State plan performance monitoring

The State Program Performance Monitoring System exists to evaluate and ensure that State plans are at least as effective as the Federal occupational safety and health program and to monitor implementation and any changes while the State participates in the cooperative program. This purpose is stated in 1954.2(a).

• The system covers both the time before and after the decision under section 18(e) of the Act.
• It is designed to confirm that required developmental steps are completed and that the State program matches Federal standards and enforcement.

It means the monitoring process is organized into three distinct stages—Phase I (initial approval through pre-determination monitoring), Phase II (the formal determination under section 18(e)), and Phase III (ongoing evaluation after an affirmative determination)—each with specific evaluation goals. The three-phase structure and its purpose are described in 1954.2(a).

• Phase I gathers data to guide initial Federal involvement and assistance.
• Phase II is the comprehensive decision point after at least three years.
• Phase III provides continuing oversight once Federal authority has been relinquished.

During Phase I the Assistant Secretary uses monitoring data to decide the appropriate level of Federal enforcement, whether to continue plan approval, and what level of technical assistance the State needs. These specific Phase I decisions are listed in 1954.2(b) and detailed in 1954.2(b)(1), 1954.2(b)(2), and 1954.2(b)(3).

• The focus is on getting enough information to manage Federal-State roles and support the State toward an effective program.

Phase II cannot occur until at least three years after the State plan is approved. This timing requirement is stated in 1954.2(c).

• The three-year period ensures enough operational experience and data from Phase I are available for a comprehensive evaluation.

Phase II is a comprehensive evaluation of the entire State program that draws on all information collected during Phase I to decide whether to relinquish Federal authority under section 18(e). This comprehensive scope is described in 1954.2(c).

• The evaluation considers both program development and operational effectiveness.

Phase III provides continuing evaluation after an affirmative section 18(e) determination so the Assistant Secretary can monitor total State program operations and decide whether to continue or withdraw plan approval. This continuing role is explained in 1954.2(d).

• Phase III focuses on ongoing performance data to make maintenance or withdrawal decisions.

The major data inputs include quarterly and annual State program reports, visits to State agencies, on-the-job evaluations of State compliance officers, and investigations of complaints about State program administration. These data inputs are listed in 1954.2(e) and further itemized in 1954.2(e)(1), 1954.2(e)(2), 1954.2(e)(3), and 1954.2(e)(4).

• These inputs support evaluations in all three phases.

Quarterly and annual State program reports serve as formal data inputs that provide structured information about State program activity for monitoring and evaluation. This reporting role is specified in 1954.2(e)(1).

• Reports feed Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III reviews and help the Assistant Secretary assess program performance over time.

Visits to State agencies are used as a data input to observe and assess State program operations directly as part of the monitoring and evaluation process. The use of agency visits is identified in 1954.2(e)(2).

• Agency visits help verify information reported in quarterly and annual reports and inform Phase I through III decisions.

On-the-job evaluation means assessing State compliance officers while they perform their field duties so the monitoring system can judge the quality and effectiveness of enforcement actions. This evaluation type is listed as a monitoring input in 1954.2(e)(3).

• These evaluations provide direct evidence of how standards and enforcement are applied in practice.

Complaints about State program administration are investigated and considered a formal data input to the monitoring system. This investigative role is identified in 1954.2(e)(4).

• Complaint investigations help identify problems that may affect decisions about continuing, modifying, or withdrawing plan approval.

The Assistant Secretary makes the decision whether to relinquish Federal authority to the State after conducting the Phase II evaluation. This responsibility is stated in 1954.2(c).

• The decision is based on a comprehensive review of program information gathered during Phase I and the Phase II evaluation.

The monitoring system gathers data during Phase I to determine what the appropriate level of Federal enforcement should be while the State plan is developing and before any decision under section 18(e). This role is described in 1954.2(b)(1) and 1954.2(b).

• Monitoring helps balance Federal enforcement presence with State capacity as the plan matures.

The monitoring system evaluates State program activity during Phase I to decide what level of technical assistance is needed to help the State establish and maintain an effective program. This purpose is specified in 1954.2(b)(3).

• The assistance determination is based on monitoring outputs such as reports, visits, and on-the-job evaluations.

Plan approval can be evaluated for continuation or withdrawal during Phase I and can also be reviewed for continuation or withdrawal on an ongoing basis during Phase III; the monitoring data collected in each phase inform those decisions. These provisions are referenced in 1954.2(b)(2) and 1954.2(d).

• Phase I helps decide if initial approval should be continued before the formal Section 18(e) determination.
• Phase III provides continuing data to decide whether to continue or withdraw approval after an affirmative determination.

Yes — the monitoring system explicitly covers the period both before and after the section 18(e) determination so the Assistant Secretary can evaluate development, effectiveness, and continued compliance. This coverage is described in 1954.2(a).

• This ensures continuous oversight from initial approval through ongoing program operation.

No — the Assistant Secretary must wait at least three years after plan approval before making the relinquishment decision under section 18(e). This timing requirement is stated in 1954.2(c).

• The three-year minimum allows for sufficient data collection and program development prior to the comprehensive Phase II evaluation.

After an affirmative section 18(e) determination, the Assistant Secretary continues to evaluate total State program operations to determine whether plan approval should be continued or withdrawn. This continuing evaluation role is described in 1954.2(d).

• Phase III monitoring provides ongoing data to support those determinations.