I 
112TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. R. 571 
To require a heightened review process by the Secretary of Labor of State 
occupational safety and health plans, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
FEBRUARY 9, 2011 
Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. KILDEE, 
Mr. PAYNE, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Mr. COURTNEY) intro-
duced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Edu-
cation and the Workforce 
A BILL 
To require a heightened review process by the Secretary 
of Labor of State occupational safety and health plans, 
and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Worker Safe-
ty Act’’. 
SEC. 2. REVIEW OF STATE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 
HEALTH PLANS. 
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
(29 U.S.C. 668) is amended— 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:22 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H571.IH
H571
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
(1) by amending subsection (f) to read as fol-
lows: 
‘‘(f)(1) The Secretary shall, on the basis of reports 
submitted by the State agency and the Secretary’s own 
inspections, make a continuing evaluation of the manner 
in which each State that has a plan approved under this 
section is carrying out such plan. Such evaluation shall 
include an assessment of whether the State continues to 
meet the requirements of subsection (c) of this section and 
any other criteria or indices of effectiveness specified by 
the Secretary in regulations. Whenever the Secretary 
finds, on the basis of such evaluation, that in the adminis-
tration of the State plan there is a failure to comply sub-
stantially with any provision of the State plan (or any as-
surance contained therein), the Secretary shall make an 
initial determination of whether the failure is of such a 
nature that the plan should be withdrawn or whether the 
failure is of such a nature that the State should be given 
the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies, and provide no-
tice of the Secretary’s findings and initial determination. 
‘‘(2) If the Secretary makes an initial determination 
to reassert and exercise concurrent enforcement authority 
while the State is given an opportunity to remedy the defi-
ciencies, the Secretary shall afford the State an oppor-
tunity for a public hearing within 15 days of such request, 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:22 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H571.IH
H571
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
provided that such request is made not later than 10 days 
after Secretary’s notice to the State. The Secretary shall 
review and consider the testimony, evidence, or written 
comments, and not later than 30 days following such hear-
ing, make a determination to affirm, reverse, or modify 
the Secretary’s initial determination to reassert and exer-
cise concurrent enforcement authority under sections 8, 9, 
10, 13, and 17 with respect to standards promulgated 
under section 6 and obligations under section 5(a). Fol-
lowing such a determination by the Secretary, or in the 
event that the State does not request a hearing within the 
time frame set forth in this paragraph, the Secretary may 
reassert and exercise such concurrent enforcement author-
ity, while a final determination is pending under para-
graph (3) or until the Secretary has determined that the 
State has remedied the deficiencies as provided under 
paragraph (4). Such determination shall be published in 
the Federal Register. The procedures set forth in section 
18(g) shall not apply to a determination by the Secretary 
to reassert and exercise such concurrent enforcement au-
thority. 
‘‘(3) If the Secretary makes an initial determination 
that the plan should be withdrawn, the Secretary shall 
provide due notice and the opportunity for a hearing. If 
based on the evaluation, comments, and evidence, the Sec-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:22 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H571.IH
H571
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
retary makes a final determination that there is a failure 
to comply substantially with any provision of the State 
plan (or any assurance contained therein), he shall notify 
the State agency of the withdrawal of approval of such 
plan and upon receipt of such notice such plan shall cease 
to be in effect, but the State may retain jurisdiction in 
any case commenced before the withdrawal of the plan in 
order to enforce standards under the plan whenever the 
issues involved do not relate to the reasons for the with-
drawal of the plan. 
‘‘(4) If the Secretary makes a determination that the 
State should be provided the opportunity to remedy the 
deficiencies, the Secretary shall provide the State an op-
portunity to respond to the Secretary’s findings and the 
opportunity to remedy such deficiencies within a time pe-
riod established by the Secretary, not to exceed 1 year. 
The Secretary may extend and revise the time period to 
remedy such deficiencies, if the State’s legislature is not 
in session during this 1-year time period, or if the State 
demonstrates that it is not feasible to correct the defi-
ciencies in the time period set by the Secretary, and the 
State has a plan to correct the deficiencies within a rea-
sonable time period. If the Secretary finds that the State 
agency has failed to remedy such deficiencies within the 
time period specified by the Secretary and that the State 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:22 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H571.IH
H571
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
plan continues to fail to comply substantially with a provi-
sion of the State plan, the Secretary shall withdraw the 
State plan as provided for in paragraph (3).’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
section: 
‘‘(i) Not later than 18 months after the date of enact-
ment of this subsection, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
Comptroller General shall complete and issue a review of 
the effectiveness of State plans to develop and enforce 
safety and health standards to determine if they are at 
least as effective as the Federal program and to evaluate 
whether the Secretary’s oversight of State plans is effec-
tive. The Comptroller General’s evaluation shall assess— 
‘‘(1) the effectiveness of the Secretary’s over-
sight of State plans, including the indices of effec-
tiveness used by the Secretary; 
‘‘(2) whether the Secretary’s investigations in 
response to Complaints About State Plan Adminis-
tration (CASPA) are adequate, whether significant 
policy issues have been identified by headquarters 
and corrective actions are fully implemented by each 
State; 
‘‘(3) whether the formula for the distribution of 
funds described in section 23(g) to State programs 
is fair and adequate; 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:22 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H571.IH
H571
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
‘‘(4) whether State plans are as effective as the 
Federal program in preventing occupational injuries, 
illnesses and deaths, and investigating discrimina-
tion complaints, through an evaluation of at least 20 
percent of approved State plans, and which shall 
cover— 
‘‘(A) enforcement effectiveness, including 
handling of fatalities, serious incidents and 
complaints, compliance with inspection proce-
dures, hazard recognition, verification of abate-
ment, violation classification, citation and pen-
alty issuance, including appropriate use of will-
ful and repeat citations, and employee involve-
ment; 
‘‘(B) inspections, the number of pro-
grammed health and safety inspections at pri-
vate and public sector establishments, and 
whether the State targets the highest hazard 
private sector work sites and facilities in that 
State; 
‘‘(C) budget and staffing, including wheth-
er the State is providing adequate budget re-
sources to hire, train and retain sufficient num-
bers of qualified staff, including timely filling of 
vacancies; 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:22 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H571.IH
H571
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
‘‘(D) administrative review, including the 
quality of decisions, consistency with Federal 
precedence, transparency of proceedings, deci-
sions and records are available to the public, 
adequacy of State defense, and whether the 
State appropriately appeals adverse decisions; 
‘‘(E) antidiscrimination, including whether 
discrimination complaints are processed in a 
timely manner, whether supervisors and inves-
tigators are properly trained to investigate dis-
crimination complaints, whether a case file re-
view indicates merit cases are properly identi-
fied consistent with Federal policy and proce-
dure, whether employees are notified of their 
rights, and whether there is an effective process 
for employees to appeal the dismissal of a com-
plaint; 
‘‘(F) program administration, including 
whether the State’s standards and policies are 
at least as effective as the Federal program and 
are updated in a timely manner, and whether 
National Emphasis Programs that are applica-
ble in such States are adopted and implemented 
in a manner that is at least as effective as the 
Federal program; 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
22:22 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H571.IH
H571
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
‘‘(G) whether the State plan satisfies the 
requirements for approval set forth in this sec-
tion and its implementing regulations; and 
‘‘(H) other such factors identified by the 
Comptroller General, or as requested by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce of 
the House of Representatives or the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of 
the Senate.’’. 
Æ 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
02:41 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H571.IH
H571
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS