as a signed attachment. Funding will be at the prior 

year’s final base award level, unless otherwise noted in the OSHA Directives 

System. 
47

b. SF 424 and SF 424A. The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) and 

the Budget Information (Non-Construction Programs) (SF 424A) are available 

on Grants.gov and are submitted electronically as part of the application 

package. All costs may be identified under two budget categories, 

Administration and Program. A third category must be added where 100

percent state funds are used, and a fourth category must be added for private 

sector on-site consultation, where applicable. State Plans may then use other 

categories that better reflect the State Plan’s actual organizational structure. 

State Plans that provide private sector on-site consultation services through 

their 23(g) grant must separately identify the staffing and total funding 

devoted to this program in a manner that clearly delineates the program. 

Financial information for all object class categories, i.e., personnel, fringe 

benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, other, total direct charges, 

indirect charges, and total object categories, must be shown for each of the 

budget categories on the SF-424A. Funding under Section A (Budget 

Summary) should reflect the totals from Section B (Budget Categories). 

 Administration. This activity includes the cost of salaries and 

expenses that are related to the management and support of grant 

operations. Costs may include, but are not limited to, policy 

development, budget, payroll, human resources, audit, and accounting. 

Administrative costs include the cost of all personnel, budget, and 

management staff above first-line supervisors (salaries, fringe benefits, 

and related support expenses), as well as costs associated with the 

approved state indirect rate. For staff who perform both administrative 

and program functions and first-level supervisors who also serve in a 

managerial capacity for the program, salary costs shall be distributed 

between Administration and Program in proportion to the percent of 

time spent by staff in performing duties in those categories. 

Employees who perform administrative functions, such as human 

resources and budget, should be included in the administrative 

category, as well. No more than 25 percent of the total funding may 

be budgeted for administrative costs without an approved justification. 

(Note: If a State Plan has an indirect cost agreement, it must submit a 

copy of the indirect cost agreement with its annual grant application,

and the RA should ensure that the indirect costs contained in the grant 

application are based on the approved rate in the indirect cost 

agreement.) Under this activity, the 25 percent limit on administrative 

costs remains in effect. All indirect costs must be included under this 

activity. 

 Program. This activity includes the cost of salaries and expenses that 

are directly related to carrying out grant operations. All funding for 

program-related activities must be grouped under this activity. 

Indirect costs may not be included under this activity.
48

c. Combined Assurances and Certifications (including Lobbying Certification) 

with 23(g) OSHA Restrictions and Conditions. Cover all Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) assurances and certifications here, including: 

Lobbying Certification and OSHA Restrictions and Conditions. This form 

should be submitted as a signed attachment on Grants.gov.

d. Supportive Cost Breakout. Prepare a detailed breakout of costs by 

organizational unit and staffing level, tied to the State Plan’s own 

organizational structure. Each organizational unit should be broken out by 

object class category. Also include a breakout of any 100 percent state funds. 

State Plans are required to provide detailed financial information for the 

following eight object class categories: personnel, fringe benefits, travel, 

equipment, supplies, contractual, other, and indirect charges, based on either 

the Administration or Program budget categories or the categories used on the 

state’s actual organizational structure, in a supportive cost breakout format.

The personnel information provided on the supportive cost breakout listing 

must correspond to the organizational chart included in the Annual 

Performance Plan and should identify the number of on-board staff and vacant 

positions. All supervisory positions above the first level of supervision must 

be reflected in the Administration section. Compliance assistance positions 

must be identified. In instances where staff time or full-time equivalents 

(FTEs) are apportioned among multiple functions, certain guidelines must be 

followed. First, time allocated to the compliance assistance portion of a 

position must be limited to compliance assistance activities, which may 

include VPP, Strategic Partnerships, Alliances, speeches, training, and other 

cooperative program outreach efforts, but not activities directly related to 

compliance or On-Site Consultation, including SHARP. Second, staff time 

may be apportioned to both compliance assistance and On-Site Consultation, 

so long as the appropriate allocation to separate grants is used. Additionally, 

when a staff member is assigned both compliance assistance work and 

compliance work, special care must be taken to avoid conflicts of interest.

Finally, staff time may never be divided between compliance and consultation

work.

 Personnel. FTEs may be apportioned among several functions and 

between 23(g) and 21(d) in the separate grant applications. 

 Fringe benefits should include information on the components and cost 

formula used. 

 Travel refers to personnel travel costs that are reasonable and 

necessary to effectively manage and carry out grant activities, provide 

oversight or measure program effectiveness. 
49

 Equipment, including all computer-related equipment, having a useful 

life of over one year and a unit acquisition cost of $5,000 or more must 

be separately identified. 

 Supplies refer to all consumable materials costing less than $5,000 per 

unit. 

 The contractual information must identify the purpose of each 

contract, the contractor, and the amount of the contract. Contracts for 

such things as laboratory sample analysis, equipment calibration, 

information technology (IT) services, or for the development of 

alternatives or supplements to the OSHA Information System (OIS), 

must be clearly identified. 

Note: Those State Plans not using the Salt Lake Technical Center as 

their primary lab must provide contract information and assurances as 

outlined in the annual grant instructions.

 If not included elsewhere, the “Other” category should identify costs 

associated with such things as reimbursement to the OSHA Training 

Institute and associated costs for courses brought to the state. 

 Indirect costs shall be included under Administration only and should 

be based on an approved indirect cost rate agreement for the grant 

period.

 Program Income. State Plans that are collecting fees associated with 

grant activities should report the estimated amount of income expected 

to be generated from the grant on Line 7 of the Application for Federal 

Assistance (SF-424A). State Plans should include a narrative 

description of the program income, including the nature and source of 

the income, as an attachment in the Grants.gov application. The 

program income may be reflected as part of the State Plan’s matching 

funds contribution. Also, State Plans must report program income on 

the Federal Financial Report submitted each quarter. For more 

information on program income, please refer to OMB Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards.

2. Programming Changes. If goals or measures have been changed in a way that 

impacts the processing of OIS data used for tracking a State Plan’s Strategic and 

Performance Plan results, the State Plan must submit the changes for review as 

directed.

3. Review and Approval of Annual State Plan Grant. Each State Plan negotiates its 

Annual Performance Plan and strategic goals with its RA. Once reviewed and 
50

approved at the Regional level, the completed grant document is submitted 

through Grants.gov (including, if appropriate, changes to the Strategic Plan) and

reviewed by DAP and DCSP. Prior to October 1, each year, the OSHA Assistant 

Secretary formally approves the entire grant document and prepares a grant 

approval letter to the State Designee, including any conditions for changes to the 

State Plan’s Annual Performance Plan based on Region and National Office

review.
51

Chapter 6

Tools for Federal Oversight and Quarterly Monitoring

I. Introduction. Under the OSH Act, OSHA and the State Plans are responsible for 

carrying out mandated activities. States Plans’ further responsibilities are described in 29 

CFR Parts 1902, 1953, 1954, and 1956. The Assistant Secretary is responsible for 

monitoring and reporting on the State Plans’ performance. The framework for evaluation 

established by OSHA and the State Plans is one in which both parties jointly establish the 

measures of performance, where possible, and both participate in the review, assessment, 

and discussion of performance data. 

Effective monitoring assists a State Plan in achieving its goals by identifying issues early 

and providing guidance to ensure the issues are promptly addressed. State Plan 

monitoring is intended to provide a common reference level and set of criteria for State

Plan performance, as well as the degree of importance assigned to issues. 

The scope of OSHA monitoring includes any State Plan activity that: 

• Receives federal funding under Section 23(g) of the OSH Act; 

• Would be covered by OSHA absent an approved State Plan; or

• Would be preempted by Section 18 of the OSH Act, absent an approved 

State Plan.

State Plans using 100 percent state funding for activities that do not meet any of the 

foregoing tests will not generally be assessed by OSHA unless they could impact a State 

Plan’s responsibilities under its plan.

Various tools and methods are used to track and evaluate State Plan performance. 

Section II of this chapter discusses general guidelines for acceptable performance. 

Section III, “Tools for Federal Oversight,” focuses on the tools used for evaluation; and 

Section IV discusses quarterly monitoring. Section V focuses on annual monitoring, and 

Section VI focuses on monitoring against the State Plan’s Performance Plan. Annual 

evaluation of State Plans is detailed in Chapter 7, “The Federal Annual Monitoring 

Evaluation (FAME) and Annual Reports.” The annual evaluation will also utilize the 

tools discussed herein. 

II. Criteria for Acceptable State Performance. The following criteria are used by the 

federal monitor in determining whether a State Plan’s performance falls within the range 

of acceptability:

A. Annual Performance Plan. Monitoring of a State Plan should focus on 

determining the extent to which a State Plan has achieved what it set out to 

achieve as related to the goals established in its Annual Performance Plan

although mandated activities outside the scope of the Annual Performance Plan

must also be monitored. An individual State Plan’s performance should not be 

compared to the performance of other State Plans or OSHA, except where 

indicated in the SAMM Report. 
52

B. Outcome-level v. Activity-level Data. In the absence of outcome-level data, 

OSHA should review activity level data to evaluate whether a State Plan has 

applied sufficient resources and intermediate outcome level data to evaluate 

whether the State Plan directed those resources to areas where an impact is likely 

to be made. (There may be significant time lags in the reporting of primary 

outcome level data due to data collection constraints, e.g., the time lag for receipt 

of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data is often up to 18 months.) It would be 

considered acceptable forward movement toward the goal if the State Plan 

demonstrates it has made sufficient progress in accomplishing the work plan 

milestones or objectives outlined in its Annual Performance Plan (e.g., 

establishing programs or developing evaluation tools). 

C. Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures. Not all State Plan annual performance goals 

can or should be judged against quantitative criteria. If a State Plan demonstrates 

it has made sufficient progress in accomplishing the work plan milestones or 

objectives outlined in its Annual Performance Plan (e.g., establishing programs or 

developing evaluation tools), then the State Plan’s performance would likely be 

considered acceptable.

D. Baselines. Reasonable baselines should be set for performance goals. For 

example, if a State Plan sets a performance goal relating to its complaint response 

time, its baseline should be established using the data from the first year of the 

plan (or as soon as that data is available) since responding to complaints is an 

ongoing work activity. If a State Plan sets a performance goal relating to 

continuing a Special Emphasis Program that was begun a year or two before the 

first year of the Strategic Plan performance period, it is acceptable to set the 

baseline in the year that program was initiated. 

A State Plan may not set baselines that pre-date the State Plan’s Strategic Plan by 

a significant number of years, i.e., three or more years prior to the beginning of 

the Strategic Plan performance period. Rolling baselines may be used if the data 

measured include very small numbers, e.g., a ten-year rolling period for fatalities 

in a small state. In that case, the end year of the baseline period may not be three 

or more years prior to the beginning of the performance period. In addition, a 

State Plan may not set its baselines so that its performance goals have already 

been accomplished before the performance period covered by the Strategic Plan 

has begun, except in the case of “maintenance goals” to continue with a high level 

of performance, such as maintaining a 95 percent customer satisfaction rating.

E. Evaluating Progress. Progress in a positive direction should be considered when 

determining the acceptability of a State Plan’s performance. That is, State Plan

performance should not be evaluated against an absolute standard. For example, 

if a performance goal is to reduce injuries and illnesses in a targeted industry by 

15 percent and the results indicate a reduction of 13 percent, this would likely be 

considered acceptable performance.
53

However, substantial deviations from a targeted performance goal will require a 

discussion between the State Plan and the Region to agree upon corrective actions 

to be taken by the State Plan to address the performance deficiencies. For 

example, if a performance goal was a 15 percent reduction in injuries and 

illnesses in a targeted industry and the results indicated only a 2 percent reduction 

or an increase in injury and illness rates, then action may be warranted. At all 

times, the reason for the deviations from the State Plan’s goal should be 

determined and considered prior to judging its progress. 

Moderate deviations from a performance goal, such as a 5 percent to 10 percent

reduction, rather than a 15 percent reduction, will be evaluated using the 

professional judgment of both OSHA and State Plan staff. Such deviations 

should be discussed by OSHA and the State Plan to determine whether or not they 

represent a performance deficiency.

III. Tools for Federal Oversight. Through monitoring, OSHA meets its statutory 

responsibility under the OSH Act to ensure that State Plans are operating in a manner that 

is ALAE as OSHA. Many tools are used in the evaluation, including the State Plan’s 

annual performance goals, as well as mandated activity measures. This section discusses 

these tools, which are defined as one of the following: (1) automated data reports, (2) 

manual reports, (3) documents and logs, (4) case file reviews, (5) field monitoring, or (6) 

special studies. Each of these categories and the tools that fall under them are discussed 

in this chapter.

A. Automated Data Reports. Quantitative data is available from automated reports 

and should be the first source of information for analysis. Should these data 

sources not allow for an adequate analysis, the federal monitor may utilize other 

methods, including customized OIS reports from OSHA’s data system using 

limited selection criteria. The types of automated performance data reports are 

listed here. The first three reports in the list below - SAMMs, State Indicator 

Reports (SIRs), and Mandated Activity Reports for Consultation (MARCs) - are 

described in this section. The next three reports in the list below are controlled at 

the Area Office level and should not need explanation in this document. The last 

bullet below is information that would be provided by the State Plan.

• SAMM Reports 

• SIRs

• MARCs 

• Other reports from OSHA’s data system 

• State-generated data related to specific state strategic goals

1. SAMM Reports. Mandated compliance activities are to be tracked both 

quarterly and annually by comparing State Plan activity data to an established 

reference point. The SAMM Report provides a set of universal indicators for the 

mandated responsibilities of State Plans; a standard, baseline, or performance 

guide for each; and State Plan performance data. SAMMs are also used to 

evaluate state and local government programs. 
54

Note: SAMM Reports should be run by quarter, as well as cumulatively, from 

the beginning of the fiscal year. Beginning with the second quarter, there will be 

a quarterly report and a cumulative report.

a. Frequency. The SAMM Report is available as an OIS report to be run 

independently by a State Plan or Region at any time. DCSP will run and 

distribute official SAMM Reports on a quarterly basis, to include 

cumulative year-to-date data.

b. Guidelines for Use. The federal monitor and State Plan staff should 

jointly review SAMM Reports and discuss performance that falls outside 

the pre-determined levels (refer to Section IV.B. of this chapter). Many of 

the principles presented will also be used for the annual review.

c. Data Source. The source of most performance data is OIS, but in some 

instances, such as data on denial of entry, the data will be provided by the 

State Plan to the federal monitor. 

d. Measurement Standard or Guide. The State Plan’s performance is 

compared to a standard that is set by regulation, negotiation, or trend. 

Except in the case of performance standards set by regulation, these are 

not intended to serve as mandated performance goals, but as a point of 

reference to facilitate tracking and to aid in determining whether further 

analysis is needed. See below for further explanation:

If: then:

a national standard has been established... the national standard applies to all State 

Plans.

there is neither a national standard nor a 

related State Plan performance goal...

a negotiated fixed number for each State 

Plan is determined. 

there is no national standard or negotiated 

fixed number...

performance would be compared with 

national and state data averaged over a 

three-year period, plus or minus an agreed 

upon percentage. 
55

State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM)

Indicator Reference/FRL

1a

Average Number of Work Days to Initiate Complaint Inspections

(State Formula)

Negotiated

1b Average Number of Work Days to Initiate Complaint Inspections

(Federal Formula)*

N/A

2a

Average Number of Work Days to Initiate Complaint Investigations

(State Formula)

Negotiated

2b Average Number of Work Days to Initiate Complaint Investigations

(Federal Formula)*

N/A

3

Percent of Complaints and Referrals Responded to Within One Work 

Day (Imminent Danger)

100%

4 Number of Denials where Entry Not Obtained 0

5

Average Number of Violations per Inspection with Violations by 

Violation Type – SWRU/Other

National

Average: +/- 20%

6 Percent of Total Inspections in the State and Local Government Grant Goal:+/-

5%

7 Planned vs. Actual Inspections – Safety/Health Grant Goal: +/-

5%

8

Average Current Serious Penalty in Private Sector (Total and by Size 

of Employer)

National 

Average: +/- 25%

9 Percent in Compliance – Safety/Health National 

Average: +/- 20%

10 Percent of Work-Related Fatalities Responded to in One Work Day 100%

11 Average Lapse Time – Safety/Health National

Average: +/- 20%

12 Percent Penalty Retained National

Average: +/- 15%

13 Percent of Initial Inspections with employee Walk Around 

Representation or employee Interview

100%

14 Percent of State 11(c) Analog Investigations Completed Within 90 

Calendar Days 

100%
56

15 Percent of State 11(c) Analog Complaints That Are Meritorious National

Average: +/- 20%

16 Average Number of Calendar Days to Complete a State 11(c) Analog

Investigation

90

17 Percent of Enforcement Presence National

Average: +/- 25%

*1b and 2b are for informational purposes only and are not mandated measures.

2. State Indicator Report (SIR). A SIR consists of a subset of activity measures 

which are no longer included in the SAMM. The SIR is intended to be an internal 

management report.

a. Frequency. The report is run quarterly and cumulatively and contains 

quarterly and year-to-date totals. 

b. Guidelines for Use. The SIR is primarily a report of activity data for state 

occupational safety and health managers’ use in the internal management 

of their program. As appropriate, OSHA and State Plan staff may use the 

SIR to supplement the SAMM as a source of information for evaluating a 

potential problem related to carrying out a mandated activity.
57

State Indicator Report (SIR)

Percent Of Total PRIVATE Inspections That Are Programmed (By Safety And Health)

Percent Of Total PUBLIC Inspections That Are Programmed (By Safety And Health)

Percent Of ALL Inspections That Are Programmed (By Safety And Health)

Percent Of Private Sector Programmed Inspections That Currently Have Violations (By 

Safety And Health)

Percent Of Private Sector Programmed Inspections With Violations as Issued (By Safety 

And Health)

Percent Of NIC Private Sector Programmed Inspections that Currently have a SWRU 

Violations (By Safety And Health)

Percent Of NIC Private Sector Programmed Inspections With a SWRU Violations as 

Issued (By Safety And Health)
58

Number Of Private Sector Inspections Which Have Unabated Violations That Are Greater 

Than 60 Calendar Days For Safety And 90 Calendar Days For Health Past The Issuance 

Date

Open, non-contested cases with abatement incomplete in excess of 60 calendar days

Count Of Total Inspection Conducted In The Public Sector And Private Sector By Safety 

And Health

Percent Of Violations Vacated (Pre-Contest) for Private Sector Inspections

Percent Of Violations Vacated After A Contest Had Been Filed for Private Sector 

Inspections

Percent Of Violations Reclassified (Pre-Contest) for Private Sector Inspections

Percent Of Violations Reclassified After A Contest Had Been Filed for Private Sector 

Inspections

Percent Of Penalty Retention (Pre-Contest) for Private Sector Inspections

Percent Of Penalty Retention After Contest Had Been Filed for Private Sector Inspections

Average lapse time from receipt of Contest to first level decision in workdays

Number of valid complaint UPAs handled as an inspection which have been open for more 

than 60 calendar days and number of valid complaints handled as a phone/fax which have 

been open more than 30 calendar days.

3. Mandated Activity Reports for Consultation (MARC). For State Plans operating

Consultation programs under 23(g), mandated consultation activities will be 

tracked on a quarterly basis using the MARC. Significant issues identified 

through the use of MARCs should be discussed in quarterly meetings and 

reflected in the annual evaluation report.
59

B. Manual Reports. State Plans and OSHA generate reports that compile 

quantitative and qualitative data. This is done as a means for conducting selfmonitoring (the states) or oversight (OSHA). These manual reports can be 

reviewed as a means for gaining a broad perspective of a state’s program and 

include: 

• State Internal Evaluation Program (SIEP) Audits

• FAME Report

• SOAR

• Regional Annual Consultation Evaluation Report (RACER)

• Consultation Annual Project Report (CAPR)

• On-site Monitoring Report

• State-generated data related to state-specific strategic goals

1. State Internal Evaluation Program (SIEP) Audit. A state’s program for 

comprehensive evaluation of its internal operations is a critical component of the 

monitoring system. Providing that mandates are met, states have the flexibility to 

design and implement programs that will fit each individual state’s needs and 

personnel resources. These evaluations may be developed in conjunction with the 

Annual Monitoring Plan (see Section V.B.3 of this chapter).

a. Each state must periodically conduct reviews of its activities under the 

plan, focusing on key issues and areas of concern to the state.

b. The program must provide for integrity and independence in conducting 

evaluations.

c. States must maintain documentation of their internal evaluations and make 

it available for review by federal monitors. If OSHA receives requests for 

materials (i.e., Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests) that are not 

federal records, OSHA will refer the requester to the individual state.

2. Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation (FAME) Report. FAMEs are, in and of 

themselves, comprehensive documents that review the State Plan’s activities over 

a given year, and are useful tools for the quarterly monitoring conducted by 

OSHA. See Chapter 7 for a comprehensive description of the FAMEs.

3. State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR). The SOAR is a state-generated document 

that reviews the state’s progress in meeting goals outlined in the 23(g) grant 

application (see Chapter 7 for further details on the SOAR).

4. Regional Annual Consultation Evaluation Report (RACER). The RACER is a 

comprehensive report compiled by the Region to review the State Plan’s progress 

related to consultation activities.

5. Consultation Annual Project Report (CAPR). The CAPR is compiled by the state 

to monitor goals outlined in the 21(d) grant application.
60

6. On-Site Monitoring Report. This is an OSHA report that is generated biannually 

as a product of consultation review. 

C. Documents and Logs. Other sources of information for evaluating the selected issues are

documents that are readily available for general use and logs that are routinely prepared 

and shared. Examples of such documents and activities are as follows:

1. Annual Performance Plans. Annual Performance Plans are prepared by the State 

Plan and identify strategies for achieving the State Plan’s goals as stated in its

Five-Year Strategic Plan (see Chapter 5, Basic Principles of Strategic and 

Performance Plans.

2. Section 23 (g) Grants. Each State Plan’s grant application contains both the 

financial data and program narrative, including the State Plan’s strategic and 

performance goals (refer to Chapter 5 for detailed information). 

3. State Operational Procedures and Policies. Any and all documents pertaining to 

the State Plan’s operational procedures and policies are relevant to the monitoring 

process. 

4. State Plan Application (SPA). This database contains records of State Plan

actions, including responses to federal actions, such as new or revised standards 

and Federal Program Changes (FPCs). It includes information on the following 

areas:

a. State standards development and promulgation

b. FPCs

c. State-initiated program changes

d. CASPAs

e. Variances

5. Corrective Action Plans (CAPs). CAPs include actions that have been agreed to 

between the State Plan and the Region for correcting a deficiency in the State

Plan’s program. CAPs are part of the FAME process and result from this annual 

review (see Chapter 7 for further information on CAPs). 

6. SAMM Codebook. The codebook that describes the SAMM is a source for 

interpreting and understanding the SAMM. 

7. Additional State Information. Additional state information, such as state records, 

legislation, and other documents, may be useful.
61

D. Case File Review. As part of the analysis of state performance, federal monitors may 

review State Plan case files (such as, but not limited, to files pertaining to inspections, 

consultation, whistleblower activities, complaints) at any time during the evaluation 

period. The purpose of case file reviews is to ensure that the State Plan’s policies and 

procedures are being followed, to inform the State Plan of areas for improvement, and to 

develop CAPs. Case file reviews are conducted routinely in the following four 

circumstances: 

• FAME guidance may include a requirement to conduct case file reviews (see 

Chapter 7);

• Verification of a State Plan’s CAP. Case files may be reviewed in an effort to 

verify that a CAP item has been appropriately addressed;

• Special Studies. At OSHA’s discretion, case files may be reviewed to evaluate an 

issue or concern; and

• In following up on a CASPA, case file review is often conducted. 

Case file reviews are conducted as needed and to the extent that automated data do not 

provide an adequate basis for analysis of an issue. In order to ensure an effective process 

and enlist State Plan participation, opening and closing conferences need to be held with 

the State Plan. 

Case file review activity will differ in accordance with the demographics of the 

population, the information being sought, and, when directed by the National Office,

guidelines established for review criteria for each evaluation period. Federal monitors 

will take into account these differences within their State Plan and conduct case file 

reviews in accordance with these variables. 

1. Scope of Review. The scope of review will depend upon the issue being analyzed 

and may encompass the entire case file(s) or be limited to a specific subject within 

certain case file(s). For instance, FAME guidance might include case file reviews 

of whistleblower cases to evaluate states’ procedures, or a Region could conduct 

case file reviews for timely abatement.

2. Selection of Case Files. The selection of case files will be based on the issue to 

be analyzed. CASPAs, for example, could focus on one specific case file, while 

other reviews, such as analysis of timely abatement, would require random 

sampling of case files.

a. Random Sampling. In case file review processes that do not focus on one 

specific case file, the federal monitor must ensure that cases are randomly 

selected. This can be achieved by using a random numbers table or some 
62

other objective method. Random numbers tables can be accessed by 

conducting Internet searches (that is, Google ‘random numbers table’ or a 

similar term). For each case file review, a different random numbers table 

needs to be accessed to ensure that the generation of numbers is truly 

random. 

To account for the possibility of missing case files, there should be more 

randomly selected case files than necessary for the sample size. For 

instance, for sample sizes of less than 50, a good guideline would be to 

randomly select at least five additional case file numbers. For sample 

sizes of 50 or more, randomly select at least 10% more case file numbers 

(that is, if the sample size is 100, randomly select 110 case file numbers).

Appendix E provides further information on procedures for random 

sampling. 

3. Fatalities. Case file reviews involving fatalities frequently include all closed 

fatality case files.

4. Employee Interviews. As part of a case file review, there may be circumstances 

for which it is beneficial to conduct interviews of state employees. Interviews are 

to be conducted at a reasonable time and place, in coordination with the State Plan 

and federal monitors. 

5. Documentation of Findings. The federal monitor must document the findings 

regarding each case file reviewed and also the conclusions reached regarding 

program impact based on the analysis of all the case files reviewed. The federal 

monitor will hold a closing conference to ensure information is shared with the 

states to the extent needed to explain findings. State Plans also need to be 

provided with information on the specific case files that were found to be 

problematic. This will give the State Plan the opportunity to correct 

misinformation, refute the allegation, or address the problem (see note below).

a. Trends v. Isolated Incidents. Federal monitors must flag trends that could 

have an impact on State Plan effectiveness and consult with the Office of 

the RA regarding significance (see ALAE below). A trend is observed 

when there is a general tendency regarding issues, such as improper 

documentation of case files, lack of next-of-kin letters, inappropriate 

sampling methods, increase or decrease in penalties, and other such issues 

for which case files are evaluated. An isolated incident is a one-time 

event, an unusual occurrence, or a spike in data and may be included in the 

FAME Report as an observation (versus a finding) to be tracked by the 

Region going forward. 
63

Note: In some circumstances, an isolated event will rise to a level of 

significance that warrants a finding where it is determined that it could 

impact State Plan effectiveness. For example, the single observation of 

the use of the incorrect sampling media could serve as the basis of a 

finding. 

b. ALAE. In consultation with the Office of the RA, the federal monitor will 

review trends and other concerns uncovered during case file review to 

determine if State Plan effectiveness is diminished. In such cases, the 

trend or concern is to be listed as a finding in the FAME Report and 

tracked via a CAP. For consistency, federal monitors can utilize an 

Access database tool for documenting enforcement case file review. 

Other similar Access programs can be utilized for other types of reviews,

such as consultation and whistleblower case files.

6. Interpretation of Results. The case file activity for a general review should be 

focused on issues which, if found across the population, would result in a finding. 

Isolated instances of inadequate documentation or improper classification in a 

case file do not indicate an overall problem and would not be noted in the annual 

report. Conversely, if there are numerous instances of procedures not being 

followed, occurrences of improper classification, inadequate documentation, or 

other concerns found throughout the case file review, then the issue(s) would be 

noted and included in the annual report, along with recommendations for 

corrective action and follow-up review during the next evaluation period.

E. Field Monitoring. When the review of automated reports, documents, and the other 

monitoring techniques listed above are inadequate as a basis for analyzing an issue, 

federal monitors may join state compliance personnel conducting on-site activities in an 

accompanied visit. Additionally, federal monitors may attend relevant meetings and 

hearings, such as training sessions, cases before the review board, workplace retaliation 

hearings, and public advisory committee meetings to satisfy the determined needs of the 

monitoring activity.

1. Selection of Sites or Meetings for Federal Monitoring. The scope of the review 

will determine the criteria used in selecting the sites or meetings to which the 

federal monitor will accompany state personnel. 

a. The Region must notify the State Plan of its intentions in advance.

b. The Region and the State Plan will work collaboratively to identify sites or 

meetings that the federal monitor will attend and may include worksites 

previously visited by the State Plan.

2. Accompanied Visit Procedures. During accompanied visits, federal monitors 

should observe the following procedures: 
64

a. Effects on Individual Performance. Accompanied visits are not intended 

to evaluate the performance of individual compliance officers, as this is 

the responsibility of state program management. If, however, an 

accompanied visit suggests that the practices of a particular compliance 

officer are not consistent with adopted policies and procedures, the federal 

monitor must inform the appropriate state manager of these practices.

b. Observed Violations. If a federal monitor observes an apparent standard 

violation that would normally result in the issuance of a serious or willful 

citation, and the state compliance officer has failed to note it, the monitor 

must privately advise the compliance officer of the violation before

departing from the work site. 

• If the state compliance officer agrees to document the apparent 

violation and identifies it to the employer, no further action is 

required at the work site. 

• If the state compliance officer disagrees with the federal 

monitor’s assertion that there is a violation of a standard, and 

an agreement cannot be reached between the compliance 

officer and federal monitor, appropriate management personnel 

for both the State Plan and OSHA should be notified. 

For an apparent imminent danger, OSHA and the State Plan must agree on

whether to remove employees from risk prior to leaving the work site.

For an apparent serious or willful violation, OSHA and the State Plan 

must reach agreement as soon as practical, but in all cases in time for the 

State Plan to, where such a determination is made, document the apparent 

violation and identify it to the employer prior to issuing citations.

c. Personal Safety. Any time a federal monitor accompanies a state 

compliance officer on a site visit, the federal monitor must observe the 

same safe work practices that a federal compliance safety and health 

officer observes while performing inspections, including safe driving 

practices. 

3. Documentation of Findings. At the conclusion of each accompanied visit, the 

federal monitor must document all pertinent information regarding the inspection, 

such as date, place, establishment inspected, and inspection number. The 

documentation must describe the methods used, findings, and recommendations 

made. The federal monitor must also document any other issues that have an 

impact on the program. All documentation must be maintained for a period of 

three years, along with the documentation of the quarterly discussion at which the 

analyses were discussed.
65

F. Special Studies. Special studies are a tool that can be used to evaluate the status of a 

particular issue. They are directed by the National or Regional Office and can be 

targeted to a specific State Plan or to all State Plans. Special studies can be conducted 

at any time during the monitoring period as deemed necessary by the National or 

Regional Office. Guidance for conducting special studies will be provided and is 

dependent on the topic being evaluated. 

IV. Quarterly Monitoring. The Region should be in continuous dialogue with the State 

Plan to stay informed about significant events within the state, as well as up-to-date about 

the State Plan’s performance throughout the year.

A. Quarterly Monitoring Discussions. Quarterly monitoring discussions are at the 

core of the State Plan and Consultation Program monitoring and evaluation 

processes. Regions are required to hold joint quarterly discussions with 

enforcement and consultation. Any issue of concern to either party may be 

discussed at these meetings. Quarterly discussions can take place in-person or via 

telephone.

1. Purpose. Quarterly monitoring discussions should cover ongoing State

Plan performance in all program areas. Quarterly discussions ensure that 

monitoring activities do not occur exclusively at the end of the year and 

provide a forum for integrated discussion of all program areas. To this 

end, all appropriate staff – program administration, enforcement, and 

compliance assistance – should be involved in the quarterly discussion 

process. Communication is not limited to the quarterly monitoring 

discussions. Informal discussions, working sessions, and other meetings 

for a variety of purposes, including development of Strategic and Annual 

Performance Plans, should be held as needed.

2. Scheduling. Sharing of information and conducting joint reviews of State

Plan performance goals on a quarterly basis will permit early identification 

of potential performance problems or issues and also facilitate the annual 

evaluation process. The availability of quarterly data, the extent of any 

preliminary review needed, and submission deadlines for Annual 

Performance Plans and evaluation reports should be taken into 

consideration when scheduling quarterly discussions.

3. Recommended Schedule and Focus of Quarterly Monitoring Discussions.

If necessary, the federal monitor may elect to shift schedule to align with 

specific State Plan fiscal year.
66

Quarterly 

Discussion

Timing of the 

Meeting

Focus of the Meeting

Q1 OctoberNovember

 Discuss end-of-year data for the previous fiscal year.

 Agree upon the Annual Monitoring Plan and the 

completion date for the SIEP.

 Review the details of and make any necessary minor 

adjustments to the State Plan’s Annual Performance 

Plan.

 Coordinate the annual evaluation process and begin 

discussing evaluation reports for the previous fiscal 

year.

 Prepare the SOAR.

Q2 JanuaryFebruary

 Review first quarter performance and mandated 

activities data to assess the State Plan’s year-to-date 

progress toward its annual performance goals.

 Discuss any additional issues that have arisen or 

were identified in the Annual Monitoring Plan.

 Prepare and complete evaluation reports for the 

previous fiscal year.

 Discuss any additional issues.

Q3 April-May  Discuss second quarter data, assessing the State

Plan’s year-to-date progress toward its annual 

performance goals.

 Discuss any additional issues that have arisen or 

were identified in the Annual Monitoring Plan.

 Begin discussing the goals and strategies to be 

included in the following year’s Annual 

Performance Plan.

 Discuss any additional issues.

 Discuss the FAME.

Q4 July-August  Discuss third quarter data, assessing the State Plan’s 

year-to-date progress toward its annual performance 

goals.

 Discuss status of the grant application and 

Performance Plan.

 Discuss any additional issues that have arisen or 

were identified in the Annual Monitoring Plan. 

a. Discussion Topics. As stated above, ongoing communication between the 

State Plans and OSHA is essential, and the quarterly meetings are a focal 

point of those discussions. Prior to meeting, the Region and the State Plan 

will agree on an agenda. As a courtesy, any documents and reports which 
67

will be discussed during the quarterly meeting should be shared between 

the State Plan and OSHA at least five days prior to the meeting being held. 

This should allow both parties the appropriate time for document review. 

Examples of relevant discussion topics include:

• Action items from previous meetings

• Progress in meeting annual performance goals

• Review of mandated activity reports

• Status of federal and State Plan Strategic or Annual Performance 

Plans

• Agreement on the issues to be covered by state internal evaluations

• State internal evaluation findings

• Effect of state policies and procedures on state program 

administration

• Status of State Plan responses to prior evaluation reports (CAP)

• Progress on monitoring activities set out in the Annual Monitoring 

Plan

• Ongoing grant monitoring

• State consultation activities and measures

• State Plan responses to FPCs

• Standards developments, both state and federal

• Legislative initiatives, both state and federal

• Stevens Amendment compliance

• Coverage issues

• Upcoming state and federal training courses

• State or federal staffing change(s)

• Staff career development and training

• Updates on compliance assistance and cooperative programs

• Follow-up on general commitments made during previous 

conference

• Ongoing CASPA investigations 

• Best practices developed and implemented

• Any other issues of concern to either party

• Discussion of special topics, such as coverage or interactions with 

other public agencies

B. SAMMs. Review of the SAMM data occurs during quarterly meetings (see 

Section III.A.1.d of this chapter for pre-determined reference levels). When 

utilized appropriately, variations in SAMM data should be addressed and should 

prevent any surprises at the time of the annual review. The information below 

provides guidance for use of SAMMs in discussion with the states. 

1. Initial Review. An initial review of the SAMM data is conducted. Any 

potential problem found during the initial review should be assessed to 

determine its significance and the amount and type of attention it should 
68

receive. Both federal and state reviewers must explore the cause and 

extent of data that fall outside the performance guides.

a. The initial review should fully address the question of data 

accuracy to be entirely certain that the issue is not one of erroneous 

performance data or erroneous historic data.

b. The initial review should also determine the extent to which the 

issue has already been assessed through the SIEP. 

c. Designated federal and state managers should discuss their 

findings and ideas about the significance of any performance 

variations and discuss what action should be taken. 

2. Discussion of Findings. Findings and preliminary conclusions regarding 

any performance variations in the SAMMs should be presented. 

Corrective courses of action should be discussed, if appropriate. 

a. Depending on the size of the variation and its potential impact on 

the program, single-instance variations may be monitored for 

another quarter to see if they indicate an emerging trend.

b. Some performance variations may represent performance 

problems; others may represent data anomalies; and still others 

may signal the eventual need to reset a measurement standard or 

guide. 

c. If the review indicated a first-time, three-month performance 

variation from the guide or standard or a statistically insignificant 

performance variation, additional review need not be automatic. 

d. The fact that a performance variation occurs for the first time does 

not necessarily rule out further analysis. These circumstances call 

for the application of professional judgment.

3. Further Review. If additional analysis is appropriate, OSHA will take the 

lead in analyzing data concerning a mandated activity. Data collection 

and review of data should be a joint effort, where practical. The data 

sources to be used and the method of evaluation should be discussed at the 

quarterly meeting, as should issues of data accuracy, where appropriate.

C. Documentation. The OSHA Regional representative will ensure that a written 

record will be maintained for each quarterly monitoring discussion indicating the 

date, location, those in attendance, a summary of the significant issues discussed, 

and the conclusions reached. Commitments made by either party, such as to 

supply information or assistance, should be documented and followed up by the 

appropriate parties. The party responsible for recording the discussion (either 

federal or state personnel) will provide the written record to the other party within 
69

30 working days of the discussion. The OSHA representative must provide a 

draft copy of quarterly monitoring discussion reports to the state for review. 

V. Developing an Annual Monitoring Plan. The Annual Monitoring Plan provides the 

framework for federal review of the state’s program throughout the year. This is the 

document from which agenda items for quarterly discussions will be drawn. At a 

minimum, an Annual Monitoring Plan should be developed prior to or during the first 

quarterly meeting (see Section IV above). 

At a minimum, the Annual Monitoring Plan identifies the issues to be evaluated, 

establishes the schedule for the evaluation, and assigns responsibility for the evaluation. 

The level of detail in the Annual Monitoring Plan is a matter to be decided by the Region 

and the state, and need not be extensive. It may also contain detailed procedures and a 

framework for ongoing assessment of the State Plan’s progress toward meeting the goals 

agreed to in the Annual Performance Plan and the grant agreement, and for ensuring the 

continuing effectiveness of the state program as it relates to mandated activities. 

The Annual Monitoring Plan may be adjusted at any time during the evaluation period, 

with the agreement of both the state and the Region, to reflect newly-identified issues for 

evaluation or the results of analyses already underway.

A. Timing. The Annual Monitoring Plan should be developed prior to or at the first 

quarterly discussion of each evaluation year. The Annual Monitoring Plan should 

be closely aligned with the State Plan’s Annual Performance Plan. (The SIEP may 

be developed in conjunction with the Annual Monitoring Plan.)

B. Content of the Annual Monitoring Plan. The Annual Monitoring Plan should 

include, as a minimum, the following:

1. The schedule for monitoring activities, including the evaluation period; a 

schedule for quarterly discussions; a schedule for the start and completion 

of analyses of evaluative items (such as the items listed under “Discussion 

Topics” in Section IV of this chapter); and a schedule for the preparation 

and submission of evaluation reports.

2. Assignment of Monitoring Responsibilities. The Annual Monitoring Plan 

should clearly define roles and responsibilities for quarterly discussions, 

including the federal office responsible for monitoring, the name of the 

federal monitor, and by whom and how needed documentation will be 

provided. 

3. SIEP Audit. The SIEP audit is an integral part of the monitoring process;

therefore, it should be incorporated or referenced in the Annual 

Monitoring Plan (see Section III.B.1 of this chapter), and findings of a 

state’s required internal evaluation program should be discussed at the 

quarterly meetings. This plan must be made available to the Region upon 

request. A state’s analyses of issues in its SIEP audit may form the basis 

for the Region’s findings in its own evaluation report.
70

4. CAPs. The status of CAP items needs to be followed during the quarterly 

meetings. (The State Plans should include the CAPs in their SIEP; 

however, if the CAPs are not included as part of the audit process, the 

Annual Monitoring Plan should include these.) 

5. Strategic and Annual Performance Goals. The Annual Monitoring Plan 

should describe how State Plan performance data will be collected and 

analyzed. Frequently, this will be specified in the State Plan’s Annual 

Performance Plan and can be relied upon for collection and analysis of 

data. 

a. Developmental Activities. For any annual performance goals that 

reflect developmental activities (for which no quantitative data are 

available), such as the implementation of Emphasis Programs or 

the creation of survey instruments, the Annual Monitoring Plan 

should state the information that will be required to assess progress 

on these activities. It should also state the anticipated schedule for 

submission and review of documents. Except where it is not 

feasible, progress on goals should be reviewed and documented 

quarterly.

b. Effectiveness Related to Mandated Activities. Any federallymandated activities that are not covered by annual performance 

goals, together with other issues that OSHA and the State Plan

agree to evaluate during the year, should be included in the Annual 

Monitoring Plan. The Annual Monitoring Plan should also specify 

how those issues are to be addressed. For example, they may be 

addressed by: 

 Assurances from the state of the continuation of effective 

procedures;

 State Internal Evaluation;

 Review of SAMM, MARC, SIR, and any other relevant 

automated reports; or

 Analysis by federal monitors by means of other evaluation 

tools described herein.

c. Work Plans. In some cases, a work plan describing the evaluation 

protocol may be developed for issues to be analyzed by OSHA. 

Work plans should contain, at a minimum, the following:

 Issue to be analyzed;

 Evaluation methodology, including the method of data 

selection and data criteria;

 Assignment of responsibility for analysis; and

 Timeframes for analysis.
71

VI. Monitoring Against Annual Performance Plans. Annual Performance Plans are 

prepared by the State Plan and are also useful for evaluating the state’s program. Annual 

Performance Plans identify the activities and strategies to be undertaken by the State Plan 

during that fiscal year in order to achieve the State Plan’s goals as stated in its Five-Year 

Strategic Plan (see Chapter 5, Mandated Activities - Grant Application). OSHA approval 

of a state’s annual grant document, of which the Annual Performance Plan is a part, 

indicates agreement on the terms of the plan.

A. Annual Performance Plans must include the indicators (i.e., outcome-level versus 

activity-level data) that will be used to evaluate a State Plan’s performance 

against its goals. Sufficient documentation of the performance indicators to be 

used must be provided by the state to enable OSHA to determine whether the 

state’s performance measurement system is sufficient for evaluating State Plan

performance. Responsibility for collecting and transmitting performance data is 

as follows:

1. The State Plan collects, analyzes, and provides data on performance 

results to OSHA for those performance goals that are unique to the state’s 

measurement system. The State Plan may use the OSHA data system to 

measure achievement of state-specific goals when data are available.

2. OSHA provides data on performance results to states on those areas of 

emphasis which are the same as OSHA’s, even if the states have different 

injury, illness, or industry targets.

B. Performance data should be jointly reviewed by the State Plan and OSHA on at 

least a quarterly basis. Any problems or deficiencies in either the collection of 

data or in achieving performance results must be discussed during the quarterly 

discussions.

C. End-of-year evaluations of State Plan performance will focus on the results 

achieved by the State Plan compared to the goals identified in the State Plan’s 

Annual Performance Plan, which was submitted with the grant application.
72

Chapter 7 

Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation and Annual Reports

I. Introduction. This chapter describes the FAME process and the annual reports that are 

utilized to capture State Plans’ activities and progress. The main purpose of the FAME 

process is to analyze, on an annual basis, a State Plan’s performance to determine 

whether it is continuing to maintain its ALAE status and to meet the mandatory 

regulatory requirements of 29 CFR Parts 1902, 1953, and 1956. Making an ALAE 

determination is a complex process which involves reviewing many different aspects of a 

State Plan. To complete the FAME process successfully, there must be collaboration and 

effective communication between the State Plans and OSHA. Although OSHA has a 

statutory responsibility under the OSH Act to ensure that all State Plans are operating 

ALAE as OSHA, worthwhile monitoring assists a State Plan in achieving its strategic 

goals by identifying issues early and promptly addressing them.

Although the FAME process has evolved over the years, the mission to reduce workplace 

injuries, illnesses, and fatalities has remained the same. All parties must stay focused on 

the commitment to achieving the shared mission. State Plan performance is measured 

against its own approved policies and procedures, established performance goals which 

reflect its specific conditions and priorities, and agreed-upon enforcement measures. The 

FAME process should have the flexibility to address unique situations, as well as 

differences, among State Plans. Open and continuous communication is essential to 

conducting a successful evaluation. State Plans are encouraged to participate in all 

phases of the evaluation directly with OSHA and/or through their own SIEP.

II. Annual Reports. Evaluating a State Plan is an ongoing process that includes the review 

of data from a variety of relevant sources throughout the annual evaluation period. The 

SOAR, the FAME Report, and the CAP are the three annual reports used to document the 

results and progress of a State Plan’s activities performed during the evaluation period.

A. SOAR. At the conclusion of each federal fiscal year, a State Plan must prepare a 

progress report outlining accomplishments with respect to its Annual Performance 

Plan. The report must be detailed enough to provide an accurate assessment of 

the activities and results accomplished since the SOAR and shall be a source of

information used for the FAME Report. State Plans that cover both the public 

and private sectors may combine the summary of the fiscal year accomplishments 

in the SOAR. For Privacy Act reasons, the SOAR should not include the names 

of personnel, specific case numbers, or company names.

1. SOAR Development and Review Process. State Plans must submit a draft 

SOAR to the Region, typically between December 1st -15th following the 

end of the fiscal year. The State Plan shall be notified of the specific due 

date of the draft SOAR. Once the SOAR is received from the State Plan, 

the Region shall complete a review and provide feedback to the State Plan 

on any areas of deficiency. The feedback shall be provided in sufficient 

time for the State Plan to make necessary changes. The final SOAR shall 
73

be submitted to OSHA’s DCSP no later than January 15th of the following 

year (see Appendix F for the SOAR template). The SOAR will be 

included as an appendix in the FAME Report.

B. FAME Report. OSHA established a two-year cycle for the FAME process – a 

comprehensive FAME year and follow-up FAME year. Data from all relevant 

sources shall be utilized and reflect objective and consistent analyses. In order to 

leverage both OSHA and State Plan resources, a comprehensive FAME of the 

State Plan shall be conducted every other year, and the follow-up FAME 

conducted each year between. This strategy allows the State Plan to focus on 

correcting deficiencies identified in the most recent comprehensive FAME.

1. The Comprehensive FAME. This evaluation of the State Plan shall 

include a review of case files, as well as an assessment of the State Plan’s 

enforcement performance (enforcement statistics), in each mandated 

activity or program element, progress in addressing outstanding items 

from the previous year’s FAME Report, and progress in meeting its annual 

and strategic performance goals. On-site evaluations and case file reviews 

may be conducted every year as necessary to ensure that adequate 

monitoring is achieved (see Appendix G for the comprehensive FAME 

Report template).

2. The Follow-Up FAME. This evaluation of the State Plan is a follow-up to 

the comprehensive FAME. Conducting an on-site evaluation and case file 

review is optional; however, if follow-up CAP items or information 

received during the previous year (e.g., SAMM data points, CASPAs) 

warrants a more comprehensive approach, conducting an on-site 

evaluation and case file review may be necessary. The focus of the 

follow-up evaluation is the State Plan’s response to the recommendations 

from the previous year’s comprehensive FAME Report, including its 

progress in addressing the corrective action items specified in their CAP, 

as well as an abbreviated assessment of the State Plan’s enforcement 

performance. However, depending on the issues in a particular State Plan, 

the evaluation may also include additional areas (see Appendix H for the 

follow-up FAME Report template).

3. Drafting the FAME Report. The FAME Report must accurately and 

clearly summarize the findings of the year’s recent FAME and present a 

concise assessment of State Plan performance. The FAME Report should 

explain all findings in sufficient detail for the reader to understand the

analysis, but should not burden the reader with unnecessary details about 

internal State Plan procedures unless the internal State Plan procedure is a 

causal or contributing factor to a finding or observation. The substance of 

the FAME Report should stand on its own, with appropriate references to 

the supporting materials in the appendices. The report should clearly 

allow the reader to understand the issues, analyses, and the conclusions 
74

contained therein.

Acronyms must be spelled out the first time they are used in the report. 

Since these are public documents, with the exception of State Plan 

administrators or directors only, names of State Plan personnel shall not be 

used, nor should names of companies, representatives of workers, or 

inspection case file numbers. Names of companies involved in highprofile cases may be mentioned if the state has already issued a press 

release identifying the company. Reports written by a team should be 

edited to ensure that there are no contradictions among the various 

sections and that writing styles are uniform. The State Plan is encouraged 

to provide corrective action information to the Region whenever its 

inclusion would enhance the quality of the FAME Report. 

4. FAME Report Development and Review Process. The FAME Report 

shall be drafted and a copy provided to the State Plan for review no later 

than March 15th. Once the State Plan has reviewed the draft FAME 

Report, comments and any areas of concern shall be submitted to the 

Region within two weeks to allow the Region to make any necessary 

amendments. Once the Region has made any necessary changes based on 

the State Plan’s feedback, the draft FAME Report shall be submitted to 

DCSP no later than March 31st. DCSP shall review the draft report and 

provide comments to the Region within 45 days. The Region shall then 

finalize the FAME Report based on the comments provided by DCSP. 

Any significant changes, such as changes to findings, recommendations, 

or observations, must be shared with the State Plan prior to submitting the 

document to DCSP. DCSP, in coordination with the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary, will finalize the FAME Reports no later than June 

30th. The final version of the FAME Report shall then be submitted, in 

electronic format to the State Plan along with instructions for completing a 

CAP. Upon receipt of the FAME Report, the State Plan may provide a 

formal written response, which shall be maintained with instructions with 

the FAME Report. 

5. FAME Report Findings, Recommendations, and Observations. Report 

findings shall be limited to those issues that warrant corrective action by 

the State Plan to ensure it is ALAE. Assessment of State Plan 

performance must include a review of progress and achievement of the 

State Plan’s strategic and annual performance goals. Issues that question 

the final approval status of a State Plan shall be noted as a formal finding 

and be included in the executive summary. Recommendations shall be 

closely linked with the FAME findings and should clearly identify 

expectations and the desired outcome. All findings and recommendations 

shall be reviewed by DCSP to ensure consistency across the Regions.
75

If data supporting an area of concern is limited, or if the concern cannot 

yet be determined to impact the effectiveness of the State Plan, it shall be 

noted in the FAME as an observation. Observations shall include a 

Federal Monitoring Plan to be completed by OSHA. An observation may 

appear on three consecutive FAME Reports before it must be either closed 

or converted to a finding. Previous findings may also be converted into 

observations where a review of available information warrants such a 

reclassification. An observation template to assist OSHA in tracking and 

monitoring the status of observations is included in both the follow-up 

FAME Report and comprehensive FAME Report templates.

To the degree possible, a discussion with the State Plan regarding areas of 

concern that may result in a finding or observation should be held during 

the case file review closing conference. An additional closing discussion 

shall be held (via teleconference or in-person) after the Region has 

determined all proposed findings and observations. If the State Plan 

objects to any findings or observations, further discussion may be held in 

an attempt to reach an agreement, though OSHA makes the final 

determination regarding what is included in the report.

a. Recommendation Categories. Recommendations as a result of 

the FAME findings should be categorized into the following 

areas: 

i. Open – Recommendation that still requires corrective action 

and shall be reviewed during the next FAME. 

ii. Awaiting Verification – Recommendation for which

corrective action has been taken but the outcome has not 

yet been verified and shall be carried over as a 

recommendation to the next report.

iii. Converted to observation – a previous finding that has been 

converted to an observation for monitoring in the next 

FAME.

iv. Completed – Recommendation for which corrective action 

has been taken and verified. 

v. Closed – Recommendation that has been mutually agreed 

upon as not impacting the effectiveness and for which the 

Region does not want to formally monitor as an 

observation.
76

6. Special Studies. Special studies serve as a tool for the Regions to address 

specific concerns and to obtain specific information on a State Plan at any 

time during the evaluation period. The results of the Regional special 

study are captured in the FAME Report. Additionally, the National Office

may also conduct a special study during the year. Instructions will be 

issued separately by the National Office and the results captured 

separately from the FAME Report. Chapter 6 provides detailed 

information on conducting on-site evaluations, case file reviews, and 

special studies. 

C. Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The CAP shall include all new and combined 

findings and recommendations from the most recent FAME Report. The State 

Plan shall develop a CAP in collaboration with OSHA to ensure that acceptable 

corrective action is planned. The course of action described shall clearly indicate 

what steps the State Plan shall take and the anticipated date of completion. 

Conducting regular follow-up discussions on the status of CAP items is a critical 

element of the process (see Appendix I for the CAP template).

1. CAP Planning, Development, and Review. The CAP must be developed so 

that the actions are specifically tailored to the recommendations.

a. CAP Planning and Development. The CAP shall provide clear, detailed 

responses for each finding and recommendation and is completed jointly 

by the Region and the State Plan. Throughout the evaluation period, the 

Region shall keep the State Plan informed of any items that may result in 

a finding and recommendation. This will allow the State Plan an 

opportunity to evaluate the information, make any needed corrections, or 

formulate a viable CAP early in the process. 

b. CAP Review. The Region, in collaboration with DCSP, will review the 

CAP and provide feedback, as appropriate. The Region’s review shall 

include analysis of whether the proposed action will produce the desired 

result. The Region shall negotiate with the State Plan appropriate 

revisions of any items that may not be explicit and precise about 

intended action and anticipated outcome. DCSP shall review each CAP 

for concurrence and notify the Region whether the CAP can be 

considered final. In a case of non-concurrence, the Region shall work 

with the State Plan to revise the CAP or obtain additional information 

and submit the revision or information to DCSP within the specified 

timeframe. 

2. Due Date. Within seven working days of issuance of the final FAME Report 

to the State Plan, the Region shall negotiate with the State Plan a completion 

date for submission of revised CAP items. The draft CAP is due to the 

Region from the State Plan by July 31st of each year (30 days after issuance 

of the final FAME Report). The Region and the State Plan have 30 days to 

make any additional changes to the CAP prior to submitting the draft CAP to 
77

DCSP by August 31st annually. The final CAP is due to DCSP by 

September 30th of each year.

FAME Process Timetable

Deliverable Due Date

Draft SOAR to Region December 1st-15th annually

Final SOAR to DCSP January 15th annually

Draft FAME Report to State Plan March 15th annually

Draft FAME Report to DCSP March 31st annually

Final FAME Report Issued to State Plan June 30th annually

Formal Response to DCSP Two weeks after issuance

Final FAME Report Posted on DCSP Public Webpage Three weeks after issuance

Draft CAP to Region July 31st annually

Draft CAP to DCSP August 31st annually

CAP Finalized September 30th annually

National Office Special Study Issuance September 30th annually (if initiated)
78

Chapter 8

Modifying and Withdrawing State Plan Approval

I. Introduction. Section 18 of the OSH Act allows states an opportunity to administer their 

own occupational safety and health programs upon receipt of federal approval of a State 

Plan. Section 18(f) of the OSH Act provides the authority for OSHA to withdraw this 

approval if the Secretary of Labor finds that “in the administration of the State Plan there 

is a failure to comply substantially with any provision of the State Plan.” The procedures 

for accomplishing a change in the approval status of a State Plan are set out in 29 CFR 

1902 (reconsideration of final approval) and 29 CFR 1955 (withdrawal of the State Plan). 

II. Reconsideration of State Plan Final Approval – 29 CFR 1902. OSHA enforcement 

may become necessary in a State Plan with final approval if the State Plan fails to operate 

a program that is ALAE as OSHA in providing worker protections.

A. Circumstances Warranting Reconsideration. In granting final approval of a State

Plan under Section 18(e) of the OSH Act, OSHA formally and legally 

relinquishes its concurrent authority for issues covered by the State Plan. 

Modification of a State Plan’s final approval may be necessary to allow OSHA 

enforcement authority in the state (see Chapter 3 of this manual, “Establishing a 

State Plan”). In State Plans that are still in the initial approval phase, federal 

concurrent enforcement authority remains in effect and an increase in specific 

federal enforcement authority can be implemented through changes to the OSA.

There are two scenarios where a State Plan with final approval may need OSHA 

enforcement assistance:

1. The State Plan has requested enforcement assistance from OSHA and has 

agreed to voluntary reconsideration of its 18(e) final approval status; or

2. Through evaluation and monitoring, OSHA has determined that the State Plan 

is no longer ALAE, but the State Plan either does not agree with this 

assessment, and/or does not consent to modification of final approval status. 

In this case, OSHA may decide to pursue involuntary unilateral 

reconsideration of Section 18(e) final approval.

B. Procedure for Reconsideration and Revocation of an Affirmative 18(e) 

Determination (29 CFR 1902, Subpart D). In general, reconsidering 18(e) final 

approval status requires a publication in the Federal Register of a notice of the 

proposed action, the opportunity for public comment and requests for informal 

hearing, and a publication of the final determination in the Federal Register.

If the Assistant Secretary determines that voluntary reconsideration of a State 

Plan’s 18(e) final approval is necessary, the following steps must be taken (with 

notes addressing involuntary unilateral reconsideration):
79

1. The State Designee, or his or her representative, must submit a letter 

requesting federal enforcement assistance and consenting to modification of 

its final approved status from 18(e) final approval to 18(b) initial approval. 

The letter should show that the State Plan has political support for the 

modification and the means to work toward regaining its full enforcement 

authority in the near future.

2. The Region, DCSP, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary (OAS) shall 

discuss the situation and determine if the requested federal assistance is 

warranted and feasible. This evaluation shall be based on the State Plan’s

letter, recent State Plan performance (to include FAME Reports), and other 

monitoring efforts.

Note: Before initiating involuntary unilateral reconsideration of 18(e), the 

Region, DCSP, and OAS must all be in agreement that the State Plan is not 

ALAE as OSHA, that federal enforcement is necessary within the state, and 

that since the State Plan will not cooperate with this course of action or take 

action to become ALAE, unilateral modification of the State Plan’s final 

approval status is warranted to allow federal concurrent enforcement. In this 

case, there would not be a letter from the State Plan, but there may be a letter 

from OSHA to the State Plan explaining the planned course of action and 

reasons behind said action.

3. The Region, working closely with the State Plan, shall draft an OSA that will 

delineate the areas of coverage for the state and OSHA while the State Plan is 

operating under 18(b) initial approval status.

The OSA should: 

 clearly define the revised areas of enforcement for both the state and 

OSHA during the period of concurrent enforcement coverage; 

 include a restatement of the areas already under federal coverage that 

will continue to be covered by OSHA (i.e., United States Postal 

Service, maritime, federal enclaves);

 identify the process to address imminent danger situations; 

 provide guidance to clarify instances in which enforcement authority is 

unclear, using OSHA to enforce by default until a determination is 

made; and

 include a provision addressing workplace retaliation claims and 

restating that these claims will, as always, be dually covered by both 

OSHA and the state.
80

Note: In the case of involuntary unilateral reconsideration of 18(e) final 

approval status, the state may not be as willing to work with OSHA to agree

upon the terms of an OSA. The Region should try to work with the state to 

come to an agreement on enforcement authority. If the Region encounters 

difficulties, or a State Plan wishes to withdraw the entire plan, the Region 

should seek assistance and additional direction from DCSP and OAS.

4. A NPRM is required to make the requisite changes to the part of the Code of 

Federal Regulations that codifies the level of federal enforcement authority 

within a State Plan. DCSP is responsible for composing a first draft of the 

NPRM and then working closely with SOL, the Region, and the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary (OAS) to make revisions as necessary through the 

informal review process. DCSP should consult DSG early in the drafting 

process to ensure that Federal Register formatting and submission guidelines 

are followed. The Region should share drafts with the state for informal 

review and feedback. 

Note: In the case of involuntary unilateral reconsideration, it is not appropriate 

to share drafts of the NPRM with the state or any other interested party.

The NPRM must be cleared internally through DCSP, SOL, DAP, DSG, and 

OAS. DCSP must also draft a cover memorandum for the Assistant 

Secretary’s transmittal of the rule to the Secretary of Labor. This package 

needs to be routed through the Department of Labor (DOL) Controlled 

Correspondence Unit (CCU) and ultimately must be cleared through the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (ASP) and OMB. ASP will 

submit the package to the Federal Register, but DCSP shall act as the 

guardian of the document and is responsible for following up on the clearance 

process in the National Office and within DOL to ensure timely submission to 

the Federal Register.

The NPRM shall:

 Include a summary of the situation and relevant background 

information about the State Plan and past performance;

 State that the Assistant Secretary is proposing reconsideration of the 

final approval status of the State Plan to modify the State Plan’s status 

back to that of initial approval;

 Refer to the public docket (by the number created by DCSP prior to

publication of the NPRM) that will contain a copy of the OSA and 

any other relevant documentation appropriate for public viewing; and

 Provide for a public comment period of 35 days. (Comments shall be 

reviewed primarily by DCSP and SOL to determine if a substantial 
81

issue is raised that warrants an informal public hearing). The final 

determination about a hearing is left to the Assistant Secretary’s 

discretion (see 29 CFR 1902.49).

Within 10 days of publication of the NPRM, the affected State Plan shall also 

provide and publish reasonable notice within the state containing the same 

information as that contained in the NPRM. Typically, this may take the form 

of a press release or notice posted on the State Plan’s website.

5. An informal public hearing may be held if the Assistant Secretary finds that 

substantial objections have been filed (see 29 CFR 1902.49(c), 1902.50). The 

Assistant Secretary may also decide to hold an informal hearing on his or her

own initiative.

Note: In the case of involuntary unilateral reconsideration, the State Plan may 

be likely to raise substantial issues and request a hearing.

6. Following the close of the comment period, a Final Rule is required to be 

published to officially modify the State Plan’s status. The Final Rule shall 

address all comments in the preamble and announce the Assistant Secretary’s 

decision about whether or not to modify the State Plan’s final approval status 

back to initial approval status. If the Assistant Secretary has decided to 

modify the State Plan’s final approval status, the Final Rule shall also 

implement the appropriate changes to the regulations at 29 CFR 1952 to 

codify the modification. 

DCSP is responsible for drafting the Final Rule and then working with SOL, 

the Region, and OAS to make revisions as necessary through the informal 

review process. DCSP should consult DSG early in the drafting process to 

ensure that Federal Register formatting and submission guidelines are 

followed. The Region should also share drafts with the State Plan for 

informal review and feedback. 

Note: In the case of involuntary unilateral reconsideration, it is not appropriate 

to share drafts of the final rule with the state or any other interested party.

The Final Rule must be cleared internally through DCSP, DSG, DAP, SOL, 

and OAS. DCSP must also draft a cover memorandum for the Assistant 

Secretary’s transmittal of the rule to the Secretary of Labor. This package 

must be routed through CCU and ultimately must be cleared through ASP and 

OMB. ASP will submit the package to the Federal Register, but DCSP shall 

act as guardian of the document and will follow up on the clearance process in 

the National Office and DOL to ensure timely submission to the Federal 

Register.

Within 15 days from publication in the Federal Register, DCSP must 

complete and submit a Congressional Review Act form to both the Senate and 
82

House of Representatives. 

7. Upon publication of the Final Rule, a press release may be issued. Typically, 

in the case of voluntary modification, the state will issue a press release. Joint 

local outreach opportunities should be explored to provide information to the 

public on the transition and resulting changes to coverage in the state. 

8. Upon publication of the Final Rule, DCSP will update OSHA’s State Plan 

webpage to reflect the change in approval status and to set forth OSHA’s and 

the State Plan’s new areas of coverage throughout the state. The webpage 

should also include a link to the NPRM and Final Rule and should briefly 

explain the background for this change.

C. Effect of Modification/Reconsideration of Final Approval. As discussed above, 

the modification of a State Plan’s 18(e) final approval status back to initial 

approval status results in the State Plan once again being subject to concurrent 

federal enforcement authority. Modifying the State Plan’s final approval status 

authorizes OSHA to carry out an enforcement program to supplement that of the 

State Plan, including independent federal or joint state and federal inspections 

resulting in issuance of appropriate federal citations. However, modifying a State 

Plan’s final approval status does not affect the state’s basic Plan approval or the 

state’s legal authority to enforce state occupational safety and health standards in 

the state’s workplaces. The modification would leave the state’s federallyapproved State Plan completely in place, and would simply reinstate OSHA’s 

authority to supplement state enforcement. The regulations state that this 

reinstatement of concurrent federal enforcement authority shall be for a 

reasonable period of time until the Assistant Secretary either deems the Plan once 

again able to meet the criteria of 18(e) or determines that the Plan, or a portion 

thereof, should be withdrawn (see 29 CFR 1902.52(b)).

Addendum of Milestones toward Regaining 18(e). When a State Plan’s final 

approval status has been modified to initial approval status, the expectation is that 

the state and Region will work out a schedule of milestones to bring the State Plan 

back to a level where it is once again eligible for reinstatement of 18(e) final 

approval and is no longer in need of federal enforcement assistance. This 

mutually agreed upon schedule must be reviewed by DCSP and OAS.

Reinstatement of 18(e) final approval does not automatically occur upon meeting 

the milestones. The State Plan still needs to go through the procedures for 18(e) 

determination, culminating in the Assistant Secretary’s decision on final approval, 

as set forth in 29 CFR 1902.

III. Withdrawal of State Plan Approval. There are several situations when withdrawal of a 

State Plan’s approval may be necessary. This section discusses these scenarios, the 

procedures for withdrawal, and the effect of withdrawal.

A. Circumstances Warranting Withdrawal of a State Plan. Withdrawal of a State 

Plan under 29 CFR 1955 is very different from reconsideration of a State Plan’s 
83

final approval under 29 CFR 1902. Generally, withdrawing a plan means total 

dissolution of the plan, or a portion thereof, including termination of the 

associated grant and enforcement authority. The procedures for withdrawal, as 

set forth in 29 CFR 1955, generally apply to both full coverage and state and local 

government State Plans. The regulations present several situations where 

withdrawal of a State Plan may be considered (see 29 CFR §1955, Subpart A). 

These situations fall into three main categories: voluntary withdrawal, involuntary 

withdrawal, and petition by outside party for withdrawal.

1. Voluntary Withdrawal – Whole or Partial. A state may, at any time before or 

after final approval of the State Plan under §18(e) of the OSH Act, voluntarily 

withdraw its entire State Plan (see j§1955.3(b)) or a reasonably separable 

portion of the State Plan (see §1955.3(c)) by notifying the Assistant Secretary 

in writing, setting forth the reasons for such withdrawal. Such notification 

shall include language terminating the state’s application for related grants 

under §23(g) of the OSH Act).

Upon receipt of the state’s notice of voluntary withdrawal, the Assistant 

Secretary shall publish a Federal Register Notice (FRN) of withdrawal of 

approval of the State Plan, or portion thereof. 

 Example: If a State Plan wishes to move from a full coverage State 

Plan to a state and local government State Plan, this would be 

accomplished through the partial withdrawal process under 29 CFR 

1955.3(b).

a. The term “separable” for purposes of withdrawal (both voluntary and 

involuntary) is defined by the regulations as an industrial, occupational,

or hazard grouping which is at least as comprehensive as a 

corresponding grouping contained in 29 CFR 1910, provided that the 

Assistant Secretary has determined that other industrial, occupational, or 

hazard groupings are administratively practicable (see 29 CFR 

1902.2(c), 29 CFR 1955.3(c), 29 CFR 1955.2(a)(10)). 

b. The example of “separable” provided in the regulations is “occupational 

health” (see 29 CFR 1955.3(c)).

c. In addition, there has been at least one instance where it was deemed 

administratively practicable to treat temporary labor camps as a 

“separable” issue.

d. According to 29 CFR 1956.24, no industrial or occupational issues may 

be considered a “separable” portion of a state and local government

State Plan because state and local government State Plans must cover all 

employees of state and local government agencies in a state whenever a 

state is constitutionally able to do so.
84

2. Involuntary Withdrawal – Whole or Partial. In general, the regulations 

provide for several circumstances in which the Assistant Secretary may 

withdraw approval of an entire State Plan or a portion of a State Plan, when it 

is determined that the portion being withdrawn is reasonably separable from 

the remainder of the State Plan in a manner consistent with §1902.2(c), 

defining the scope of a State Plan.

a. Developmental State Plans. The regulations set forth the two 

circumstances where initiating proceedings for withdrawal of all or part of 

a developmental State Plan may be in order (see 29 CFR §1955.3(a)).

i. Where the Assistant Secretary determines that the state has not 

substantially completed the developmental steps of its plan within 

three years (see 29 CFR §1902.2).

Examples:

 The state has failed to substantially complete the development 

and adoption of necessary administrative regulations and 

guidelines for an ALAE enforcement program (see 

§1955.3(a)(1)(i)).

 The state has failed to substantially complete the development 

and adoption of all or a majority of the occupational safety and 

health standards covered by the plan and, as such, does not 

have an ALAE enforcement program (see §1955.3(a)(1)(ii)).

 The state has failed to enact the required enabling legislation 

for an ALAE enforcement program (see §1955.3(a)(1)(iii)).

ii. Where the Assistant Secretary determines there is no longer a 

reasonable expectation that a State Plan will meet the criterion

involving the completion of developmental steps within three years 

(see §1902.3).

Examples:

 The state has failed to enact enabling legislation in the first two 

years in cases where the remaining developmental steps are 

dependent on such legislation, and the steps cannot be 

completed within the remaining one-year period (see 

§1955.3(a)(2)(i)).

 The state’s enabling legislation has been repealed, or a 

substantial amendment to the enabling legislation has resulted 
85

in a failure to meet the developmental criteria in §1902.3 (see 

§1955.3(a)(2)(ii)).

 The state will not be able to complete the developmental steps 

within three years (see §1955.3(a)(2)(iii)).

b. Approved State Plans. The regulations also state that it may be necessary 

to initiate proceedings for withdrawal of all or part of an approved State 

Plan (initial or final approval) when the Assistant Secretary determines 

that in the operation or administration of a State Plan, or as a result of any 

modifications to a plan, there is a failure to substantially comply with any 

provision of the plan, including assurances contained in the State Plan (see 

29 CFR §1955.3(a)(3)). 

Examples of Failures to Substantially Comply:

 Where a State Plan, over a period of time, consistently fails to 

provide effective enforcement of standards (see 

§1955.3(a)(3)(i));

 Where the rights of workers are circumscribed in such a 

manner as to diminish the effectiveness of the State Plan (see 

§1955.3(a)(3)(ii));

 Where a state, without good cause, fails to maintain its

program in accordance with appropriate changes in the federal 

program (see §1955.3(a)(3)(iii));

 Where a state fails to comply with the requirement to maintain 

a sufficient number of qualified personnel and/or adequate 

resources for administration and enforcement of the program

(see §1955.3(a)(3)(iv)); or

 Where the Assistant Secretary determines on the basis of 

actual operations that the criteria in §18(c) of the OSH Act are 

not being met, that concurrent authority under §18(b) should 

not be extended, and that final approval under §18(e) should 

not be given (see §1955.3(a)(3)(v)).

3. Petitions for Withdrawal of Approval for Approved State Plans. Any 

interested person, after the initial approval of a State Plan, may petition the 

Assistant Secretary in writing to initiate proceedings for withdrawal of 

approval of a State Plan under §18(f) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1955.5. 

a. The petition shall contain a statement of the grounds for the proposed 

withdrawal, including facts supporting the petition. The Assistant 
86

Secretary may request the petitioner to provide additional facts to be 

added to supplement the petition (see §1955.5(b)(1)).

b. The Assistant Secretary may take such other actions as are considered 

appropriate when considering the petition, including publishing the 

petition for public comment, holding informal discussions on the 

issues raised by the petition with the State Plan and other affected 

persons, or holding an informal hearing in accordance with §1902.13

(see §1955.5(b)(1)).

c. Petitions for withdrawal shall be considered and acted upon within a 

reasonable time. Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole 

or in part of any petition, which shall be accompanied by a brief 

statement of the grounds for the denial (see §1955.5(b)(2)).

d. A denial of a petition does not preclude future action on any issues 

raised in the petition or any other issues raised regarding a State Plan

(see §1955.5(b)(2)).

B. Procedure for Withdrawal: 29 CFR §1955.

1. Notice of Formal Proceeding.

a. Prior to any notice of a formal proceeding under this subpart, the Assistant 

Secretary shall by letter provide the state with an opportunity to show 

cause within 45 days why a proceeding should not be instituted for 

withdrawal of approval of a plan or any portion thereof. Should the state

fail to respond to the notice of proposed withdrawal or fail to show cause 

why a formal proceeding for withdrawal of approval should not be 

instituted, the state shall be deemed to have waived its right to a formal 

proceeding, and the notice of withdrawal of approval of the State Plan 

shall be published in the Federal Register. (This notice would likely take 

the form of a Direct Final Rule.)

b. If the state has not waived its right to a formal proceeding, a notice of 

proposed withdrawal shall be published in the Federal Register and a 

notice, in the form of a complaint, shall be served on the state in 

accordance with 29 CFR 1955.11, 15. 

This notice requirement applies to both involuntary withdrawals on the 

Assistant Secretary’s initiative, and to petitions for withdrawal.

The notice of formal proceeding shall include:

 A statement on the nature of the proceeding and the addresses for 

filing all papers;
87

 The legal authority under which the proceeding is to be held;

 A description of the issues and the grounds for the Assistant 

Secretary’s proposed withdrawal of approval;

 A specified period, not less than 30 days after publication of the 

notice in the Federal Register, for the state to submit a response to 

the statement of issues in the notice; and

 A provision for designation of an ALJ under 5 U.S.C. 3105 to 

preside over the proceeding.

c. No later than five days after the notice is posted in the Federal Register, 

the state will publish within the state a notice containing a summary of the 

information in the FRN, as well as the location where a copy of the full 

notice is available for inspection and public copying. The state shall 

provide the Assistant Secretary two copies of the state’s notice in 

accordance with 29 CFR 1955.10(b)(3).

d. No later than 30 days following publication of the notice of proposed 

withdrawal in the Federal Register, the state shall submit a response, to 

include:

 A statement of the items in the notice that are being contested; and

 A brief statement of the facts relied upon to include whether the 

use of a witness is intended.

e. A copy of the notice of the proceeding shall be referred to the ALJ.

2. Other Technical and Legal Requirements of 29 CFR 1955. There are a 

myriad of further legal and technical requirements set forth in the regulations 

pertaining to the formal proceeding to withdraw a State Plan, or a portion 

thereof. The regulations include provisions governing the manner of service 

and filing, computation of time, determination of parties, and provision for 

written comments, consent findings and summary decision, preliminary 

conference and discovery, and the hearing (see 29 CFR 1955.10 - 40). The 

Region, DCSP, and SOL shall work together throughout the formal 

proceeding before an ALJ, to ensure compliance with all of the regulatory 

requirements. 

3. Tentative Decision. 

a. After the transcript of the hearing is made available, each party may file 

proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and proposed orders.
88

b. The ALJ makes the tentative decision, and it must include findings of fact 

and conclusions of law supporting the decision, reference to any material 

fact based on official notice, and the appropriate rule, order or denial 

thereof. The decision must also be served on the parties.

 

c. Any party must be afforded an opportunity to file exceptions to the 

tentative decision (30 days). Opportunity to file objections to such

exceptions can also be offered. 

d. If no exceptions to the ALJ’s tentative decision are filed, the ALJ’s 

decision shall be published in the Federal Register as a final decision (see 

§1955.45).

4. Final Decision. After a review of the exceptions and the record, the Secretary

of Labor issues a final decision on the matter. The final decision may affirm, 

modify, or set aside in whole or in part the decision of the ALJ. This decision 

shall be served on all parties and shall become final unless the Secretary of 

Labor grants a stay pending judicial review.

5. Judicial Review.

a. Only a final decision by the Secretary of Labor is a final agency action for 

purposes of judicial review. A decision by the ALJ that becomes final 

through lack of filed exceptions is not deemed a final agency action (see 

§1955.46).

b. The State Plan may obtain judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of 

Labor in accordance with Section 18(g) of the OSH Act.

C. Effect of Withdrawal of a State Plan.

1. Once a State Plan has been withdrawn, all workplace health and safety 

coverage throughout the state reverts back to OSHA; therefore, state and local 

government employees in the state are no longer covered. The Region would 

assume enforcement responsibilities in the state just as it would for any 

federally covered state.

2. After receiving the notice of withdrawal, the State Plan shall cease to be in 

effect, and the provisions of the OSH Act and related federal regulations shall 

apply within the state.

3. In accordance with Section 18(f) of the OSH Act, states may retain coverage 

of any case started before receipt of the notice of withdrawal.

4. The notice of withdrawal shall serve as notice of termination of all related 

grants authorized under Section 23(g) of the OSH Act.
89

Chapter 9

Complaint About State Plan Administration 

I. Introduction. A CASPA is an oral or written complaint about some aspect of the policy, 

operation, or administration of a State Plan made to OSHA by any interested person or 

representative of such person or groups of persons, e.g., affected employers, employees, 

labor or management organizations, interest groups, the media, or the general public.

A. The CASPA process provides a mechanism for employers, employees, and the 

public to notify OSHA of specific issues, systemic problems, or concerns about a 

state program. (See OSHA regulations at 29 CFR §1954.20 to §1954.22 -

Complaints About State Program Administration.) 

B. State Plans must include information in their state posters about the availability of 

federal monitoring of State Plan performance through the filing of CASPAs with 

OSHA (see 29 CFR 1952.10).

C. CASPAs do not provide a formal review mechanism for individual complainants 

who seek to overturn administrative or judicial determinations made by the state. 

Because State Plans operate under authority of state law and are administered by 

state agencies, OSHA has no authority to directly affect a change in the outcome 

of a particular state administrative or judicial action. 

1. Complainants must have exhausted all administrative remedies available 

to them through the state’s processes before a CASPA will be accepted for 

investigation of their complaint. 

2. The results of a CASPA investigation may lead to recommendations for 

changes in the state’s policies and/or operating procedures that were the 

source of the complaint in order to prevent its recurrence. It may also 

include re-investigation or processing of the issue. 

II. Confidentiality. In accordance with the Federal Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), OSHA 

regulations at 29 CFR 1954.21 require that the identity of any CASPA complainant be 

kept confidential.

A. All CASPAs must be assigned a sequential number in the following format: 

State- FY-sequential #, e.g., TX-2012-01, in order to maintain this confidentiality. 

B. The name of the complainant must be withheld in any contact with a state 

concerning a CASPA and in any record published, released, or made available 

unless a waiver has been signed. No records will be maintained by the 

complainant’s name. 

C. A written waiver of confidentiality must be obtained from the complainant, if in 

the judgment of the RA the waiver would facilitate investigation of the CASPA. 
90

Even if the complainant makes clear that his or her identity need not be kept 

confidential, a signed waiver should be obtained (see Appendix J for a sample 

Name Release Form).

III. Filing a CASPA. CASPAs may be filed orally or in writing and should specify with as 

much specificity as possible the aspect(s) of the policy, administration, or operation of 

the State Plan which is believed to be inadequate. Although an oral complaint will be 

accepted, complainants are encouraged to document their specific concerns in writing to 

ensure full consideration. The complaint may relate to a specific state action, such as an 

enforcement inspection or workplace retaliation investigation, or it may reflect a broader 

or more generic criticism of State Plan policy or administration. CASPAs will be 

forwarded to the RA, who is responsible for oversight of the State Plan that is the subject 

of the complaint. 

IV. Determining Whether an Investigation is Warranted. Generally, within five calendar 

days of receiving a CASPA, a determination will be made whether the CASPA warrants 

investigation and if the complaint meets the definition of “Sensitive” CASPA. The 

complainant and the State Plan will be notified, as appropriate. If an investigation of the 

CASPA is warranted, the investigation is carried out using the methods and tools for 

further analysis presented in Chapter 6, Tools for Federal Oversight and Quarterly 

Monitoring. 

A. Imminent Danger. If a CASPA alleges that a situation of imminent danger exists, 

an immediate determination of whether the condition described may constitute an 

imminent danger situation shall be made, and if so, the State Plan will be notified 

to ensure that appropriate enforcement action is taken immediately. Once the 

imminent danger situation is addressed, further investigation of the CASPA 

allegations may still be warranted, and the complainant will be kept informed of 

the continuing CASPA investigation. The State Plan must inform OSHA as to 

how the imminent danger allegation was resolved so that OSHA can notify the 

complainant of the action regarding the imminent danger situation. 

B. CASPA Investigation Not Warranted. When it has been determined that an

investigation is not warranted, the complainant must be notified in writing (see 

Appendix J for letter template). The reasons for the determination must be 

specific and the complainant offered the opportunity to request reconsideration of 

the decision if additional information can be provided that could result in a 

different decision. The appropriate redactions of any information that could 

identify the complainant must be made prior to sending a copy to the State Plan. 

The following are conditions where an investigation may not be warranted:

1. The complainant has not exhausted the available administrative remedies 

provided for by state regulations and procedures. For example, if a CASPA 

involves a State Plan inspection that is under contest and the state’s action is 

not final, the contest could resolve the complaint. The complainant should be 

notified that once all available remedies are completed, if the result is 
91

unsatisfactory, the complainant may then file a CASPA. Informal contact 

with the State Plan to advise them that an issue has been raised may be 

appropriate.

2. The CASPA pertains to a matter that is not within the coverage of the State 

Plan, or the issues have no impact on safety and health and the state’s ability 

to operate its State Plan. An example would be a CASPA merely suggesting a 

different method, procedure, or policy.

3. Similar complaint(s) of the same nature has/have already been investigated, 

making additional investigation unnecessary. If the similar CASPA is still 

open at the time of the filing, the complainant may be added to the existing 

CASPA. 

4. The CASPA allegations are vague, or the content of the complaint does not 

sufficiently explain the activity that is alleged to be inadequate. This could 

include general accusations, such as “the penalties are too low” or that 

“violations are classified improperly.”

5. The CASPA recommends revisions to standards that include requirements 

more stringent than those enforced by OSHA or not included in OSHA

standards. More stringent requirements or those not included in OSHA

standards may be investigated if other ancillary issues arise due to the 

difference in the State Plan’s standards.

6. The complainant changed their mind after filing the CASPA and signed a 

negotiated settlement agreement.

7. The events pertaining to the complaint occurred so long ago that an 

investigation in the context of current conditions would be meaningless or 

impossible. For example, if the complaint deals with a State Plan case file 

that has been destroyed in accordance with an acceptable records retention 

policy, an investigation would not be possible. 

8. It is a dually-filed occupational safety or health workplace retaliation

complaint that will undergo a federal review as described in Section VIII of 

this chapter. A duplicative CASPA investigation is not required for such 

complaints. Note, however, that complaints about the handling of a state 

11(c) analog investigation from state and local government employees will be 

considered under CASPA procedures since there is no dual-filing option in 

those cases. 

9. A complaint pertaining to an authorized action by the State Plan.

C. If there is not sufficient information to determine whether to investigate or to 

confirm the issues of the CASPA, the complainant may be asked for additional 
92

information to aid in making a decision. OSHA retains authority for determining 

whether the CASPA will be accepted for investigation. If information sufficient 

to warrant an investigation is not obtained, the complainant will be notified that 

the case is being closed due to insufficient information, but that they can re-file 

should more information become available. 

D. Anonymous CASPAs will be investigated only if there is sufficient information to 

proceed with an investigation and the allegations raise reasonable concern about a 

State Plan’s performance. It is not necessary to inform the State Plan that the 

complaint was made in an anonymous manner.

V. CASPA Investigation Warranted. Once it is determined that a CASPA investigation is 

warranted, the complainant shall be notified that the CASPA has been accepted for 

investigation and that the complainant may be contacted for additional information.

A. Letter to the Complainant. The letter should state that a written response detailing 

the results of the investigation and any corrective action required will be sent 

upon completion, generally within 90 days (see Appendix J for Sample 

Acknowledgement Letters to CASPA Complainant). For complex CASPAs 

taking longer than 90 days to investigate, periodic updates should be provided to 

the complainant. 

B. State Plan Application (SPA). When a CASPA is accepted, the information must 

be entered into the SPA. Please go to 

http://intranet.osha.gov/fso/LAP/fso/osp/index.html for more information 

regarding the use of the SPA.

C. Opportunity for State Investigation and Response. A letter to the state describing 

the complaint shall be provided without revealing the identity of the complainant 

(see Appendix J for template letter). The State Plan will be provided 30 days to 

respond to the allegations, and the State Plan’s timely response must be 

considered as part of the investigation and included in the determination letter. If 

the state needs more than 30 days to respond, they may contact OSHA and 

request up to an additional 15 days to respond. Issues for which a response from 

the State Plan would be most helpful may be specifically requested.

D. Communication to DCSP. A copy of the incoming CASPA and opening letters to 

the state and complainant shall be sent to DCSP at the email address zzOSHADCSP-OSP-CASPA@dol.gov

E. Regional Investigation. The Regional investigation may begin at any time, 

including prior to receipt of the State Plan response. Case file reviews; review 

and analysis of relevant data; interviews with the complainant, State Plan officials 

and staff, or others involved; and review of State Plan policies and procedures for 

effectiveness, including their historical development and application, may all be a 

part of the CASPA investigation. In some situations, the information provided in 
93

the state’s response, once verified through data and/or case file review and 

discussions with the state, may provide a sufficient basis for a determination on 

the CASPA. A copy of all materials provided by the state shall be maintained in 

the CASPA file along with all other documentation used during the investigation.

1. The investigation should not only determine if the State Plan is following its 

own policies and procedures, but also whether those policies and procedures 

in question are ALAE as OSHA’s in structure and in application. 

2. The investigative phase should be completed in a timely manner, generally not 

more than 60 days to allow ample time to finalize and send letters to the state 

and complainant within the required 90 days. Any delays must be explained 

in the CASPA investigation file and report. Both the complainant and State 

Plan should be provided regular status updates throughout the investigation.

3. Where the CASPA investigation validates that the outcome in a specific State 

Plan inspection is not appropriate (i.e., the final state action is less protective 

than if the inspection was conducted by OSHA; does not follow State Plan 

policies or procedures; or, relied on State Plan policies or procedures that are 

not ALAE as OSHA’s), the State Plan must take corrective action.

a. Corrective actions may include reopening the case (statutory timeframes 

permitting), opening a new inspection (follow-up), or other appropriate 

action. When it is not feasible to reopen an inspection case, alternative 

means to address the hazard(s), e.g., an advisory letter to the employer, 

should be utilized. 

b. For workplace retaliation related CASPAs, the State Plan should have a 

procedure in place to allow them to reopen the investigation. Under 29 

CFR §1902.43(a)(2), OSHA retains authority for 11(c) workplace 

retaliation cases even after a State Plan has received final approval (see 

Section VIII of this chapter for more information).

c. Other remedies as appropriate (i.e., revising State Plan policies if they are 

not ALAE).

F. Conclusion of Investigation. 

1. Discussion with the State Plan. Immediately after a CASPA investigation has 

been completed, the preliminary investigative findings and conclusions, 

proposed recommendations, and possible corrective actions will be discussed 

with the State Plan. The State Plan should be allowed the opportunity during 

the discussion to present its views and provide additional information or 

analysis. 

2. Determination Letters. The conclusions of the CASPA investigation are 

presented in letters to the complainant and to the State Plan, which together 
94

serve as the agency’s formal investigation report and are issued concurrently 

(see Appendix J for letter templates). CASPA determination letters should 

contain an appropriate level of detail as to the reasons for the findings and 

conclusions. The letters should document in detail each allegation, the 

specific monitoring undertaken to investigate, the factual findings, the 

conclusions, and the recommendations for corrective action, if any. 

Conclusions should be fully explained and supported by the facts and 

presented in a manner that allows the reader to understand the underlying 

reasoning. Recommendations to the State Plan should specify the outcome 

that is expected and may specify actions that will achieve this outcome, but 

they should not be so prescriptive as to limit the state’s options. A timeframe 

for completion of corrective actions should also be established. A draft 

determination letter should be shared with the State Plan prior to finalization 

to ensure accuracy of the information presented, especially as it relates to the 

State Plan investigation. 

3. Response to Complainant. Within 90 days from receipt of the complaint, a 

determination letter should be provided to the complainant. In most cases, 

this letter should come from the monitoring official (e.g. Area Director or

Assistant Regional Administrator).

a. The response letter must advise the complainant of the right to request 

reconsideration of the determination by the RA. 

b. Upon receipt of a request for reconsideration, the RA’s review should be 

completed within 30 days and should include consideration of the CASPA 

file and all information developed during the investigation. The RA may 

reopen the case and/or seek National Office input, as appropriate. The 

decision by the RA is final and not subject to further review.

4. Response to State Plan. A determination letter should be provided to the 

State Plan in conjunction with the determination letter to the complainant. 

The letter to the State Plan should be similar to the letter to the complainant 

but must not contain information that would reveal the identity of the 

complainant.

5. State Plan Action. The state response to the CASPA findings should be 

required within a specified timeframe, usually 30 days, and must include a 

Corrective Action Plan, where applicable, with specific responses to the 

recommendations and a final timetable for the corrections. The State Plan 

must also modify its procedures to prevent recurrence of the problem and 

conduct training with staff, where applicable.

6. Monitoring. The State Plan’s corrective actions shall be monitored to ensure 

completion through follow-up visits, review of submitted State Plan Changes 
95

documenting required changes in policy and procedure, and may require 

periodic status reports from the State Plan. 

7. State Plan Objection. If the State Plan disagrees with any aspect of the 

investigation, including the recommendations, it may file a written objection 

with the RA. If the State Plan refuses to take corrective action, the RA will 

consult with DCSP.

8. Completed CASPAs. Completed CASPA information shall be updated in the 

SPA CASPA Log. Additionally, a copy of both the State Plan and 

Complainant response letters on every CASPA investigation shall be sent to 

DCSP at the email address zzOSHA-DCSP-OSP-CASPA@dol.gov .

9. FAME Report. The annual evaluation of each State Plan must contain 

summary information about all CASPAs investigated during the evaluation 

period. Information should not identify the complainant or any employers or 

others to whom the CASPA may relate. Details should be provided under the 

appropriate program element on cases where corrective actions are 

outstanding. Outstanding CASPA findings and recommendations can also be 

incorporated into the FAME findings and recommendations. CASPAs found 

invalid or otherwise without substantive findings may be merely listed by 

topic. 

VI. Significant CASPAs. Although it is important that all CASPAs be fully and 

appropriately investigated in a timely manner, significant CASPAs often raise issues that 

the Assistant Secretary should be aware of and/or may be asked about, and therefore,

require a greater level of awareness throughout the agency. 

A. Significant Determination. A CASPA may be considered “significant” if the CASPA:

1. Raises issues that warrant broader agency awareness regarding such matters as:

a. The overall adequacy of a State Plan administration or effectiveness,

b. Criticism of OSHA’s monitoring,

c. New or unique hazards, or

d. Major accidents or investigations;

2. Was filed by a national labor or management organization, member of Congress, 

or national public interest group;

3. Concerns a fatality or catastrophe; or

4. Relates to an issue that has drawn substantial or national media interest or raises

issues that the Assistant Secretary should be aware of and/or may be asked about, 

and therefore, requires a greater level of awareness throughout the agency.
96

B. RA Decision. CASPAs that meet one or more of the criteria set forth in Section VI.A of 

this chapter should be evaluated by the RA to determine whether it is appropriate to 

handle as a significant CASPA. 

1. If the RA believes the CASPA should be considered significant, the Region 

should handle the CASPA using the procedures set forth in Section VI.C of this 

chapter.

2. If the RA believes the CASPA should not be considered significant, the Region 

should notify DCSP and OAS of this decision. The memo should include:

a. The State Plan against which the CASPA was filed;

b. The CASPA number;

c. Date the CASPA was received;

d. The name or affiliation of the complainant;

e. Criteria from Section VI.A that triggered the significant CASPA review; and

f. Rationale for a non-significant determination.

DCSP or OAS should notify the RA within five working days if they disagree 

with the RA’s decision.

3. CASPAs may be reclassified as significant at any time should the circumstances 

surrounding the CASPA change; for example, increasing media attention to the 

situation.

C. Significant CASPA Procedures. CASPAs identified by the RA as significant should 

follow the procedures set forth in Section V of this chapter with the following 

modifications:

1. National Office Notification. Upon determination that a CASPA is significant, 

the Region should notify DCSP and OAS. The incoming complaint and any other 

available information should be shared at this time.

2. National Office Review. Upon completion of draft letters to the complainant and 

State Plan, as described in Section V.E.2 above, the letters should be submitted to 

DCSP to initiate National Office review. 

a. DCSP will review the draft letters and, in conjunction with the Region, make 

revisions, where appropriate.

b. DCSP will advise OAS that draft letters have been completed. OAS will 

determine whether to provide an additional level of review prior to issuance.

VII. Sensitive CASPAs. Although it is important that all CASPAs be handled in a manner 

that is sensitive to the identity of the complainant and the serious nature of the complaint 

allegations, “Sensitive” CASPAs allege unique or unusual issues that make it 
97

inappropriate to process the complaint using the standard process as set forth in Section V 

of this chapter. 

A. Sensitive Determination. A CASPA may be considered “sensitive” if the 

CASPA:

1. Alleges improper or illegal acts by State Plan management or employees;

2. Alleges administrative improprieties; or

3. Contains allegations that make it difficult to protect the identity of the 

complainant.

B. RA Decision. CASPAs that meet one or more of the criteria set forth in Section 

VII.A of this chapter should be evaluated by the RA to determine whether it is 

appropriate to handle as a sensitive CASPA.

1. If the RA believes the CASPA should be considered sensitive, the Region 

should handle the CASPA using the procedures set forth in Section VII.C.

2. If the RA believes the CASPA should not be considered sensitive, the 

Region should notify DCSP and OAS of this decision. The memo should 

include:

a. The State Plan against which the CASPA was filed;

b. The CASPA number;

c. Date the CASPA was received;

d. The name/affiliation of the complainant;

e. Criteria from Section VII.A that triggered the sensitive CASPA 

review; and

f. Rationale for a non-sensitive determination.

3. DCSP or OAS should notify the RA within five working days if they 

disagree with the RA’s decision.

4. If the RA determines that it is necessary for an impartial review, staff from 

another Region may be detailed to assist in the investigation. 

5. Where allegations include improper or illegal acts by State Plan 

management or employees, or administrative improprieties of a serious 

nature, the issues should be referred to the Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG).

C. Sensitive CASPA Procedures. CASPAs identified by the RA as sensitive should 

follow the procedures set forth in Section V of this chapter with the following 

modifications:
98

1. National Office Notification. Upon determination that a CASPA is 

sensitive, the Region should notify DCSP and OAS. The incoming 

complaint and any other available information should be shared at this 

time.

2. State Plan Investigation. State Plans shall not be afforded the opportunity 

to review and respond to CASPA allegations as set forth in Section V.C of 

this chapter. Instead, a letter acknowledging receipt of a CASPA 

designated as sensitive will be remitted to the state. Additionally, OSHA 

will provide basic information about the allegations to the degree that the 

information will not damage OSHA’s investigation or compromise the 

complainant’s confidentiality. 

3. Regional Investigation. Where applicable, care must be taken to ensure 

that elements of the Regional investigation, such as case file review and 

employee interviews, do not compromise the complainant’s confidentiality. 

4. Conclusion of Investigation. All elements of Section V.E of this chapter 

shall be followed, including affording the State Plan an opportunity to 

review the draft determination letter to ensure accuracy of the information 

presented. If a referral to the OIG has been made, the Region should verify 

that moving forward with the CASPA response will not negatively impact 

any ongoing investigation. 

5. National Office Review. Upon completion of draft letters to the 

complainant and State Plan, as described in Section V.E.2 above, the letters 

should be submitted to DCSP to initiate National Office review. 

a. DCSP will review the draft letters and, in conjunction with the Region, 

make revisions.

b. DCSP will advise OAS that draft letters have been completed. OAS 

will determine whether to provide an additional level of review prior to 

issuance.

VIII. Workplace Retaliation Related CASPAs and Dual-Filing. Workplace retaliation

complaints that were properly dually-filed under both federal 11(c) and state law undergo 

federal review under section 11(c) procedures outlined in the chapter on State Plans in the 

Federal Whistleblower Investigations Manual (WIM). No duplicative CASPA 

investigation is required for such complaints. 

A. Dually-filed Complaints. If the complainant requests a federal review before the 

state determination is made, the complainant will be notified that he or she may 

request the review only after a state determination is made. However, if there is a 

delay by the State Plan or the State Plan is not performing in a manner consistent 

with its policies and procedures, the whistleblower supervisor, as defined in the 
99

WIM, may then allow a federal review before the issuance of a state 

determination.

B. Complaints about the handling of state 11(c) analog investigations from state and 

local government employees will only be considered under CASPA procedures 

since dual-filing is not an option.

C. If the complaint concerns the state’s handling of a whistleblower complaint filed 

only with the state under its provision equivalent to section 11(c) of the OSH Act

(29 U.S.C. 660(c)), and if the complainant has exhausted all review remedies 

provided by the state, it should be handled as a CASPA following the 

investigation procedures in this chapter.

1. Upon receipt of a CASPA complaint relating to a state’s handling of a 

whistleblower case, it must be determined whether an investigation is 

warranted following the procedures in Section IV of this chapter. If an 

investigation is not warranted, the complainant and the state must be 

notified following the procedures in Section IV. If an investigation is 

warranted, the complainant must be notified that the CASPA has been 

accepted for investigation, and a letter will be sent to the state with an 

opportunity to respond, following the procedures in Section V (see 

Appendix J for letter templates).

2. A CASPA investigation of a whistleblower complaint may result in 

recommendations with regard to specific findings in the case, as well as 

future state investigation techniques, policies, and procedures. A review 

under CASPA procedures is not a request for review by the Directorate of 

Whistleblower Protection Programs (DWPP); however, it should be 

possible for the state to reopen a workplace retaliation case for corrective 

action. If the Region finds that the outcome in a specific state 

whistleblower investigation is not appropriate (i.e., final state action is less 

protective than if investigated federally; does not follow state policies and 

procedures; or relied on state policies and procedures that are not ALAE

as OSHA’s policies and procedures), the Region should require the state to 

take appropriate action to reopen the case or in some manner correct the 

outcome, whenever possible, as well as make procedural changes to 

prevent recurrence. 

3. State Plans are required under the State Plan Impact section and State 

Plans chapter of the WIM to provide for review of an initial state 

workplace retaliation case determination. This may be a process similar to 

OSHA’s review by an internal higher-level office, an adjudicatory 

proceeding, or another at least as effective mechanism. Complainants 

will be required to exhaust the state’s review remedy before OSHA will 

accept a request for federal review of a dually-filed complaint or of a 
100

CASPA regarding a workplace retaliation complaint filed only with the 

state.

4. State Plans are required to operate an effective program to protect 

employees who believe they have been discriminated against for 

exercising their State Plan occupational safety and health rights. This is 

not a program or authority that may be excluded from the State Plan. 

Program deficiencies identified during CASPA or other monitoring may 

result in recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes.

IX. Timeframes.

Action Days to Complete

Determine CASPA validity/whether 

investigation warranted, and whether it is 

significant or sensitive designation, and 

notify the complainant and the state.

Five work days from receipt

State investigation and response to the 

Region

Generally 30 days unless an extension is 

requested in writing or by email and approved 

by the Region

Regional investigation of routine CASPAs,

including letters

90 days

Discussion of preliminary findings with the 

state 

Immediately upon completion of 

investigation

Significant or sensitive CASPAs

90 days for investigation, though a longer 

investigation period may be required for 

major issues (National Office review and 

issuance of a determination letter is not 

included within the 90 day period.)

State response to recommendations and CAP 

with timetable

Generally 30 days from the issuance of the 

determination (letter to state/response to 

RA reconsideration cWithin 30 days of request from complainant omplainant) 

State objection Upon receipt

X. Tracking of CASPAs. Immediately upon receipt, information about all CASPAs must 

be entered into the CASPA log of SPA. This includes any oral or written complaint 

about state program administration identified as such by the complainant even if later 

determined not to be a CASPA. All appropriate information, including the final outcome, 

should be entered into the SPA in a timely manner during the course of the investigation. 
101

XI. Documentation of CASPA Investigations. The amount and kind of information that is 

collected and analyzed will vary for each CASPA. In many cases, the written 

determination letters to the complainant and the State Plan may satisfy most of the 

documentation requirements. In addition to copies of the complaint and all 

correspondence with the complainant and the state, each case file should contain written 

documentation of the following (see Chapter 6):

1. The allegations that were investigated;

2. The information reviewed in the course of investigating the CASPA;

3. An analysis of the allegations and conclusions regarding their validity;

4. Recommended corrective actions and timetables for their implementation;

5. The actions taken by the state and documentation of those actions; and

6. All follow-up actions taken. 

XII. Records Disposition. Although in general, Regional and Area Office official records on 

a State Plan and the monitoring activities conducted are considered permanent records 

and are retained until five years after the State Plan is withdrawn, files on CASPA 

investigations should be maintained in accordance with the established records 

disposition schedule. 

State Plans should ensure that their records disposition policies provide for retention of 

documents related to CASPA investigations requiring substantive corrective action and 

the underlying case files in the same manner. 
A-1

Appendix A

Definitions 

Term Definition

21(d) Section 21(d) of the OSH Act of 1970 stipulates that the Secretary of 

Labor shall establish and support cooperative agreements with the 

states under which employers subject to this Act may consult with state

personnel with respect to:

 the application of occupational safety and health 

requirements under this act or under State Plans 

approved under Section 18; and

 voluntary efforts that employers may undertake to 

establish and maintain safe and healthful employment 

and places of employment. Such agreements may 

provide, as a condition of receiving funds under such 

agreements, for contributions by states toward meeting 

the costs of such agreements.

23(g) The Secretary of Labor is authorized to make grants to the states to 

assist them in administering and enforcing programs for occupational 

safety and health contained in State Plans approved by the Secretary of 

Labor pursuant to Section 18 of the OSH Act. The federal share for 

each state grant under this subsection may not exceed 50 percent of the 

total cost to the state of such a program.

Activities The goods or services produced as a result of internal activity or effort 

on the part of an agency or program (example: conducting inspections, 

delivering training programs, conducting consultation visits).

Activity-level Data In the absence of outcome-level data, OSHA should review activitylevel data to evaluate whether a State Plan has applied sufficient 

resources and intermediate outcome-level data to evaluate whether the 

State Plan directed resources to areas where an impact is likely to be 

made.

Adoption Date The date a standard or Federal Program Change is adopted by a State 

Plan.

Adoption 

Optional/Encouraged

Instances where OSHA determines that an alteration to the federal 

program does not require State Plans to modify their programs to be 

ALAE as OSHA. 

Adoption Required Instances where OSHA determines that an alteration to the federal 

program could render a State Plan less effective if it is not similarly 

modified. Such instances require a Federal Program Change. State 

Plan submission of a full Plan Change Supplement is required unless

adoption is identical.

Annual Performance 

Goals

Target levels of performance relating to a performance goal for a 

specific fiscal year (example: reduce fatalities in the construction 

industry by 3 percent in FY 2000).
A-2

Annual Performance 

Plan

Annual Performance Plans are prepared by the State Plan and identify 

strategies for achieving the State Plan’s goals as stated in its Five-Year 

Strategic Plan.

Baselines Statements of current performance levels used as a basis for 

comparison when assessing progress toward a strategic goal or 

objective.

Complaint About 

State Plan 

Administration 

(CASPA)

Anyone finding inadequacies or other problems in the administration of 

a State Plan may file a CASPA with the appropriate OSHA RA. The 

complainant’s name is kept confidential. OSHA investigates all such 

complaints, and where complaints are found to be valid, requires 

appropriate corrective action on the part of the State Plan.

Comprehensive 

FAME

The Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation of the State Plan where all 

required aspects, such as mandatory on-site monitoring and case file 

reviews are conducted.

Comprehensive State 

Plan

A State Plan that covers both private sector and state and local 

government workers.

Concurrent 

Enforcement

When OSHA and the State Plan both maintain enforcement coverage of 

workers within the state. OSHA can then compensate for current 

deficiencies in the State Plan’s enforcement program while allowing 

the State Plan sufficient time and assistance to improve its 

performance.

Coverage In this manual, the term refers to the authority to issue and enforce 

standards and regulations for workplace safety and health. Previously 

referred to as “jurisdiction.” 

Developmental Plans

18(b)

A State Plan that does not fully meet the criteria set forth in 1902.3, 

Criteria for State Plans and must still complete developmental steps.

Developmental Steps Those items listed after initial approval to be completed by the state

within the three-year developmental period.

Dually-Filed A workplace retaliation complaint that is filed with both OSHA and the 

appropriate State Plan to preserve the option of an investigation and 

remedy in either system if necessary. (Workplace retaliation

complaints that were properly dually-filed under both federal 11(c) and 

state law undergo federal review under Section 11(c) procedures 

outlined in Chapter 7, Paragraph E of the Federal Whistleblower 

Investigations Manual. No duplicative CASPA investigation is 

required for such complaints.)

Effective Date The effective date is the date upon which a standard, directive or a 

Federal Program Change is given legal effect. For federal standards, 

this is the date listed as the “Effective Date” in the FRN and the date 

that the Code of Federal Regulations is amended. OSHA lists the 

“Effective Date” in the heading of directives. For State Plans, under 29 

CFR 1953.5(a)(1), the effective date of a state standard must be the 

date of state promulgation (publication) or the federal effective date, 

whichever is later. Note that some provisions in federal standards have 

compliance dates – i.e., the date that an employer has an affirmative 

duty to comply with the standard - that may occur later than a 

standard’s effective date. 
A-3

Enforcement Enforcement refers to any investigation of an employer’s worksite 

related to workplace safety and health. Enforcement investigations 

may be a conducted due to a complaint, referral, or programmed 

activity, such as an emphasis program.

Equivalency 

Required

Instances where OSHA determines that an alteration to the federal 

program could render a State Plan less effective if it is not similarly 

modified. Such instances require a Federal Program Change. State 

Plan submission of a Plan Change Supplement is not required. 

Evaluation Changes An evaluation change is a change made to a State Plan when OSHA

reveals that some substantive aspect of a State Plan has an adverse 

impact on the implementation of the State Plan and needs revision. 

Federal Monitor A federal staff person responsible for monitoring a State Plan’s 

activities (These individuals, may work in a Regional Office or in an 

Area Office.)

Federal Monitoring 

Plan

Each observation identified in the FAME Report must have a 

corresponding Federal Monitoring Plan, which describes the actions 

OSHA will take to monitor and track the issue.

Federal Program 

Change (FPC)

A Federal Program Change (FPC) is a change made to a State Plan 

when OSHA determines that an alteration in the federal program could 

render a State Plan less effective than OSHA’s if it is not similarly 

modified. (29 CFR 1953.2)

Final Approval 18(e) The State Plan has met the criteria of Section 18(e) of the OSH Act so 

as to warrant the withdrawal of concurrent federal enforcement.

Finding A description of an issue identified in the FAME that impacts ALAE 

status of the State Plan and needs to be addressed.

Follow-up FAME The Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation of the State Plan in which 

certain required aspects of a comprehensive FAME, such as on-site 

monitoring and case file reviews, are optional.

Further Review 

Level (FRL)

The threshold level on a SAMM that is agreed upon by the State Plans 

and OSHA as triggering further review.

Indicators Means of evaluating progress toward achievement of performance 

goals (example: percent reduction in fatalities in the construction 

industry).

Mission A mission statement succinctly identifies what the agency does, why, 

and for whom, and reminds everyone – the public, the governor, 

legislators, the courts, and agency personnel – of the primary purposes 

promoted and served by the agency.

Observation An item that has been identified in the FAME as a possible issue that 

has not yet been proven to impact the effectiveness of the State Plan,

but that OSHA wishes to continue monitoring for tracking 

purposes. (Depending on the specific issue, previous findings and 

recommendations may be converted into observations if the federal

monitor and State Plan agree; however, it will be subject to future 

monitoring for the following year’s FAME Report). An observation 

may appear on three consecutive FAME Reports before it must be 

closed out or converted to a finding.
A-4

Operational Status 

Agreement

At any time after initial plan approval, when it appears that the State

Plan is capable of independently enforcing standards, OSHA may enter 

into an operational status agreement with the State Plan. This commits 

OSHA to suspend the exercise of discretionary federal enforcement in 

all or certain activities covered by the State Plan.

OSHA OSHA is an agency within the Department of Labor whose mission is 

to “ensure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and 

women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, 

outreach, education and assistance.” OSHA provides partial funding 

for and monitors approved State Plan workplace safety and health 

programs. When “OSHA” is used in this manual, it is assumed to 

mean “federal OSHA.”

Outcomes Outcomes are the results of a program or activity when compared to its 

intended purpose. There are two types of outcome measures: 

 Primary Outcomes - The ultimate results intended to be 

achieved by the program activities (example: percent reduction 

in lost workday injury and illness rates, percent reduction in 

fatalities).

 Intermediate Outcomes - Assessments of incremental progress 

toward primary outcomes; outcomes that lead to the ends 

desired, but are not ends themselves (example: percentage of 

inspection visits that result in the identification of targeted 

hazards).

Outcome-level Data Information collected to evaluate the capacity of a program to function 

at a level described in the program plan.

Plan Certification Acknowledges the completion of all of the developmental steps in a 

State Plan.

Plan Change 

Supplements

Whenever a State Plan is required to make a Federal Program Change 

in response to an alteration to the federal program that is adoption 

required, and the State Plan chooses not to adopt identically, the State 

Plan must submit a Plan Change Supplement that identifies the 

differences from the comparable federal component.

Performance Goals Statements of specific long-range performance targets related to the 

strategic goal (example: reduce fatalities in the construction industry by 

15% by focusing on the leading causes of fatalities (falls, struck-by, 

crushed-by, and electrocutions and electrical injuries)).

Recommendation Each finding in the FAME Report must have a corresponding 

recommendation, which is OSHA’s suggested way for the State Plan to 

address the finding.

Scope The scope section of a rule, standard, or directive defines who or what 

is covered by the said rule, standard, or directive.
A-5

Sensitive CASPA A CASPA should be considered sensitive when the complainant is a 

State Plan employee or in other special situations. The State Plan 

should not be asked to respond to the complaint but should be notified 

in general as to the allegations under investigation. These situations 

include CASPAs that allege improper acts by State Plan management 

or employees or administrative improprieties.

“Show Cause” Order A type of court order that requires one or more of the parties to a case 

to justify, explain, or prove something to the court.

Significant CASPA A CASPA should be considered significant if, in the RA’s judgment, it 

raises issues that warrant broader agency awareness regarding such 

matters as the overall adequacy of a State Plan, broad criticism of the 

administration of the program, criticism of OSHA’s monitoring, new or 

unique hazards, major accidents or investigations, etc. In particular, 

CASPAs from labor or management organizations, members of 

Congress, or public interest groups; or that concern a fatality or 

catastrophe; or that relate to an issue of media interest (such as local 

news articles about problems in a state’s handling of an inspection, or 

one or more articles in national news reports or major media outlets) 

should be considered significant if they raise issues that the Assistant 

Secretary may be asked about and/or needs to know.

State Whenever the term “state” is used in this manual, it means a state of the 

United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. See Section 3(7) 

of the OSH Act, 20 U.S.C. 652(7), as modified by the Covenant to 

Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 

Compact of Free Association between the Government of the United 

States and the Governments of the Marshall Islands and the Federated 

States of Micronesia, and the Compact of Free Association between the 

Government of the United Sates and the Government of Palau.

State Activity 

Mandated Measures

SAMMs are enforcement data points that OSHA and the State Plans 

have agreed are important in monitoring State Plan performance.

State and Local 

Government

Refers to the public agencies of a state and its political subdivisions, as 

set forth under section 18(c)(6) of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act and further defined under 29 CFR 1975.5. Previously referred to as 

“public sector.”

State-Initiated 

Change

A State-Initiated Change is any change in the State Plan that is 

undertaken at the state’s option or on its own volition and is not 

necessitated by federal requirements.

State Plan A State Plan is a state or territory’s own workplace safety and health 

program, as described in Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970. OSHA approves and monitors State Plans and 

provides up to 50 percent of an approved Plan’s operating costs.

There are currently 22 states and territories operating complete State 

Plans (covering both the private sector and state and local government 

employees) and six - Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New 

York, and the Virgin Islands - which cover state and local government

employees only.
A-6

State Plan 

Application (SPA)

The SPA is a web-based system used by OSHA and State Plans to track 

Federal Program Changes, State-Initiated Changes, CASPAs, 

variances, and Standard changes.

State Plan Narrative The State Plan Narrative is an overall description of the State Plan and 

all its aspects. The outline for the narrative directs the State Plan to 

divide its responses to the required issues into two major componentsthe narrative section and the appendices. In the narrative section, the 

state is asked to describe or identify how the State Plan provides for or 

addresses the specific Part 1902 or Part 1956 requirements. In addition, 

the outline contains the appropriate cross references to other applicable 

OSHA requirements so that the state may review these requirements in 

developing its responses. In the appendices, the state is directed to 

provide documentation in support of its narrative section responses.

Strategic Goals Broad statements of the strategic direction an agency wants to take over 

a five-year term (example: change workplace culture to increase 

employer and worker awareness of, commitment to, and involvement in 

safety and health).

Strategic Planning The process of assessment, goal-setting, and decision-making that 

results in an agency envisioning what it hopes to accomplish in the 

future.

Workplace 

Retaliation

Generally, pursuant to Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, workplace 

retaliation refers to employer-imposed discrimination, including, but 

not limited to discharge against an employee for filing a complaint or 

instituting any proceeding under or related to the OSH Act. Section 

11(c) of the OSH Act states “No person shall discharge or in any 

manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has 

filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any 

proceeding under or related to this Act or has testified or is about to 

testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by such 

employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this 

Act.” OSHA is required to investigate employee allegations of 

workplace safety- and health-related workplace retaliation. State Plans 

are required to investigate these same allegations within their states, 

and may refer to these types of claims using a variety of terms, 

including discrimination, whistleblower, or workplace retaliation 

complaints. In addition, the State Plan programs providing protection 

against such allegations may be referred to as anti-retaliation, antidiscrimination, non-discrimination, or whistleblower protection 

programs. 
B-1

Appendix B

State Plan Approval Process

State Plan Approval Process

Step 1: Developmental 

Plan 

To gain initial approval under Section 18(b) of the OSH Act, a state must assure 

OSHA that within three years it will have in place all the structural elements 

necessary for an effective occupational safety and health program.

These elements include: appropriate legislation; regulations 

and procedures for standards setting, enforcement, and 

review of citations and penalties; and a sufficient number of 

qualified enforcement personnel.

Step 2: Certification

Certification of complettion of the state's deveopmental steps. This renders no 

judgment as to actual state performance but merely attests to the structural 

completeness of the plan.

Step 3: Operational 

Status Agreement 

At any time after initial plan approval, when it appears that the state is capable of 

independently enforcing standards, OSHA may enter into an "operational status 

agreement" with the state. This commits OSHA to suspend the exercise of 

discretionary federal enforcement in all or certain activities covered by the State Plan.

Step 4: Final Approval

When OSHA grants final approval to a state under Section 18 (e) of the OSH Act, it 

relinquishes its authority to cover occupational safety and health matters covered 

by the state. After at least one year following certification, the state becomes 

eligible for final approval if OSHA determines that it is providing, in actual 

operation, worker protection "at least as effective" as the protection provided by 

the federal program. The state also must meet 100 percent of the established 

compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) and participate in OSHA's computerized 

inspection data system before OSHA can grant final approval.
C-1

Appendix C

State Standard Adoption Submission and Review Process

A state standard is different if: In which case, the state must: 

it contains any differences in requirements,

submit a formal standards comparison 

(see Chapter 4, Section III.C.1), as well 

as the same documentation as for an 

identical standard.

A state standard is identical if: In which case, the state must:

the only differences reflect a different state 

numbering system, references, or 

organizational titles submit the standards adoption order or 

promulgation document; a numbering 

conversion table, if applicable; and a 

printed or electronic copy of the standard 

when available.

the only difference is expansion of scope to 

the state and local government

any differences are purely editorial 

(including plain language revisions) and do

not change the requirements for employers

When is public comment required?

If a different or independent state 

standard: then:

contains only minor differences in 

requirements, such as minor work practices public comment is not required.

contains major differences in requirements 

or scope (except for coverage of state and 

local government workers) that OSHA did 

not previously approve, and additional 

information is necessary on effectiveness or 

on product clause issues. (Additional 

information may be required, for example, 

when OSHA’s internal review determines 

that the standard appears to specifically 

apply to products distributed or used in 

interstate commerce.)

public comment is required, and OSHA 

must prepare a Federal Register Notice 

requesting public comment.

contains major differences in requirements 

or scope, but OSHA determines sufficient 

information is already available to approve 

the standard (for example, where the record 

of state rulemaking contains sufficient 

information responsive to the requirements 

for approval of state standards)

public comment is not required.
D-1

Appendix D

Examples of Well-Written Performance Goals 

Five-Year Performance Goals and Annual Performance Goals

Increase activities with community-based organizations that work with vulnerable population groups 

by 5%.

 Annual Performance Goal for year one- Develop and implement processes and procedures to 

track 5-year performance goal. Establish baseline for outreach activities with community 

organizations.

 Annual Performance Goal for years two through five - Increase outreach activities with 

community-based organizations that work with vulnerable population groups by 5%.

Establish baselines, develop targeting list, and increase inspections by 5% in high-hazard industries 

with vulnerable employees. Reduce serious workplace injuries and illnesses and the risks that lead to 

them. 

 Ensure that at least 95% of the time, the correction of serious hazards is verified 

within 14 days of the abatement date. 

 Continue outreach to small employers and hard-to-reach audiences by increasing 

publications, workshops, and conferences by 5%.

 Health enforcement will focus on targeting high-hazard industries by increasing 

programmed inspections in those industries by X%.

 Safety enforcement will target high-hazard industries by increasing programmed 

inspections in those industries by X%.

 Implement and conduct all state and local emphasis programs and appropriate 

National Emphasis Programs. 

 Ensure that next of kin letters for fatalities are 100% timely. 

Foster a culture of integrity, inclusion, teamwork, and excellence to strengthen confidence in the 

delivery of services.

 Increase cross-training in all programs.

Improve workplace safety and health for all workers through direct intervention methods that result in 

fewer hazards, reduced exposures, and fewer injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. 

 Reduce fatalities, injuries, and illnesses in specified construction sectors. 

 Reduce fatalities, injuries, and illnesses in selected high-hazard industries.

 Focus enforcement activities on the food processing manufacturing industry.

 Reduce fatalities, injuries, and illnesses in agriculture.

 Focus on enforcement and educational outreach specific to heat illness prevention.

 Improve communication with and education of vulnerable employee populations.
D-2

 Form mutually beneficial partnerships.

 Ensure that all newly hired compliance safety and health officers (CSHOs) receive at least 

three initial CSHO training classes at the OSHA Training Institute or through in-house training 

in the first year.
E-1

Appendix E

Suggested Procedures for Performing Random Sampling

When conducting a special study or a general review of case files, it is not necessary to examine every 

case file. It is only necessary that the quantity of evidence used for addressing objectives and 

supporting findings and conclusions be sufficient. Sufficiency depends on the appropriateness of the 

evidence. In determining the sufficiency, one should determine whether enough appropriate evidence 

exists to address the objectives and support the findings and conclusions.

To this end, a sample of cases can be used to develop a reasonable estimate of the proportion of cases 

that exhibit certain characteristics. This approach uses fewer resources than reviewing every case file. 

The sampling design in this document is intended to meet the two objectives of 1) providing a 

reasonable estimate of the proportion of cases exhibiting certain characteristics, and 2) limiting the 

resources needed to conduct a case file review. 

Prior to conducting a case file review, it is necessary to determine the following: 

• What is the objective, or what question is to be answered? For instance, is the case file 

review driven by differences in or concerns arising from SAMM or SIR reports? 

• What is the population of interest? What is the universe of cases (e.g., fatalities and

complaints) to which the question will apply?

Once those questions have been considered, the next step is to set up the review. The steps follow: 

1. Formulate the question; 

2. Define the population of interest;

3. Determine sampling categories of interest; 

4. Based on the size of the population of interest and the number of sampling categories, 

determine the sample size;

5. Select the sample so that there are cases in every category of interest; and

6. Analyze and interpret results.

Each of these steps is described below:

1. Formulate the question.

Every case file review will be designed to meet an objective or answer a question. For 

example, the question may be “are next-of-kin letters sent for fatalities?” or “are 

penalty reductions applied consistently for all non-serious violations?”

2. Define the population of interest. 

The population of interest will be determined based on the question to be answered. 

For example, if the question to be answered is, “are next-of-kin letters sent for 

fatalities” then the population of interest will be all fatality case files. However, 

identification of the population of interest is not always so straight forward. For 
E-2

example, if the question to be answered is, “are penalty reductions applied consistently 

for all non-serious violations,” it has to be decided whether the population of interest is 

all case files with non-serious violations or case files with only non-serious violations. 

Will programmed inspections be examined as well as complaints and/or fatalities? 

Enumerating the various populations of interest will help refine the question to be 

answered. 

Keep in mind the following questions:

• What type of activity will be targeted, such as complaints, referrals, fatalities, or closed 

inspections with or without violations?

• What are the dates for selection? (example: evaluation period of October 1, 20XX 

through September 30, 20XX. 

3. Determine the sampling categories of interest. 

The sampling categories of interest will be determined, in part, by the population selected. If 

the selected population is all inspections, then all inspection types must be represented in the 

sample (e.g., complaint, referral, programed, and fatalities). In addition, there are other 

categories that may need to be represented in the sample. These may include office, safety vs. 

health inspection, CSHOs, as well as other categories. In general, the narrower the population 

of interest is, the fewer the number of categories will be.

4. Based on the size of the population of interest and the number of sampling categories, 

determine the sample size.

The sample size is based on the number of case files in the population of interest. This can be 

determined using the table found in this appendix. The numbers presented are the 

recommended minimum number of cases to be reviewed for a range of population sizes. At 

the discretion of the reviewer, additional case files can be reviewed. It is essential, however, 

that the sample size be at least as large as the number of categories of interest.

5. Select case files to be reviewed.

Cases should be selected at random from among the population of case files in each of the 

categories of interest. The number of cases in each category should be proportional to the size 

of the category. Some methods for selecting samples are: 

 A random numbers table or

 A pre-determined objective method (such as every 10th case file or even-numbered 

case files).

Document the process that was used to objectively select case files. 

6. Analyze and interpret results. 
E-3

Sampling Table

The following table provides the base number for conducting case file reviews given the size of the 

overall population of cases. 

Population Size Sample Size

 1 – 25 ALL

 26 – 50 25

 51 –100 30

101 – 200 40

201 – 300 50

301 – 500 60

501 – 1000 80

1001+ 100
F-1

Appendix F

FY 20XX State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR)

[Insert State Plan Name]

[Insert State Plan Seal/Logo – Optional]

Evaluation Period: October 1, 20XX – September 30, 20XX

Prepared by:

Submitted [Date]:

(Note: Information in italics is provided as guidance in preparing the report and should be removed from the final 

document prior to submission.) 
F-2

I. Executive Summary

(Provide an overview of the report and the State Plan.)

II. Summary of Annual Performance Plan Results

(Summarize the State Plan’s results compared to the annual performance goals established in the Annual 

Performance Plan. This summary should include results in terms of the activity, intermediate outcome, and 

primary outcome performance measures [where available] that are part of the State Plan’s performance 

measurement system. As data becomes available, the State Plan may update information about the results it 

achieves.)

Strategic Goal #1

Performance Goal #1.1

Strategy

Performance Indicator(s)

(including activity, 

intermediate outcome, and 

primary outcome measures)

FY 20XX Results

Conclusion Baseline 20## Target 20## Result % Change

(Topic)

Performance Goal #1.2

Strategy

Performance Indicator(s)

(including activity, 

intermediate outcome, and 

primary outcome measures)

FY 20XX Results

Conclusion
F-3

III. Progress Toward Strategic Plan Accomplishments

(Provide a narrative summary describing the State Plan’s progress toward accomplishing its five-year strategic 

goals. This section should highlight key areas where positive outcomes have been observed and present an 

analysis of the data used in measuring outcomes. It should also describe all strategies used to support goal 

accomplishment, such as enforcement, compliance assistance, and standards.)

IV. Mandated Activities

(Include a summary of the State Plan’s performance of its mandated activities.)

V. Special Measures of Effectiveness/Special Accomplishments (Optional)

(Provide a summary of additional State Plan accomplishments that may directly or indirectly affect its strategic 

goals or operations. Relevant data should be included.)

VI. Adjustments or Other Issues (Optional)

(Identify areas or other issues where the State Plan’s annual performance goals have not been met, and 

describe how the State Plan has adjusted or plans to adjust its strategies to accomplish its goals in the future. 

These issues should also be addressed in the conclusion areas of the chart (located in Section II). [This section 

provides the State Plan an opportunity to expand on the discussion and describe proposed adjustments in more 

detail.])

VII. State Internal Evaluation Program (SIEP) Report (Optional)

(Insert the SIEP Report.)
G-1

Appendix G

FY 20XX Comprehensive

Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation (FAME) Report

[Insert Name of State Plan]

[Insert State Plan Seal/Logo – Optional]

Evaluation Period: October 1, 20XX – September 30, 20XX

Initial Approval Date: [ ]

State Plan Certification Date: [If Applicable]

Final Approval Date: [If Applicable]

Prepared by:

U. S. Department of Labor 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Region [ # ]

[City, State]
G-2

Contents

I. Executive Summary....................................................................

II. State Plan Background...............................................................

A. Background....................................................................................

B. New Issues.............................................................................

III. Assessment of State Plan Performance...........................................

A. Data and Methodology......................................................................

B. Review of State Plan Performance ........................................................

1. Program Administration......................................................................

2. Enforcement..............................................................................

3. Review Procedures......................................................................

4. Standards and Federal Program Changes (FPCs) Adoption.......................

5. Variances.................................................................................

6. State and Local Government Worker Program......................................

7. Whistleblower Program................................................................

8. Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA)........................

9. Voluntary Compliance Program.......................................................

10. State and Local Government 23(g) On-Site Consultation Program...............

11. Private Sector 23(g) On-Site Consultation Program................................ .

 

Appendices

Appendix A – New and Continued Findings and Recommendations...............A-1

Appendix B – Observations and Federal Monitoring Plans............................B-1

Appendix C – Status of FY 20XX Findings and Recommendations................C-1

Appendix D – FY 20XX State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Report...D-1

Appendix E – FY 20XX State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR)......................E-1
G-3

Note: Information in italics is provided as guidance in preparing the report and should be removed from the 

final document prior to submission.

I. Executive Summary

This section provides an overview of the report and should be no longer than a page or page and a 

half. It should also be the last section you develop. It should tell the State Plan’s story and highlight 

the State Plan’s successes and deficiencies that occurred over the performance period. 

Begin with a statement of purpose. 

For example: 

The purpose of this report is to assess the State Plan’s performance for Fiscal Year (FY) 20XX, and its 

progress in resolving outstanding findings from previous Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation 

(FAME) reports. In this same paragraph, begin telling the State Plan’s story at a big picture level by 

answering the following questions:

 Is the State Plan generally responsive to identified findings and recommendations? 

 Is program administration maintaining a high level of program performance?

 What are some of the State Plan’s successes/successful initiatives that occurred over the 

performance period?

 If the State Plan is experiencing problems/challenges, what are they? What are OSHA’s 

perceptions of why the State Plan is experiencing them?

 Is State Plan program administration working to improve program performance? Did OSHA 

identify the issues? 

Provide a summary of the highlights and progress made on previous findings to support the overall 

picture of the State Plan. 

For example:

The State Plan made progress to address the previous 13 findings and two observations from the FY 

20XX Follow-up FAME Report. One finding was completed (briefly explain how the State Plan 

addressed it), one observation was closed (briefly explain how the State Plan addressed it), and five 

findings from last year’s FAME were converted to observations (explain why). Appendix A describes 

the new and continued findings and recommendations. Appendix B describes the observations and the 

related federal monitoring plans. Appendix C describes the status of previous findings with associated 

completed corrective actions. Do not specifically list or cover each finding or observation 

comprehensively in this section. Do not include a statement that the State Plan is or is not at least as 

effective as OSHA. 
G-4

II. State Plan Background

A. Background

The first paragraph should contain a brief profile of the State Plan, including:

 The department or division within the organizational structure of the State Plan’s government 

in which it is operated;

 The identity of the State Plan designee and manager;

 The major distinctive features of the State Plan or significant differences from OSHA;

 The number of full-time and part-time staff (including benchmarks, furloughs, hiring freezes, 

etc.)

 The State Plan budget;

 The type of on-site consultation provided by the State Plan (if a private sector on-site 

consultation program is funded under 23(g), it should be assessed in this report); and

 Discussion of State Plan successes/highlights, including unique enforcement and compliance 

assistance initiatives.

B. New Issues

The second paragraph should discuss any significant new issues that occurred during the evaluation 

period, including major new issues that involved media attention, legislative, and budget actions, or 

administrative criticisms raised in the media. Any significant/sensitive Complaints About State 

Program Administration (CASPA) should also be briefly raised here. Include only major new issues 

that had or have the potential for a substantial impact on the State Plan’s performance. When a 

specific significant issue impacts all State Plans, DCSP/OSP may provide consistent boilerplate 

language to include in this section. If there are no major new issues, simply state “None.”

III. Assessment of State Plan Progress and Performance

A. Data and Methodology

This section should discuss the federal monitoring activities performed during the evaluation period 

and the data sources used to conduct this comprehensive FAME. The first paragraph of this section 

should include language describing the difference between a comprehensive and follow-up FAME. 

This section should also explain basic information such as, the reason behind deciding to conduct the 

review, the number of staff conducting the review, the number of days spent on-site, the scope of the 

review, the types of programs/issues reviewed, the number and type of cases selected for review, and 
G-5

the number and type of interview conducted. The second paragraph of this section should describe 

and/or list the data reports relied upon in conducting the FAME.

For example:

OSHA established a two-year cycle for the FAME process. FY 20XX is a comprehensive year and as 

such, OSHA was required to conduct an on-site evaluation and case file review. A six-person OSHA 

team, which included a whistleblower investigator, was assembled to conduct a full on-site case file 

review. The case file review was conducted at the [X] State Plan office during the timeframe of 

January 10-17, 20XX. A total of 155 (insert number) safety, health, and whistleblower inspection case 

files were reviewed. The safety and health inspection files were randomly selected from closed 

inspections conducted during the evaluation period (Oct 1, 20XX through September 30, 20XX). The 

selected population included:

 Twenty-two (22) fatality case files

 Sixty (60) complaint case files

 Twenty-five (25) incident case files 

 Twenty-five (25) case files where repeat citations were issued

 Twenty-three (23) closed whistleblower case files 

The analyses and conclusions described in this report are based on information obtained from a variety 

of monitoring sources, including the:

 State Activity Mandated Measures Report (Appendix D)

 State Information Report 

 Mandated Activities Report for Consultation 

 State OSHA Annual Report (Appendix E)

 State Plan Annual Performance Plan

 State Plan Grant Application 

 Quarterly monitoring meetings between OSHA and the State Plan

 Limited (or full) case file review

Each State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Report has an agreed-upon Further Review Level 

(FRL) which can be either a single number, or a range of numbers above and below the national 

average. State Plan SAMM data that falls outside the FRL triggers a closer look at the underlying 

performance of the mandatory activity. Appendix D presents the State Plan’s FY 20XX State Activity 

Mandated Measures Report and includes the FRL for each measure.

In addition, if a Regional Special Study was conducted as part of the FAME process it should also be 

described in this section.
G-6

B. Review of State Plan Performance

The next part of this section should address the eleven mandated activities and program elements as 

shown below. All formal findings, recommendations, and observations should be incorporated into 

the relevant mandated activities and program elements list below, with supporting data collected 

during the on-site case file review. For many of the sub-sections, the last two fiscal years’ worth of 

information/data should be included and analyzed since this may not have been captured in the 

previous follow-up FAME report. 

When information from the case file review is used to support a finding in the report, include the 

number and percentage of case files in which the issue was identified. Findings should be made when 

there is a clear trend in the data that supports a need for improvement. When deficiencies or concerns 

are found, the underlying causes should be identified, including whether the issue is caused by a 

current policy. 

Each finding should have a corresponding recommendation. Each recommendation should be 

outcome- and results-oriented rather than process-oriented. In addition, each recommendation should 

provide a concrete performance result that would address the finding.

All findings and recommendations should include the current evaluation year and be numbered 

sequentially. Continued recommendations from previous years should be renumbered for the most 

recent FY with a parenthetical reference to the previous FY’s numbering. If this same finding and 

recommendation originated in the previous year’s FAME report, the Region should briefly explain this 

fact in the appropriate section of this report.

Any new and prior observations that are subject to continued monitoring should also be listed in this 

section. For observations that are new or continued, a FY number should be assigned and recorded in 

the first column in the following format, FY 20XX-OB-#. For continued observations, the previous FY

20XX number(s) should be recorded in the second column in the following format, FY 20XX-OB-#. A 

brief description of the issue and the Federal Monitoring Plan should be provided. Observations that 

were converted to a finding or closed will not have an FY number assigned or a Federal Monitoring 

Plan listed.

Whenever data is used throughout the report, the source must be cited. Sources may include: 

 OSHA Information System reports – for example, State Activity Mandated Measures Report, 

State Indicator Report, and 23(g) consultation data

 State Plan staff and stakeholder interviews

 Information/data collected during a CASPA 

The following mandated activities and program areas should be addressed. The outline below 

includes some examples of possible corresponding SAMMs that could be used to evaluate a program 

area. When discussing SAMMs, explain if being outside (below or above) the FRL is either a good 

outcome or a cause for concern. Additionally, any notable change in year-over-year trending within 

the FRL should be discussed. 
G-7

1. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

a) Training – for example, what types of training did staff receive during the performance 

period?

b) OSHA Information System – if there were findings related to program staff not 

properly utilizing OIS (e.g., entering data/information into OIS promptly, running 

reports to ensure proper monitoring of case files and program activities, etc.), does this 

remain an issue or has it been resolved? c) State Internal Evaluation Program Report 

– did the State Plan develop this report during the past fiscal year? What was the 

purpose (e.g., conducting a field audit to evaluate CSHO performance)? If the State 

Plan did not develop this report, state that.

c) Staffing 

2. ENFORCEMENT

a) Complaints

i) Timeliness of State Plan response and notifications to complainant – SAMMs 1, 2, 3

ii) State Plan response

iii) Issues gaining entry – SAMM 4

b) Fatalities 

i) Contact and involvement of families of victims, including notification of 

enforcement action

ii) Appropriate use of “no inspection” or “no jurisdiction”

iii) Timeliness, notification, and opening conference – SAMMs 10, 11

iv) Bureau of Labor Statistics rates (where available) to assess trending and 

appropriate targeting of resources

v) Appropriateness of investigation findings

c) Targeting and Programmed Inspection – SAMM 17

 i) Goals, emphasis programs, National Emphasis Programs participation – SAMM 7

 ii) In-compliance inspections – SAMM 9

For example:

The FRL for percent in-compliance for safety inspections is +/- 20% of the one 

year national average of 28.85% which equals a range of 23.08% to 34.62%. The 

[X] State Plan’s percent in-compliance for safety is 52.85% which is substantially 

higher than the FRL and a cause for concern. The FRL for percent in-compliance 

for health inspections is +/- 20% of the one-year national average of 35.68% which 

equals a range of 28.54% to 42.82%. The [X] State Plan’s percent in-compliance 

for health is 58.87% which is also exceeds the FRL and warranted a closer look at 

the situation. 
G-8

Explanation: The [X] State Plan’s high in-compliance rates for both safety and 

health can be attributed to three factors. First, the State Plan had a high staff 

turnover and a low number of experienced staff. Secondly, the State Plan did not 

follow the focused inspection guidance for construction. Comprehensive 

inspections were conducted for all the contractors performing work at the site, 

resulting in a high number of in-compliance construction inspections. Finally, 

given the combination of outreach activities conducted by the Division of 

Education and Training and Division of OSH Compliance, with employers across 

the state, it is believed that many of the employers being inspected had a history of 

consultation and training, as well as previous enforcement inspections which 

resulted in a higher number of in-compliance inspections.

 iii) Hazard identification

 iv) Violations per inspection

 v) Number and percentage of serious, willful, and repeat violations – SAMM 5

 vi) Significant cases

d) Citations and Penalties – SAMM 17

i) Adequate evidence to support violations

ii) Citations for all apparent violations

iii) Number and percentage of serious, willful, and repeat violations

iv) Appropriateness of violation classification

v) Grouping of violations, if appropriate

vi) Appropriate use of willful and repeated violation classifications

vii) Appropriate use and level of review for notice of violations (if applicable)

viii) Average serious penalty – SAMM 8

ix) Appropriateness of penalties 

e) Abatement

i) Appropriate abatement periods, including the use of extensions and overall 

timeliness

ii) Adequate verification or evidence of abatement

iii) Follow-up inspections when indicated 

f) Worker and Union Involvement 

i) Adequate policies and procedures addressing worker involvement during 

inspection process

ii) Worker interviews and adequacy of documentation of worker interviews

iii) Union or other labor representative participation in opening and closing 

conferences, walk around, settlement, and contests – SAMM 13
G-9

3. REVIEW PROCEDURES

a) Informal Conferences

i) Penalty reduction programs

ii) Adequacy of procedures and whether followed

iii) Violations vacated and/or reclassified

iv) Penalties reduced or retained, initial vs. final penalties (SAMM 12)

v) Appropriateness and documentation of changes made 

vi) Reasons for modifications and whether changes are the result of problems

vii) Patterns of settlements

b) Formal Review of Citations

i) Adequacy of State Plan defense

ii) Violations vacated and/or reclassified

iii) Penalties reduced or retained, initial vs. final penalties

iv) Whether changes are due to problems with original citations

v) Review of adverse decisions by State Plan

vi) Transparency of process, availability of decisions to public

vii) Quality of decisions, consistency with federal precedence

viii) Procedural issues 

4. STANDARDS AND FEDERAL PROGRAM CHANGE (FPC) ADOPTION

a) Standards Adoption

i) Standards adoption process

ii) Standards with adoption due during evaluation period and any delinquent from 

earlier, timely notice of intent provided

iii) Number and percentage of standards adopted on time (within six months of federal 

promulgation), submitted on time with comparison document if different

iv) Status of standards not adopted on time

v) Different State Plan standards and State Plan-initiated standards

b) Federal Program Change (FPC) Adoption

i) FPCs due during evaluation period and any delinquent from earlier, timely notice 

of intent 

ii) Number and percentage of FPCs adopted and submitted on time with comparison 

document if different

iii) Status of FPCs not adopted on time

5. VARIANCES 

a) Number of permanent and temporary variances requested and granted

b) Adequacy of alternate protection afforded to workers (permanent variance)

c) Temporary variances only granted prior to effective date of standard/provision 
G-10

6. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKER PROGRAM

a) Percentage of total inspections in the state and local government program – SAMM 6

b) If no monetary penalties are imposed, adequacy or effect of State Plan’s alternative

7. WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM – SAMMs 14, 15, 16

a) Review if determination reached in each case is based on substantive evidence in the case 

file and sound legal reasoning

b) Evaluate if policies and procedures that are at least as effective as OSHA’s are followed in 

each investigation

c) Determine if merit settlement, litigation, dismissal, and withdrawal rates (provide 

percentages) were appropriate, as well as whether investigations are timely

8. COMPLAINT ABOUT STATE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION (CASPA) 

 Specific CASPA findings should be addressed under the appropriate program element.

a) Number of CASPAs received by the Region

b) Timeliness and appropriateness of written response from State Plan

c) Any concerns regarding State Plan’s follow-up actions in response to findings

9. VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

a) Adequacy of written policies and procedures for voluntary and cooperative programs

b) Appropriateness of State Plan to provide exemptions and other enforcement incentives

c) Any changes that were made to the State Plan’s voluntary and cooperative programs 

10. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 23(g) ON-SITE CONSULTATION 

PROGRAM 

Evaluation of the 21(d) on-site consultation program should not be included in this section. Regions 

should perform a separate evaluation of the 21(d) on-site consultation program and the Regional 

Annual Consultation Evaluation Report should be issued separately. This section should focus on 

evaluation of the 23(g) funded consultation programs covering state and local government only. This 

section should include:

a) Number of on-site consultation visits

b) Percentage of on-site consultation visits with hazards abated within the required 

timeframe 

c) Assessment of State Plan annual performance in relation to grant projections

d) Any other data of interest from 23(g) consultation program

e) Issues or areas of concern during the report period

11. PRIVATE SECTOR 23(g) ON-SITE CONSULTATION PROGRAM 

Regions should follow the guidance in the Consultation Policies and Procedures Manual (CSP 02-

00-003), (CPPM) when evaluating their private sector 23(g) on-site consultation program. The 

review should be similar to the evaluation it conducts of the 21(d) on-site consultation program in 

order to prepare the RACERs. Private sector on-site consultation programs funded under 23(g) are 

expected to be ALAE as 21(d) on-site consultation. This section should include:

a) Assessment of performance of mandated consultation activities

b) Evaluation of State Plan performance using the guidance in Chapter 9 of the CPPM

c) Assessment of annual performance in relation to grant projections
Appendix A – New and Continued Findings and Recommendations

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Comprehensive FAME Report

G-11

FY 20XX-# Finding Recommendation FY 20XX-# or 

FY 20XX-OB-#

 

The table above should reflect all new findings and recommendations, continued findings/recommendations, and any observations

that have been converted to findings from the previous year’s FAME. For recommendations where the State Plan has implemented 

agreed upon corrective actions, but those actions have not yet been verified as effective by OSHA, it shall be noted by adding the 

phrase “corrective action complete, awaiting verification” to the end of the recommendation.

FY 20XX-# [COLUMN 1] lists the FAME report fiscal year (FY 20XX) and related findings and recommendations # (01) - (Example: 

2015-01).

Finding [COLUMN 2] lists OSHA’s findings from the most recent FAME.

Recommendation [COLUMN 3] lists OSHA’s recommendations to address and resolve the related findings from the most recent 

FAME.

FY 20XX-# or FY 20XX-OB# [COLUMN 4] lists the fiscal year and number of the continued findings and recommendations or the 

fiscal year and number of an observation that was converted to a finding from the most recent FAME.
Appendix B – Observations Subject to New and Continued Monitoring

FY 20XX [State Name] State Plan FAME Report

G-12

This appendix includes any new observations and all observations from the previous year’s FAME regardless of current status.

Observation # [COLUMN 1 AND COLUMN 2]

For observations that are new or continued, a fiscal year (FY) number should be assigned and recorded in the first column in the following format, 

FY 20XX-OB-#. For continued observations, the previous observation number should be recorded in the second column in the following format, 

FY 20XX-OB-#. For an observation converted from a finding, the previous finding (FY 20XX-#) should be entered in the second column.

Observation [COLUMN 3]

Provide a brief description of the issue (e.g., discrepancy that appears to be an isolated occurrence, data supporting the issue is limited).

Federal Monitoring Plan [COLUMN 4]

This is a brief description of how OSHA plans to monitor the issue (observation) over the next evaluation period. OSHA must take action to either 

close the observation or convert it to a formal finding within three years from the date of issuance. Observations that are converted to a finding or 

closed will not have an FY 20XX number assigned and will not have a Federal Monitoring Plan listed.

Current Status [COLUMN 5]

Each observation should be put into one of the four following categories: 

1) New – New observation (this could be a converted finding).

2) Continued – Observation is being carried over from one or more previous FAMEs.

3) Converted to Finding – Observation has been elevated to a finding in the current year.

4) Closed – OSHA will cease monitoring as an observation.

Observation #

FY 20XX-OB-#

Observation#

FY 20XX-OB-# 

or FY 20XX-#

Observation Federal Monitoring Plan Current 

Status

FY 2015-OB-01 FY 2014-OB-01 In seven of the 29 complaint files (24%) reviewed, 

documentation that the complainant was notified of the 

results of the inspections, either by letter or phone, was 

missing in the case file.

During next year’s FAME, a limited scope review of

selected case files will be reviewed to determine if 

this reflects the data trend.

Continued

FY 2015-OB-03 FY 2014-05 Inspection results and a copy of the citation was not sent to 

the union in two of the seven case files (28.5%) reviewed 

that had both an authorized union and where citations were 

issued.

In FY 2015, a limited number of case files will be 

selected randomly and reviewed to determine if this 

item was addressed.

New
Appendix C - Status of FY 20XX Findings and Recommendations

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Comprehensive FAME Report

G-13

The table above should reflect the most up-to-date information derived from the State Plan’s most recent Corrective Action Plan and include the 

following:

FY 20XX-# [COLUMN 1] lists the fiscal year (FY) and FAME Report year (20XX) and number of the related findings and recommendations 

(Example: FY 20XX-01).

Finding [COLUMN 2] lists OSHA’s findings from the most recent FAME.

Recommendation [COLUMN 3] lists OSHA’s recommendations to address and resolve the related findings from the most recent FAME.

State Plan Corrective Action [COLUMN 4] lists the State Plan’s corrective action to OSHA’s related FAME findings and recommendations.

Completion Date [COLUMN 5] lists the completion date of the corrective action for each finding and recommendation (if applicable). If the item 

is not yet completed, insert “Not Applicable” in the box. 

Current Status (and Date if Item is Not Completed) [COLUMN 6] lists the current status of each FY 20XX FAME corrective action and the latest 

date it was reviewed by the Region. (Note: only provide date only if the item is not complete). The current status includes one of the following 

categories:

1) Open – a corrective action has not yet been taken by the State Plan and will be carried over in the next FAME.

2) Awaiting verification – a corrective action has been taken by the State Plan but not yet verified by the Region.

3) Converted to observation – a previous finding that has been converted to an observation for monitoring in the next FAME.

4) Completed – a corrective action has been taken by the State Plan and verified by the Region.

5) Closed – the Region and State Plan mutually agree the correction action has not been proven to impact the effectiveness of the State Plan 

and the Region has closed this finding.

FY 20XX-# Finding Recommendation State Plan Response/Corrective 

Action

Completion 

Date

Current Status 

and Date
Appendix D – State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Report

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Comprehensive FAME Report

G-14

[Close-out FY 20XX SAMM from O:/drive]
Appendix E - FY 20XX State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR)

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Comprehensive FAME Report

G-15
H-1

Appendix H

FY 20XX Follow-up Federal Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

(FAME) Report

[Insert State Plan Name]

[Insert State Plan Seal/Logo – Optional]

Evaluation Period: October 1, 20XX – September 30, 20XX

Initial Approval Date: [ ]

Program Certification Date: [If Applicable]

Final Approval Date: [If Applicable]

Prepared by:

U. S. Department of Labor 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Region [ ]

[City, State]
H-2

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary...............................................................................................................

II. State Plan Background...........................................................................................................

 

III. Assessment of State Plan Progress and Performance..............................

A. Data and Methodology....................................................................................................

B. Findings and Observations..............................................................................................

C. State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Highlights ..................................

Appendices

Appendix A – New and Continued Findings and Recommendations................A-1

Appendix B – Observations and Federal Monitoring Plans............................B-1

Appendix C – Status of FY 20XX Findings and Recommendations.................C-1

Appendix D – FY 20XX State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Report...D-1

Appendix E – FY 20XX State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR).......................E-1
H-3

(Note: Information in italics is provided as guidance in preparing the report and should be removed from 

the final document prior to submission.) 

I. Executive Summary

This section provides an overview of the report and should be no longer than a page or page and 

a half. It should also be the last section you develop. It should tell the State Plan’s story and

highlight the State Plan’s successes and deficiencies that occurred over the performance period. 

Begin with a statement of purpose. 

For example:

The primary purpose of this report is to assess the State Plan’s progress in Fiscal Year (FY) 

20XX, in resolving outstanding findings from the previous FY 20XX Comprehensive Federal 

Annual Monitoring Evaluation (FAME) Report. In this same paragraph, begin telling the State 

Plan’s story at a big picture level by answering the following questions:

 Is the State Plan generally responsive to identified findings and recommendations? 

 Is program administration maintaining a high level of program performance?

 What are some of the State Plan’s successes/successful initiatives that occurred over the 

performance period?

 If the State Plan is experiencing problems/challenges, what are they? What are OSHA’s 

perceptions of why the State Plan is experiencing them?

 Is State Plan program administration working to improve program performance? Did 

OSHA identify the issues? 

Provide a summary of the highlights and progress made on previous findings to support the 

overall picture of the State Plan. 

For example:

The State Plan made progress to address the previous 13 findings and two observations from the 

FY 20XX Comprehensive FAME Report. One finding was completed (briefly explain how the 

State Plan addressed it), one observation was closed (briefly explain how the State Plan 

addressed it), and five findings from last year’s FAME were converted to observations (explain 

why). 

Do not specifically list or cover each finding or observation comprehensively in this section. Do 

not include a statement that the State Plan is or is not at least as effective as OSHA. 
H-4

II. State Plan Background

The first paragraph should contain a brief profile of the State Plan, including:

 The department or division within the organizational structure of the State Plan’s 

government in which it is operated;

 The identity of the State Plan designee and manager;

 The major distinctive features of the State Plan or significant differences from OSHA;

 The number of full-time and part-time staff;

 The State Plan’s budget;

 The type of on-site consultation provided by the State Plan (if a private sector on-site 

consultation program is funded under 23(g), it should be assessed in this report); and

 Briefly discuss the State Plan’s successes and highlights (for example, unique enforcement 

and compliance assistance initiatives).

New Issues

The second paragraph should discuss all significant new issues that occurred during the 

evaluation period, including major issues that involved media attention, legislative and budget 

actions, or administrative criticisms raised in the media. Any significant/sensitive Complaints

About State Program Administration (CASPA) should also be discussed here. Include only 

major new issues that had or have the potential of having a substantial impact on the State 

Plan’s performance. When a specific significant issue impacts all State Plans, DCSP/OSP may 

provide consistent boilerplate language to include in this section. If there are no major new 

issues, simply state “None.”

III. Assessment of State Plan Progress and Performance

A. Data and Methodology

This section should discuss the federal monitoring activities performed during the evaluation 

period and the data sources used to conduct this follow-up FAME. Conducting an on-site 

evaluation and case file review for this follow-up FAME is optional; however, if follow-up 

corrective active items or information received during the evaluation period warrants a more 

comprehensive approach, conducting a case file review may have been necessary. The first 

paragraph of this section should include language describing the difference between the 

comprehensive and follow-up FAME and should also note whether or not a case file review was 

conducted. If case file review was conducted, this section should also explain basic information 
H-5

such as, the reason behind deciding to do the review, the number of staff performing the review, 

the number of days spent on-site, the scope of the review, the types of programs/issues reviewed, 

the number and type of cases selected for review, and the number and type of interview 

conducted. The second paragraph of this section should describe and/or list the data reports 

relied upon in conducting the FAME.

For example:

(Case file review was not conducted) 

OSHA has established a two-year cycle for the FAME process. This is the follow-up year, and 

as such, OSHA did not perform an on-site case file review associated with a comprehensive 

FAME. This strategy allows the State Plan to focus on correcting deficiencies identified in the 

most recent comprehensive FAME. The analyses and conclusions described in this report are 

based on information obtained from a variety of monitoring sources, including:

 State Activity Mandated Measures Report (Appendix D)

 State Information Report 

 Mandated Activities Report for Consultation 

 State OSHA Annual Report (Appendix E)

 State Plan Annual Performance Plan

 State Plan Grant Application 

 Quarterly monitoring meetings between OSHA and the State Plan

(Case file review was conducted) 

OSHA established a two-year cycle for the FAME process. FY 20XX is a follow-up year and as 

such, OSHA was not required to perform an on-site evaluation and case file review. However, 

due to longstanding concerns regarding the State Plan’s failure to address...(Region should 

briefly mention overarching issues, e.g., failure to notify victims’ families, failure to abate 

hazards, etc.), OSHA reviewed a sample of select case files to determine if these were isolated 

instances or if this represented a trend that required further action. Or, if the State Plan was/is 

designated as a high-risk grantee, this could be stated: However, due to the State Plan being 

designated as a high-risk grantee in (provide year), OSHA reviewed a sample of select case files 

to continue to closely monitor the status of previously identified problematic areas as well as 

progress made to address these areas. A three-person OSHA team was assembled to conduct an 

on-site case file review focused on the State Plan’s progress on the finding FY 20XX-01 

regarding, failure to notify victim’s families. The case file review was conducted during the 

timeframe of January 10-12, 20XX and consisted of reviewing [X number] of fatality cases from 

the FY 20XX performance period. (Expand on case file review selection process.)

The analyses and conclusions described in this report are based on information obtained from a 

variety of monitoring sources, including:
H-6

 State Activity Mandated Measures Report (Appendix D)

 State Information Report 

 Mandated Activities Report for Consultation 

 State OSHA Annual Report (Appendix E)

 State Plan Annual Performance Plan

 State Plan Grant Application 

 Quarterly monitoring meetings between OSHA and the State Plan

 Limited [or full] case file review

In addition, if a Regional Special Study was conducted as part of the FAME process it should 

also be described in this section.

B. Findings and Observations

This section provides a summary of the findings and observations and should specifically 

distinguish between new and continued items. (For example, OSHA identified 10 findings of 

which seven are new and three are continued.) Additionally, any notable trends should be 

acknowledged, such as a concentration of findings in a specific area. State Plan progress to

complete corrective action items should also be noted. If a case file review was conducted as a 

means to verify a corrective action, specific information should be included in the write-up 

associated with the finding. Progress and lack of progress to address findings as supported by 

State Activity Mandated Measures Report (SAMM) data, should be mentioned here.

This section should include a detailed discussion of the status of previous findings with all 

completed corrective actions (as presented in Appendix C); the status of previous observations, 

any new observations, and the federal monitoring plan (as presented in Appendix B); and new 

and continued findings (as presented in Appendix A). An emphasis should be placed on items 

where the State Plan has not yet implemented corrective actions to address the identified 

deficiencies. A complete list of all findings and observations is required in this section. 

For example, this section should follow the below format:

FINDINGS (STATUS OF PREVIOUS AND NEW ITEMS)

The State Plan made progress to address the previous 13 findings and two observations from the 

FY 20XX Comprehensive FAME Report. This follow-up FAME report contains eight findings 

(seven continued, one new) and six observations (one continued and five new). One finding was 

completed, one observation was closed and one continued, and five findings from last year’s 

FAME were converted to observations. Appendix A describes the new and continued findings 

and recommendations. Appendix B describes observations subject to continued monitoring and 

the related federal monitoring plan. Appendix C describes the status of each FY 2015 

recommendation in detail.
H-7

Completed Findings

Finding FY 20XX-13: The State Plan’s state and local government consultation program does 

not have a consultant and therefore is not operational.

Status: The State Plan has ensured that its state and local consultation program is fully 

operational and provides the necessary services to state and local government workplaces in the 

territory. A consultant was hired who completed the required training and conducted 20 on-site 

consultation visits during the performance period. This item is completed. 

Continued Findings

(Case file review was not necessary)

Finding FY 20XX-01: The State Plan has not taken action on 71% of the Federal Program 

Changes (FPCs) within the required timeframes.

Status: The State Plan took action on five of the 10 (50%) OSHA directive FPCs identified 

during last year’s FAME. The State Plan still needs to take action on one of the previously 

identified FPC directives. OSHA determined that it would not be necessary for the State Plan to 

take action on the other four FPC directives as adoption or equivalency was not required for 

three, and one of the directives was cancelled and replaced in FY 2018. There were also five 

directives with response/adoption due dates in FY 2018 and the State Plan has not taken action 

on any of these. This finding remains open.

(Case file review was necessary and was conducted by Region)

Finding 20XX-01: All 30 (100%) of the complaint case files lacked documentation that the 

complainant was notified of the inspection results. 

Status: Of the 12 complaint case files reviewed, eight (67%) lacked documentation that the 

complainant had been notified of the results of the inspection. This finding remains open.

(Case file review was necessary, but was not conducted by the Region)

Finding 20XX-01: All 30 (100%) of the complaint case files lacked documentation that the 

complainant was notified of the inspection results. 

Status: A case file review is necessary to gather the facts needed to evaluate progress on this 

finding. This finding will be a focus of next year’s on-site case file review during the FY 20XX 

comprehensive FAME and remains open.

(SAMM data was relevant)

Finding FY 20XX-04: The average number of serious, willful, repeat and unclassified 

violations issued per inspection was 0.7 violations per inspection. This is 63% below the 

national average of 1.9 (SAMM 5).
H-8

Status: For FY 20XX [evaluation period], the FRL for the average number of SWRU violations 

per inspection (SAMM 5) is +/- 20% of the one year national average of 1.87 which equals a 

range of 1.50 to 2.24. In FY 2016, the [X] State Plan’s average number of SWRU violations per 

inspection increased from 0.7 to 0.8, but is still substantially lower than the FRL and a cause for 

concern. In their effort to continue this upward trend, training has been provided to all staff on 

this topic and a new system for CSHOs to analyze and document violation evidence is being 

implemented. The anticipated completion date is April 10, 20XX. This finding is continued as

Finding FY 20XX-04, but it will be amended to reflect the new SAMM data from FY20XX. This 

finding remains open.

New FY 20XX Finding

Finding FY 20XX-08: The case file review of 10 consultation case files revealed that in eight 

cases (80%), the written report to the employer was issued more than 20 calendar days after the 

closing conference date.

Recommendation: The State Plan must ensure consultation case files are completed in 

accordance with its Consultation Policies and Procedures Manual (CPPM).

OBSERVATIONS

Closed FY 20XX Observation

(Case file review was necessary and was conducted)

Observation FY 20XX-OB-02: Union representatives were not involved in the walkaround and 

closing conference in eight of the 22 (36%) case files reviewed.

Status: Of the 14 case files reviewed, all 14 (100%) included documentation that union 

representatives or worker representatives were involved in the inspection process. This 

observation is closed.

(Case file review was not necessary)

Observation FY 20XX-OB-03: Responses to Federal Program Changes and standards are not 

consistently shared with OSHA in a timely manner.

Status: In FY 20XX, the State Plan successfully notified OSHA, within the specified timeframe, 

of its intent to adopt all Federal Program Changes. This observation is closed.

Continued FY 20XX Observation

(Case file review was necessary and was conducted by the Region)

Observation FY 20XX-01: In five of the 20 (25%) case files reviewed with violations, there 

was inadequate evidence documented to support the violation. One of the case files reviewed 
H-9

also contained repeat violations. The citation did not contain the repeat paragraph and there was 

no documentation in the case file referring to the previous inspection for repeat basis. 

Status: Adequate evidence to support violations was found in 10 (50%) of the case files with 

violations reviewed. This observation will be continued.

(Case file review was necessary and was not conducted by the Region)

Observation FY 20XX-01: In five of the 20 (25%) case files reviewed with violations, there 

was inadequate evidence documented to support the violation. One of the case files reviewed 

also contained repeat violations. The citation did not contain the repeat paragraph and there was 

no documentation in the case file referring to the previous inspection for repeat basis. 

Status: A case file review is necessary to gather the facts needed to evaluate performance in 

relation to this observation. This observation will be a focus of next year’s on-site case file 

review during the FY 20XX comprehensive FAME. This observation will be continued.

New FY 2018 Observations

(Converted from a finding)

Observation FY 20XX-02: One of the six (16%) retaliation case files reviewed lacked evidence 

that a complainant interview was conducted. 

Federal Monitoring Plan: During next year’s FAME, a sample of case files will be reviewed to 

determine if this issue has been fully resolved.

Converted from Finding FY 20XX-05: All (100%) workplace retaliation cases reviewed 

lacked evidence that complainant interviews were conducted.

Discussion: In the previous year’s comprehensive FAME, 100% of retaliation case files 

reviewed lacked documentation that a complainant interview was conducted. This was contrary 

to the requirements of the State Plans Field Operations Manual (FOM), Chapter X -

Discrimination Complaints. Throughout the performance period, the [X] State Plan reviewed 

supervisors and whistleblower investigations, the issue of documenting complainant interviews 

in retaliation cases. In the limited case file review conducted in FY 20XX [performance period], 

only one of six (16%) of case files reviewed lacked evidence of an interview with the 

complainant. The [X] State Plan has shown considerable improvement in this area; however, the 

sample of case files reviewed was relatively small. This finding is being converted to an 

observation and OSHA will evaluate the issue next year during the full on-site case file review as 

part of the comprehensive FAME.
H-10

(New observation based on a SAMM)

Observation FY 20XX-03: The [X] State Plan’s percent of total inspections in state and local 

government workplaces (SAMM 6) is at 2.85%, which is below the further review level of 

3.40%.

Federal Monitoring Plan: OSHA will monitor the [X] State Plan during FY 20XX to identify 

possible causes of this disparity to ensure state and local government workplace inspections are 

conducted.

Discussion: The FRL SAMM 6, percent of total inspections in state and local government 

workplaces is +/- 5% of 3.58%, which is the number negotiated by OSHA and the State Plan 

through the grant application. Therefore, the FRL range is 3.40% to 3.76%. The [X] State 

Plan’s percent of total inspections in state and local government workplaces is at 2.85%, which is 

below the FRL and could be a cause for concern. Since this is the first year that this State Plan 

has dipped below the FRL on SAMM 6, OSHA will monitor the situation as an observation.

C. State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Highlights

This section should discuss any SAMM results of significance, as reflected in Appendix D of this 

report, that have not been previously discussed in the context of a new or continued 

finding/observation in Section III, B of this report. A SAMM that falls outside Further Review 

Level (FRL) would constitute a significant change that should be addressed in this section. This 

section should clearly explain if being outside (below or above) the FRL is either a good 

outcome or a cause for concern. Additionally, any notable change in year-over-year trending 

within the FRL should be discussed. 

For example:

(Include the below boilerplate in every report) 

Each SAMM has an agreed upon FRL which can be either a single number, or a range of 

numbers above and below the national average. State Plan SAMM data that falls outside the 

FRL triggers a closer look at the underlying performance of the mandatory activity. Appendix D 

presents the State Plan’s FY 20XX State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Report and 

includes the FRLs for each measure. The State Plan was outside the FRL on the following 

SAMMs:

SAMM 9 – Percent in-compliance

Discussion of State Plan data and FRL: The FRL for percent in-compliance for safety inspections 

is +/- 20% of the one year national average of 28.85% which equals a range of 23.08% to 

34.62%. The [X] State Plan’s percent in-compliance for safety is 52.85% which is substantially 

higher than the FRL and a cause for concern. The FRL for percent in-compliance for health 

inspections is +/- 20% of the one-year national average of 35.68% which equals a range of 
H-11

28.54% to 42.82%. The [X] State Plan’s percent in-compliance for health is 58.87% which is 

also exceeds the FRL and warranted a closer look at the situation. 

Explanation: The [X] State Plan’s high in-compliance rates for both safety and health can be 

attributed to three factors. First, the State Plan had a high staff turnover and a low number of 

experienced staff. Secondly, the State Plan did not follow the focused inspection guidance for 

construction. Comprehensive inspections were conducted for all the contractors performing 

work at the site, resulting in a high number of in-compliance construction inspections. Finally, 

given the combination of outreach activities conducted by the Division of Education and 

Training and Division of OSH Compliance, with employers across the state, it is believed that 

many of the employers being inspected had a history of consultation and training, as well as 

previous enforcement inspections which resulted in a higher number of in-compliance 

inspections.
Appendix A – New and Continued Findings and Recommendations

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Follow-up FAME Report

H-12

FY 20XX-# Finding Recommendation FY 20XX-# or 

FY 20XX-OB-#

 

The table above should reflect all new findings and recommendations, continued findings and recommendations, and any observations 

that have been converted to findings from the previous year’s FAME. For recommendations where the State Plan has implemented

agreed upon corrective actions, but those actions have not yet been verified as effective by OSHA, it shall be noted by adding the 

phrase “corrective action complete, awaiting verification” to the end of the recommendation.

FY 20XX-# [COLUMN 1] lists the FAME Report fiscal year (FY 20XX) and related findings and recommendations # (01) - (Example: 

2014-01).

Finding [COLUMN 2] lists OSHA’s findings from the most recent FAME.

Recommendation [COLUMN 3] lists OSHA’s recommendations to address and resolve the related findings from the most recent 

FAME.

FY 20XX-# or FY 20XX-OB# [COLUMN 4] lists the fiscal year and number of the continued findings and recommendations or the 

fiscal year and number of observations that were converted to findings from the most recent FAME.
Appendix B – Observations Subject to New and Continued Monitoring

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Follow-up FAME Report

H-13

This appendix includes any new observations and all observations from the previous year’s FAME, regardless of current status.

Observation # [COLUMN 1 AND COLUMN 2]

For observations that are new or continued, a fiscal year (FY) number should be assigned and recorded in the first column in the following 

format, FY 20XX-OB-#. For continued observations, the previous observation number should be recorded in the second column in the following 

format, FY 20XX-OB-#. For an observation converted from a finding, the previous finding (FY 20XX-#) should be entered in the second column.

Observation [COLUMN 3]

This is a brief description of the issue (e.g., discrepancy that appears to be an isolated occurrence, data supporting the issue is limited).

Federal Monitoring Plan [COLUMN 4]

This is a brief description of how OSHA plans to monitor the issue (observation) over the next evaluation period. OSHA must take action to either 

close the observation or convert it to a formal finding within three years from the date of issuance. Observations that are converted to a finding or 

closed will not have an FY 20XX number assigned and will not have a Federal Monitoring Plan listed.

Current Status [COLUMN 5]

Each observation should be put into one of the four following categories: 

5) New – New observation (this could be a converted finding).

6) Continued – Observation is being carried over from one or more previous FAMEs.

7) Converted to Finding – Observation has been elevated to a finding in the current year.

8) Closed – OSHA will cease monitoring as an observation.

Observation #

FY 20XX-OB-#

Observation#

FY 20XX-OB-# 

or FY 20XX-#

Observation Federal Monitoring Plan Current 

Status

FY 2014-OB-01 FY 2013-OB-01 In seven of the 29 complaint files (24%) reviewed, 

documentation that the complainant was notified of the 

results of the inspections, either by letter or phone, was 

missing in the case file.

During next year’s FAME, a limited scope review of 

selected case files will be reviewed to determine if 

this reflects the data trend.

Continued

FY 2014-OB-03 FY 2013-05 Inspection results and a copy of the citation was not sent to 

the union in two of the seven case files (28.5%) reviewed 

that had an authorized union and where citations were 

issued.

In FY 2014, a limited number of case files will be 

selected randomly and reviewed to determine if this 

item was addressed.

New
Appendix C - Status of FY 20XX Findings and Recommendations

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Follow-up FAME Report 

H-14

The table above should reflect the most up-to-date information derived from the State Plan’s most recent Corrective Action Plan and include the 

following:

FY 20XX-# [COLUMN 1] lists the fiscal year (FY) and FAME Report year (20XX) and number of the related findings and recommendations

(Example: FY 20XX-01).

Finding [COLUMN 2] lists OSHA’s findings from the most recent FAME.

Recommendation [COLUMN 3] lists OSHA’s recommendations to address and resolve the related findings from the most recent FAME.

State Plan Response/Corrective Action [COLUMN 4] lists the State Plan’s response and/or corrective action to OSHA’s related FAME findings 

and recommendations.

Completion Date [COLUMN 5] lists the completion date of the corrective action for each finding and recommendation. 

Current Status and Date [COLUMN 6] lists the current status and date of each FY 20XX FAME corrective action, which include the following 

categories:

1) Open – a corrective action has not yet been taken by the State Plan and will be carried over in the next FAME.

2) Awaiting verification – a corrective action has been taken by the State Plan but not yet verified by the Region.

3) Converted to observation – a previous finding that has been converted to an observation for monitoring in the next FAME.

4) Completed – a corrective action has been taken by the State Plan and verified by the Region.

5) Closed – the Region and State Plan mutually agree the correction action has not been proven to impact the effectiveness of the State Plan 

and the Region has closed this finding.

FY 20XX-# Finding Recommendation State Plan Response/Corrective 

Action

Completion 

Date

Current Status 

and Date
Appendix D – FY 20XX State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) Report

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Follow-up FAME Report 

H-15

 [Close-out FY 20XX SAMM from O:/drive]
Appendix E - FY 20XX State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR)

FY 20XX [State Plan Name] Follow-up FAME Report 

H-16
Appendix I

State Plan Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Template

I-1

The State Plan Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is completed jointly by the Region and the State Plan. The CAP should provide clear, 

detailed responses for each finding and recommendation. The Region, in collaboration with DCSP, will review the CAP and provide 

feedback as appropriate.

FY 20XX-# [COLUMN 1] lists the fiscal year of the most recent FAME and the related finding and /recommendation # (e.g., FY 

2014-01). (Region completes this column.)

Finding [COLUMN 2] lists the Region’s findings from the most recent FAME. (Region completes this column.)

Recommendation [COLUMN 3] lists the Region’s recommendations to address and resolve the related findings from the most recent 

FAME. (Region completes this column.)

State Plan Response/Corrective Action [COLUMN 4] lists the State Plan’s response and plan to address CAP items. 

(State Plan completes this column.)

Completion Date [COLUMN 5] lists the date that the CAP items were completed. (State Plan completes this column.)

Current Status and Date (to be tracked/updated by the Region) [COLUMN 6] lists the appropriate status category for each finding

and recommendation (e.g., open, awaiting verification, completed, etc.) and most recent date reviewed by the Region. 

(Region completes this column.)

FY 20XX-# Finding Recommendation State Plan Response/ 

Corrective Action Completion Date Current Statusand Date 
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-1

CASPA – No Investigation Will Be Conducted

[CASPA Complainant] 

[Address] 

RE: CASPA #

Dear [Complainant]:

This is in response to your [date] letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) regarding a Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA) concerning the 

state of [state name]. In your letter, you allege that [restate allegations]. 

We have carefully considered your request. However, a determination has been made that a 

CASPA investigation is not warranted in this case for the following reason(s): [Note: Please select 

from the listed options the reason for the denial of a CASPA investigation. Be sure to remove the 

remaining possible reasons that are not applicable to the case. It is important to follow this with 

a detailed explanation of how this decision was reached. More information on each of these can 

be found in section E.3 of the Policies and Procedures Manual]:

(a) A complainant has not exhausted the available administrative remedies provided for by 

state procedures and regulations. [Explain]

(b) The complaint pertains to a matter that is not within the area of coverage of the state

program. [Explain]

(c) The federal monitor has already investigated a sufficient number of complaints of the 

same nature which makes an additional investigation unnecessary. [Explain]

(d) The CASPA allegations are vague, specific instances of inadequate state activity that are 

not documented, or the content of the complaint does not sufficiently explain the activity 

that is alleged to be inadequate. [Explain]

(e) The CASPA allegations include recommendations and suggestions relating to state 

operations that have no impact on the state’s “at least as effective” status. [Explain]

(f) The CASPA recommends revisions to standards that include requirements more stringent 

than those enforced by OSHA or reflect requirements not included in OSHA standards.

[Explain]

(g) The complainant changed his or her mind after filing the CASPA and signed a negotiated 

settlement agreement. [Explain]

(h) The events pertaining to the complaint occurred so long ago that an investigation in the 

context of current conditions would not be possible. [Explain]

(i) If this is an 11(c) workplace retaliation complaint, this is not the most appropriate letter 

to use as a template. Please see template # __for an appropriate template for this 

situation. 
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-2

If you do not agree with this decision and you have additional information that could result in a 

different decision, you may request reconsideration by contacting the Regional Office at: 

[Name of Regional Administrator, Regional Office address, phone, e-mail]

Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this matter. I may 

be reached at [phone number]. 

Sincerely,

[Area Director’s Name]

Area Director 
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-3

Sample CASPA/Whistleblower Acceptance Letter

[Date]

[Complainant/Complainant’s Attorney]

Street Address

City, State ZIP

Re: CASPA #; ABC Company/Complainant/Case No. 1-2345-02-001

Dear [Complainant/Complainant’s Attorney]:

This is in response to your Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA) about 

the [state agency’s] handling of your retaliation complaint against [respondent] under [state 

agency statute]. In brief, you filed a complaint of retaliation with the [state agency] which 

alleged that you were [adverse action] on [date of adverse action] for [protected activity]. On 

[date of state determination], your retaliation complaint was dismissed by [state agency]. In 

filing your CASPA complaint, you indicate that you are dissatisfied with the state’s handling

of and the outcome of your complaint.

A CASPA investigation will be conducted to evaluate whether the state’s investigation was 

adequate and its findings supported by the evidence. A review under CASPA procedures is not 

an appeal. However, if we find that the outcome of the state’s investigation of your workplace 

retaliation complaint is not appropriate, we may require the state to reopen the case or in some 

manner correct the outcome, in addition to requiring the state to make procedural changes to 

prevent recurrence.

Our first step in the CASPA investigation will be to contact the state to request its response 

to your issues of concern. We will be contacting you to obtain specific authorization to 

release your name to the [state agency], so that your state investigative file can be obtained 

on your behalf. A CASPA investigation cannot begin without your authorization to release 

your name to the [state agency]. This is due to the necessity of our office acquiring any files 

related to your case. We may also be contacting you to obtain additional information. Upon 

completion of the investigation, OSHA will inform you of the findings, conclusions, and any 

recommendations made to the state. We will attempt to mail you a written response within 90 

days of receiving your complaint.

We appreciate your interest in the effective implementation of the [state] occupational safety 

and health program.

Sincerely,

[Name]

Regional Administrator
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-4

Initial Letter to the State

[Name of State Plan Official] 

[Address] 

RE: CASPA #

Dear [Name of State Plan Official]:

Please be advised that we have received a Complaint About State Program Administration 

(CASPA) regarding the state’s handling of a workplace safety and health inspection conducted at 

[name of former employer]. [The inspection # or complaint # is]. The specific allegations raised 

by the complainant are provided below: 

(1)

(2)

(3) 

(4)

In order for us to investigate these allegations, please provide us your response to the allegations 

within 30 days. We will also need to review the case file and any other appropriate documents 

that may assist us in understanding this case, so that we can reply to the CASPA complainant. 

Thank you for your cooperation regarding this matter. 

Sincerely,

[Area Director’s Name] 

Area Director
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-5

Letter to State Sensitive CASPA

[Name of State Plan Official] 

[Address] 

RE: CASPA #

Dear [Name of State Plan Official]:

We have received a Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA) which alleges that 

[explain the allegations].

Due to the nature of this CASPA, we are not asking you to provide an initial response as we 

usually do. Instead, OSHA will conduct an investigation, including interviews of [state program 

name] personnel and reviews of case files and statistical data. [If relevant, add any other 

investigative methods that will be used.]

It is our intention to initiate the investigation as soon as possible. To that end, we would like to 

discuss the allegations in a teleconference and propose that a call be held on [date and time]. 

Our point of contact for this investigation is [Federal Monitor name and phone number]. Please 

contact [him/her] to confirm this meeting time or to schedule another mutually convenient time.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

[Regional Administrator’s Name] 

Regional Administrator
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-6

CASPA Letter to Complainant with Findings

[Complainant’s Name] 

[Address] 

RE: CASPA #

Dear [Complainant]:

[FATALITY CASPA ONLY] Please accept my heartfelt condolences on the tragic death of 

your {husband, son, etc.}, Mr./Ms. XX. We deeply regret the loss of his/her life.

This is in response to your Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA) regarding 

the handling of your complaint by [State Plan] against [employer] located in [city and state]. 

The allegations raise the following issues [summary of allegations]. [Include qualitative 

discussion of which allegations raise the most severe issues and cause significant concern for 

OSHA.]

In response to your complaint, we conducted interviews with you, representatives from [state], 

and reviewed a number of case files. We found merit in [x] of the [number of allegations] and 

make recommendations as discussed below. 

CASPA Allegation 1: 

OSHA’s Findings:

OSHA’s Analysis: 

OSHA’s Recommendation [if warranted]: 

CASPA Allegation 2: 

OSHA’s Findings: 

OSHA’s Analysis:

OSHA’s Recommendation [if warranted]

CASPA Allegation 3: 

OSHA’s Findings: 

OSHA’s Analysis:

OSHA’s Recommendation [if warranted]
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-7

[State Plan] has been notified of the results of our investigation of your complaint, and is 

required to provide a written response to any recommendations. If you have any questions about 

this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you disagree with our findings, you have the 

right to request a review by writing to the OSHA Regional Administrator at the following 

address:

[Regional Administrator]

[Regional Office Address]

[FATALITY ONLY] Again, please accept my sincere sympathy and condolences for your loss. 

If OSHA can be of any assistance to you or your family, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

[Regional Administrator or Area Director’s Name] 

Regional Administrator or Area Director 
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-8

CASPA Letter to State with Findings

[State Plan Official] 

[Address] 

RE: CASPA #

Dear [State Plan Official]:

This is in response to the referenced Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA) 

regarding [state agency name]’s handling of a complaint filed against [employer] located in [city 

and state].

We previously sent the CASPA allegations in a letter to your office on [date]. Based on the 

interviews conducted with representatives from your staff and a review of a number of case files, 

we reached the following conclusions related to the allegations made by the complainant:

CASPA Allegation 1: 

OSHA’s Findings:

OSHA’s Analysis: 

OSHA’s Recommendation [if warranted]: 

CASPA Allegation 1: 

OSHA’s Findings: The state investigated the complaint regarding xx. Interview statements do 

not reflect xx.

OSHA’s Analysis:

OSHA’s Recommendation [if warranted]: [Include suggested timeline for implementation, if 

applicable.]

CASPA Allegation 2: 

OSHA’s Findings: 

OSHA’s Analysis:

OSHA’s Recommendation [if warranted]: [Include suggested timeline for implementation, if 

applicable.]

CASPA Allegation 3: 
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-9

OSHA’s Findings: 

OSHA’s Analysis:

OSHA’s Recommendation [if warranted]: [Include suggested timeline for implementation, if 

applicable.]

As a result of OSHA’s investigation of this CASPA, we are requesting your written response to 

the above recommendation(s) within 30 days. Any new or revised procedures should be submitted 

to OSHA as a State Plan change.

Your cooperation with our investigation is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please 

let me know.

Sincerely,

[Regional Administrator or Area Director’s Name] 

Regional Administrator or Area Director 
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-10

Response Letter to State – No Corrective Action Required

State Plan

Address

RE: CASPA #

Dear:

We have completed our investigation of the above referenced Complaint About State Program 

Administration (CASPA). The complainant expressed concern about (list allegations).

Our investigation of this CASPA revealed {State Plan} that the state followed its policies and 

procedures. (If appropriate, add the following: “which are at least as effective as OSHA’s as 

related to this case.”) 

We have notified the complainant of the results of our investigation. If you have any questions 

regarding this matter, you may contact (Federal Monitor) at (phone number).

Sincerely,

Name

Regional Administrator

Enclosure
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-11

Sample CASPA/Whistleblower Acceptance Letter (11(c) Not Dually-Filed)

[Date]

[Complainant/Complainant’s Attorney]

Street Address

City, State ZIP

Re: CASPA #; ABC Company/Complainant/Case No. 1-2345-02-001

Dear [Complainant/Complainant’s Attorney]:

This is in response to your Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA) about the 

[state agency’s] handling of your workplace retaliation complaint against [company name]. In 

brief, you filed a complaint of workplace retaliation with the [state agency] which alleged that 

you were [adverse action] on [date of adverse action] for [protected activity]. On [date of state 

determination], your workplace retaliation complaint was dismissed by [state agency]. In filing 

your CASPA complaint, you indicate that you are dissatisfied with the state’s handling and the 

outcome of your complaint.

A CASPA investigation will be conducted to evaluate whether the state’s investigation was 

adequate and its findings supported by the evidence. A review under CASPA procedures is not 

an appeal. However, if we find that the outcome of the State Plan’s investigation of your 

workplace retaliation complaint is not appropriate, the agency may require the state to reopen the 

case or in some manner correct the outcome in addition to requiring the state to make procedural 

changes to prevent recurrence.

The first step in the CASPA investigation will be to contact the state to request its response to 

your issues of concern. So that your state investigative file can be obtained on your behalf, it 

may be necessary to obtain specific authorization to release your name to the [state agency]. A 

CASPA investigation cannot begin without your authorization to release your name to the [state 

agency]. This is due to the necessity of our office acquiring any files related to your case. I have 

enclosed a copy of this authorization form with this letter. OSHA may also be contacting you to 

obtain additional information. Upon completion of the investigation, OSHA will inform you of 

the findings, conclusions, and any recommendations made to the state. I will attempt to mail you 

a written response within 90 days of receiving your complaint.

I appreciate your interest in the effective implementation of the [state] occupational safety and 

health program.

Sincerely,

[Name]

Regional Administrator

Enclosure
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-12

Sample CASPA Whistleblower/Workplace Retaliation Determination Letter to Complainant 

(No Recommendation)

[CASPA Complainant]

[Address]

RE: CASPA #; ABC Company/Complainant/Case No. 1-2345-02-001

Dear [Complainant]:

Your Complaint About State Program Administration (CASPA) concerning the state’s handling 

of your complaint of workplace retaliation against [respondent] under [state agency statute] has 

been investigated and carefully considered. In summary, you filed a complaint with the [state 

agency] which alleged that you were [adverse action] on [date of adverse action] for [protected 

activity]. The complaint was investigated by the [state agency] and dismissed on [date of state 

determination].

As a result of this federal review of the [state agency’s] investigation of your complaint against 

[respondent], the evidence developed during the state’s investigation indicates that [respondent] 

did not violate [state whistleblower law] when it [adverse action]. Rather, the evidence indicates 

that [adverse action] was motivated by factors other than protected occupational safety and 

health activities. The state’s investigation is deemed adequate and meets all federal requirements.

[Summarize investigative steps taken, the analysis conducted, the conclusions reached. Also,

consider any corrective action taken or planned by the state if violations are found.]

Further proceedings in this matter are deemed unwarranted and your CASPA is now closed. If 

you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact either myself or [Regional contact 

name] at [telephone number].

Sincerely,

[Name]

Regional Administrator
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-13

Sample CASPA Whistleblower/Workplace Retaliation Determination - State Plan Notification 

(No Recommendations)

[State Plan Designee]

[State Agency]

[Address]

RE: CASPA #; ABC Company/Complainant/Case No. 1-2345-02-001

Dear [State Plan Designee]:

On [date received], our office received a Complaint About State Program Administration 

(CASPA) regarding the above referenced workplace retaliation investigation. In summary, 

[complainant] alleged he/she was [adverse action] on [date of action] for complaining about 

[protected activity]. The complaint was investigated by the [state agency] under [state agency 

statute] and dismissed on [date of state determination].

As a result of this federal review of the [state agency’s] investigation of the complaint against 

[respondent], the evidence developed during the state’s investigation indicates that [respondent] 

did not violate [state whistleblower law] when it [adverse action]. Rather, the evidence indicates 

that [adverse action] was motivated by factors other than protected occupational safety and 

health related activities. The state’s investigation is deemed adequate and meets all federal 

requirements.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact either myself or Regional 

Supervisory Investigator [name] at [telephone number].

Sincerely,

[Name]

Regional Administrator

Enclosure
Appendix J

Sample CASPA Letters

J-14

Name Release Form

Complaint About State Plan Administration (CASPA)

Your name will be withheld and is considered confidential, unless you give specific 

authorization for its release.

I, (complainant’s name) do authorize that my name be disclosed by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration in the conduct of its investigation relative to my CASPA.

Signature: ________________________________________

Date Signed: ______________________________________

I, (complainant’s name) do not waive my rights of confidentiality in that my name is not to be 

disclosed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the conduct of its

investigation relative to my CASPA.

Signature: ________________________________________

Date Signed: ______________________________________