Two OSHA state programs can look identical on paper — both "at least as effective as" federal, both citing the same hazards — and enforce in almost opposite styles. In FY2025, Michigan issued 4,005 construction citations at an average of $444 each. Nevada issued 319 at an average of $4,478 — more than ten times as much per citation. The 22 full State-Plan programs — 21 states plus Puerto Rico — don't just set different penalty caps (we mapped those separately); they run on different enforcement philosophies entirely. This analysis uses each state agency's own FY2025 construction data to separate enforcement volume from enforcement value — and to show why the raw "who cites the most" headline is the least useful number in the dataset.
The spread, FY2025: Most citations = Washington (5,445). Highest penalty per citation = Nevada ($4,478). Lowest = Michigan ($444) — a 10.1× range. Volume and value are almost unrelated.
In FY2025, Michigan issued 4,005 construction citations averaging $444 each, while Nevada issued 319 averaging $4,478, according to each state's figures in OSHA's Frequently Cited Standards tool.
Volume: who writes the most citations
The first instinct is to rank states by citation count. Here is that ranking — and here is why it's misleading.
Construction citations by State-Plan state — FY2025
Each state agency's own construction citations (NAICS 23). Bars scaled to Washington (5,445).
Source: OSHA Frequently Cited Standards, per state, NAICS 23 (FY2025). Raw counts largely reflect the size of each state's construction market — not enforcement intensity.
Washington, Maryland, Michigan, and California lead — but so does the size of their construction sectors. A big state with a lot of building will generate a lot of citations no matter how its agency behaves. Raw counts measure market size as much as enforcement posture. To see the posture, you have to normalize.
Value: the penalty per citation tells the real story
Divide each state's total penalties by its citation count, and you get a size-independent measure of how hard each citation hits. This is where the state plans split into genuinely different philosophies.
Average penalty per construction citation (current amounts) — FY2025
Total construction penalties ÷ citations. Bars scaled to Nevada ($4,478). Eleven of the 22 State-Plan programs shown.
Source: OSHA FY2025, computed as total penalties ÷ citations. Nevada hits ten times harder per citation than Michigan.
The ranking almost inverts. Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona hit hardest per citation, with Oregon close behind; Michigan, Maryland, and Tennessee hit softest — and the high-volume leaders from the first chart (Michigan, Maryland) are at the bottom of this one. Enforcement volume and enforcement value are nearly independent axes.
Two philosophies, and the fingerprint of a statute
Put the two dimensions together and the state plans sort into recognizable styles:
Enforcement styles — volume vs. value
Michigan's $444-per-citation average is the fingerprint of its statute: MCL 408.1035 caps a serious violation at $7,000, less than half the federal $16,550. A low cap plus high volume produces the lowest average in the country by arithmetic, not by leniency.
The most analytically satisfying result in the dataset is that Michigan's rock-bottom $444 average is a direct fingerprint of its penalty cap. Michigan's statute (MCL 408.1035) limits a serious violation to $7,000 — and MIOSHA writes a lot of citations. Low ceiling × high volume = the lowest average per citation in the nation, purely by arithmetic. The number in this chart and the cap in the penalty-cap analysis are the same fact seen from two angles. Enforcement data, read carefully, confirms the statute.
The federal rules expect that gap to close. OSHA's penalties page states that State Plans "are required to adopt maximum penalty levels that are at least as effective as Federal OSHA's," and the plan-change rules set the mechanism: when a significant federal change would affect a State's "at least as effective" status, the State must adopt a matching change, generally within six months of OSHA's notice (29 CFR 1953.4(b)(1), (b)(3)).
What "at least as effective" asks of a state's enforcement
Every State Plan is measured against the same enforcement indices, whatever its style:
| Index | Rule |
|---|---|
| Inspections of covered workplaces, including in response to complaints | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(i) |
| Employees can raise possible violations before, during, and after inspections | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(ii) |
| Employees told when the State decides not to act on violations they alleged | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(iii) |
| Employees informed of their protections and obligations, such as by posted notices | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(iv) |
| Protection against discharge or discrimination for filing a complaint or testifying | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(v) |
| Employee access to information on exposure to toxic materials or harmful physical agents | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(vi) |
| Prompt restraint of conditions that could cause death or serious harm immediately | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(vii) |
| Safeguards for trade secrets | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(viii) |
| Legal authority to enforce, including compulsory process | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(ix) |
| Prompt notice of violations, such as a written citation | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(x) |
| Effective sanctions, such as those in the Act and in 29 CFR 1903.15(d) | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(xi) |
| An employer's right to review alleged violations, abatement periods, and proposed penalties | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(xii) |
| Programs that encourage voluntary compliance, such as training and consultation | 29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(xiii) |
OSHA then checks the plan in operation, including whether the State "proposes penalties in a manner at least as effective as under the Federal program" (29 CFR 1902.37(b)(12)).
Why this matters to a multi-state contractor
- The same violation costs different amounts in different states — twice over. The statutory cap differs (Michigan $7,000 vs. California $25,000, with federal OSHA at $16,550 under 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(3)), and the agency's practice differs (Nevada's citations average $4,478; Michigan's $444). A citation is not a citation.
- A low average is not a low risk. Michigan's soft per-citation dollar figure says nothing about the injury behind the citation — the workers'-comp cost and EMR damage are identical everywhere. See the true ROI of safety.
- Thorough states cite everything. Maryland's ~6.7 citations per inspection means a single visit surfaces many findings — a good reason to run a mock inspection before the real one, especially in high-throughput states.
- Read the metric that's normalized. When comparing states, penalty-per-citation and citations-per-inspection tell you about enforcement posture; raw totals mostly tell you about market size. Look up any jurisdiction in OSHA penalties by state.
Learn each state's enforcement style before you bid there
The State-Plan system is often described as if it were one alternative to federal OSHA. The enforcement data says it is many. Washington cites the most; Nevada charges the most per citation; Michigan does both extremes at once — high volume, low dollars, because its $7,000 cap makes any other outcome impossible. For a contractor working across state lines, the practical lesson is that "State Plan" tells you almost nothing about your exposure. The cap, the per-citation practice, and the citations-per-inspection thoroughness are three different numbers, and they vary enormously. Know all three for the states you build in.
Price your risk — then close the gaps that drive it
OSHA penalties are assessed per violation and stack fast. HazComFast helps you find and close the gaps that turn into citations — score your program, audit against 2026 rules, and put a number on the risk.
Related: OSHA Penalty Caps by State · FY2025 Construction Enforcement Data · How OSHA Prices a Violation · OSHA Penalties by State (interactive)
Sources & verification (State-Plan counts extracted August 8, 2026, the same extraction as the state pages; re-checked September 26, 2026): Each full State-Plan state's own construction enforcement (citations, inspections, penalties at current amounts) from OSHA's Frequently Cited Standards tool, NAICS 23, FY2025 (Oct 1, 2024 – Sep 30, 2025). Selected figures: Washington 5,445 citations / $9,323,646; Maryland 4,132 / $3,575,996 (621 inspections → ~6.7 citations/inspection); Michigan 4,005 / $1,779,590 ($444/citation); California 3,546 / $10,295,152; Oregon 1,752 / $6,261,465; Nevada 319 / $1,428,357 ($4,478/citation); New Mexico 97 / $402,840; Arizona 183 / $733,884. OSHA's cited-standards database is live: cases settle and close, so a later extraction can differ slightly. Penalty-per-citation is total penalties ÷ citations. Michigan's cap per MCL 408.1035 ($7,000 serious). Raw citation counts are not normalized for construction employment and largely reflect market size. Not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which State-Plan OSHA program issues the most construction citations?
Washington. In FY2025, Washington's L&I / DOSH program issued 5,445 construction citations — the most of any State Plan — followed by Maryland (4,132) and Michigan (4,005). But raw citation counts largely track the size of a state's construction market, so they measure activity, not intensity. A more revealing metric is the average penalty per citation, which is independent of state size. Every State Plan must provide for inspections of covered workplaces, including in response to complaints (29 CFR 1902.4(c)(2)(i)).
Which state has the highest average OSHA penalty per construction citation?
Nevada. In FY2025, Nevada averaged about $4,478 in penalties per construction citation (current amounts) — the highest of the 21 full State-Plan states — despite issuing only 319 citations. At the other extreme, Michigan averaged just $444 per citation across 4,005 citations. That is a more than tenfold difference in how hard each citation hits, reflecting different enforcement philosophies and, crucially, different statutory penalty caps. For comparison, federal OSHA's ceiling is $16,550 per serious violation (29 CFR 1903.15(d)(3)).
Why does Michigan's average penalty per citation look so low?
Because Michigan's statute (MCL 408.1035) caps a serious violation at $7,000 — less than half the federal $16,550 (29 CFR 1903.15(d)(3)) — and Michigan writes a high volume of citations. When you can't propose more than $7,000 per serious violation and you cite frequently, the average dollar figure per citation is mathematically low. The low average is a direct fingerprint of the state's penalty cap, not a sign of lenient inspection.
Are high-volume or high-value states 'stricter'?
Neither is uniformly stricter — they enforce differently. High-volume, low-dollar programs (Michigan, Maryland) document many deficiencies per inspection but at modest penalties; low-volume, high-dollar programs (Nevada, Oregon) issue fewer citations but carry larger penalties on each. 'At least as effective as' federal OSHA does not prescribe one enforcement style, though OSHA's plan-approval rules do apply it to penalties (29 CFR 1902.37(b)(12)), and the data shows very different approaches.
Where does this state enforcement data come from?
From OSHA's Frequently Cited Standards tool, which reports each full State-Plan state's own construction enforcement (citations, inspections, and penalties at current amounts) for NAICS 23, FY2025 (October 1, 2024 – September 30, 2025). The 22 full State-Plan programs (21 states plus Puerto Rico) run their own programs; this analysis covers the 21 states that report FY2025 construction data, and the figures are each state agency's own numbers, not federal OSHA's. OSHA evaluates each plan in operation against factors that include how it issues citations and proposes penalties (29 CFR 1902.37(b)(11)-(12)).
OSHA figures and citations here come from our regulatory source-of-truth modules, last checked against the eCFR, OSHA.gov, and the Federal Register on October 5, 2026. Last reviewed October 6, 2026.
About This Article
Published by: HazComFast
Published: July 8, 2026
Last Updated: October 6, 2026
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.