General policy for state plan withdrawal

A withdrawal proceeding must be instituted when the Assistant Secretary determines that, under 1902.2(b), a State has not substantially completed the developmental steps of its plan at the end of three years from commencement of operations.

• This requirement is set out in 1955.3(a)(1).
• "Developmental steps" and their timing are described in 1902.2 and its subsections.

Yes — failing to develop the necessary regulations and administrative guidelines for an "at least as effective" enforcement program is an example of lack of substantial completion and can trigger withdrawal proceedings.

• This example is explicitly listed in 1955.3(a)(1)(i).
• The standard ties this to the three-year developmental period in 1955.3(a)(1).

Yes — failure to promulgate all or a majority of the occupational safety and health standards in an issue covered by the plan is an example of not substantially completing developmental steps and can lead to withdrawal proceedings.

• This example is given in 1955.3(a)(1)(ii).

Yes — failure to enact the required enabling legislation is a stated example of a State not substantially completing the developmental steps and will prompt withdrawal proceedings.

• See the specific example in 1955.3(a)(1)(iii).
• The three-year timing and developmental requirement are in 1955.3(a)(1).

A withdrawal proceeding must be instituted if the Assistant Secretary determines there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the State will complete the required developmental steps within the three-year period after starting operations.

• The general rule is in 1955.3(a)(2).
• Examples of this lack of reasonable expectation are listed in 1955.3(a)(2)(i)-(iii).

If a State fails to enact enabling legislation in the first two years after starting operations and the remaining developmental steps depend on that legislation and cannot be finished within the final year, a withdrawal proceeding shall be instituted.

• This specific situation is described in 1955.3(a)(2)(i).
• It ties timing (two years) to whether remaining steps are dependent on the enabling law and can be completed within three years total.

Yes — repeal or substantial amendment of the enabling legislation by the State legislature that causes the State program to fail the criteria in 1902.3 is an example of lack of reasonable expectation and can trigger withdrawal proceedings.

• This is explicitly provided in 1955.3(a)(2)(ii).

Yes — inability to complete the developmental steps within the indicated three-year period is a listed example of lack of reasonable expectation and can lead to withdrawal proceedings.

• See 1955.3(a)(2)(iii).

When a State with final approval fails to comply substantially with any provision of its plan (including assurances), a withdrawal proceeding shall be instituted.

• The general rule is in 1955.3(a)(3).
• Specific operational examples include consistent failure to enforce standards (1955.3(a)(3)(i)), curtailment of employee rights (1955.3(a)(3)(ii)), and insufficient personnel or resources (1955.3(a)(3)(iv)).

Yes — a State that, over a period of time, consistently fails to provide effective enforcement of standards meets an example of lack of substantial compliance and can prompt withdrawal proceedings.

• This is explicitly given in 1955.3(a)(3)(i).

If a State restricts employees' rights in ways that reduce the effectiveness of the State program, that constitutes lack of substantial compliance and can lead to withdrawal proceedings.

• The example is described in 1955.3(a)(3)(ii).

Yes — if a State, without good cause, fails to maintain its program in accordance with appropriate changes in the Federal program, that is an example of lack of substantial compliance and can result in withdrawal proceedings.

• See 1955.3(a)(3)(iii).

A State's failure to meet required assurances about sufficient numbers of qualified personnel and/or adequate resources for administration and enforcement is an example of lack of substantial compliance and can justify withdrawal proceedings.

• This example is spelled out in 1955.3(a)(3)(iv).

If, based on actual operations, the Assistant Secretary finds the State is not meeting the criteria in section 18(c) and that the concurrent authority period under section 18(e) should not be extended or final approval given, a withdrawal proceeding may be instituted.

• This circumstance is described in 1955.3(a)(3)(v).

Yes — for a State that has received initial approval under section 18(c), a withdrawal proceeding may be instituted; for a State with final approval under section 18(e), a withdrawal proceeding shall be instituted when there is substantial failure to comply.

• The differential treatment is stated in 1955.3(a)(3).

A State may voluntarily withdraw its plan, or any portion, at any time by notifying the Assistant Secretary in writing and stating the reasons for withdrawal; the notice must include a letter terminating the application for related grants under section 23(g) in accordance with 29 CFR 1951.25(d).

• The voluntary withdrawal procedure is described in 1955.3(b).

Upon receipt of the State notice, the Assistant Secretary will cause a notice of withdrawal of approval of the State plan or portion thereof to be published in the Federal Register.

• This publication requirement is described in the text of 1955.3.

Approval of a portion of a plan may be withdrawn when that portion is reasonably separable from the remainder of the plan consistent with the scope rules in 1902.2(c).

• For example, partial withdrawal would be appropriate where a State fails to adopt Federal standards within a separable issue such as occupational health, as noted in 1955.3(c).

Yes — the regulation gives occupational health as an example: if a State fails to adopt Federal occupational health standards without good cause and that issue is separable from the rest of the plan, OSHA may withdraw approval for just that portion.

• See the example and the separability rule in 1955.3(c) and the scope guidance in 1902.2(c).