State-Plan OSHA Programs: How They Differ from Federal OSHA
The United States operates two parallel systems of occupational safety and health enforcement: a federal program administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a network of state-administered programs that operate under OSHA approval. As of the date of this publication, 29 state and territory plans have received federal approval — covering private-sector workers, state employees, or both. Understanding the structural differences between these systems is essential for employers operating across multiple jurisdictions, since compliance obligations, penalty structures, and specific standards can diverge substantially from the federal baseline.
Definition and scope
Federal OSHA operates under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.) and holds direct enforcement authority over private-sector employers in states without approved plans. Where a state has established an approved plan under Section 18 of the OSH Act, that plan assumes primary enforcement responsibility within its jurisdiction, and federal OSHA cedes day-to-day oversight.
The OSHA State Plans program distinguishes between two categories of approved plans:
- Full-coverage plans — Cover both private-sector and state and local government employees. Examples include California (Cal/OSHA), Michigan (MIOSHA), and Washington (L&I/WISHA).
- Public-sector-only plans — Cover only state and local government employees, while private-sector workers in those states remain under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Examples include Illinois, Maine, and New Jersey.
States operating under a full-coverage plan account for approximately 40 percent of the U.S. workforce (OSHA, State Plans overview). Federal OSHA retains jurisdiction over federal government employees nationwide, regardless of whether a state plan exists.
The regulatory context for workplace safety at the federal level sets a floor — state plans must be "at least as effective" as federal OSHA, a standard codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1902. States may exceed this floor by adopting stricter standards or covering hazard categories that federal rules do not address.
How it works
State plan programs operate through a structured approval and oversight relationship with federal OSHA. The mechanics follow a defined sequence:
- Initial approval — A state submits a plan demonstrating that its proposed program will be at least as effective as federal OSHA. Federal OSHA grants initial approval, triggering a developmental period during which the state builds its enforcement infrastructure.
- Developmental period — The state must fulfill specific structural commitments: adopting standards at least as protective as federal standards, establishing an inspections program, creating a complaint intake process, and funding enforcement at a level matching or exceeding federal investment.
- Final approval (18(e) determination) — After demonstrating operational effectiveness over time, the state receives final approval under Section 18(e) of the OSH Act. At this stage, federal OSHA formally relinquishes concurrent enforcement authority over covered employers.
- Ongoing federal oversight — Federal OSHA monitors state plan performance through annual evaluations, on-site reviews, and complaint investigations. If a plan falls out of compliance with the "at least as effective" standard, federal OSHA may revoke approval and reassert direct jurisdiction.
State plans set their own penalty structures, but those penalties must meet or exceed the federal schedule. Federal OSHA's maximum penalties — including a serious violation ceiling of $16,131 per violation and a willful or repeated violation ceiling of $161,323 per violation (OSHA Penalties page) — serve as the minimum benchmark states must match. Cal/OSHA, for example, maintains its own penalty schedule under California Labor Code § 6317 that can produce higher per-violation amounts than the federal ceiling.
State plans also adopt their own versions of specific standards. California's Aerosol Transmissible Diseases standard (8 C.C.R. § 5199) and Washington's ergonomics rules are examples of state-specific requirements with no direct federal equivalent. Employers covered by OSHA standards and requirements in a state-plan jurisdiction must track both the federal baseline and any state-specific additions.
Common scenarios
Multi-state employers. A construction company operating in both Texas (federal OSHA) and California (Cal/OSHA) maintains two distinct compliance frameworks simultaneously. Cal/OSHA's injury and illness prevention program requirement under 8 C.C.R. § 3203 has no direct federal counterpart, creating an additional written program obligation for California worksites.
State and local government workers. A county transit authority in New Jersey, where only a public-sector plan exists, is covered by New Jersey's public employee safety program — not federal OSHA — for its drivers and maintenance staff. The same workers in a neighboring state without any plan would fall under federal OSHA if private-sector, or have no federal coverage if state employees (federal OSHA does not cover state and local government workers in non-plan states).
Rulemaking divergence. When federal OSHA issues a new standard — such as the 2024 heat illness prevention rule for outdoor workers — state plans must respond within six months by either adopting an identical standard or demonstrating that their existing standard is at least as effective (29 C.F.R. § 1953.5). California had already enacted its own heat illness prevention standard (8 C.C.R. § 3395) years before the federal rulemaking, illustrating how state plans can precede federal action.
Whistleblower complaints. Under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, federal OSHA handles whistleblower retaliation complaints in federal-jurisdiction states. In state-plan states, the state agency administers its own anti-retaliation program, which must be at least as effective as the federal Section 11(c) process. Details on federal protections are covered in the OSHA whistleblower protection program framework.
Decision boundaries
Determining which OSHA jurisdiction applies to a specific employer and worksite requires working through a defined set of classification criteria:
| Factor | Federal OSHA jurisdiction | State plan jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
| State has no approved plan | Yes — all private-sector employers | N/A |
| State has full-coverage approved plan | No — except federal agencies | Yes — private sector and state/local government |
| State has public-sector-only plan | Yes — private-sector employers | Yes — state and local government employers only |
| Federal agency employer (any state) | Yes — federal agencies always | No |
| Maritime and longshoring (most operations) | Yes — federal OSHA retains jurisdiction | Limited — varies by state and operation type |
The OSHA State Plans page provides a current state-by-state map identifying plan type and contact information for each state agency. Federal OSHA's Area Offices handle enforcement in all non-plan states and for federal agency employees nationwide.
One structural boundary that frequently causes confusion: even in a state with a full-coverage plan, federal OSHA retains jurisdiction over certain federal contractor operations on federal enclaves and over specific maritime operations governed by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Employers in these categories cannot assume state-plan coverage applies simply because the state has an approved program.
Employers uncertain about jurisdiction should reference the specific state plan agency's scope statement, which each approved plan is required to publish and maintain. The workplace safety homepage provides orientation to the broader regulatory structure within which both federal and state OSHA programs operate.