Indices of effectiveness criteria

A State plan must either adopt the same standards and rules as OSHA or create alternative rules that are shown to be at least as effective against the indices listed in 1956.11(b) and (c). See 1956.11(a).

• If the State adopts Federal standards, it meets the requirement by mirroring OSHA's standards.
• If the State creates alternatives, it must demonstrate with factual or other appropriate information that those alternatives meet each effectiveness index in 1956.11(b) and 1956.11(c).

State standards for toxic materials should be designed to prevent material impairment of health or function over an employee's working life, using the best available evidence from research, experiments, and experience. See 1956.11(b)(2)(i).

• Use research, demonstrations, experiments, and practical experience when developing limits and controls.
• Aim to protect even workers with regular, lifelong exposure to the hazard.

A State must have a method to keep its standards at least as effective as Federal standards, including those adopted after plan approval. See 1956.11(b)(2)(ii).

• This can include procedures to review and update State standards when Federal standards change or when new evidence emerges.
• The State should document how it monitors Federal rulemaking and scientific developments.

A State must provide procedures that consider factual information and give employees, employers, and the public an opportunity to participate in standard development, modification, or revocation. See 1956.11(b)(2)(iii).

• Methods can include public notices, opportunities to submit information, hearings, and consideration of expert technical knowledge.
• Adopting Federal standards may satisfy this index by relying on the Federal public participation process.

A State plan must allow public employers to apply for variances from State standards and provide procedures to consider views of affected parties, including notice to employees and opportunities for hearings. See 1956.11(b)(2)(iv).

• The process should be similar to variance procedures under the Act and allow employees to request and participate in hearings.
• Notice to affected employees is required so they can engage in the process.

A State plan must provide for prompt and effective action to protect employees from new or unforeseen hazards, including authority to issue emergency temporary standards when appropriate. See 1956.11(b)(2)(v).

• This authority is particularly important when public employees face unique hazards not covered by existing standards.
• Emergency procedures should allow rapid protection without waiting for longer rulemaking processes.

State standards must require employers to provide employees information about workplace hazards, precautions, symptoms, and emergency treatment, for example through labeling, posting, and (when appropriate) medical exam results shared per request. See 1956.11(b)(2)(vi).

• Information may be posted, labeled, or provided in other suitable forms.
• Medical examination results should be furnished to appropriate State officials and, if the employee requests, to the employee's physician.

State standards must include provisions for protecting employees from exposure, such as requirements for suitable protective equipment and for control or technological measures, including monitoring or measuring exposures. See 1956.11(b)(2)(vii).

• This can include specifying required PPE, engineering controls, and routine monitoring procedures.
• Monitoring results should guide corrective actions and protections.

A State plan must provide for inspections of covered workplaces by the designated agency or delegated agencies, including inspections responding to complaints when there are reasonable grounds to believe a hazard exists. See 1956.11(c)(2)(i).

• Inspections should aim to assure safe and healthful conditions similar to those provided under section 8 of the Act.
• Complaint-driven inspections are included when there are reasonable grounds to suspect a hazard.

Yes — employees and their authorized representatives must be given an opportunity to accompany the inspector during the physical inspection or, if no representative exists, the inspector should consult a reasonable number of employees. See 1956.11(c)(2)(ii).

• This helps employees bring potential violations to the inspector's attention.
• Employers may also have a representative accompany the inspector.

The State must notify the employee or their representative in writing of the decision not to take compliance action, provide reasons for that decision, and offer procedures for informal review, plus a written statement of the review's disposition. See 1956.11(c)(2)(iii).

• This notification gives employees transparency and a chance to seek further review.
• The process should allow employees to understand why no action was taken.

A State must inform public employees of their protections and obligations, including applicable standards, by posting notices or providing other appropriate sources of information. See 1956.11(c)(2)(iv).

• Typical methods include workplace postings and distribution of informational materials.
• The goal is to make employees aware of what protections and duties apply to them.

A State must provide protections against discharge or discrimination for employees who file complaints, testify, or otherwise exercise rights under the State program, including appropriate sanctions and the option to withhold complainant names from the employer. See 1956.11(c)(2)(v).

• Protections should cover changes to terms and conditions of employment tied to exercising rights.
• The State should have remedies and sanctions available for retaliatory actions.

Public employees must have access to information on their exposure to toxic materials or harmful physical agents and must receive prompt notification if exposures exceed applicable standards, along with information about corrective actions. See 1956.11(c)(2)(vi).

• Access can include observing monitoring, obtaining records of monitoring, and prompt employer notification of overexposure.
• Employers should tell affected employees what corrective steps are being taken.

A State must have procedures to promptly restrain or eliminate conditions that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before normal enforcement can take effect, including informing employees and seeking immediate abatement. See 1956.11(c)(2)(vii).

• This can include steps to obtain immediate employer abatement and authority to initiate legal proceedings if needed.
• Employees should be informed about such hazards and any immediate actions taken.

The State enforcement agency must have the necessary legal authority to enforce standards, including provisions for compulsory process to obtain evidence or testimony during inspections and enforcement proceedings. See 1956.11(c)(2)(viii).

• Compulsory process can include subpoenas or other legal tools to gather needed information.
• This legal authority supports effective inspections and enforcement actions.

A State must promptly notify public employers and employees when an alleged violation has occurred, including proposed abatement requirements, typically by issuing a written citation and posting it near the violation; the State should also advise the employer of any proposed sanctions. See 1956.11(c)(2)(ix).

• Citations should be written and posted at or near the site of the violation.
• Employers should receive timely notice (e.g., certified mail) of proposed sanctions when appropriate.

A State must provide effective sanctions against public employers who violate State standards or orders, comparable to sanctions authorized under the Act. See 1956.11(c)(2)(x).

• Sanctions should be meaningful enough to ensure compliance with safety and health requirements.
• The State should document what penalties or remedies are available and how they are enforced.

Employers must have the right to review alleged violations, abatement periods, and proposed penalties, and employees or their representatives must have an opportunity to participate in review proceedings, including administrative review with a full hearing when appropriate. See 1956.11(c)(2)(xi).

• Employees can challenge the reasonableness of abatement periods and participate in hearings.
• The State should provide clear procedures for administrative review and full hearings.

A State should undertake programs to encourage voluntary compliance, such as providing training, consultation, and promoting agency self-inspection programs. See 1956.11(c)(2)(xii).

• Typical activities include educational outreach, on-site consultation, and helping agencies set up self-inspection routines.
• These programs supplement enforcement by promoting proactive safety management.

Elements of an alternate enforcement system may be evaluated by considering enforcement, education, agency self-inspection procedures, in-house training, and employee complaint procedures to determine overall effectiveness. See 1956.11(d).

• The evaluation should show that the alternate system compels compliance at least as effectively as standard enforcement.
• Documented results from self-inspections and training can be part of the evaluation.

The Assistant Secretary determines whether a State plan for public employees satisfies the indices for standards provided in paragraph (b)(2). See 1956.11(b)(1).

• The State must present factual or other appropriate information to support that its plan is at least as effective as the Federal program.
• The review focuses on the specific indices listed in 1956.11(b)(2).