Hello. Here is more info. Do you want a breakdown of how federal OSHA validates a State OSHA program? It is quite a lengthy process...
If this is acceptable, let me know when to close this post from view.
Jurisdiction for OSHA state programs has been established for nearly 25 U.S. states. The primary reason for a state program is to make sure intrastate health and safety violations are addressed based on the local circumstances surrounding injury and death. In order for the federal OSHA to accept the state OSHA programs, they must have comparable processes though different for appealing cases, enforcing rulings, and levying penalties for noncompliance. The interaction between the two governing bodies result in the state programs having legal precedence over the federal standards (OSHA.gov, 2010).
The federal arm of OSHA acknowledges and oversees the State OSHA Programs. The federal organization also provides nearly 50 percent of the operating expenses for each state.
Example of both State and Federal OSHA Regulations conflict within a Case Ruling
Armando Gonzalez and Mirna Padilla Gonzalez v. Komatsu --Ideal Tile Importing Co. Inc.
This case is of serious injury caused by a forklift being driven by another worker. The defendant in the case is Komatsu was charged with failure to install proper warning devices on the equipment. Komatsu countered with a summary judgment charging the state tort claim that work injury claims are preempted when the product has a possible defect and was designed under federal standards (Lexisone-Supreme Court of N.J., 2004). In this case the motion of preemption was given.
An appeal was made by the plaintiff remarking OSHA's federal requirements was for employers and not manufacturers nullifying the preemptive clause. The tort claim by Gonzalez was under condition of the federal law therefore the state requirement would preempt any federal laws. This is due to the conflict caused as a result of "the state regulation urged by plaintiff would stand "as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of" the federal OSHA ruling design requirement (Lexisone, 2004).
Preemption is described as express or implied. U.S. Supreme Court defines field preemption as a federal law that is well established so that the State cannot add anything to it. Conflict preemption is defined where both state and federal regulations cannot both be satisfied or in the case where the state law presents an "obstacle that hinders the purpose by Congress (Lexisone, 2004).
OSHA therefore states that "any State which, at any time, desires to assume responsibility for development and enforcement therein of occupational safety and health standards relating to any occupational safety or health issue with respect to which a Federal standard has been promulgated . . . shall submit a State plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement" ( 29 USCA 667b).
The claim of preemption was ruled inappropriate since OSHA's forklift regulations offer the forklift "driver" with training in the use of safety devices at their own discretion. Expecting the driver or implicating the manufacturer to use their discretion in reasonable execution is not considered a "direct, clear and substantial interference with the regulations".
The Appellate's claims were refuted and the ruling was in favor of the plaintiff reversing the preemption ruling (Lexisone, 2004).
Lexisone.com. (2004). U.S. Supreme Court of N.J. Gonzalez v. Komatsu. Retrieved July 7, 2010 from
Edited by Toneemarie on 7/7/2010 at 4:34 AM EST