Prepared by the Office of 

Federal Agency Programs

Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration
Page 1 

President’s Report 

Abstract........................................................................................................................................ 3

Preface .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Format.......................................................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 7

Statistics and Trends................................................................................................................. 7

Injury and Illness Statistics................................................................................................. 7

OSHA Activities....................................................................................................................... 8

Agency Activities.................................................................................................................... 10

Occupational Safety and Health Committees................................................................... 10

Self-Evaluations................................................................................................................ 10

Controlling Trends............................................................................................................ 11

Annual Information Request................................................................................................... 12

Presidential and Other Government-wide Initiatives........................................................ 12

29 CFR §1960 Requirements............................................................................................ 14

Accomplishments.................................................................................................................... 16

CY 2015 Goals........................................................................................................................ 17

Agencies Failing to Submit Annual Reports .......................................................................... 17

Section 1 - OSHA Activities...................................................................................................... 19

Enforcement............................................................................................................................ 19

Inspections ........................................................................................................................ 19

OSHA Inspection Activity................................................................................................ 20

Significant/Novel Cases.................................................................................................... 22

Oversight................................................................................................................................. 23

Presidential Initiative - POWER....................................................................................... 23

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health ........................................ 30

Evaluations........................................................................................................................ 30

Recordkeeping .................................................................................................................. 41

Compliance Assistance ........................................................................................................... 42

Agency Technical Assistance Request ............................................................................. 42

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils ........................................................................ 42

Alternate and Supplementary Standards........................................................................... 44

OSHA Training................................................................................................................. 44

Occupational Safety and Health Training......................................................................... 45

Federal Agency OSH Managers’ Roundtable................................................................... 45

Section 2 – Federal Agency OSH Activities ............................................................................ 47

Fatalities and Catastrophes .................................................................................................... 47

Summary of Agency Fatality/ Catastrophic Reports........................................................ 47

Certified Safety and Health Committees ................................................................................ 50

Status of Agency CSHCs.................................................................................................. 51

Other OSH Committees and Councils.................................................................................... 51

Motor Vehicle Safety.............................................................................................................. 52

Analyzing and Controlling Trends.......................................................................................... 56
Page 2 

President’s Report 

Safety and Health Management System Response to the Inspection Process........................ 57

Federal Employees Overseas.................................................................................................. 58

OSH Training and Resources.................................................................................................. 60

Whistleblower Protection Programs....................................................................................... 61

Product Safety Programs......................................................................................................... 61

Specific Agency Reporting Requirements.............................................................................. 62

General Services Administration ...................................................................................... 63

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ..................................................... 63

Appendix 1: Status of Agency Injury and Illness Reporting............................................... 65

Fully Compliant Agencies ................................................................................................ 65

Partially Compliant Agencies........................................................................................... 67

Delinquent Agencies......................................................................................................... 68

Non-Compliant Agencies.................................................................................................. 70

Appendix 2: Field Federal Safety & Health Councils........................................................... 71

Active FFSHCs in CY 2014 – Received Annual Reports by OSHA Region................... 71

FFSHCS with Appointed Representatives in CY 2014 

 by Federal Department/Agency ..................................................................................... 72

FFSHCS with Non-Appointed Members in CY 2014 

 by Federal Department/Agency ..................................................................................... 76

Departments/Agencies that Appointed New Representatives 

 to FFSHCs in CY 2014.................................................................................................. 80

Appendix 3: Agency Requests to NIOSH for Technical Assistance .................................... 82

Technical Assistance Requests, and Completed Investigations by Type, 

 CY 2012 through CY 2014............................................................................................ 82

2014 Assistance Requests by Department/Agency and Exposure 

 Group/Health Problem................................................................................................... 83

Appendix 4: Agency OSH Responsibilities............................................................................ 84

Program................................................................................................................................... 84

Standards................................................................................................................................. 86

Workplace ............................................................................................................................... 87

Records ................................................................................................................................... 87

Inspections and Investigations................................................................................................ 88

References............................................................................................................................... 89

Appendix 5: OSH-related Resources and Information......................................................... 90

Appendix 6: Acronyms ............................................................................................................ 92
Page 3 

President’s Report 

The Secretary Of Labor’s Report to the President on Federal Department and Agency 

Occupational Safety and Health Program Activity summarizes the data received by the 

Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from Executive 

Branch agencies for the calendar year (CY) 2014 reporting period. In their reports, agencies 

identified their significant achievements and challenges faced in providing safe and healthy 

working environments for federal employees. An analysis of the data assessed the functioning of 

agencies’ safety and health management systems (SHMSs). It indicates significant 

improvements in federal agency SHMSs, as well as identifies areas needing attention. 

Overall, in CY 2014, federal agencies continued to strive for excellence in the management and 

functioning of their SHMSs. Outcome evidence of these efforts include, 1) the steady decline in 

workers’ compensation costs over the previous two chargeback years; 2) a decrease in the 

Government’s total illness and injury cases and its total case rate; 3) an approximately 32 percent 

decrease in work-related civilian employee fatalities reported from the previous reporting period;

4) a steady in-compliance rate and average number of violations identified during OSHA 

inspections; 5) a 10 percent decrease in the number of significant cases involving federal 

agencies; 6) an increase in the number of agencies that provided an assessment of their SHMSs, 

and a concomitant increase in the percentage of federal agencies identifying their SHMS as 

‘model’, 7) the partial success of Presidential Initiative Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring 

Reemployment; 8) a 98 percent participation rate for federal agencies in the CY 2014 Federal 

Recordkeeping Collection process; 9) OSHA’s approval of two new alternate standards; and 10) 

consistent participation in the Federal Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, 

the Federal Agency Safety and Health Roundtable, and other training venues offered through the 

OSHA Training Institute.

The Department of Labor will continue to work with Executive Branch agencies as they pursue 

efficiency and effectiveness in their SHMSs. Several of those areas that need continued 

agencies’ attention include:

 Annual Occupational Safety and Health Reporting – as evidenced by federal agencies’

failure to provide annual reports promptly containing quality data; 

 Certified Safety and Health Committees – as evidenced by only half of the six federal 

agencies having committees submitting information that their respective committees met 

the requirements of the standard, and several agencies’ without committees nearing 

completion of certification requirements;

 Field Federal Safety and Health Councils – as evidenced by a steady decline in federal 

agency participation in and support of the Councils;

 Motor Vehicle Safety Programs (MVSPs) – as evidenced by the increased number of 

motor vehicle accidents reported, and the continued reporting by federal agencies that 

MVSPs are not needed or applicable to their situations;

 Product Safety – as evidenced by agencies’ near complete reliance on the General 

Services Administration to oversee agency programs; 
Page 4 

President’s Report 

 Recordkeeping Data Collection – as evidenced by only 62 agencies reporting partial data, 

and only 43 reaching 80 percent completion; 

 SHMS Self-assessment – as evidenced by federal agencies identifying multiple elements 

of the system’s components as ‘not applicable’ or ‘not reported’ to their situations, and 

inconsistencies between the overall rating, and among the ratings of component 

attributes; and the

 Timely Filing of Injury and Illness Claims, and Return-to-Work – as evidenced by the 

Federal Government’s failure to sustain improvement and achieving POWER targets.
Page 5 

President’s Report 

This Report fulfills the Secretary of Labor’s (the Secretary’s) annual responsibility, as set forth 

in Section 19(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), to inform the 

President about the status of federal agencies’ occupational safety and health (OSH) programs, 

and the accidents and injuries that occurred at federal worksites. The Report provides an 

analysis of agencies’ reports submitted to the Secretary. It also describes the activities that 

OSHA conducted at or with federal agencies during CY 2014. 

Agency heads must establish and provide guidance on their OSH programs, as well as report on 

the status of these programs, as mandated by:

 Section 19(a) of the Act [29 United States Code (U.S.C.) 668(a)], which directs, “the head of 

each Federal agency to establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational 

safety and health program which is consistent with the occupational safety and health 

standards promulgated under Section 6” of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655).

 Section 19(a)(5) of the Act [29 U.S.C. 668(a)(5)], which requires federal agency heads to, 

“make an annual report to the Secretary with respect to occupational accidents and injuries 

and the agency’s program under this section” for providing safe and healthful places and 

conditions of employment.

 Presidential Executive Order (E.O.) 12196, Occupational Safety and Health Programs for 

Federal Employees, signed by President Carter on February 26, 1980, which guides the heads 

of federal Executive Branch agencies in implementing Section 19 of the Act, and directs the 

Secretary to issue a set of basic program elements to assist the various federal agencies in 

carrying out their responsibilities.

 Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1960, Basic Program Elements for Federal 

Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs and Related Matters, which establishes 

the requirements for agency heads to implement OSH programs in their respective agencies.

The Act, E.O. 12196, and 29 CFR §1960 require the heads of federal agencies to submit annual 

reports on their OSH programs to the Secretary. According to amended 29 CFR §1960.71(a)(1), 

the annual report is due to OSHA, annually, no later than May 1.1

 

1 Historically, 29 CFR §1960.71(a)(1) required federal agencies to submit the annual report to OSHA by the first of January. As of August 5, 

2013, OSHA amended the regulation requiring agencies to submit their reports no later than May 1. The 78 Federal Register 47180 (8/5/2013), 

amending 29 CFR §1960 is available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-05/pdf/2013-18457.pdf. 
Page 6 

President’s Report 

This SECRETARY OF LABOR’S REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON FEDERAL DEPARTMENT AND 

AGENCY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM ACTIVITY – CALENDAR YEAR 2014

(Report), includes an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, the two main sections of the Report proper, and six

APPENDICES. 

The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY summarizes some of the significant achievements and challenges 

Executive Branch agencies faced in providing safe and healthy working environments for federal 

employees. The Report includes two main sections: OSHA ACTIVITIES, and FEDERAL AGENCY 

OSH ACTIVITIES. These sections describe support activities OSHA provided to federal agencies,

and provides OSHA’s summative analysis of specific categories of information federal agencies 

reported to OSHA. 

The first section of the Report, OSHA ACTIVITIES, provides information on OSHA activities 

under the categories of enforcement, oversight, and compliance assistance, including a summary 

of the Presidential Initiative, Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) 

Initiative. 

Section 2 of the Report, FEDERAL AGENCY OSH ACTIVITIES, summarizes agency occupational 

safety and health activities, and contains descriptions on the various types of OSH committees, 

agency self-evaluations; and efforts agencies made to discover and control injury and illness 

trends.

The APPENDICES section provides information on federal agencies’ response to the electronic 

records collection initiative, agency participation in field federal safety and health councils

(FFSHCs), analyses of agencies’ requests for technical assistance, an outline of Agency OSH 

Responsibilities, a listing of OSH-related Resources and Information, and a list of Acronyms

used in the Report. 

The Recordkeeping appendix details the status of federal agency injury and illness reporting that 

were reported by agencies separately from the occupational safety and health reporting request to 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration . The 2014 FFSHC appendix contains data 

regarding Councils’ annual reports; FFSHCs with federal agency appointed, non-appointed, and 

newly appointed members; and 2014 Council award winners. 

The Agency OSH Responsibilities appendix provides information on federal agency 

responsibilities with respect to OSH programs as delineated by the Act, E.O. 12196, and Title 29 

CFR §1960. This appendix is divided into five subsections: Program, Standards, Workplace, 

Records, and Inspections and Investigations. Each subsection lists agencies’ responsibilities;

and discusses each responsibility, along with providing hyperlinks to the specified reference(s). 
Page 7 

President’s Report 

During the 2014 reporting period, both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) and federal agencies continued their efforts to protect the health and safety of federal 

employees and support agencies’ respective safety and health management systems (SHMSs). 

This report provides calendar year (CY) 2014 injury and illness data for this sector, and is a 

compilation of the required annual reports that OSHA received from federal Executive Branch 

agencies. In addition, this Report summarizes the efforts OSHA and agencies made to improve 

OSH programs for federal workers. The reader should refer to the various sections of the Report 

for specific details regarding the subject matter contained in this EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 

As in prior years, this Report assesses trends and progress the departments and agencies, and the 

Government as a whole, less the U.S. Postal Service2(USPS) and non-Executive Branch 

agencies, made in improving workplace safety and health. This Report also provides 

information about the types of support OSHA has provided to federal agencies, including 

enforcement, oversight, and compliance assistance activities, with an emphasis on the Agency’s

efforts to assist federal agencies in complying with recent recordkeeping rule changes. In 

addition, it describes the actions federal agencies took during the reporting period to analyze 

trends and improve their SHMSs. The Report continues with an analysis of federal agencies’ 

self-evaluations of their respective SHMSs using an extant private sector consultative tool. 

(Please refer to SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, for a complete description of the EVALUATIONS.)

Statistics and Trends 

Injury and Illness Statistics 

OSHA uses injury and illness claims data reported to the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), together with the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (OPM’s) employment data, to calculate injury and illness incidence rates for 

individual agencies. 

In FY 2014, the Government’s employment rolls decreased by 43,674 employees to 2,155,519

(2.0 percent) employees. Its total injury and illness cases decreased by 3,101 to 52,104, and its 

total case rate (TCR) decreased from 2.51 to 2.42 (3.6 percent). The Government’s lost-time 

cases decreased by 584 to 25,852; and its lost-time case rate (LTCR) remained unchanged at 

1.20.

Workers’ Compensation Costs 

For chargeback year (CBY) 2014, the Federal Government’s workers’ compensation costs (less 

the USPS and non-Executive Branch agencies) were approximately $1.4 billion. This figure 

illustrates the steady decline in costs that has occurred over the past two CBYs. In CBY 2013, 

 

2 On September 28, 1998, Congress amended the Act to make it applicable to the USPS. Therefore, the USPS is not included in this Report.
Page 8 

President’s Report 

costs were approximately $1.6 billion; and in CBY 2012, costs were approximately $1.7 billion. 

Workers’ compensation benefits provided to employees and their survivors include payments for 

medical treatment, rehabilitation services, replacement of lost wages, and death benefits.

Fatalities and Catastrophic Events 

The Act, and provisions of 29 CFR §1960 and other regulations, require employers, both private 

and public, to investigate, track, and report findings involving work-related fatalities and 

catastrophic events to OSHA in an expeditious manner. Federal agencies reported that 13 workrelated civilian employee fatalities occurred during CY 2014. The Departments of Agriculture 

(USDA), Homeland Security, and the Interior, reported two work-related fatalities each. The 

Department of Defense (DoD) reported seven work-related fatalities.

OSHA Activities 

During the reporting period, OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs - Office of Federal 

Agency Programs engaged in a wide range of activities to assist federal agencies in improving 

their SHMSs, and continued to ensure that agencies could easily access OSH-related 

information. In general, the Office’s activities fell into three categories: enforcement, oversight, 

and compliance assistance. Enforcement activities primarily focused on inspections of federal 

workplaces to identify violations of OSHA standards. Oversight activities ranged from 

monitoring injury and illness rates, to providing leadership in identifying issues specific to 

federal agencies. Compliance assistance included consultation activities that assisted federal 

agencies in understanding both the importance of providing safe and healthy working 

environments, and possible methods for accomplishing this goal. (Please refer to SECTION 1 –

OSHA ACTIVITIES, for a complete explanation of these activities.)

Enforcement 

During CY 2014, OSHA conducted 496 programmed inspections, and 332 un-programmed 

inspections of federal worksites, with an average of 3.59 violations per programmed inspection, 

and 3.44 violations per un-programmed inspection. In addition, OSHA inspected federal 

agencies under a variety of national and local emphasis programs that targeted specific hazards,

such as lead, fall prevention, powered industrial vehicles, energized equipment, and specific 

injuries (such as amputations), or industries (such as manufacturing and maritime). During CY 

2014, under the Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program (FEDTARG), OSHA continued 

to specifically target for inspection those federal agencies with the highest numbers of lost-time 

cases. An analysis of FEDTARG data identified a decrease in programmed inspection activity 

with a flat in-compliance rate, and an increase in the issuance of Notices of Unsafe or 

Unhealthful Working Conditions (Notices) for serious violations of OSHA standards.

In CY 2014, OSHA issued a total of nine federal agency significant case reports involving the 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, Justice, and Veterans 

Affairs. (Please refer to SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, Table 1, for specific information 

on the agency inspected, the reason for the inspection, the emphasis program, and the number 

and severity of the violations.)
Page 9 

President’s Report 

Oversight 

The Presidential Initiative, Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment, established in 

2010 is a fiscal year program that was created to challenge federal Executive Branch agencies to 

improve their safety, health, and injury case management programs. Agencies strived to meet 

their goals. POWER originally had seven goals; an eighth goal was introduced in 2012. Overall,

fiscal year (FY) 2014, the final year of the POWER Initiative, saw partial success. The 

Government as a whole (less the USPS and non-Executive Branch agencies) met three out of the 

six measurable goals. One Executive Branch agency, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, met all of its measurable goals. 

In FY 2014, federal employees (excluding those employed by the USPS and non-Executive 

Branch agencies) filed more than 63,800 injury notices. While the number of reported injuries 

has continued to decline in the Federal Government over the past several years, compensation for 

lost wages and medical benefits still represents a significant cost to the American taxpayer. In 

CBY 2014 alone, total costs were approximately $1.4 billion (less the USPS and non-Executive 

Branch agencies).

Compliance Assistance 

OSHA provides assistance to federal agencies using a variety of strategies, including responding 

to agency technical assistance requests; optimizing the use of the field federal safety and health 

councils, and other safety and health committee formats; supporting the development of federal 

agency alternate and supplementary standards; and providing federal agencies with OSH training 

opportunities.

An agency technical assistance request (ATAR) is a consultative service open only to federal 

agencies; it is analogous to OSHA’s Consultation Program for private sector employers. In CY 

2014, OSHA conducted an ATAR at the request of the U.S. Secret Service, and began planning 

the process with the National Archives and Records Administration.

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils are federal interagency groups, chartered by the 

Secretary, that encourage local OSH professionals to cooperate for education and problem 

solving. In CY 2014, 34 councils actively carried out efforts to improve the effectiveness of 

OSH functions within the Government. The OSHA Assistant Secretary recognized 10 of these 

councils for Superior Performance, Meritorious Achievement, and Notable Recognition awards.

Under 29 CFR §1960.17, if agencies cannot comply with an applicable OSHA standard, the 

agency may submit a request for an alternate standard. Currently, there are five OSHAapproved alternate standards; two additional alternate standards are pending OSHA review. 

Under §1960.18, if no OSHA standard exists that is appropriate for application to working 

conditions of federal agency employees, an agency must develop a supplementary standard for 

that working condition and provide the standard to OSHA. Currently, there are two 

supplementary standards.

OSHA provides federal agency OSH personnel with training opportunities though the OSHA 

Training Institute and other venues, such as the newly-inaugurated Federal Agency OSH 

Managers’ Roundtable. Federal OSH personnel may attend any of the myriad of professional 
Page 10 

President’s Report 

and technical courses provided through the Institute. In addition to the on-site training courses,

OSHA provides a week of training specifically for federal agency OSH personnel at the Institute, 

commonly referred to as FEDWEEK. During the 2014 FEDWEEK, OSHA provided nine halfday seminars offered twice during the week on topics chosen after surveying federal OSH 

personnel. The 109 federal OSH employee participants, representing 34 federal agencies, had 

the opportunity to attend up to six different sessions on various topics. Attendees who were 

surveyed reported it was a valuable experience.

The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health continued its efforts to 

identify strategies to assist federal agencies to progress in providing safe and healthy workplaces. 

The Council investigated the utility of field federal safety and health councils, continued its 

pursuit of applying optimal occupational exposure limits to the federal work environment, and 

began the development of strategies to best use occupational safety and health professionals 

within Government OSH programs.

Agency Activities 

Occupational Safety and Health Committees 

Federal agencies reported a range of OSH committees and the benefits from these committees. 

While four agencies continued to maintain Certified Safety and Health Committees (CSHCs), 

regulated by 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F, most agencies described internal OSH committees 

developed outside of these regulatory requirements. 

Any Executive Branch agency can form a CSHC under 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F to monitor and 

assist an agency’s OSH program. Agencies with Secretary-approved CSHCs must have 

committees at both the national and field/regional levels. The national level committees provide 

policy guidance, while the local committees monitor and assist in the execution of the agency’s 

OSH policies. When appropriately implemented, an approved-CSHC exempts agencies from 

unannounced OSHA inspections. Currently, six agencies have authorized Secretary-approved 

CSHCs, including: the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Labor (DOL), General 

Services Administration (GSA), Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Per 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F, the Central Intelligence Agency, DOL, and the Tennessee Valley 

Authority submitted information certifying to the Secretary of Labor that their respective CSHCs 

met the requirements of the subpart. The GSA reported that it successfully revitalized its 

national level committee in the CY 2014 reporting period, thereby meeting the requirements of a 

Secretary-approved CSHC. The U.S. International Trade Commission reported that it no longer 

has a CSHC; and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did not report on the status of its 

CSHC for CY 2014. The Department of Energy and the National Archives and Records 

Administration reported progress in establishing a CSHC.

Self-Evaluations 

29 CFR §1960.79 requires that agencies periodically evaluate their OSH programs. These 

evaluations should assess both the extent to which the agency’s program conforms to the 
Page 11 

President’s Report 

requirements of E.O. 12196, and the corresponding regulations, as well as whether the agency 

has implemented the program effectively in all agency establishments and field activities. 

Although a handful of agencies still did not differentiate their workplace inspections from their 

self-evaluations, most agencies reported conducting some type of periodic review of their 

SHMSs and related OSH programs. Many agencies reported evaluating their programs 

themselves, using a variety of pre-packaged and/or agency-developed tools; while others 

requested assistance from outside experts, including assistance from GSA, OSHA, and the Joint 

Commission – an independent, not-for-profit, private sector organization, with the mission to 

continuously improve health care. With few exceptions, those agencies that reported performing 

self-evaluations indicated resultant improvement in the different aspects of their SHMSs, 

including gains in the operational, managerial, and cultural components that encompass an 

effective SHMS. Agencies’ self-assigned ratings of the attributes of their SHMSs reflect these 

system-wide improvements. 

For the third consecutive year, OSHA asked agencies to ‘self-rate’ the Operational, 

Managerial, and Cultural components of their SHMSs. This assessment used a 30-question 

(attribute) prescribed tool, of which five attributes were newly added for the reporting period. 

An analysis of the reported data indicates that the majority of federal agencies are in compliance 

with the requirements of 29 CFR §1960, and have effectively functioning SHMSs. Overall, 

agencies’ ratings of the three SHMS components indicate an increase in the number and 

percentage providing higher ratings, with the managerial and cultural components seeing the 

greatest increase. 

However, subcomponents within each of the three components are amenable to improvement, 

even in those agencies that provided higher ratings of their SHMSs. The operational 

component’s hazard survey, surveillance, use of SDSs, engineering controls, and tracking 

hazard correction attributes; the managerial component’s incidence data attribute; and the 

cultural component’s organizational decision-making on resources, and training attributes may 

require additional emphasis in subsequent years. The analysis also indicated that multiple 

agencies are not fully cognizant of their OSH responsibilities and all the attributes of an effective 

SHMS in assuring employee safety and health and the efficient management of Government 

operations, even in those agencies that report a ‘purely’ administrative mission. (Please refer to

SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, Figures 1 through 4, and the ensuing discussion, for a 

description of the components of a SHMS and an analysis of the self-evaluations as reported by 

agencies.)

Controlling Trends 

As a way to assess how well agencies were tracking their injuries, OSHA asked agencies to 

summarize whether or not they met their POWER goals. FY 2014, the final year of the POWER 

Initiative, was a partial success. Summarily, the Government as a whole (less the USPS) met 

three out of the six measurable goals. One Executive Branch agency, the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, met all of its measurable goals.
Page 12 

President’s Report 

Annual Information Request 

Each year, OSHA asks agencies to provide information on a variety of OSH-related topics and 

programs. While OSHA consistently requests information on such topics as OSH 

accomplishments for the reporting period and goals for the upcoming year, other information 

requests may be based on findings from previous annual reports or developing trends. For the 

current reporting period, OSHA requested an assessment of OSH program activities and events, 

including: Presidential and Federal Government-wide Initiatives; occupational illnesses, injuries, 

fatalities, and catastrophic events; specific 29 CFR §1960 requirements, an agency SHMS selfevaluation, and CY 2015 OSH goals.

Presidential and Other Government-wide Initiatives 

OSHA asked federal agencies to provide information on their motor vehicle safety programs, and 

POWER. (Please refer to SECTION 2 – FEDERAL AGENCY OSH ACTIVITIES, for detailed

information on these items.)

Motor Vehicle Safety 

Collectively, 39 federal agencies reported that approximately 9,798 motor vehicle accidents 

(MVAs) occurred in CY 2014, which represents approximately a 25 and 13.6 percent increase

from the approximate 7,843 and 8,627 as reported in CY 2013 and FY 2012, respectively. Most 

agencies reported having motor vehicle safety programs (MVSPs) that are in compliance with 

the Executive Orders requiring the use of seatbelts in motor vehicles, and the ban on distracted 

driving. Agencies reported that their programs had demonstrable effects on limiting the 

likelihood and effect of MVAs on the mission. Many departments and agencies reported 

requiring defensive driving courses, with the majority using courses through either GSA or the 

National Safety Council. 

Similar to previous years’ information, agencies also reported having programs to encourage 

seatbelt use, such as the placement of decals in vehicles, or reminders on employee websites or 

in break rooms. While several agencies reported tracking seatbelt use after an accident – many 

using information from police reports – few had a system for tracking seatbelt use at other times. 

A number of agencies mentioned having random compliance checks, including one agency that 

reported using in-vehicle camera surveillance. Of those agencies that responded to this item, 

approximately 14 agencies indicated not having a motor vehicle safety program for a variety of 

reasons, including: their size and number of employees assigned, mission - such as not driving in 

an ‘official capacity,’ not owning an agency-dedicated fleet, or that agency employees use mass 

transit for travel needs. Fifteen other agencies indicated that a motor vehicle safety program was 

“not applicable” to their situations, or failed to report the existence of a program. Comparative 

to last year’s reporting, and equally perplexing, was the assertion by a few agencies that, because 

they had zero MVAs, they did not need a motor vehicle safety program. 

Even though most agencies noted striving toward program excellence, several agencies

reportedly have taken the lead, including the U.S. Department of State (State), and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). State’s use of Event Data Recorders, both 

domestically and overseas, to monitor drivers has significantly reduced fatalities and injuries 
Page 13 

President’s Report 

associated with MVAs. In fact, many agencies report using State’s driving program for their 

overseas deployed employees. The EPA’s reported data demonstrated a marked improvement in 

the number of MVAs between FYs 2010 and 2011, which has held relatively stable over the past 

four years. In addition, EPA released a new driving guideline to further reduce driving-related 

hazards.

Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) 

The POWER Initiative is a more challenging government-wide effort that succeeded the six-year 

Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative that ended in FY 2009. The 

POWER Initiative expanded on SHARE by revising its four goals in order to set more 

challenging performance targets, thereby establishing FY 2009 as its baseline. It also introduced 

three performance measures that focus on improving the analysis of lost time injury and illness 

data, increasing the timely submission of wage-loss claims, and enhancing agencies’ efforts to 

return injured employees to work as soon as possible. An eighth goal, a measure of the 

electronic submission of workers' compensation claims, was added in 2012.

The DOL leads the POWER Initiative to help ensure federal employees are provided with safe 

and healthy work environments, as well as the support they need after experiencing a serious 

work-related injury or illness. OSHA tracks the first three goals (two of which are measureable); 

OWCP tracks the remaining five goals (four of which are measureable). 

Each year, tens of thousands of federal employees file claims for workers’ compensation benefits 

due to workplace injuries or illness. In FY 2014, federal employees (excluding those employed 

by the USPS and non-Executive Branch agencies) filed more than 63,800 injury notices. While 

the number of reported injuries has continued to decline in the Federal Government over the past 

several years, compensation for lost wages and medical benefits still represents a significant cost 

to the American taxpayer. In CBY 2014 alone, total costs were approximately $1.4 billion 

(excluding the USPS and non-Executive Branch agencies).

FY 2014, the final year of the POWER Initiative, was a partial success. The Government as a 

whole (less the USPS and non-Executive Branch agencies) met three out of the six measurable 

goals. One Executive Branch agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, met 

all of its measurable goals. 

During FY 2014, the POWER Initiative continued to provide a framework that focused agencies’ 

attention and resources on improving their safety, injury management, and return-to-work 

programs. As the performance results illustrate, while the Federal Government as a whole (less 

the USPS) achieved success in these areas during the first two years of the Initiative, in the final 

two years, it has experienced some difficulty in sustaining improvement and achieving targets. 

Moving forward, it is apparent that further improvement is needed, notably in the areas of timely 

filing of injury and illness claims, and return-to-work. OWCP’s focus on the importance of 

electronic filing and monitoring of agency progress is expected to produce further improvement 

in timely filing performance. Continuing partnership and collaboration between OWCP and 

federal agencies to emphasize the importance of return-to-work should foster further 

improvement toward achieving an improved outcome for this measure moving forward.
Page 14 

President’s Report 

29 CFR §1960 Requirements 

OSHA asked federal agencies to provide information regarding several requirements of 29 CFR 

§1960, specifically: the organization of the agency’s safety and mission, involvement in field 

federal safety and health council activities, agency self-inspections, OSH training of employees,

program improvements for protecting employees from reprisal for reporting OSH hazards, and 

product safety compliance programs. 

Federal Agency Safety and Health Mission 

29 CFR §1960, Subpart B describes the administration of agencies’ OSH programs. For the first 

time, agencies were asked to describe how the organization met these OSH responsibilities per 

the subpart. The majority of reporting agencies identified the presence of a designated agency 

safety and health official (DASHO), or other senior OSH manager with primary OSH 

responsibilities. Agencies reported that this organizational function is managed under the 

auspices of Human Resources. A few of the agencies indicated that the OSH function is 

managed in a totally independent organizational safety and health division/department. Of those 

agencies that reported on this item, the majority alluded to the availability of the necessary 

resources, including personnel, and financial needs, to accomplish necessary OSH activities. 

Agency reports indicated that employee-identified OSH issues are handled internally, at the 

lowest possible level. According to reports, if such issues have agency-wide implications, they 

may be forwarded to the agency OSH committee, if existing, for resolution.

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils 

In CY 2015, 34 field federal safety and health councils (FFSHCs) submitted annual reports 

detailing their CY 2014 activities. The FFSHCs represent OSHA Regions 2 through 10. Due to 

inactivity, no councils in OSHA Region 1 submitted an annual report. According to the 

submitted annual reports, approximately 621 appointed representatives from 76 federal agencies 

participated in FFSHCs across the country; along with 532 non-appointed members, from at least 

91 federal agencies; and 712 associate members from roughly 320 local businesses, local 

governments, safety and health associations, and labor unions. Ten FFSHCs (~29 percent) do 

not have any officially appointed representatives on their councils. These councils’ 

memberships consist of associate members and non-appointed members. In CY 2014, 39 federal 

agencies appointed new representatives to 18 FFSHCs (~53 percent). Of the new appointments,

23 were management representatives and 35 were non-management representatives. 

EPA’s support of local FFSHCs is most noteworthy. The Agency’s management and 

professional staff have provided their expertise and knowledge in multiple areas of concern, and 

in various levels of participation, including holding council offices, and disseminating 

information to council members.

Agency’s Self-inspection of Safety and Health Management System 

Federal agencies reported involvement in a variety of inspection activities, including internal and 

external inspections; and various responses to the inspection process, including immediate 

correction, working with GSA and other public and private sector entities to abate the hazards, 

settlement negotiations with OSHA, and updating policy and procedural guidance. Some 

agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, and Justice, and the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, indicated that they encouraged employee and contractor 
Page 15 

President’s Report 

participation in the inspection process. A preliminary review of the data reported by federal 

agencies in the requested self-evaluation of their SHMSs indicates that this number may be much 

higher than overtly reported. While 85 agencies (~87 percent of reporting agencies) indicate 

conducting some sort of self-inspection activities, 92 agencies (~94 percent of reporting 

agencies) indicated that there is an effective process to involve agency employees in the 

resolution of safety and health issues. (Please refer to SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, for 

an analysis of agencies’ evaluation of their SHMSs.) 

Training of Federal Employees (including Overseas) 

The legislative provisions of the Act, E.O. 12196, and 29 CFR §1960 that require agencies to 

provide safe and healthful workplaces have no geographical limits. According to agency reports, 

more than 75,000 government employees worked outside the boundaries of the United States in 

CY 2014, with the majority identified by the Departments of Defense (DoD) and State. This is 

approximately a 47 percent decrease from the previous reporting period. Of those that reported 

on this item, agencies reported that they extend their OSH training programs and coverage to 

include their overseas federal civilian employees. Multiple agencies indicated the presence of a 

federal civilian overseas workforce, but did not disclose the approximate numbers of these 

employees serving in overseas locations. In addition, several independent agencies reported that 

they rely totally on either DoD or State OSH programs to provide coverage for their overseasdeployed employees. At a minimum, these agencies reportedly may provide pre-deployment 

preparations for their employees, which may include prophylactic immunizations, training, and 

other pre-travel information.

As in previous annual summary reports, several agencies also reported on agency support of their 

stateside employees, noting a range of employee support activities for OSH-related activities. 

Some reported that employee training was largely based on job responsibilities. Some also 

reported making special efforts to ensure that collateral duty OSH personnel received the 

appropriate training. In addition, several agencies reported that employees were encouraged to 

seek professional OSH certification and participate in professional OSH organizations. Agencies 

also provided support by maintaining OSH websites, distributing OSH awards, publishing OSH 

newsletters, and encouraging participation in FFSHCs. Many agencies reported that they also 

supported employees’ safety and health through encouraging healthy lifestyles by providing onsite fitness centers; subsidizing gym memberships; sponsoring health fairs; and offering a variety 

of health-related services, such as health-screenings and physical examinations.

Whistleblower Protection Programs 

The OSHA Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs enforces the whistleblower 

provisions of more than 20 whistleblower statutes protecting employees who report violations of 

various workplace safety, airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, 

financial reform, food safety, health insurance reform, motor vehicle safety, nuclear, pipeline, 

public transportation agency, railroad, maritime, and securities laws. One statute is specific to 

federal agencies; 29 CFR §1960, Subpart G requires federal agencies to ensure that employees 

are not subjected to reprisal or other forms of restraint for filing a report of unsafe or unhealthy 

working conditions. In an effort to assess agencies’ whistleblower protection programs, OSHA 

requested that agencies provide information on improvement to their whistleblower protection 

programs, any federal employee allegations of reprisal, and the actions taken in response to the 
Page 16 

President’s Report 

allegations. Most agencies indicated awareness of provisions of the Whistleblower Protection 

Act, Title 5, U.S.C. § 2302(c), and reported having functional protection programs. The Access 

Board reported that it does not have such a program. The Inter-American Foundation indicated 

minimal progress in establishing its program. 

No agency reported cases of allegation of reprisal that occurred during the reporting period. 

Forty-seven of the reporting agencies indicated no programmatic changes occurred during the 

reporting period. The Smithsonian Institution reported an employee complaint about a series of 

safety and personnel violations that did not result in allegations of reprisal. 

Product Safety

Newly added to the CY 2014 information request to federal agencies, OSHA requested that 

federal agencies describe their compliance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1960.34, specifically 

addressing how the agency ensures that the products and services that it procures comply with 

the product safety requirements of the standard, including the use of safety data sheets (SDSs)

(aka material safety data sheets - MSDSs), and responding to product recalls. Of the 98

responding agencies, 46 reported compliance with the standard; 20 indicated that such a program 

does not exist within their respective agencies; and the remaining agencies did not respond to 

this item. 

The majority of agencies, even those that responded, deferred their programs to GSA. Several 

agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, and the 

Treasury, and the National Labor Relations Board highlighted specific aspects of their programs. 

The EPA product safety program is noteworthy, indicating that 89 percent of its operating 

locations are in compliance with the standard.

Accomplishments 

Federal agencies continue to make strides in providing a safe and healthy work environment for 

the federal worker. Agencies reported on a broad range of improvements, from revising OSH 

programs, procedures, and manuals, to developing training programs and inspecting their 

facilities and establishments. As in previous years, agencies reported adding risk assessments to 

their safety policies, incorporating safety considerations into their building plans for new 

facilities, and including safety in management performance criteria. A few agencies indicated 

that they are in the infancy stages of developing SHMSs. In addition, several agencies reported 

encouraging employees to become certified in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the 

use of automatic external defibrillators. Although federal agencies reported that multiple 

fatalities occurred in CY 2014, these same agencies reported instituting a multitude of corrective 

actions to preclude similar future occurrences. Agencies reported implementing policy changes, 

developing new and improving upon existing training protocols, and performing safety audits, to 

mention a few of these improvements. 
Page 17 

President’s Report 

CY 2015 Goals 

There were no significant changes regarding agencies proposed OSH goals for CY 2015 from 

previous reporting periods. Most agency goals were broad-based in scope incorporating various 

strategies to improve the effectiveness of specific OSH programs, such as motor vehicle safety, 

and the efficiency of their SHMSs. Agencies reported on plans to reduce the incidence of workrelated illnesses and injuries, to participate in the POWER successor program, and incorporate 

more extensive analyses of OSH-related information from reports on incidents and near-misses. 

The specificity of these action plans was lackluster. A few agencies reported an interest in 

pursuing varying levels of participation in OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Programs, and 

FFSHCs; abate specific physical, chemical, and environmental workplace hazards; and expand 

OSH training and employee participation in OSH program development and evaluation. 

Agencies Failing to Submit Annual Reports 

OSHA did not receive reports from the American Battle Monuments Commission,

3

and the U.S. 

Office of Special Counsel,4for inclusion in the CY 2014 Report. 

 

3

Please note that the American Battle Monuments Commission has failed to submit an agency report for the past three consecutive years (FY 

2012 through CY 2014, inclusive).

4

Please note that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has failed to submit an agency report for the past two consecutive years (CYs 2013 and

2014).
Page 18 

President’s Report 
Page 19 

President’s Report 

This section provides information about OSHA activities concerning enforcement, oversight, and 

compliance assistance; including a summary of the Presidential Initiative - Protecting Our 

Workers and Ensuring Reemployment, significant/novel enforcement cases involving federal 

agencies, and agencies’ reporting of self-evaluations using components of an integrated safety 

and health evaluation tool. This section also contains information on recordkeeping, and a 

summary of agency reports on fatalities and catastrophic events, along with a brief description of

FEDWEEK - a training opportunity provided by OSHA for federal OSH personnel, and the 

federal agency safety and health roundtable – a newly created federal OSH information exchange 

forum.

Enforcement 

Inspections 

29 CFR §1960 provides for OSHA inspections of federal agencies, which are similar to those 

conducted within the private sector. OSHA inspections can occur for many reasons, but 

generally fall into one of two categories: programmed or un-programmed. Programmed 

worksite inspections occur as the result of OSHA’s emphasis on a particular safety or health 

issue, such as sites reporting injury and illness statistics that exceed industry averages, or sites 

associated with particular hazards, or adverse health outcomes, such as amputations. Unprogrammed inspections occur for other reasons, such as when OSHA receives an employee

complaint or notification of serious hazards.

OSHA further categorizes its inspections as either a safety, or a health inspection. Safety 

inspections may focus on workplace issues, such as egress, electrical safety, machine guarding, 

or proper confined space procedures. Health inspections may include worker exposures to 

specific chemicals or noise, ergonomic issues, or proper protection from an infectious disease

agent.

During an inspection, if OSHA determines that safety and/or health hazards exist, OSHA may 

document those violations of its standards. In the private sector, OSHA issues citations, often 

with monetary penalties, for violations. However, for federal agencies, OSHA issues Notices of 

Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Conditions (Notices), which carry no monetary penalties. For 

either sector, the “cited” employer may appeal the citation/Notice.

There are different types of violations, depending on the severity of the hazard or the employer’s 

response to the condition, including:

 De Minimis: Violations that have no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health,

and do not result in citations.
Page 20 

President’s Report 

 Other-Than-Serious: The hazard cannot reasonably be predicted to cause death or serious 

physical harm to exposed employees, but does have a direct and immediate relationship 

to their safety and health.

 Serious: The hazard could cause injury or illness that would most likely result in death or 

serious physical harm to the employee(s).

 Willfull: A willful violation exists under the Act where an employer has demonstrated 

either an intentional disregard for the requirements of the Act or a plain indifference to 

employee safety and health.

 Repeat: An employer may be cited for a repeated violation if that employer has been 

cited previously for the same or a substantially similar condition or hazard and the Notice

has become a final order.

 Failure-To-Abate: The employer has not corrected a violation for which OSHA has 

issued a Notice, and the abatement date has passed or is covered under a settlement 

agreement. A failure-to-abate also exists when the employer has not complied with 

interim measures involved in a long-term abatement within the given timeframe.

OSHA Inspection Activity 

During CY 2014, OSHA conducted 496 programmed inspections, and 332 un-programmed 

inspections of federal worksites, with an average of 3.59 violations per programmed inspection, 

and 3.48 violations per un-programmed inspection. According to data obtained through the 

OSHA Information System, of these inspections, 441 (~89 percent) were categorized as ‘not in 

compliance’; and 3.54 violations were issued per inspection. Overall, OSHA discovered 702

violations including: 3 Willful, 476 Serious, 135 Repeat, and 88 Other-Than-Serious violations. 

In CY 2014, OSHA’s National Office continued the Federal Agency Targeting Inspection 

Program (FEDTARG), which is an inspection program targeting federal worksites. OSHA uses 

the previous fiscal year’s OWCP data to identify federal establishments with the highest number 

of lost-time cases.

In addition, OSHA inspected federal agencies under a variety of national and local emphasis 

programs (NEPs/LEPs) that targeted specific hazards, such as lead, falls, powered industrial 

vehicles, energized equipment; and specific injuries, such as amputations; or industries, such as 

manufacturing or maritime.

By way of comparison, in 2013 OSHA conducted 645 inspections, and discovered an average of 

3.75 violations per inspection, a slight increase from FY 2012’s average of 3.56 violations per 

inspection. Overall, for the 2013 reporting period, OSHA discovered 442 violations, including: 

3 Willful, 714 Serious, 101 Repeat, and 117 Other-Than-Serious violations. In the 2012

reporting period, OSHA discovered 442 violations, including: 1 Willful, 265 Serious, 58 Repeat, 

and 118 Other-Than-Serious violations.
Page 21 

President’s Report 

Table 1. OSHA Federal Agency Programmed, Un-programmed Inspection Activity*, FY 2012 

through CY 2014.

CY 2014 FY 2013 FY 2012

Programmed Inspections 496 645 598

Percent in Compliance 11 11 17

Average Number of Violations 3.59 3.75 3.56

Serious Violations 476 265 276

Average Number Serious Violations 0.96 0.57 0.46

Unprogrammed Inspections 332 304 270

Percent in Compliance 47 22 56

Avg. No. of Violations 3.48 3.38 3.53

Serious Violations 314 395 248

Average Number Serious Violations 0.95 1.30 0.92

* Please note the switch to Calendar Year tracking in 2014. For this reason, there is no concrete analysis or comparison with earlier years; all 

analyses are tentative.

Further comparison of the data extracted from the OSHA federal agency inspection activity 

database illustrates the following trends: 1) a decrease in programmed inspection activity with a 

steady in-compliance rate and average numbers of violations; and, 2) an increase in serious

violations identified under programmed inspection activities for the three year period. These 

trends suggest that federal agencies have improved the levels of occupational safety and health 

within their establishments. 

The abovementioned trends include several contributing factors. Recall that programmed 

inspections of federal establishments are based on an analysis of the previous year’s lost time 

case data reported through OWCP, with absolute cut-offs for various levels of injuries. A 

reduced number of programmed inspections may result when fewer establishments qualify for 

inspection due to their lower injury and illness rates. The flat or decreasing levels of ‘incompliance inspections’ and ‘average violations’ implicates the accuracy of the targeting of 

establishments with higher injury and illness rates. Similarly, the higher numbers of serious 

violations implies increasing accuracy of the targeting system. In addition, the flat or decreasing 

levels of average violations could indicate that, while more federal employees were reporting 

OSH concerns and/or followed-up by regulatory agencies – including OSHA, the relative risks in 

federal workplaces remained fairly constant. These further support the suggestion that federal 

agencies have improved the levels of occupational safety and health within their establishments. 

Previously, OSHA began a campaign to encourage the private sector’s ‘workers voice’ in 

identifying workplace hazards. The campaign focused on informing civilian workers of their 

OSH-related rights, and providing guidance on seeking redress if the employer failed to abate the 

hazard even after notification. This effort seemed to increase complaint-based inspections within 

the private sector, and spilled over into the public sector, including federal agencies. Even 

though minor fluctuations in the “in-compliance” rate and serious violations may be seen over 

the three-year period, it does not support the conclusion that a significant trend exists. 
Page 22 

President’s Report 

Significant/Novel Cases 

OSHA defines significant cases as those inspections having penalties over $100,000, or cases 

involving novel enforcement issues, such as: workplace violence; ergonomics; heat stress; 

federal agency cases that would receive a press release; and some general duty clause cases, 

regardless of penalty amount. While, by law, OSHA cannot assess penalties against federal 

agencies, it can determine the significance of a federal agency inspection by comparing the 

violations to the penalties that would be assessed to a “similar” private sector employer. 

In CY 2014, OSHA issued a total of nine federal significant case reports. These cases involved 

the Departments of Agriculture-Forest Service (one case), Defense-U.S. Air Force (three cases), 

Homeland Security-U.S. Coast Guard (novel case), Interior (two cases-including one novel 

case), Justice- Federal Bureau of Prisons (novel case), and Veterans Affairs-Veterans Health 

Administration (VHA; novel case) (Please refer to Table 2, for specific information on the 

Table 2. Summary of OSHA Significant Cases Involving Federal Agencies.

Department/Agency Inspection Type Program Type of Violations

Interior – Gatlinburg, 

Tennessee

Complaint Not Applicable Serious: 1

Repeat: 11

Other-Than-Serious: 2

Interior – National Park 

Service – Death Valley 

National Park

Heat Stress Heat Stress, Novel Serious: 6

USDA – Forest Service 

Deschutes National Forest

Planned 

Programmed

FEDSAFE Serious: 6

Repeat: 12

Other-Than-Serious: 6

DoD – U.S. Air Force

Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson AFB–

Anchorage, Alaska

Follow Up Follow Up FTA Serious: 3

Other-Than-Serious: 2
Page 23 

President’s Report 

Department/Agency Inspection Type Program Type of Violations

DoD – U.S. Air Force Beale 

AFB

Planned 

Programmed

LEP, Amputation FTA Serious: 1

FTA Repeat-Serious: 2

FTA Repeat-OtherThan-Serious: 1

DoD – U.S. Air Force Travis 

AFB

Planned 

Programmed

LEP, 

Amputation/Forklift

Serious: 1

Other-Than-Serious: 1

Repeat-Other-ThanSerious: 2

Repeat-Serious: 2

DHS – Coast Guard Complaint Complaint, Novel Serious: 1

Justice – Bureau of Prisons Complaint Complaint, Novel Serious: 7

Other: 1

Veterans Affairs - Aleda E. 

Lutz VHA Medical Center

Planned 

Programmed

LEP, Novel Serious: 5

Repeat: 1

Other-Than-Serious: 1

significant cases involving federal agencies.). None of the involved federal agencies appealed 

the case(s). As with all inspections, OSHA worked with these agencies to ensure that they both 

abated the hazards and made the necessary improvements to their SHMSs.

Oversight 

Presidential Initiative - POWER 

The Presidential Initiative - Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment is a more 

challenging government-wide effort that succeeded the six-year Safety, Health, and Return-toEmployment (SHARE) Initiative that ended in FY 2009. The POWER Initiative expanded on 

SHARE by revising its four goals in order to set more challenging performance targets, thereby 

establishing FY 2009 as the baseline for the Initiative. It also introduced three performance 

measures that focus on improving the analysis of lost time injury and illness data, increasing the 
Page 24 

President’s Report 

timely submission of wage-loss claims, and enhancing agencies’ efforts to return injured 

employees to work as soon as possible.

The POWER Initiative was established in 2010 to challenge federal Executive Branch agencies 

to improve their safety, health, and injury case management programs through eight goals: 1) 

reduce total injury and illness case rates; 2) reduce lost time injury and illness case rates; 3) 

analyze lost time injury and illness data; 4) increase timely filing of injury and illness notices; 5) 

increase timely filing of wage loss claims; 6) reduce lost production days; and 7) increase returnto-work outcomes for those federal employees who sustain serious workplace injuries. Goal 8, 

initiated in 2012, tracks whether an agency has established a method for its employees to 

electronically submit OWCP’s workers’ compensation claim forms.

The Department of Labor leads the POWER Initiative to help ensure federal employees are 

provided with safe and healthy work environments, as well as the support they need after 

experiencing a serious work-related injury or illness. OSHA tracks the first three goals; OWCP 

tracks the remaining five goals5. 

Each year, tens of thousands of federal employees file claims for workers’ compensation benefits 

due to workplace injuries or illness. In FY 2014, federal employees (excluding those employed 

by the USPS) filed more than 63,800 injury notices. Although the vast majority of claimants 

often return-to-work following only a brief disruption in employment, thousands take longer to 

recover, and may remain on workers’ compensation rolls for months, years, or in some cases 

permanently. While the number of reported injuries has continued to decline in the Federal 

Government over the past several years, compensation for lost wages and medical benefits still 

represents a significant cost to the American taxpayer. In CBY 2014 alone, total costs were 

approximately $1.4 billion (excluding the USPS).

FY 2014, the final year of the POWER Initiative, was a partial success. The Government as a 

whole (less the USPS) met three out of the six measurable goals. One Executive Branch agency, 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development, met all of its measurable goals.

Goal 1 directs agencies to reduce their total injury and illness case rates. In this fourth year of 

the POWER Initiative, the Government as a whole (less the USPS) exceeded this goal. The FY 

2014 performance target was for agencies to have no more than 2.48 total injury and illness cases 

per 100 employees; government-wide, the total case rate was 2.42, representing a 25 percent 

decrease over the rate of 3.22 in the FY 2009 baseline year. In FY 2014, 14 of the 18 Executive 

Branch Departments met their goals. Among the remaining 44 independent agencies that are 

tracking Goal 1, 29 met the goal, seven fell short, and eight had no measurable data. 

Goal 2 directs agencies to reduce their lost time case rates. In this fourth year of the POWER 

Initiative, the Government as a whole (less the USPS) failed to meet this goal. The FY 2014 

performance target was for agencies to have no more than 1.19 lost time cases per 100

employees; Government-wide, the lost time case rate was 1.20, representing a 19 percent 

decrease over the rate of 1.48 in the FY 2009 baseline year. Twelve of the 18 Executive Branch 

 

5 OSHA only tracks Executive Branch Departments and agencies; OWCP tracks all federal agencies.
Page 25 

President’s Report 

departments met their goals. Among the remaining 44 independent agencies that are tracking 

Goal 2, 29 agencies met their performance targets, three failed to do so, and 12 agencies had no 

measurable data.

Goal 3 requires agencies with a lost time case rate above the national average to analyze their 

injury and illness data, and report to OSHA on the steps they are taking to mitigate the most 

common hazards. Although results of their analyses are reportable to OSHA through their 

annual reports, agencies did not report specific strategies to mitigate hazards as required by this 

goal. (Please refer to Tables 3a and 3b for those agencies, identified by the red triangular symbol

, that did not achieve their respective LTCR goals.) Even so, agencies reported on general 

mitigation strategies, including incident analysis methodologies; integrating OSH-related 

considerations into agency operations, and tracking near misses. Agencies stressed the 

importance of self-inspection, both internal and external, in identifying hazards, and analyzing 

and controlling trends.

Goal 4 concerns the timely filing of initial injury and illness claim forms. Agencies are expected 

to increase their timely filing by 3 percent per year (with the goal capped at 95 percent) above 

the baseline or meet the minimum threshold of 80 percent for FY 2014. Government-wide (less 

the USPS), these claims were timely filed 88.76 percent of the time, which represents an 

increase of 11 percent over the baseline of 80.1 percent, but which fell short of the performance 

target of 90.38 percent. Among the 18 Executive Branch departments, only seven met this 

goal. Of the 11 that failed, two did not meet the minimum threshold, and the remaining nine 

failed to increase timely filing by 3 percent per year above the baseline year. Seven of the 

Legislative Branch agencies met their performance targets. One of the remaining two agencies 

failed to meet the minimum threshold of 80 percent, and one failed to increase timely filing by 3 

percent per year above the baseline year. Two of the three Judicial Branch agencies met their 

targets, and one had no measurable data. Of the 44 independent agencies, seven had no claims 

filed during FY 2014, 19 met their goal, and the remaining 19 failed to meet their performance 

targets. (Fifteen did not meet the minimum threshold, and the other three failed to increase by 3 

percent per year above the baseline year.)

Goal 5 asks agencies to meet or exceed minimum timely filing requirements for compensation 

claims. All Departments and agencies were tasked with increasing the timely filing of these 

claims by 3 percent per year above the baseline, or meeting a minimum threshold of 70 percent 

for FY 2014. Government-wide (less the USPS), 82.86 percent of wage loss claims were filed 

on-time, surpassing the goal of 77.95 percent. Of the 18 Executive Branch departments, 12 met 

or exceeded their targets, and six did not. Two Legislative Branch agencies met their goals, four 

did not, and three had no claims filed during the fiscal year. One of the Judicial Branch agencies 

met its target, and two had no wage loss claims filed. Of the 44 independent agencies that were 

tracked, 14 met their targets for timely filing of wage loss claims, 17 had no wage loss claims 

filed, and the remaining 13 failed to meet their targets or meet the minimum threshold of 68 

percent for the year.

Goal 6 tasked agencies with decreasing the number of lost production days per 100 employees 

by 1 percent below the baseline year or maintaining a rate of 15 days or less. The Government 
Page 26 

President’s Report 

as a whole (less the USPS) achieved a lost production day rate of 31.8 days, exceeding the target 

of 34.4 days. Among the 18 Executive Branch departments, 13 met or exceeded their 

targets. Seven Legislative Branch agencies met lost production day targets, while two did 

not. Two Judicial Branch agencies met their targets, and one had no measurable data. Of the 44

independent agencies being tracked for Goal 6, 30 met their lost production day targets, six 

failed to do so, and eight had no measurable data.

Goal 7 tasked the 14 agencies with the largest, statistically significant, numbers of serious 

injuries with increasing the return-to-work outcomes in these cases. These agencies are: the 

Departments of Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, the Interior, Justice, Labor, the Navy, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans 

Affairs; and the Social Security Administration. Collectively, these agencies were to increase 

the return-to-work of their seriously injured employees to 95 percent. For FY 2014, their actual 

percentage return-to-work was 90.73 percent. One agency, the Department of Labor, met its 

return-to-work target.

Goal 7 also serves to support E.O. 13548: Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities. As noted in section 3(b) of the E.O.,

Agencies shall make special efforts, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure the 

retention of those who are injured on the job. Agencies shall work to improve, 

expand, and increase successful return-to-work outcomes for those of their 

employees who sustain work-related injuries and illnesses, as defined under the 

Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), by increasing the availability of 

job accommodations and light or limited duty jobs, removing disincentives for 

FECA claimants to return-to-work, and taking other appropriate measures. The 

Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management, shall pursue innovative re-employment strategies and develop 

policies, procedures, and structures that foster improved return-to- work 

outcomes, including by pursuing overall reform of the FECA system. The 

Secretary of Labor shall also propose specific outcome measures and targets by 

which each agency's progress in carrying out return-to-work and FECA claims 

processing efforts can be assessed.

In support of POWER Goal 7 and E.O. 13548, the OWCP established the POWER Return-toWork Council to serve as a forum for: discussing and exchanging best practices in the area of 

return-to-work; reviewing the results of analytical studies on return-to-work and promoting the 

sharing and implementation of identified best practices; forming a bridge between the workers’ 

compensation and disability hiring personnel; and establishing a continuity of practice for the 

sharing of information, ideas, and experiences. The Council comprises representatives of the 14

agencies subject to POWER Goal 7, as well as representatives from DOL’s OWCP, Office of 

Disability Employment Policy; OSHA; DoD’s Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program;

and OPM. The Council continued to hold quarterly meetings during FY 2014, during which 

members shared their experiences and best practices toward promoting the importance of returnto-work in the federal community.
Page 27 

President’s Report 

Goal 8 of the POWER Initiative tracks whether an agency has established a method for its 

employees to electronically submit workers’ compensation forms, specifically the CA-1, CA-2 

and CA-7. Of the 18 Executive Branch agencies, 17 were reportedly in compliance with this 

requirement. Among the 44 independent agencies tracked by the POWER Initiative, 21 agencies 

have established electronic filing capability.

During FY 2014 the POWER Initiative continued to provide a framework that focuses agencies’ 

attention and resources on improving their safety, injury management, and return-to-work 

programs. As the performance results in this narrative illustrate, while the Federal Government 

as a whole (less the USPS) achieved success in these areas during the first two years of the 

Initiative, in the final two years, it has experienced some difficulty in sustaining improvement 

and achieving targets. Moving forward, it is apparent that further improvement is needed, 

notably in the areas of timely filing of injury/illness claims, and return-to-work. OWCP’s focus 

on the importance of electronic filing and monitoring of agency progress is expected to produce 

further improvement in timely filing performance. Continuing partnership and collaboration 

between OWCP and federal agencies to emphasize the importance of return-to-work should 

foster further improvement toward achieving an improved outcome for this measure moving 

forward.

CONTROLLING TRENDS

Last year, OSHA requested a limited assessment of whether agencies met their POWER goals. 

However, this year agencies were asked to summarize whether or not they met their POWER 

goals. Although some agencies complied with this request, responses were largely inconsistent. 

Table 3a. POWER Goals 1 and 2, Lost Time Case Rates, Total Case Rates for Departments and 

Large Independent Agencies.

Green = Met Goal Red = Did Not Meet Goal

Total Case Rates Lost Time Case Rates

Agency

FY2009 

TCR 

Baseline

FY2014

TCR 

Target

Final 

TCR

FY2009 

LTC 

Baseline

FY2014

LTC 

Target

Final 

LTCR

All Government, less USPS 3.22 2.48 2.42 1.48 1.19 1.20

Department of Agriculture 5.50 4.67 4.07 1.85 1.57 1.93

Department of Commerce 2.36 1.00 0.80 1.03 1.00 0.38

Department of Defense (including Air 

Force, Army, Navy/Marines) 2.76 2.06 2.10 1.48 1.10 1.15

Department of the Air Force 2.73 1.77 1.71 1.49 1.10 1.05

Department of the Army 3.02 2.23 2.38 1.56 1.12 1.23

Department of the Navy 2.77 2.11 2.12 1.44 1.06 1.11

Department of Education 1.00 1.00 0.41 0.63 1.00 0.32

Department of Energy 1.66 1.40 1.45 0.67 1.00 0.75

Department of Health and Human 

Services 1.43 1.00 0.79 0.73 0.52 0.48
Page 28 

President’s Report 

Total Case Rates Lost Time Case Rates

Agency

FY2009 

TCR 

Baseline

FY2014

TCR 

Target

Final 

TCR

FY2009 

LTC 

Baseline

FY2014

LTC 

Target

Final 

LTCR

Department of Homeland Security 6.79 5.42 5.36 2.48 2.11 2.34

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 0.77 1.00 0.99 0.41 1.00 0.43

Department of Interior 6.03 5.13 5.08 2.08 1.67 1.67

Department of Justice 4.14 3.52 3.37 2.35 2.00 2.01

Department of Labor 1.99 1.67 1.67 0.87 1.00 0.76

Department of State 1.02 1.00 0.46 0.52 1.00 0.26

Department of Transportation 1.64 1.45 1.35 0.98 1.00 0.77

Department of Treasury 1.22 1.00 0.83 0.73 1.00 0.51

Department of Veterans Affairs 3.7 3.02 2.93 1.71 1.42 1.36

Under Goal 1, agencies are called upon to reduce their TCR by 4 percent per year below the FY 

2009 baseline if the rate is at or above the national target of 3.22; or by 1 percent per year if the 

TCR is below the national average. Under Goal 2, agencies are called upon to reduce their 

LTCR by 4 percent per year below the FY 2009 baseline if the rate is at or above the national 

target of 1.48; or by 1 percent per year if the LTCR is below the national average. No further

reductions are required if an agency has a rate of 1 or less per year for goals 1 and 2. (Please 

refer to Tables 3a and 3b for details regarding POWER Goals 1 and 2, TCR and LTCR for 

departments and large independent agencies, and small independent agencies, respectively.) 

Table 3b. POWER Goal 2, Lost Time Case Rates, Total Case Rates for Small Independent 

Agencies.

Green = Met Goal Red = Did Not Meet Goal

Total Case Rates Lost Time Case Rates

Agency

FY2009 

TCR 

Baseline

FY2014 

TCR 

Target

Final 

TCR

FY2009 

LTC 

Baseline

FY2014 

LTC

Target

Final 

LTCR

Agency for International 

Development 0.87 1.00 0.68 0.4 1.00 0.36

Armed Forces Retirement Home 9.03 7.67 5.28 6.5 3.52 3.52

Commission on Civil Rights 2.27 1.00 0.00 0 1.00 0.00

Consumer Product Safety 

Commission 0.92 1.00 0.96 0.92 1.00 0.38

Corporation. for National and 

Community Service 0.52 1.00 0.16 0.17 1.00 0.16

Environmental Protection Agency 0.62 1.00 0.53 0.29 1.00 0.34

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 1.05 1.01 0.99 0.32 1.00 0.41

Federal Communication 

Commission 0.22 1.00 0.17 0.22 1.00 0.12

Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation 0.6 1.00 0.44 0.39 1.00 0.35
Page 29 

President’s Report 

Agency

FY2009 

TCR 

Baseline

FY2014 

TCR 

Target

Final 

TCR

FY2009 

LTC 

Baseline

FY2014 

LTC

Target

Final 

LTCR

Federal Election Commission 0.28 1.00 0.00 0.28 1.00 0.00

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission NA NA NA NA

Federal Maritime Commission 1.69 1.00 0.00 1.69 1.00 0.00

Federal Mediation and 

Conciliation Services 1.21 1.00 0.00 0 1.00 0.00

Federal Reserve - Board of 

Governors 1.28 1.23 0.96 1.23 1.00 0.96

Federal Trade Commission 0.09 1.00 0.71 0.09 1.00 0.35

General Services Administration 1.06 1.00 0.68 0.69 1.00 0.44

Holocaust Memorial Council 3.66 2.78 1.17 3.14 1.00 1.17

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 9.52 7.46 6.67 7.14 4.33 2.92

International Broadcasting Bureau 0.87 1.00 0.45 0.66 1.00 0.28

International Trade Commission 0.54 1.00 0.25 0.27 1.00 0.25

J.F. Kennedy Center for the 

Performing Arts 2.13 2.05 4.08 0 1.00 0.00

Merit Systems Protection Board 1.86 1.00 0.00 0 1.00 0.00

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 0.48 1.00 0.24 0.17 1.00 0.12

National Archives and Records 

Administration. 4.51 1.96 2.30 2.27 1.72 2.17

National Credit Union 

Administration 0.74 1.00 0.40 0.53 1.00 0.16

National Endowment for the Arts 1.2 0.62 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.00

National Endowment for the 

Humanities 1.88 1.00 0.00 1.88 1.19 0.00

National Gallery of Art 2.97 2.77 2.61 1.85 1.00 0.62

National Labor Relations Board 0.74 1.00 0.38 0.31 1.00 0.19

National Science Foundation 0.5 1.00 0.68 0.43 1.00 0.27

National Transportation Safety 

Board 0.75 1.00 0.49 0.75 1.00 0.00

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0.51 1.00 0.57 0.34 1.00 0.23

Office of Personnel Management 1.18 0.98 0.95 0.59 1.00 0.56

Peace Corps 0 1.00 0.19 0 1.00 0.09

Pension Benefit Guarantee 

Corporation 0.44 1.00 0.10 0.33 0.00 0.00

Presidio Trust 4.55 3.86 6.94 3.94 3.35 3.15

Railroad Retirement Board 0.63 1.00 0.11 0.52 0.32 0.00

Securities and Exchange 

Commission 0.14 1.00 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.07

Selective Service System 2.14 0.64 0.66 2.14 0.64 0.66

Small Business Administration 1.27 1.23 0.42 0.49 0.63 0.27

Smithsonian Institution 2.49 2.39 3.67 1.21 1.09 1.99

Social Security Administration 1.27 1.15 1.09 0.82 0.73 0.73

Tennessee Valley Authority 2.18 1.61 1.53 0.20 0.13 0.20
Page 30 

President’s Report 

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health 

The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) is an advisory 

council to the Secretary of Labor on occupational safety and health matters focusing on federal 

agencies. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health chairs the 

Council, which consists of 16 members: half represent federal agency management, and half are 

representatives from labor organizations having OSH responsibilities in their organizations. 

DOL’s Office of the Solicitor-OSH Division provides counsel to the Council. Five special 

agency liaisons from various federal agencies provide consultative support to FACOSH. 

FACOSH met once during the reporting period on November 6, 2014. The Council received 

updates from its Emerging Issues Subcommittee6– Field Federal Safety and Health Councils

(FFSHCs); and on the POWER Initiative, and Whistleblower Protection Programs. It also 

received an informational briefing on Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever. There were no motions

considered by FACOSH at this meeting.

The certified minutes for the November 2014 meeting are available on the OSHA page at:

http://www.osha.gov/dep/facosh/facosh_11062014_mtgmnts.pdf.

FFSHC Subcommittee. During the reporting period, the Subcommittee developed and 

administered a survey to OSHA Federal Agency Program Officers and the FFSHCs’ executive 

council members, to get a better perspective on council issues/matters. The Subcommittee met 

twice during the reporting period to begin analysis of the survey data, discuss recommendations,

and develop the annual activity report to FACOSH. 

Evaluations 

Section 1-401(h) of E.O. 12196 requires the Secretary of Labor to, “evaluate the occupational 

safety and health programs of agencies and promptly submit reports to the agency heads.” 

While the E.O. establishes OSHA’s responsibility for evaluating federal agencies, 29 CFR 

§1960.79 expands the evaluation responsibilities to the federal agencies themselves. In addition, 

29 CFR §1960.80 develops OSHA’s responsibilities for conducting evaluations. Accordingly,

both the OSHA evaluations and the agencies’ self-evaluations should focus on an assessment of 

agencies’ OSH program elements, vis-a-vis, the safety and health management system.

In an effort to find a consistent and standard evaluation method, OSHA determined that the 

OSHA Form 33, an extant private sector consultative tool, might be beneficial for both OSHA 

and federal agencies. The OSHA Form 33, developed in 1984, is a safety and health program 

assessment tool used to evaluate a private sector employer’s safety and health management 

system. A SHMS integrates OSH attributes into an organizational structure. Therefore, 

evaluating a SHMS requires a systematic approach to determine whether policies and procedures 

are appropriately developed and implemented, and regularly monitored and modified to correct 

any problems and/or adapt to a changing worksite environment. Its relevancy applies to all 

employers, regardless of size, number of employees, or industrial sector.

 

6

FACOSH tasked the Training Subcommittee with evaluating the relevancy of field federal safety and health councils as an adjunct to federal 

agency safety and health programs. FACOSH further tasked the Subcommittee with developing strategies to revitalize the councils. Its 

deliberations will continue into calendar year 2015 and beyond.
Page 31 

President’s Report 

Figure 1. Components and Subcomponents of a Safety and Health Management System

Based on the concept of an organizational safety and health program, the OSHA Form 33 

provides for the assessment of the three components of a SHMS—operational, managerial, and 

cultural—using 58 attributes as metrics for the program’s overall effectiveness and integration

into the organization. (Please refer to Figures 1 thru 4 for a depiction of the components and 

attributes of a SHMS that OSHA/agencies evaluated in CY 2014.) 

The Operational Component measures whether a SHMS has a well-defined and communicated 

system to identify, correct, and control hazards. The Managerial Component assesses whether 

the SHMS incorporates effective planning, administration, training, management leadership, and 

supervision to support the prevention or elimination of workplace hazards. Finally, the Cultural 

Component evaluates whether the SHMS has developed an effective safety culture in which 

OPERATIONAL COMPONENT

 Hazard Anticipation & 

Detection

(11 attributes)

 Hazard Prevention & Control

(9 attributes)

MANAGERIAL COMPONENT

 Planning & Evaluation

(5 attributes)

 Administration & 

Supervision

(8 attributes)

 OSH Training

(6 attributes)

CULTURAL COMPONENT

 Management 

Leadership

(10 attributes)

 Employee Participation

(9 attributes)
Page 32 

President’s Report 

management and labor come together to effectively reduce or eliminate hazards. While the 

attributes within each of the components are distinct, they are interdependent, cross-feeding into 

each other.

Figure 2. Operational Safety and Health Management System Attributes Evaluated in FY 2014

OPERATIONAL COMPONENT

 HAZARD ANTICIPATION AND DETECTION (5 OF 11 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o A comprehensive, baseline hazard survey has been conducted within the past 5 years. The 

purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency, through site inspection and analysis, has 

developed a reasonably complete inventory of the safety and health hazards existing at a certain time, 

to serve as the basis for subsequent action planning and priority setting.

o Effective safety and health self-inspections are performed regularly. The purpose of this attribute 

is to determine if personnel in the agency are performing effective safety and health inspections on a 

regular basis.

o Effective surveillance of established hazard controls is conducted. The purpose of this attribute is 

to determine if the agency regularly assesses if previously established safety and health controls are 

still effective; or if they are either improperly applied, or otherwise inadequate.

o Change analysis is performed whenever a change in facilities, equipment, materials, or 

processes occurs. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency has effective policies 

and procedures that result in advance detection of potential hazards associated with planned or 

anticipated changes in the workplace.

o Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are used to reveal potential hazards associated with chemical 

products in the workplace. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency is effectively 

utilizing the information contained in the SDSs to detect existing or potential hazards. 

 HAZARD PREVENTION AND CONTROL (4 OF 9 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Feasible engineering controls are in place. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the 

agency identifies and employs engineering methods to eliminate or control workplace hazards.

o Effective safety and health rules and work practices are in place. The purpose of this attribute is 

to determine if the agency has established general workplace rules, and specific work practices that 

prescribe safe and healthful behaviors and task performance methods.

o Applicable OSHA-mandated programs are effectively in place. The purpose of this attribute is to 

determine if the agency has effectively implemented program management requirements in applicable 

OSHA standards.

o An effective procedure for tracking hazard correction is in place. The purpose of this attribute is 

to determine if the agency monitors timely correction of identified hazards.

For this year’s Report, OSHA selected 30 of the tool’s 58 attributes to provide a well-rounded 

assessment of agencies’ OSH programs (nine from the Operational, 11 from the Managerial, and 

10 from the Cultural components, respectively; please refer to Figures 2, 3, and 4 for the 

attributes evaluated in CY 2014) across the three components of a SHMS for the agencies to 

assess. Five new items (attributes) were added to the self-evaluation tool; one item (attribute) 

from the FY 2012 evaluation tool was omitted from this year’s evaluation tool. (In FYs 2013 
Page 33 

President’s Report 

and 2012, 25 and 17 attributes were assessed, respectively). Agencies were asked to rate each of 

these attributes, based on their CY 2014 reporting period experience, and were provided criteria 

Figure 3. Managerial Safety and Health Management System Attributes Evaluated in FY 2014.

MANAGERIAL COMPONENT

 PLANNING AND EVALUATION (3 OF 5 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Hazard incidence data are effectively analyzed. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if 

the agency uses hazard incidence data to set safety and health priorities.

o An action plan designed to accomplish the organizations safety and health objectives is in 

place. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency has established a plan to achieve 

its safety and health objectives.

o A review of the overall safety and health management system is conducted at least annually. 

The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency periodically audits the management 

aspects of its SHMS, identifying progress, and needed changes/improvements.

 ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION (5 OF 8 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Safety and health program tasks are each specifically assigned to a person or position for 

performance or coordination. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the essential OSH 

responsibilities are identified and assigned to appropriate personnel.

o Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the necessary knowledge, 

skills, and timely information to perform their duties. The purpose of this attribute is to 

determine if the agency’s personnel have the understanding, skill and current information needed 

to effectively perform their OSH responsibilities.

o Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the authority to perform 

their duties. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s personnel have adequate 

authority to perform their safety and health responsibilities effectively.

o Individuals with assigned safety and health responsibilities have the resources to perform 

their duties. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s personnel have the 

necessary resources to perform their safety and health responsibilities effectively.

o Organizational policies promote the performance of safety and health responsibilities. The 

purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s personnel are provided positive incentive 

for performance of their safety and health responsibilities.

 SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING (3 OF 6 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Employees receive appropriate safety and health training (including those overseas). The 

purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s personnel are provided appropriate training 

to perform their assigned safety and health responsibilities.

o New employees’ orientation includes applicable safety and health information. The purpose of 

this attribute is to determine if the agency provides appropriate education and training in safety 

and health protection for new employees who are assuming new duties.

o Supervisors receive training that covers the supervisory aspects of their safety and health 

responsibilities. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency provides supervisory 

training that address their responsibilities and an understanding of hazards.
Page 34 

President’s Report 

for the rating of each attribute. Specifically, agencies were asked to rate each attribute on a 

“0”indicating the attribute’s complete effectiveness and integration into the SHMS without the 

need for improvement – thereby indicating its ‘model’ nature. Furthermore, OSHA asked 

agencies to provide a detailed narrative, with examples to support each self-identified attribute 

rating. 

Figure 4. Cultural Safety and Health Management System Attributes Evaluated in FY 2014.

CULTURAL COMPONENT

 MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP (6 OF 10 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o Top management policy establishes clear priority for safety and health. The purpose of this 

attribute is to determine if the agency has an established policy, emanating from top management, 

that sets worker safety and health as an organizational priority.

o Top management provides competent safety and health staff support to line managers and 

supervisors. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency provides appropriate staff 

guidance and assistance to managers and supervisors relative to their safety and health 

responsibilities.

o Managers delegate the authority necessary for personnel to carry out their assigned safety 

and health responsibilities effectively. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s

managers promote a culture of safety and health and support effective operation of the SHMS by 

delegating adequate authority for personnel to perform their OSH responsibilities.

o Managers allocate the resources needed to properly support the organization’s SHMS. The 

purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s managers demonstrate OHS leadership, 

promote a culture of safety and health in the organization, and support effective operation of the 

SHMS by allocating needed resources.

o Managers assure that appropriate safety and health training is provided. The purpose of this 

attribute is to determine if the agency’s managers demonstrate safety and health leadership, 

promote a culture of safety and health in the organization, and support effective operation of the 

safety and health management system by ensuring that appropriate safety and health education and 

training is provided to workers, supervisors, and managers.

o Top management is involved in the planning and evaluation of safety and health 

performance. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if the agency’s top managers personally 

track performance in safety and health protection to demonstrate visible management leadership.

 EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION (4 OF 9 ATTRIBUTES ASSESSED)

o There is an effective process to involve employees in safety and health issues. The purpose of 

this attribute is to determine if there is an established organizational process that is known, trusted, 

and used by employees to provide input regarding safety and health issues.

o Employees are involved in organizational decision-making in regard to the allocation of safety 

and health resources. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if agency employees influence 

the allocation of resources affecting their safety and health.

o Employees are involved in organizational decision-making in regard to safety and health 

training. The purpose of this attribute is to determine if agency employees influence training 

decisions affecting their safety and health.

o Employees participate in the evaluation of safety and health performance. The purpose of this 

attribute is to determine if agency employees are actively engaged in reviews and audits of safety 

and health performance.
Page 35 

President’s Report 

Overall Assessment 

For the CY 2014 reporting period, OSHA received responses from 98 out of 1007agencies (a 98

percent response rate), evaluating their respective agencies’ SHMSs, with a mean overall rating 

of “2.3.” This is an increase in the number and percentage of reporting agencies from the FY 

2013 reporting period, where 77 out of 98 agencies (~79 percent response rate) reported 

evaluation data for their respective SHMSs, with a mean overall rating of “2.2.” The FY 2012 

mean was reported as “2.35.”

For CY 2014, 36 out of the 98 responding agencies (~37 percent), provided a “3” rating for the 

overall assessment of their SHMSs, as compared to 34 out of the 77 responding agencies (~44 

percent) in CY 2013, and nine out of 85 responding agencies (~11 percent) in FY 2012. Viewed 

in the aggregate, between 61 to 92 out of the 98 responding agencies (~62 to ~94 percent)

provided a “2,” or better rating for the 30 attributes used to rate the three components of a 

SHMS; thereby representing that their respective SHMSs are effective- to highly-effective, with 

only minor to little improvements needed. This is in spite of the fact that the CY 2014 overall 

mean rating showed a diminutive decrease from the overall mean ratings reported in the previous 

two reporting periods. Stated otherwise, federal agencies’ SHMSs are ‘model’ programs that are 

in compliance with the provisions of 29 CFR §1960. 

Of the 98 agencies that provided input into this year’s Report, only four (~4 percent) either did 

not provide a self-evaluation of their SHMSs, or provided a “not-applicable” rating for the 

overall assessment and respective SHMS’s attributes. This is a dramatic decrease from the 15

out of 77 responding agencies (~20 percent) in CY 2013, and the 12 out of 85 responding 

agencies (~14 percent) in FY 2012 that provided similar ratings for the overall assessment and 

respective SHMS’s attributes. 

As noted, an agency’s assignment of a “3” rating for its SHMS’s overall score is indicative of a 

‘model’ program, with equal ratings expected to be assigned to all of the component’s attributes. 

Such ratings indicate that improvements to the program and its attributes are minimally or 

nominally necessary. As identified earlier, 36 agencies provided an overall score of “3” to their 

SHMSs. However, 32 (~89 percent) of these agencies8[compared to 28 out of 34 agencies (~82 

percent) in CY 2013] identified that improvements were needed in the three components of their 

programs, as indicated by self-assessment ratings of less than “3” across 10 to100 percent of the 

component-attribute spectrum. This phenomenon suggests incongruences between the agency’s 

overall assessment of their SHMSs and the need for improvement across the SHMS’s

component-attribute spectrum. This effect includes those agencies that reported the most 

effective systems, as indicated by a “3” rating, as well as those that indicated a SHMS, in full or 

part, was “not applicable” to their situations, or did not report on the status of their SHMSs. 

(Please refer to Table 4 for the discrete number of responding federal agencies that provided the 

specified rating for the 30 assessed attributes.)

 

7 Tables 4a, and 4b depict the overall score assigned by federal agencies to the self-evaluation of their respective SHMSs for CY 2014. Those 

responding agencies, that either did not provide an overall rating of their respective SHMSs, or did not provide documentation that they 

conducted a self-evaluation, are identified as “NR”(not reported) in the Table. In addition, the two agencies that did not provide an agency 

report (indicated in the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) are included in the Table, and their score is indicated as “NR.”

8

Only the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, the Social Security Advisory Board, and the U.S. 

Commission of Fine Arts provided a “3” rating for the overall score and all 30 attributes.
Page 36 

President’s Report 

As indicated above, the three components of a SHMS and their related attributes apply to any 

system, regardless of such agency factors as: size, number of employees, scope of mission, and 

organizational function. Therefore, it is disconcerting that between nine (~9 percent) to 41 (~42 

percent) of reporting agencies indicated that all or part of the 30 SHMSs’ attributes were rated as 

either “not applicable,” or were “not-rated” by the respective agencies. This is of concern when 

individual attributes and their interrelatedness are taken into account, especially the CY 2014 

ratings assigned to the operational attributes of hazard survey, surveillance, change analysis, use 

of SDSs, engineering controls, and tracking hazard correction; and the managerial attributes of 

the use of incidence data, and action plan, and the three Safety/Health Training subcomponent 

attributes. Although the attributes of the two subcomponents of the Cultural Component 

received the greatest number of “2” or higher ratings, multiple agencies seemingly demeaned the 

value of these attributes by providing a “not applicable” or were “not rated” by the agency. 

These aspects of a ‘safety culture’ need to be pervasive in an organization if it is to sustain a safe 

and healthful working environment. OSHA is working with these agencies to ensure they better 

understand the applicability of the SHMS for the protection of their workers, and the mitigation 

of hazards in their work environments.

Operational Component Assessment 

Federal agencies were provided nine attributes, without change from the FY 2013 reporting 

period, to rate the operational component of their SHMSs. Overall, the attributes of the 

operational component were rated highly, indicated by a “2” or higher rating, with the selfinspection, surveillance, and the presence of work rules and practices, being rated the highest by 

more federal agencies than in previous reporting periods. Sixty-four agencies (~66 percent of 

reporting agencies) provided a “3” rating: for the self-inspection attribute for the reporting 

period, as compared to 41 agencies (~53 percent of reporting agencies) and 41 agencies (~48 

percent of reporting agencies) for the CY 2013 and FY 2012 reporting periods, respectively. 

Fifty agencies (~52 percent of reporting agencies) provided a “3” rating for the surveillance

attribute, as compared to 40 agencies (~52 percent of reporting agencies) and 38 agencies (~45

percent of reporting agencies) for the CY 2013 and FY 2012 reporting periods, respectively. 

Sixty-four agencies (~65 percent of reporting agencies) provided a “3” rating for the presence of 

work rules and practices attribute, as compared to 43 agencies (~56 percent of reporting 

agencies) and 44 agencies (~52 percent of reporting agencies) for the CY 2013 and FY 2012

reporting periods, respectively. 

A significant increase in the number of agencies’ ratings of a “2” or higher rating for hazard 

survey, change analysis, and OSHA-mandated programs attributes illustrate agency efforts 

toward improvements in the operational component of their respective SHMSs from the 

previous reporting period.

9

Sixty-two agencies (~63 percent of reporting agencies) provided a 

“2” or higher rating: for the hazard survey attribute, as compared to 52 agencies (~68 percent of 

reporting agencies); and 78 agencies (~80 percent of reporting agencies) for the OSHA-mandated 

programs attribute, as compared to 61 agencies (~79 percent of reporting agencies) for the CY 

2014 and 2013 reporting periods, respectively. A similar increase in the number of agencies 

 

9 The hazard survey and the change analysis attributes of the operational component of a SHMS were added to the extended FY 2013 Report. 

They were not evaluated for FY 2012 reporting period. 
Page 37 

President’s Report 

providing a “2” or higher rating for the change analysis attribute was noted for the reporting 

period, with 69 agencies (~70 percent of reporting agencies), as compared to 45 agencies (~58 

percent of reporting agencies) for the CY 2014 and 2013 reporting periods, respectively. 

Although the ratings of specific subcomponents of the operational component of federal 

agencies’ SHMSs indicate overall improvement from previous years’ ratings, some of the ratings 

may indicate a reversal. Overall, an increased number of reporting agencies provided either a 

“non-applicable” or “not reported” rating for the: hazard survey (27 agencies, ~28 percent);

surveillance (26 agencies, ~27 percent); use of SDSs (41 agencies, ~42 percent); engineering 

controls (35 agencies, ~36 percent); and tracking hazard correction (21 agencies, ~21 percent) 

attributes, for the reporting period. In CY 2013, fewer agencies provided such rating for these

same attributes: 16 agencies (~21 percent), 13 agencies (~17 percent), 21 agencies (~27 percent),

20 agencies (~26 percent), and 14 agencies (~18 percent), respectively.

Table 4a. Major Departments and Independent Agencies’ Overall Safety and Health 

Management System Self-rating Score (n = 23).

Agency Score Agency Score

Department of Agriculture Department of Labor

Department of the Air Force Department of the Navy

Department of the Army Department of State

Department of Commerce Department of Transportation

Department of Defense Department of the Treasury

Department of Education Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Health and Human Services General Services Administration

Department of Homeland Security National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Social Security Administration (includes 

SSAB)

Department of the Interior Tennessee Valley Authority

Department of Justice

Legend for Table 4a and 4b.

Symbol Color Indicates a SHMS Score of: (Interpretation)

Green 3 (Completely in place)

Yellow 2 (Mostly in place with only minor improvements needed)

Red 1 (Some portion or aspect is present although major improvement is needed)



Purple 0 (No discernible or meaningful indication that portion or aspect is even in 

place)

NR Data not reported by agency

Managerial Component Assessment 

Federal agencies were provided 11 attributes10 to rate the managerial component of their 

SHMSs. Overall, the attributes of the managerial component were rated highly, indicated by a 

“3” or “2” rating. For the CY 2014 reporting period, the majority of reporting agencies provided 

 

10 For the CY 2014 reporting period, no new attributes were added for federal agency assessment. In CY 2013, three 

attributes were added: incidence data, authority to perform, and appropriate resources. 
Page 38 

President’s Report 

a “3” rating across the five attributes used to assess the Administration/ Supervision

subcomponent of their respective SHMSs, with 60 to 74 agencies (~61 to ~76 percent) of the

reporting agencies providing a “3” rating for these attributes. The reported data demonstrates a 

steady increase in the number and percentage of agencies that reported similar ratings for the 

previous reporting periods For the CY 2013 reporting period, 44 to 52 (~57 to ~68 percent) of 

reporting agencies providing a “3” rating for these attributes. For the FY 2012 reporting period, 

37 to 48 (~48 to ~62 percent) of the reporting agencies similarly rated the specific assignment of 

OSH tasks; knowledge, skills, and information; and OSH organizational policies attributes, by 

providing the “3” rating for these attributes. 

Additional observations may be made from a comparison of the CY 2014 reported data to 

previous reporting periods’ data, specifically in the Planning/Evaluation, and Training

subcomponents. For the reporting period, agencies’ rating of the three attributes of the 

Planning/Evaluation subcomponent of their respective SHMSs, illustrate added emphasis on this 

critical part of management’s involvement in SHMSs. For the reporting period, 78 (~80 percent) 

of the reporting agencies provided a “2” or higher rating of the action plan, and annual SHMS 

review attributes. For the CY 2013 reporting period, 51 to 56 (~66 to ~73 percent) of the 

reporting agencies provided similar ratings for the attributes of the Planning/Evaluation 

subcomponent. However, a dichotomous relationship may be seen in the agency rating of the 

incidence data attribute of the subcomponent. Although 63 (~64 percent) of the reporting 

agencies provided a “2’ or higher rating of the incidence data attribute, a contrasting 34 (~35 

percent) provided a “non-applicable” or a “not reported” rating for the attribute. This is an 

increase from the CY 2013 ratings, where 19 (~25 percent) of the reporting agencies provided 

similar ratings for the incidence data attribute.

The data implicates that agencies perceive the importance of training, at all levels and at all 

locations, as they pursue excellence in their SHMSs. More than 80 percent of reporting agencies 

provided a “2” or higher rating of the employee training (87 agencies, ~89 percent) new 

employee orientation (83 agencies, ~ 85 percent), and supervisory training (79 agencies, ~81 

percent) attributes. This is a significant improvement in the ratings provided for the CY 2013 

reporting period, where 46 to 53 (~60 to ~71 percent) of the reporting agencies provided similar 

rating for these training attributes. 

Table 4b. Smaller Independent Agencies’ Overall Safety and Health Management System Selfrating Score (n =77).

Agency Score Agency Score

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation National Capital Planning Commission

Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board (Access Board) National Council on Disability

American Battle Monuments Commission NR National Credit Union Administration

Armed Forces Retirement Home National Endowment for the Arts

Broadcasting Board of Governors National Endowment for the Humanities

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System National Gallery of Art

Central Intelligence Agency National Labor Relations Board
Page 39 

President’s Report 

Agency Score Agency Score

Committee for Purchase from People Who 

Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Ability One) National Mediation Board

Commodity Futures Trading Corporation National Science Foundation

Consumer Product Safety Commission National Transportation Safety Board

Corporation for National and Community 

Service Nuclear Regulatory Commission NR

Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

Defense Intelligence Agency Office of Personnel Management

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of Special Trustee for American 

Indians

Export-Import Bank of the United States Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Farm Credit Administration Peace Corps

Federal Communications Commission Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Postal Regulatory Commission

Federal Election Commission Railroad Retirement Board

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Security and Exchange Commission

Federal Housing Finance Agency Selective Service System

Federal Labor Relations Authority Small Business Administration

Federal Maritime Commission The Presidio Trust

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service The Smithsonian Institution

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission U.S. African Development Foundation

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board U.S. Agency for International Development

Federal Trade Commission U.S. Arctic Research Commission

Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board

Institute of Museum and Library Services U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Inter-American Foundation U.S. Commission of Fine Arts NR

International Boundary and Water 

Commission U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

James Madison Memorial Fellowship 

Foundation U.S. International Trade Commission

Kennedy Center U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Marine Mammal Commission U.S. Office of Government Ethics

Merit Systems Protection Board U.S. Office of Special Counsel NR

Millennium Challenge Corporation U.S. Trade and Development Agency

Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation Vietnam Education Foundation

National Archives and Records 

Administration
Page 40 

President’s Report 

Table 5. Number of Federal Agencies Assigning Ratings to Safety and Health Management 

System Attributes (n = 100).

Number of Agencies with the 

Self-assigned Rating

Component Subcomponent Attribute 3 2 1 0 NA NR

Operational

Hazard 

Anticipation/Detection

Hazard survey 35 27 0 11 16 11

Self-inspection 64 21 2 2 5 6

Surveillance 50 21 1 3 17 9

Change analysis 41 28 4 5 12 10

Use of SDSs 32 24 0 3 31 10

Hazard 

Prevention/Control

Engineering controls 42 19 1 3 24 11

Work rules and practices 64 21 1 1 3 10

OSHA-mandated 

programs

47 31 1 4 5 12

Tracking hazard 

correction 52 23 2 2 14 7

Managerial

Planning/ Evaluation

Incidence data 44 19 0 3 25 9

Action plan 46 32 4 4 6 8

Annual SHMS review 47 31 5 6 3 8

Administration/ 

Supervision

Specific assignment of 

OSH tasks 69 19 1 1 1 9

Knowledge, skills, and 

information 61 25 2 2 1 9

Authority to perform 74 14 0 1 1 10

Appropriate resources 69 17 2 1 1 10

OSH organizational 

policies 60 28 2 1 1 8

Safety/Health 

Training

Employee training 53 34 1 3 1 8

New employee orientation 50 33 4 2 3 8

Supervisory training 34 45 8 3 2 8

Cultural

Management 

Leadership

OSH priority policies 63 19 4 2 2 10

Provided competent staff 63 18 2 1 5 11

Delegate authority 68 19 1 2 2 8

Resource allocation 55 31 1 1 3 9

Safety and health training 48 31 4 3 3 11

Safety/health performance 55 29 1 3 2 10

Employee 

Participation

Process involvement 63 26 1 1 2 7

Organizational decisionmaking on resources

29 40 10 4 5 12

Organizational decisionmaking on training 32 40 7 5 5 11

Evaluation of OSH 

performance 40 39 3 4 6 8
Page 41 

President’s Report 

Cultural Component Assessment 

For the CY 2014 reporting period, 10 attributes11 were provided to federal agencies to rate the 

cultural component of their SHMSs. Overall, the majority of federal agencies, between 69 to 92

(~70 to ~94 percent) of reporting agencies providing a “2” or higher rating for the 10 attributes 

used to assess the cultural component. This reporting exceeds previous years’ ratings for the 

cultural component attributes. For the CY 2013 reporting period, between 52, to 58 (~68 to ~75 

percent) of the reporting agencies provided similar ratings of the available cultural component 

attributes. For the CY 2012 reporting period, between 56, to 68 (~66 to ~80 percent) of 

reporting agencies provided similar ratings of the available cultural component attributes. 

From the CY 2014 submitted data, federal agencies’ reports reflected improvement in all five 

attributes used to assess the cultural component for the CY 2013 reporting period, specifically 

provided competent staff, delegate authority, resource allocation, process involvement, and 

evaluation of OSH performance attributes. This observation is indicated by the increase in the 

absolute number of agencies providing higher ratings to these attributes, and, conversely, fewer 

agencies providing either a “not-applicable,” or a “not rated” rating for these same attributes. 

The process improvement attribute demonstrated a 38 percent increase in agencies providing 

either a “2” or higher rating; with resource allocation attribute demonstrating the least increase 

being noted at 13 percent. Only nine (~9 percent) of reporting agencies provided either a “notapplicable,” or a “not rated” rating for the process improvement attribute, as compared to 

seventeen (~22 percent) for the CY 2013 reporting period. The three remaining attributes used 

from the CY 2013 reporting period, provided competent staff, delegate authority, and evaluation 

of OSH performance, demonstrated at least a 14 percent increase in higher ratings provided for 

the CY 2014 reporting period.

Recordkeeping 

Since January 1, 2005, federal agencies have been required to maintain injury and illness records 

in essentially the same format as the private sector, as set forth in 29 CFR §1904. On August 5, 

2013, OSHA finalized a rule change that allowed the Department of Labor to annually collect 

certain components of the statutorily-required injury and illness records from all Executive 

Branch agencies. In addition, the rule clarified and updated some existing provisions of 29 CFR 

§1960 for better application to the Executive Branch. It was envisioned that improving records 

creation and initiating collection of these records would assist both agencies and OSHA to 

identify those worksites with the highest injury and illness rates, and better target needed training 

for federal agencies.

Throughout CY 2013, OSHA worked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to adapt its private 

sector survey to the federal sector for universal data collection. At the same time, in order to 

ensure the best response rate and ease compliance for federal agencies, OSHA began providing 

agencies with guidance about the data collection process and advance information about the data 

to be collected. OSHA also provided and continues to offer outreach and training to participants 

 

11 For the CY 2014 reporting period, five attributes were added to the CY 2013 attribute listing for federal 

Departments and agencies to assess the Cultural component of their respective SHMSs: OSH priority policies; 

safety and health training; safety and health performance; and organizational decision-making on resources, and 

training. 
Page 42 

President’s Report 

at all levels of the recordkeeping and reporting process on the changes to 29 CFR §1960 and the 

data collection system. A pilot collection in CY 2014, of 2013 data, involved 12 agencies and 

2,000 establishments.

In the first full year of data collection, the 2015 Federal Recordkeeping Collection process, 94

agencies (out of a possible 100 agencies) provided establishment lists for the CY 2014 data 

collection. In order to facilitate a near-100 percent completion rate, and assist agencies with 

compliance hurdles, OSHA worked closely with agencies by collaborating on formats; advising 

on implementing centralized recordkeeping systems; working with federal agencies to clean-up 

improperly formatted data; and creating a ‘late collection’ process that enabled basic compliance. 

Of these, 62 agencies managed to complete at least some reporting, although only 43 reached the 

80 percent completion mark. On a Government-wide basis, some reporting was provided, or at 

least attempted, for 14,306 establishments, which is 73 percent of the total number of 

establishments registered for the 2014 collection (Please see Appendix 1 for the tables detailing 

the status of federal agencies’ injury and illness reporting.).

OSHA will analyze the collected data for key findings, and use it to develop the CY 2016 

Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program. In addition, the Agency will analyze the 

collection process itself for lessons-learned to further streamline and simplify the process.

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE 

Agency Technical Assistance Request 

An agency technical assistance request, known as an ATAR, is a consultative service open only 

to federal agencies, and is analogous to OSHA’s Consultation Program for private sector 

employers. Federal agencies may contact an OSHA Area Office and request technical 

assistance, which may include hazard abatement advice, training, a partial or comprehensive 

inspection, and/or program assistance. While the request is generally considered to be strictly

consultative, an agency’s subsequent failure or refusal to abate serious hazards may result in an 

inspection referral. 

In CY 2014, OSHA did not conduct, nor did federal agencies request, any ATARs.

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils 

Field federal safety and health councils (FFSHCs) are federal interagency groups, chartered by 

the Secretary, that bring together local OSH professionals for education, problem solving, and 

cooperation in the safety and health field. Located throughout the nation, these councils work to 

reduce the incidence, severity, and cost of accidents, injuries, and illnesses within their 

designated geographic areas. In CY 2014, 34 FFSHCs actively carried out efforts to improve the 

effectiveness of OSH functions within the Government (Please see Appendix 2, for a complete 

listing of active FFSHCs for CY 2014.). Twenty-three agencies had appointed representatives to 

their local FFSHCs. The majority of this personnel support was provided through the 

Departments of Defense (19 FFSCHCs), Homeland Security (13 FFSHCs), Labor (17 FFSHCs), 

Veterans Affairs (12 FFSHCs), Agriculture (11 FFSHCs), and the U.S. Postal Service (10

FFSHCs) (Please see Appendix 2 for a listing of these agencies.). Some of these same agencies 
Page 43 

President’s Report 

also had non-appointed members to local FFSHCs; others appointed new representation to their 

local FFSHCs. (Please see Appendix 2 for a listing of these agencies.)

Under 29 CFR §1960.89, each active council must submit an annual report to the Secretary 

describing its activities and programs for the previous calendar year; and its plans, objectives, 

and goals for the current year. OSHA uses these reports to assess individual FFSHC’s program 

plans, and to determine the success of its goals and objectives. The councils that best exemplify 

the intent and purpose of the FFSHC program may receive an achievement award from the 

Secretary.

In determining award recipients, councils are separated into three categories based on the size of 

the federal population they serve, which allows them to compete with other councils that possess 

approximately the same resources and serve similar populations. Each council’s annual report to 

the Secretary is evaluated, rated and ranked with other FFSHCs in its category. The top three 

scorers in each category receive awards for Superior Performance, Meritorious Achievement, 

and Notable Recognition. The CY 2014 FFSHC Award Winners were as follows:

CATEGORY I: FFSHCs serving an area with a federal employee population exceeding 

24,000

Superior Performance – Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

Meritorious Achievement – Dallas / Fort Worth FFSHC 

Notable Recognition – Denver FFSHC

Notable Recognition – San Francisco Bay Area FFSHC

CATEGORY II: FFSHCs serving an area with a federal employee population numbering 

between 12,000 and 24,000

Superior Performance – Western New York FFSHC

Meritorious Achievement – Greater St. Louis FFSHC

Notable Recognition – Minneapolis FFSHC

CATEGORY III: FFSHCs serving an area with a federal employee population of fewer than 

12,000

Superior Performance – Hudson Valley FFSHC

Meritorious Achievement – Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

Notable Recognition – Duluth/Superior FFSHC

Due to tie scores in Category I, 10 FFSHCs received a Secretarial award for their CY 2014 

council activities. 

Federal agencies reported providing a variety of support to FFSHCs, including participating in 

meetings, and providing administrative support, speakers, and meeting space. Of note are EPA’s 

employees’ actions in supporting 12 local FFSHCs. According to their report, 386 
Page 44 

President’s Report 

representatives from 16 EPA locations participated in supporting FFSHCs in Chicago, IL; 

Cincinnati, OH; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Duluth, MN; Edison, NJ; 

Guaynabo, PR; Kansas City, KS; New York, NY; San Francisco, CA; and Washington, DC. 

Collectively, these participants attended 51 council meetings over the course of the year. In 

addition to providing meeting space, the Agency indicated that its employees have officiated 

over council meetings as chair and secretary; and have provided expertise to these councils in the 

areas of chemical safety, enforcement investigations, environmental response and protection, 

industrial hygiene, infrastructure program management, laboratory safety, mid-continent 

ecology, safety engineering and operations, occupational safety and health management, and 

vehicle and fuel emissions.

Alternate and Supplementary Standards 

Under 29 CFR §1960.17, an agency cannot comply with an applicable OSHA standard, the 

agency may submit a request to OSHA for an alternate standard.

12

 Currently, there are six

OSHA-approved alternate standards. 

In CY 2014, OSHA approved two new alternate standards: the National Archives and Records 

Administration’s modification to its Special Purpose Ladders (Pulpit Ladders) alternate 

standard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Alternate Diving 

Standards.

The agencies and their alternate standards include:

 Federal Aviation Administration - Alternate Standard for Fire Safety in Air Traffic 

Control Towers; 

 National Archives and Records Administration - Standard on Special-Purpose Ladders;

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Standard for Lifting Devices and 

Equipment;

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Alternate Diving Standards;

 U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command - Management of Weight-Handling 

Equipment; and,

 U.S. Navy - Gas Free Engineering Manual.

Under 29 CFR §1960.18, if no OSHA standard exists that is appropriate for application to 

working conditions of federal agency employees, an agency must develop a supplementary 

standard. Currently, there are two supplementary standards: the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration’s (NASA’s) Safety Standard for Explosives, Propellants, Pyro-technics; and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture/Forest Service’s Supplementary Standard for Containers and

Portable Tanks Transport.

OSHA Training 

OSHA provides federal agency OSH personnel with training opportunities. Two of the most 

highly regarded and widely attended opportunities are FEDWEEK - a one-week training 

 

12 An alternate standard is the federal agency equivalent of a private sector variance. Any alternate standard must provide equal or greater 

protection than the applicable OSHA standard for the affected federal employees.
Page 45 

President’s Report 

experience, and the Federal Agency Occupational Safety and Health Managers’ Roundtable

(Roundtable) – an informational exchange forum for federal OSH management personnel. 

Occupational Safety and Health Training 

Annually, OSHA provides a week of training, known as FEDWEEK, specifically for federal 

agency OSH personnel, tuition-free, at the OSHA Training Institute, located in Arlington 

Heights, Illinois. The number of participants and federal agencies represented has remained 

relatively consistent of the years (Please see Table 6 below). Similar to previous years’ 

offerings, at the CY 2014 event, OSHA provided nine half-day seminars, offered twice during 

the week on topics chosen after surveying federal OSH personnel. The 109 federal OSH 

employee participants, representing 34 federal agencies, had the opportunity to attend up to six 

different sessions on various topics, including: Asbestos Management and Housekeeping;

Construction Safety; Distracted Driving; Electrical Safety; Fall Protection; Fundamentals of 

Industrial Hygiene Exposure Assessment; OSHA National Emphasis Programs and Health 

Hazards; Heat Stress; and Safety and Health Management Systems.

Table 6: FEDWEEK Participation by Attendees and Calendar Year (2014-2012).

Calendar Year

2014 2013 2012

Participants 109 104 111

Seminar Registrants 477 496 490

Agencies Represented 34 31 34

Previous years’ seminar topics have included: Confined Spaces; Hearing Conservation; Indoor 

Air Quality; Office Ergonomics; Record Keeping; and Machine Guarding. In addition, the 

Institute offers a myriad of professional and technical courses that are open to the private and 

public sectors alike. Federal OSH personnel regularly attend these courses.

Federal Agency OSH Managers’ Roundtable 

In its second year, and after four meetings since its inception, the Roundtable has proven its 

value as an effective informational exchange of issues relevant to federal agency best practices, 

in both the number of participants and the topics addressed. Participation by federal senior OSH 

managers, medical personnel, technical experts, and labor representatives has increased by 340

percent. At its June 2013 foundational meeting, the Roundtable was attended by 22 individuals, 

representing 13 Executive Branch departments and independent agencies (no labor organizations 

were represented). By its fourth meeting, held in September 2014, attendance increased to 75

individuals, representing 37 Executive Branch departments and independent agencies, and eight

labor organizations representing federal employees (nearly quadrupling the number of 

agencies/labor organizations represented). In addition to the issues discussed at the CY 2014 

meetings (see below), Roundtable participants discussed a variety of relevant topics, including

the application of the multi-employer worksite to construction in federal worksites; federal 

agency recordkeeping requirements, the Global Harmonizing Standard; the Secretary of Labor’s 

Report to the President on Federal Department and Agency Occupational Safety and Health 
Page 46 

President’s Report 

Program Activity; strategies to reduce injuries and illnesses among the federal workforce; and 

OSHA federal agency inspection process. 

The Roundtable met twice in CY 2014. At the June 6, 2014 meeting, participants discussed 

several areas of interest:

 DOL’s lessons learned from a recent fire at its Headquarters Building

 OSHA’s guidance on occupational exposure to heat, and isocyanates

 NASA’s experiences with the development of an alternate standard

 American Federation of Government Employees perspective on unions’ contributions to 

safer workplaces

 FACOSH’s recent efforts to transition the GS-0018 job series from ‘Administrative’ to 

‘Professional’ standing.

At the year’s second Roundtable, held September 29, 2014, participants discussed:

 The Presidential POWER Initiative, including leading indicators and metrics

 Strategies to protect employees from slips, trips, and falls

 Federal agency OSH self-assessment tools, including OSHA’s Federal Agency Employee 

Occupational Safety and Health Toolkit
Page 47 

President’s Report 

This section provides information on agency-reported fatalities and catastrophes; and selected 

agency activities, including participation in OSH committees and councils, and agencies’ efforts 

to increase motor vehicle safety. It also provides a summary of agencies’ methods of controlling 

occupational injury and illness trends; the impact of the inspection process on an agency’s safety 

and health management system; OSH training programs; protections afforded employees who 

report safety and health hazards, and product safety. Per statute, the GSA and the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are required to provide certain services to 

federal agencies in pursuing the safety and health of federal employees. This section ends with a 

brief regarding these activities.

Fatalities and Catastrophes 

The Act, and provisions of 29 CFR §1960 and other regulations, require employers, both private 

and public, to investigate, track, and report findings involving work-related fatalities and 

catastrophic events to OSHA in an expeditious manner. For the CY 2014 reporting period, 

agencies reported 13 work-related federal civilian employee fatalities. This is approximately a 

32 percent decrease from the 41 (37 of which were determined to be work-related) federal 

civilian employee fatalities reported for the previous reporting period. The agencies and the 

respective numbers of fatal/catastrophic incidents were:

 Department of Agriculture (USDA): two work-related fatalities; 

 Department of Homeland Security (DHS): two work-related fatalities;

 Department of the Interior: two work-related fatalities;

 Department of Defense (DoD)/Defense Logistics Agency: one work-related fatality;

 DoD/Department of the Army: three work-related fatalities, two catastrophic events; and 

 DoD/Department of the Navy: three work-related fatalities.

Summary of Agency Fatality/ Catastrophic Reports 

The USDA reported two work-related fatalities:

 A Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer and his working dog were killed in a shootout while pursuing a double-homicide suspect in Burke County, NC. When later 

confronted by other officers, the suspect fatally shot himself in the head. The agency 

determined that while work-related, the officer’s death was due to a criminal act. It 

reported that the Forest Service Law Enforcement procedures were thoroughly reviewed, 

but that no changes were required. 

 A 60-year-old, male, seasonal, recreational trails employee from the Routt National 

Forest, CO, working near Buffalo Pass, failed to check-in at the end of the day. A search 

found the employee deceased in his government pick-up truck. The investigation did not 

determine the direct cause of the incident, but determined that the vehicle had gone over 

an embankment, rolling over several times. The Colorado Highway Patrol assumed 

distracted driving played a part in the incident. As a result of this fatality, the agency 

reported that it has improved employee check-in/out procedures; clarified the ‘missing 
Page 48 

President’s Report 

employee notification’ process; enhanced search and rescue procedures; and improved 

critical incident stress management response. 

The Department of the Interior reported two work-related fatalities.

 According to its report, a Bureau of Reclamation employee was returning to his duty 

station after attending a two-day training class in Colorado. He was riding his privatelyowned motorcycle. When he tried to avoid hitting an animal, he lost control of the 

motorcycle, sustaining multiple injuries which resulted in his death. As a result of this 

incident, the agency disseminated a regional policy letter emphasizing that riders should 

wear personal protective equipment, especially a helmet, eye protection, jacket, trousers,

and footwear, as a minimum, while operating a POV-motorcycle for official government 

travel. 

 The Department reported that a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) timber 

cruiser/appraiser died when a tree fell on his government-owned vehicle. It indicated that 

contract timber operations were occurring in the vicinity of the road where the employee 

was driving. An analysis of the incident determined that the road was not marked 

‘CLOSED,’ and no flagger was present to prevent driving on the road. The BLM Oregon 

State Director issued a Safety and Contractual Responsibility Reminder for BLM Timber 

Sale Contract Purchasers, and a safety message for BLM employees. In addition, 

Oregon State, and OSHA are planning training for employees who work in the vicinity of 

active timber felling operations. BLM reported that it is developing a pre-work meeting, 

and an electronic inspection checklist. 

The DoD reported seven work-related fatalities, and two catastrophic events. These included

one fatality reported by the Defense Logistics Agency, and three fatalities reported each by the 

Departments of the Army and Navy. The DoD report indicated that a Defense Logistics Agency

civilian employee was killed when a car bomb exploded near him while on deployment in 

Afghanistan. The incident report did not indicate that any corrective actions or programmatic 

changes occurred as a result of the incident.

According to the DoD report, the Department of the Army reported three work-related fatalities:

 A civilian employee was killed while attempting to mow a large area laterally on a 

sloping downgrade, which caused the mower to overturn. The downgrade was in excess 

of the manufacturers’ specification of 15 degrees. The employee struck his head on the 

mower bar and was pinned underneath the mower. An investigation revealed the 

mower’s rollover protection was not raised/locked in place, and that the employee was 

not wearing a seatbelt. As a result of this incident, the agency reported that it has 

retrained personnel on the safe use of mowers, and had briefed OSH managers on the 

incident’s cause and recommended strategies to prevent future occurrences. 

Programmatically, supervisors were encouraged to enforce safety standards and were 

provided training.

 A civilian employee was killed after being struck by a moving vehicle. The investigation 

report indicated that the pedestrian employee was returning to his workplace after 

training, and that the roadways were covered with snow and ice at the time of the 

incident. As a result of this incident, the agency reported that the specifics of the incident 
Page 49 

President’s Report 

will be briefed at future safety meeting and be included in winter driving training 

sessions.

 A third civilian employee was killed while discharging a fire extinguisher installed in 

Army vehicles. An investigation revealed that the employee failed to adhere to the

manufacturer’s warning label on the fire extinguisher which resulted in the fire 

extinguisher becoming a lethal projectile. It struck the employee in the face, causing

massive fatal head trauma. As a result of this incident, the agency has communicated 

with all Army Reserve maintenance organizations on the importance of adhering to all 

manufacturer cautions and warnings, as well as those provided in technical manuals. In 

addition, the agency is considering the development of a training video that demonstrates

the potentially lethal effects of disregarding the warnings and cautions associated with the 

maintenance of the fire extinguisher equipment found in numerous Army fleet vehicles.

In addition to the above work-related fatalities, the Army reported two work-related catastrophic 

events that involved two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees, independent of each other:

 One employee was injured when a powerhouse fire occurred as a result of an electric arc. 

As a result of this incident, the agency instituted daily working meetings between the

Corps, contractor, and plant personnel to discuss the day’s work plan, and provided for 

correct work practices. 

 Another employee was injured when a concrete bag slipped and fell, resulting in the 

crushing, and later surgical amputation, of the employee’s right pinky finger. As a result 

of the incident, the agency completed a work plan and a risk/hazard analysis. It did not 

indicate the need for programmatic changes.

According to the DoD report, the Department of the Navy reported three work-related fatalities:

 A civilian employee was killed when his car ran off the road, hit a guardrail, and came to 

a stop in a creek. The police report indicated that the employee appeared to have 

experienced a seizure while driving, and was not wearing a seatbelt. As a result of this 

incident, the agency reported that it has made changes to its driver’s validation process, 

specifically the periodic concurrent reviews of the operator’s driver’s license and medical 

history, reinforced its policy requiring seatbelt use and the inspection of government 

vehicles for non-functioning seatbelt alarms. The agency also reported that 

programmatic changes provided for the updating of Department-wide policy documents, 

including the pre-operational vehicle seatbelt-alarm checks, and stricter supervisory 

enforcement of existing policies to ensure employees are medically qualified and 

continue to demonstrate competence to operate the type of motor vehicle to which they 

are assigned. 

 A civilian employee fell while entering her workplace during inclement weather. She 

sustained a broken femur and an aortic dissection; her injuries were treated in the 

hospital. She died shortly thereafter. As a result of the incident, the agency reported 

multiple corrective actions including the development of a base-wide snow/ice removal 

policy, providing for the adjustment of working hours when inclement weather adversely 

impacts employee reporting for duty, outlining command responsibilities during 

inclement weather incidents, and provided for employee training on related issues; and 

programmatic changes including, modifying Command personnel responsibilities, the 
Page 50 

President’s Report 

posting of educational materials base-wide, and the purchase and distribution of needed 

equipment/ supplies to support the implemented changes.

 A third civilian employee was killed while walking on a sidewalk when she was struck 

by a privately-owned vehicle driven by a military member. An initial investigation 

determined that the military member, unfamiliar with the direction of the road, 

overcorrected his vehicle at a turn causing his vehicle to jump the curb and proceed onto 

the sidewalk striking the pedestrian employee. As a result of this incident, the agency 

reported the installation of ‘candlestick’ dividers at the turn at the intersection where the 

mishap occurred. The final investigation report is pending.

The DHS reported two work-related fatalities:

 One of its employees was killed after the driver’s side tire blew out of his vehicle, 

causing him to lose control of the vehicle, which then rolled over. The agency did not 

report any corrective actions or programmatic changes.

 Another employee collapsed and died while boarding a ship for inspection at the 

Brownsville Seaport, TX. The agency did not report any corrective actions or 

programmatic changes.

Certified Safety and Health Committees 

A certified safety and health committee is an agency OSH committee that the head of the 

sponsoring agency has certified to the Secretary of Labor as meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 

§1960, Subpart F. The purposes of a CSHC are to monitor and assist with an agency’s OSH 

program; maintain an open channel of communication between employees and management; and 

facilitate employee input to improve OSH-related policies, conditions, and practices. In addition 

to an improved OSH program and a safe and healthful workplace, agencies with a CSHC are 

statutorily exempt from ‘unannounced’ OSHA inspections.

Both E.O. 12196 and 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F discuss the formation, composition, and duties of 

CSHCs. In brief, an agency that wants to establish a CSHC must establish OSH committees at 

both the national and – if the agency has subcomponents located outside its national office or 

headquarters – other appropriate levels within the organization. Committee membership must 

include equal numbers of management and non-management representatives. In addition, the 

committee must have access to OSH-related information, monitor the agency’s OSH program, 

and consult and advise on OSH program operations.

When an agency decides to form a CSHC, it must report this intent to the Secretary and include:

 The existence, location, and coverage (establishments and populations) area of the 

committee; and

 The names and phone numbers of each committee chair (national and local).

In addition, the agency must certify to the Secretary of Labor that the committee meets all the 

requirements of 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F. The agency must also provide an annual update on 

its CSHC as part of its required Annual Report to the Secretary of Labor on the Agency’s 

Occupational Safety and Health Program Activity.
Page 51 

President’s Report 

In an effort to support agency formation of CSHCs, OSHA may not conduct unannounced 

inspections at federal agencies with CSHCs unless the CSHC has requested an inspection. While 

any agency may form a CSHC, only six such certified committees currently exist. The Secretary 

recognizes the following Departments and independent agencies as having CSHCs:

 Central Intelligence Agency,

 Department of Labor,

 General Services Administration,

 Tennessee Valley Authority,

 U.S. International Trade Commission, and the

 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Status of Agency CSHCs 

As previously noted, the aforementioned agencies are required to provide the Secretary with an 

annual status report on their respective CSHCs. The Central Intelligence Agency, DOL, and the 

Tennessee Valley Authority submitted information certifying to the Secretary of Labor that their 

respective CSHCs met the requirements of the subpart. The U.S. International Trade 

Commission reported that it no longer has a CSHC. The U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission did not report on the status of its CSHC for CY 2014. In its CY 2013 report, the 

GSA indicated that it is no longer is eligible to have a CSHC. Since then, the agency reported 

that it successfully revitalized its national level committee in the CY 2014 reporting period, 

thereby meeting the requirements to have a CSHC. Two agencies, the Department of Energy, 

and the National Archives and Records Administration, are reportedly continuing their efforts to 

establish a CSHC. During CY 2016, OSHA will be following up with these agencies to confirm 

the status of their CSHCs.

Other OSH Committees and Councils 

Federal agencies were queried regarding the depth of their involvement in field federal safety 

and health councils (FFSHCs). While 42 federal agencies reported some involvement, 36

reported no involvement in these councils. The remainder did not report on this item. 

Involvement varied. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland 

Security, and the Navy; and the Federal Reserve Board and GSA reported that agency senior 

OSH management participated within local FFSHCs, some even holding council offices. Only 

seven agencies reported that they provide in-kind supports to their local councils, including 

advertising and providing meeting space, and administrative support.

Although the majority of federal agencies reported minimal to no involvement in FFSHC 

activities, some agencies described a variety of committees and other venues to address 

workplace OSH issues. These agencies reported active participation in FFSHC activities (Please 

see Appendix 1 for specific data regarding agencies involvement with FFSHCs.), and reported 

that they encourage employees to participate in local council activities and appropriate OSH 

professional organizations, such as the American Biological Safety Association, the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, the American Industrial Hygiene 

Association, the American Society of Safety Engineers, Health Physics Society, the Human 
Page 52 

President’s Report 

Factors and Ergonomics Society, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Strength 

and Conditioning Association, as well as, nationally- and locally-oriented safety organizations, 

such as the National Safety Council, and local working groups, to assess safety procedures for 

specific jobs or draft worksite safety policies. The agencies, listed below, reported making 

efforts to reestablish their OSH committees that had become inactive in recent years. 

 The Army indicated that most of its major Commands, subordinate Commands, and 

organizations participate in Command OSH advisory councils at least twice a year, and 

that it encourages its personnel to participate in other agencies’ OSH councils.

 The Department of Commerce reported active encouragement of its employees to 

participate in Bureau field office OSH meetings, and that its various Bureaus participate 

in the Department’s semiannual OSH council and the monthly safety managers’ 

workgroup meetings.

 The Department of Education stated that the current Chairperson of the Metropolitan 

Washington FFSHC is a departmental employee, and has held that position for the past 

six years. 

 State indicated that it participated in several of the FACOSH subcommittees and 

workgroups.

 NASA and the National Traffic Safety Board indicated that their headquarters personnel 

respectively participate in FACOSH and its various subcommittees. 

Little change from previous years was noted in federal agencies’ participation in other venues in 

support of their OSH programs. For CY 2014, nearly all agencies (as compared to 37, and 34

agencies in FYs 2013 and 2012, respectively) reported on a variety of non-certified OSH-related 

committees that function at the departmental, agency, and field operation levels, including 

FFSHCs. Committee membership varied from agency-to-agency, with some comprised of 

various levels of managers, others focused on expertise in a specific area, and still others had 

members with only OSH-related duties and responsibilities. According to the various reports, 

most of these OSH committees were considered vital components of the respective agency’s 

OSH program. Given the reported levels of participation of some of the OSH committees, some 

of the agencies may want to pursue certifying their committees and achieving the recognition and 

OSH benefits such certification would provide them. 

Several of the smaller independent agencies reported little need for an agency-wide safety 

committee, voicing that issues are handled on a person-to-person, issue-by-issue basis. These 

included the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian 

Relocation. 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

Collectively, 39 federal agencies, including those agencies that reported zero incidents, reported 

that approximately 9,798 motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) occurred in CY 2014, which 

represents approximately a 25, and 14 percent increase from the approximate 7,843 and 8,627 as 

reported in CY 2013 and FY 2012, respectively. (Please see Table 7 for a side-by-side 
Page 53 

President’s Report 

comparison of CY 2014 to FY 2012 and 2013 MVAs reported by federal agencies.) The 

majority of agencies reported having a motor vehicle safety program (MVSP), with most 

agencies noting compliance with E.O.s 13043 and 13513, which require the use of seatbelts in 

motor vehicles and ban texting while driving, respectively. In addition, agencies reported that 

they continued to provide programs to limit the likelihood and impact of MVAs. Paradoxically, 

while the majority of these federal agencies reported training as an integral part of their 

programs, 23 agencies reported little to no training of employees in this area. 

Similar to previous years’ reports, many agencies required defensive driving courses, the 

majority using courses through GSA, or the National Safety Council or similar organizations. 

Several agencies also reported having programs to encourage seatbelt use, such as decals in 

vehicles, or reminders on employee websites or in break rooms. While several agencies reported 

tracking seatbelt use after an accident – many using information from police reports – few had 

any full-time tracking of seatbelt use at other times. A number of agencies mentioned having 

random compliance checks, including one agency that reported using camera surveillance. 

A few agency efforts toward reducing MVAs and personal injury are noteworthy, including: the 

U.S. Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Equally noteworthy is the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home reporting that it recently enacted a MVSP that includes driver 

safety training.

The Department of State’s efforts at reducing the number and severity of MVAs, domestically 

and at its overseas posts, are particularly noteworthy. According to the Agency report, it 

continues to install event data recorders in its fleet at its highest risk domestic and overseas posts. 

State estimates that this program has reduced risky driving behaviors by 77 percent, and has 

saved at least 25 lives since its inception. Vehicles so-equipped provide direct measurement of 

seatbelt compliance. Overseas, this has resulted in reducing compliance violations by 60 percent

from 2013 to 2014. Observational data obtained during the agency’s post assessment visits 

confirmed compliance at 83 percent, increasing up to 97 percent from corrective actions 

implemented after such visits. Observational data on distracted driver compliance demonstrates 

similar results, with 94 to 96 percent compliance. In 2014, 79 operators had two or more 

violations, a 35 percent reduction from 2013.

For the 2014 reporting period, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that its 3,200 

employees drove a combined 6.5+ million miles on government business, but were involved in 

only 37 MVAs (four of which resulted in personal injury). These data, compared to the previous 

4-year period demonstrates a significant decrease in the Agency’s overall number of MVAs, and 

the number of incidents involving personal injury. This effect was reported to be a result of the 

Agency’s emphasis on seatbelt use and prohibition on distracted driving. The Agency also 

reported that it released a new driving guideline to help its managers and employees further 

reduce driving-related hazards. The document outlines roles and responsibilities, identifies 

operational controls that must be followed to reduce driving hazards, and specifies driver safety 

training and periodicity requirements. The EPA also reported using a myriad of approaches to 

continually educate and train its employees on safe driving techniques.
Page 54 

President’s Report 

Approximately 14 agencies indicated not having a MVSP for a variety of reasons, including their 

size and number of employees assigned, mission - such as not driving in an “official capacity,”

not owning an agency-dedicated fleet, or that agency employees use mass transit for travel needs

to and from the workplace. Fifteen other agencies indicated that such a program was “not 

applicable” to their situations, or failed to report the existence of a program. Comparable to last 

year’s reporting, and equally perplexing, was the assertion by a few agencies that, because they 

had zero MVAs, they did not need a motor vehicle safety program. 

Those agencies indicating that they did not have a motor vehicle safety program include: Ability 

One Commission, Commission on Civil Rights, Federal Communications Commission, Federal 

Labor Relations Authority, Federal Maritime Commission, Inter-American Foundation, National 

Endowment for the Humanities, National Gallery of Art, Nuclear Waste Technical Review 

Board, Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, Postal Regulatory Commission, Selective 

Service System, Social Security Advisory Board, and the United States Commission on Fine 

Arts.

Table 7. Summary of Motor Vehicle Accidents as Reported by Department and Independent 

Agency (Fiscal Year 2012 through Calendar Year 2014).

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 2014

(FY 2013/2012)

Department of Agriculture 2,321 (2,427/147)

Department of the Air Force 25 (13/13)

Department of the Army 11 (11/23)

Department of Commerce 141 (134/128)

Department of Defense ? NR (515/823)

Department of Energy ? NR (90/47)

Department of Health and Human Services 80 (100/96)

Department of Homeland Security ? 1,441 (NR/2,669)

Department of Housing and Urban Development 10 (0/0)

Department of Justice 2,493 (2,689/3,006)

Department of Labor 384 (403/370)

Department of the Interior 581 (0/0)

Department of the Navy ? 10 (NR/NR)

Department of State 1,200 (380/271)

Department of Transportation ? NR (28/38)
Page 55 

President’s Report 

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 2014

(FY 2013/2012)

Department of the Treasury 387 (316/4)

Department of Veterans Affairs 215 (43/292)

Environmental Protection Agency 37 (31/31)

General Services Administration 35 (38/92)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 0 (201/205)

Social Security Administration 15 (3/6)

Tennessee Valley Authority 157 (102/78)

Office of Personnel Management 190 (218/204)

Armed Forces Retirement Home 0 (1/0)

Broadcasting Board of Governors ? NR (NR/3)

Central Intelligence Agency ? NR (NR/NR)

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ? NR (2/0)

Consumer Product Safety Commission 6 (0/0)

Corporation for National and Community Service 1 (3/0)

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 13 (14/15)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ? NR (15/8)

Farm Credit Administration 2 (0/5)

Federal Communications Commission 2 (4/2)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 0 (32/10)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 0 (NR/6)

Federal Maritime Commission 0 (3/0)

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 0 (2/0)

International Boundary and Water Commission 7 (0/1)

National Archives and Records Administration 0 (7/2)

National Capital Planning Commission 0 (0/0)
Page 56 

President’s Report 

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 2014

(FY 2013/2012)

National Labor Relations Board 5 (0/0)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 (0/15)

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 0 (0/1)

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians ? NR (0/0)

Small Business Administration 3 (0/1)

Smithsonian Institution 17 (13/15)

The Peace Corps 3 (1/0)

The Presidio Trust ? NR (4/0)

U.S. Arctic Research Commission NR (0/0)

~TOTAL ~9,798 (~7,843/~8,627)

Legend for Table 6

No change from FY 2012 report NR Not reported

Decrease from FY 2012 report ? Undetermined from reported data

Increase from FY 2012 report

Analyzing and Controlling Trends 

This year, OSHA again asked agencies how they determined any OSH-related trends, such as 

specific causes or types of injuries, or hazardous jobs or tasks. Specific attention was given to 

agency activities focusing on the prevention of slips, trips, and falls. Of the reporting agencies, 

29 (~ 30 percent) specifically reported that the most frequent cause of employee injury was 

attributable to slips, trips, and falls. Forty-four agencies did not report on this item. Agencies 

included a variety of prevention strategies to counter these incidents. Most reported relying on 

the accurate employee reporting of and self-inspections by supervisory personnel to identify 

hazard areas. Other approached included: the installation of slip-resistant flooring and warning 

signage; prevention awareness training, including ergonomics and ladder safety training; general 

housekeeping improvement, including the removal of slips, trips and falls hazards and the 

accessible placement of supplies and equipment; and the innovative use of the web and safety 

bulletin boards to heighten employee and public awareness of the hazards.

Agencies provided information on their efforts to identify and analyze workplace hazards. 

Overall, responses illustrated little change in previously reported agency actions. Agencies 

described a range of analysis methods, from manual cataloging of incidents to real-time 

computer monitoring of OSH-related data as entered into a variety of information system(s). In 

general, agencies with more employees, or higher incidence rates, tended to incorporate 

information systems and more frequent monitoring of entered data. It is not surprising to note 
Page 57 

President’s Report 

that overall, federal agencies with higher rates of injuries and illnesses reported greater emphasis 

on data analysis, integrating OSH-related considerations into all aspects of agency operations, 

and tracking near misses. Yet even agencies that reported few or no work-related injuries and 

illnesses continued to track OSH-related reports and information to help ensure safer and more 

healthful workplaces.

Similar to previous years’ reporting, the majority of agencies reported performing some type of 

data analysis to determine the prevalence of injury type, the most common causes of injuries, and 

the jobs or tasks that resulted in injuries. A few agencies reported that incident investigation 

remained a top priority in root cause analysis, and helped aid in hazard abatement. Agencies also 

reported tracking and analyzing ‘near-misses,’ or those incidents that could have resulted in an 

accident or injury, but did not at that particular time. Other strategies for reducing workplace 

injuries and illnesses include integrating safety considerations into building design and/or job 

duties and procedures; encouraging employees to report potential hazards as they are discovered;

and focusing on specific problems, such as frequent types of injuries, or specific hazards. 

Agencies stressed the importance of self-inspection, internal and external, in identifying hazards, 

and analyzing and controlling trends.

Safety and Health Management System Response 

to the Inspection Process 

Federal agencies reported involvement in a variety of inspection activities, including internal 

agency and external (OSHA-conducted) inspections; and various responses to the inspection 

process, including immediate correction, working with GSA and other entities for hazard 

abatement, negotiation with OSHA, and updating policy and procedural guidance. Some 

agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, and Justice and the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, indicated that they encourage employee and contractor 

participation in this inspection process. 

Collectively, 43 agencies affirmed that they perform annual internal inspections/audits on their 

safety and health management systems. A few reported an increased frequency of 

inspections/audits. The Department of the Interior reported conducting, with assistance provided 

by Federal Occupational Health, approximately 435 announced/unannounced inspections/audits. 

The Smithsonian Institution reported that it conducts at least two self-inspections on each of its 

31 establishments on an annual basis. Agencies reported that the majority of internal inspections 

are conducted by agency OSH personnel, with the minority being performed at the management 

level. One such agency, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, reported that its 

DASHO conducts a comprehensive annual SHMS self-inspection. 

In addition to self-inspections/audits, agencies reported that external regulatory agencies 

performed routine OSH inspections on their establishments. Although the exact number of such 

inspections/audits was not reported by federal agencies for the reporting period, they did indicate 

that approximately 400 Notices of Unsafe or Unhealthy Working Conditions, or the equivalent,

were issued by these external regulatory agencies, including the Joint Commission, OSHA, Mine 

Safety and Health Administration, the United States Postal Service-Inspector General, and 
Page 58 

President’s Report 

various state Departments of Worker Safety. Commonly cited hazards included deficiencies in 

egress; electrical and fire safety; hazard communications; OSH training, at all levels of 

responsibility; personal protective equipment programs, including respiratory protection; use of 

energized equipment; and recordkeeping. 

The Department of Defense, including the armed services Departments, reported being issued 

approximately 330 Notices from both internal and external sources. This is nearly a 33 percent 

decrease from the 496 Notices that the agency received in CY 2013. Other agencies that were 

issued Notices internally or by external authority during the reporting period include the 

Department of the Interior, which received 30 Notices; the Department of Homeland Security, 

which received 10 Notices; the Environmental Protection Agency, which received six Notices; 

the Department of Commerce, which received five Notices; the Department of Justice, with four 

Notices; the Department of State, with two Notices; and the Departments of Education, Health 

and Human Services, and Transportation, and the Federal Trade Commission, each receiving one 

Notice. Of those agencies that reported receiving Notices, nearly all reported that the identified 

hazard(s) were either abated immediately, or within 48-hours of the Notice being issued. 

Agencies did not report appealing the Notices.

Federal Employees Overseas 

The legislative provisions of the Act, E.O. 12196, and 29 CFR §1960 that require agencies to 

provide safe and healthful workplaces have no geographical limits. In an effort to determine 

how to best assist agencies with providing safe and healthful workplaces for their overseas 

employees, OSHA requested that agencies provide information on whether any of their federal 

employees were stationed overseas, and how they ensured that those employees were provided 

with safe and healthful workplaces.

According to agency reports, more than 132,000 government employees worked outside the 

boundaries of the United States during the reporting period. This represents approximately a 

seven percent decrease from the ~142,000 federal civilian employees reported working overseas 

in CY 2013 (Please see Table 8 for a comparison of federal civilian employees reported

Table 8. Number of Federal Civilian Employees in Overseas Locations by Agency (CY 2014, 

FYs 2013 and 2012) (n = 30 agencies).

Number of Employees

Calendar

Year 2014

Fiscal Year

Agency Status 2013 2012

Department of Agriculture ~400 450 458

Department of Commerce ? NR 785 ~900

Department of Defense 72,638 ~83,000 ~88,000

Department of Energy ? NR 0 NR

Department of Health and Human 

Services

? NR NR 2,500

Department of Homeland Security ? 2,100 NR 2,100
Page 59 

President’s Report 

Number of Employees

Calendar

Year 2014

Fiscal Year

Agency Status 2013 2012

Department of the Interior NR 550 ~380

Department of Justice 500 1,351 1,037

Department of Labor 30 24 7

Department of State 56,104 55,200 54,584

Department of Transportation ? NR 645 NR

Department of the Treasury 0 55 768

Department of Veterans Affairs ? 0 NR NR

Environmental Protection Agency 247 179 158

General Services Administration ? NR 12 7

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

? NR 4 284

Social Security Administration 6 6 6

Broadcasting Board of Governors ? NR NR ~300

Consumer Product Safety Commission 0 1 1

Millennium Challenge Corporation 22 29 37

National Endowment for the Humanities ? 8 NR NR

National Science Foundation ? NR 4 4

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 4 2

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 1 1 1

Peace Corps 181 181 200

Postal Regulatory Commission ? 40 NR NR

Smithsonian Institution ? NR ~1 ~1

Social Security Administration 6 NR NR

U.S. Agency for International 

Development

? NR NR 6,780

U.S. Trade and Development Agency ? NR 30 NR

~TOTAL ~132,291 ~142,512 ~158,515

Legend for Table 6 

No change from CY 2013 report NR Not reported

Decrease from CY 2013 report ? Undetermined from reported data

Increase from CY 2013 report

working overseas for the past three reporting periods.) The Departments of Defense (including 

the armed services, reported approximately 73,000 employees), and State (56,104 employees) 

reported the largest number of overseas employees. The DoD, its various components, and the 

other military Departments indicated that they extend their OSH programs and coverage to 

include their overseas federal civilian employees. State indicated that it has a robust overseas 

OSH program, and includes provisions for safe and healthful living conditions for its overseas 

employees, as well as other federal employees stationed at embassies. As in previous years’ 

reporting, multiple agencies indicated the presence of a federal civilian overseas workforce, but 

did not disclose an approximate number of these employees serving in overseas locations. In 
Page 60 

President’s Report 

addition, several independent agencies reported an overseas federal workforce, most of whom 

are covered under either DoD’s or State’s OSH programs. 

OSH Training and Resources 

E.O. 12196 provides for OSH-related training at the various levels of agency employees. And 29 

CFR §1960 Subpart H specifies the necessary OSH-related training for all levels of agency 

employees. OSHA requested that agencies provide information on the OSH-related training they 

provided to their employees.

Agencies reported a range of employee support activities for OSH-related activities. Some 

reported that employee training is primarily based on job responsibilities. Some also reported 

making special efforts to ensure that collateral duty OSH personnel received the appropriate 

training. In addition, several agencies reported that employees were encouraged to seek 

professional OSH certification and participate in professional OSH organizations. Agencies also 

reported providing support by maintaining OSH websites, distributing OSH awards, publishing 

OSH newsletters, and encouraging participation in FFSHCs and other appropriate venues. Many 

agencies reported that they also supported employees’ safety and health through encouraging

healthy lifestyles by providing fitness centers; subsidizing gym memberships; sponsoring health 

fairs; and offering a variety of health-related services, such as health-screenings and physical 

examinations. Although not specific to OSH-related issues, several agencies reported on the 

added value of Employee Assistance Programs. 

According to reports, agencies’ OSH training efforts ran the complete gamut of venues, from 

new-hire orientation to supervisory training; and from workplace safety best practices to accident 

analysis; and issues, from mandatory safety programs to personal emergency preparedness, and 

from surveillance programs to whistleblower protection. Agencies reported using conventional 

didactic methods, such as on-line training, classroom activities, and self-paced learning 

activities. Student competency assessment followed similar approaches, with agencies often 

using practical examinations/demonstrations, quizzes, and instructor evaluations.

Even though agencies provided few details regarding dedicated monies for OSH training efforts, 

it was evident that training budgets vary dramatically between agencies, and that size is not a 

determinant. The Ability One Commission reported that it does not have dedicated training 

funds. While the Department of the Army reported its annual OSH training budget at 

approximately $340,000, the Department of the Interior reported allocating over $5,000 for 

collateral duty safety officer and video on-demand training. The Holocaust Memorial Museum 

reported that it allots approximately $16,000 for training its employees on forklift safety, use of 

respirators, energized equipment, and first aid. The Millennium Challenge Corporation dedicates 

approximately $159,000 to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automatic external 

defibrillators, and safety/security training.

EPA purports a near-model OSH training program. The Agency routinely identifies OSH 

training needs, provides training, assesses competencies, and tracks the completion of training 

requirements. It is continually working to strengthen the training program. It reports that it is 
Page 61 

President’s Report 

transitioning to a centralized online tracking system, and has taken steps to ensure that specific 

groups receive adequate OSH training. It identified nearly 130 training topics and nearly 37,000 

training contacts with employees over the reporting period, at a cost of a mere $9 per trainee 

contact. 

In addition to the above information regarding federal agency OSH training, federal agencies 

were requested to describe their overall experience with the newly issued Occupational Safety 

and Health Training Guidelines for Federal Agencies. OSHA developed and published these 

Guidelines in 2014 in response to a FACOSH recommendation. Although the Guidelines had 

been in the field for a relatively short time, OSHA requested that agencies assess the Guidelines’ 

effectiveness in assuring OSH-focused training. Agencies were asked to provide information on 

training requirements, development, delivery methods and strategies, competency and 

effectiveness metrics, and dedicated financial resources. Of the 98 responding agencies, 46 

provided usable information about the Guidelines’ utility, although most of the information was 

only cursory in nature. 

Whistleblower Protection Programs 

29 CFR §1960, Subpart G requires federal agencies to ensure that employees are not subjected to 

reprisal or other forms of restraint for filing a report of unsafe or unhealthy working conditions. 

In an effort to assess agencies’ whistleblower protection programs, OSHA requested that 

agencies provide information on any federal employee allegations of reprisal, and the actions 

taken in response to the allegations. Agencies were also asked to describe program 

improvements that may have resulted from these cases of employee-alleged reprisal.

Nearly all agencies indicated awareness of provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 

5, U.S.C. § 2302(c), and reported having functional protection programs. The Smithsonian 

Institution reported one case of employee allegations of reprisal, and that no programmatic 

changes were needed as a result of the investigation. It further reported that the U.S. Office of 

Special Counsel findings into the case indicated the agency took immediate and appropriate 

measures to resolve the allegations that were raised. 

In FY 2012, the Inter-American Foundation indicated that, although it did not have a 

whistleblower protection program, it would develop a program in the upcoming years. Its 

succeeding two annual reports did not indicate action on this item.

Product Safety Programs 

New to the CY 2014 reporting period, OSHA requested that each federal agency, pursuant to 29 

CFR 1960.34, describe how the agency ensures that the products and services that it procures 

comply with the product safety requirements of the standard, including the use of safety data 

sheets (SDSs), and responding to product recalls. Of the 98 responding agencies, 46 agencies 

reported compliance with the standard. Twenty agencies indicated that such a program does not 

exist within their respective agencies; the other agencies did not respond to this item. 
Page 62 

President’s Report 

Little deviation was noted in agency responses concerning their product safety programs. 

Specific details of the existence of programs were sparse and relatively inconsequential. The 

majority of agencies, even those that responded, deferred program specifics authority vested to 

GSA under 29 CFR 1960, Subpart E. However, several agencies detailed their programs. The 

Department of Health and Human Services reported that product recalls are monitored by its 

component OSH program managers, and follow-up information is provided to local offices as 

appropriate using alerts and electronic webpage postings. The Department of Justice reported 

that it disseminated product recall information to its employees through electronic messaging and 

the intranet. The Department of Labor reported monitoring product recalls and sharing recall 

information to its subagencies’ personnel. The Department of the Treasury reported its 

participation in product recalls both voluntarily and/or by order of regulatory authority. The 

National Labor Relation Board indicated that it had developed a sustainability team to search out 

products and services to minimize the agency’s environmental footprint.

The Environmental Protection Agency product safety program is noteworthy. According to the 

agency’s report, even though it has not developed a comprehensive product safety program to 

address 29 CFR 1960.34(b), 89 percent of its operating locations have procedures in place to 

ensure that OSH managers are notified when new chemicals, such as cleaning agents, pesticides, 

and laboratory chemicals, are introduced into their processes. The OSH managers then 

determine the associated introduced risks. The SDSs for these chemicals are reviewed by safety 

professionals and relevant employees, and available for reference on an as-needed basis. 

Moreover, EPA indicated that in a recent questionnaire, 89 percent of its operation location OSH 

managers reported compliance with labeling of hazardous materials; wearing the correct personal 

protective equipment and the adherence to special handling procedures, and complying with 

product recalls. 

Specific Agency Reporting Requirements 

29 CFR 1960, Subpart E requires GSA and NIOSH to assist federal agencies with specific 

activities affecting federal employee safety and health. For the second year, OSHA requested 

that these two agencies provide details on these activities in their annual reports. Specifically, 

OSHA asked GSA to address its programs for ensuring that federal facilities are designed, 

operated, and maintained in accordance with OSH requirements and best practices; how the 

agency ensures that the products and services offered to federal agencies comply with product 

safety requirements; how safety recalls are implemented; and how federal purchasers are made 

aware of the safe use of such products, including any system for providing safety data sheets. 

OSHA asked NIOSH to address its Request for Technical Assistance13 program, and how it

affects federal agencies. 

 

13 A Request for Technical Assistance by a federal agency usually involves a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE), which is a study of a workplace 

to learn whether workers are exposed to hazardous materials or harmful conditions. For federal agencies, NIOSH provides for technical 

assistance requests. On the basis of the information provided, NIOSH answers an HHE/ technical assistance request in one of the following 

ways: respond in writing with helpful information or a referral to a more appropriate agency, call to discuss the problems and how they might be 

solved, visit the workplace. During a visit, NIOSH will meet with the employer and employee representatives to discuss the issues and tour the 

workplace. During one or more visits, NIOSH may review records about exposure and health, interview or survey employees, measure 

exposures, and perform medical testing. At the end of this evaluation, NIOSH will provide a written report to the employer and employee 

representatives. Depending on the type of evaluation, the final report may require a development time of a few months to a few years.
Page 63 

President’s Report 

General Services Administration 

As requested, GSA reported on its processes pertaining to Facilities and Operations, indicating 

that it continually updates the safety and health requirements set forth in the governing standards 

and requirements regarding Government-owned facilities and those commercially leased to 

federal tenants, and that its Operations and Maintenance, and custodial specifications are 

current. Similarly, GSA indicated that no significant changes were implemented within its 

Products and Services function. It reported zero product recalls for the 2014 reporting period.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NIOSH reported that in CY 2014 it completed 34 out of 37 technical assistance requests, also 

known as a Request for Health Hazard Evaluation, from federal agencies, including eight field

investigations, and 26 desktop investigations. Federal agency requests varied by exposure group 

and health problem, but continued to remain focused on the issues of concern. The ‘Exposure 

Group’ category of ‘Indoor Environmental Quality’ and the combined categories of 

‘Radiological,’ ‘Biological’ and ‘Chemical’ accounted for over 80 percent of agency requests for 

technical assistance under this grouping. The ‘Health Problem’ category of ‘Respiratory’ 

accounted for nearly 50 percent of the number of investigations conducted under this grouping. 

NIOSH reported similar results for the 34 requests that it received during the 2013 reporting 

period, with indoor environmental quality accounting for half of these investigations. Other 

similar areas of concern with the 2014 reporting period included the ‘Exposure Group’ 

categories of chemical, heat, and stress; and the ‘Health Problem’ categories of cancer (causing 

agents), and musculoskeletal issues. Other areas of concern found in FY 2013 requests included 

‘Exposure Group’ categories of cadmium, disinfectants, dusts and particulates, lead, and 

pesticides. (Please see Appendix 3 for information on agencies’ requests to NIOSH for technical 

assistance.)
Page 64 

President’s Report 
Page 65 

President’s Report 

Fully Compliant Agencies – participated, provided data on at 

least 80 percent of establishments 

Department/Agency Establishments

Registered

Establishments

Reported

Report

Rate

Total

Employees

Employees 

Covered

Armed Forces Retirement Home 2 2 100% 284 284

AbilityOne 1 1 100% N/A N/A

Access Board 1 1 100% N/A N/A

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission 4 4 100% 690 690

Corporation for National and 

Community Service 1 1 100% 643 643

Department of Energy 54 54 100% 14,953 14,953

Department of Homeland Security 1,274 1,274 100% 189,341 189,341

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 95 95 100% 7,911 7,911

Department of Justice 3,427 3,427 100% 114,145 114,145

Department of State 400 400 100% 41,768 41,768

Department of the Air Force 569 569 100% 168,460 168,460

Department of the Navy 506 506 100% 174,690 174,690

Environmental Protection Agency 167 167 100% 16,906 16,906

Federal Communications 

Commission 27 27 100% 1,731 1,731

Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation 94 94 100% 7,351 7,351

Federal Housing Finance Agency 1 1 100% 499 499

Federal Labor Relations Authority 7 7 100% 130 130

Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Commission 3 3 100% N/A N/A

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment 

Board 1 1 100% N/A N/A

General Services Administration 579 579 100% 11,586 11,586

Institute of Museum and Library 

Services 1 1 100% N/A N/A

Inter-American Foundation 1 1 100% N/A N/A

International Boundary and Water 

Commission 12 12 100% 240 240

International Trade Commission 1 1 100% 395 395

National Capital Planning 

Commission 1 1 100% N/A N/A

National Endowment for the Arts 1 1 100% 151 151
Page 66 

President’s Report 

Department/Agency Establishments

Registered

Establishments

Reported

Report

Rate

Total

Employees

Employees 

Covered

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 7 100% 3,850 3,850

Office of Personnel Management 62 62 100% 5,558 5,558

Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation 1 1 100% 240 240

Postal Regulatory Commission 1 1 100% 52 52

Selective Service System 4 4 100% 153 153

Social Security Administration 1,896 1,896 100% 62,682 62,682

Social Security Advisory Board 1 1 100% N/A N/A

Smithsonian Institution 31 31 100% 3,809 3,809

Commission of Fine Arts 1 1 100% N/A N/A

International Trade Commission 1 1 100% 395 395

Office of Government Ethics 1 1 100% N/A N/A

Trade and Development Agency 1 1 100% N/A N/A

Vietnam Education Foundation 1 1 100% N/A N/A

Department of Agriculture 1,546 1,540 100% 90,441 90,090

Department of the Treasury 1,066 1,055 99% 112,461 111,301

Department of Labor 833 799 96% 16,000 15,136

Department of the Army 692 651 94% 259,284 243,922
Page 67 

President’s Report 

Partially Compliant Agencies – participated, provided data 

for less than 80 percent of establishments 

Department/Agency Establishments

Registered

Establishments

Reported

Report

Rate

Total

Employees

Employees 

Covered

Department of Transportation 964 705 73% 54,532 39,881

Udall Foundation 2 1 50% N/A N/A

Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board 2 1 50% N/A N/A

Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission 3 1 33% 56 19

Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation 3 1 33% 977 326

Farm Credit Administration 6 1 17% 284 47

Commission on Civil Rights 6 1 17% 36 6

Department of Veterans Affairs 1,714 249 15% 348,724 50,661

Federal Maritime Commission 7 1 14% 113 16

National Transportation Safety Board 7 1 14% 408 58

Holocaust Memorial Museum 8 1 13% 171 21

Peace Corps 78 8 10% 1,064 109

Federal Trade Commission 11 1 9% 1,131 103

Securities and Exchange Commission 12 1 8% 4,197 350

Export-Import Bank 13 1 8% 422 32

Millennium Challenge Corporation 17 1 6% N/A N/A

National Labor Relations Board 55 1 2% 1,576 29

Railroad Retirement Board 56 1 2% 897 16

Tennessee Valley Authority 91 1 1% 12,033 132

Department of Commerce 707 1 0% 43,680 62
Page 68 

President’s Report 

Delinquent Agencies – participated in providing establishment 

list, but provided no data 

Department/Agency Establishments

Registered

Establishments

Reported

Report

Rate

Total

Employees

Employees 

Covered

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 1 0 0% N/A N/A

American Battle Monuments 

Commission 1 0 0% 455 0

Broadcasting Board of Governors 32 0 0% 1,753 0

Consumer Product Safety 

Commission 3 0 0% 523 0

Court Services and Offender 

Supervision Agency 13 0 0% N/A N/A

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board 1 0 0% N/A N/A

Department of Education 27 0 0% 4,104 0

Department of the Interior 2,044 0 0% 69,955 0

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 54 0 0% 2219 0

Federal Election Commission 1 0 0% 333 0

Federal Mediation and Conciliation 

Service 1 0 0% 228 0

Harry S. Truman Scholarship 

Foundation 1 0 0% N/A N/A

James Madison Foundation 1 0 0% N/A N/A

Kennedy Center 1 0 0% 48 0

Marine Mammal Commission 1 0 0% N/A N/A

Merit Systems Protection Board 9 0 0% 200 0

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 16 0 0% 17,794 0

National Archives and Records 

Administration 46 0 0% 3073 0

National Council on Disability 1 0 0% N/A N/A

National Credit Union 

Administration 6 0 0% 1,235 0

National Endowment for the 

Humanities 1 0 0% 157 0

National Gallery of Art 1 0 0% 804 0

National Mediation Board 2 0 0% 47 0

National Science Foundation 1 0 0% 1,454 0

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian 

Relocation 3 0 0% 36 0

Small Business Administration 188 0 0% 4,037 0

Presidio Trust 1 0 0% 316 0

African Development Foundation 1 0 0% N/A N/A

Agency for International 

Development 5 0 0% 2,515 0
Page 69 

President’s Report 

Department/Agency Establishments

Registered

Establishments

Reported

Report

Rate

Total

Employees

Employees 

Covered

Nuclear Waste Technical Review 

Board 1 0 0% N/A N/A

Office of Special Counsel 1 0 0% N/A N/A
Page 70 

President’s Report 

Non-Compliant Agencies – did not provide establishment lists, 

no data collected 

Department/Agency Establishments

Registered

Establishments

Reported

Report

Rate

Total

Employees

Employees 

Covered

Central Intelligence Agency 0 0 0 ? ?

Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau 0 0 0 ? ?

Defense Intelligence Agency 0 0 0 ? ?

Department of Defense 0 0 0 98,163 ?

Department of Health and Human 

Services 0 0 0 85,239 ?

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 0 0 0 ? ?

Federal Reserve Board 0 0 0 1,873 ?

Office of Special Trustee for 

American Indians 0 0 0 ? ?

Arctic Research Commission 0 0 0 ? ?
Page 71 

President’s Report 

Active FFSHCs in CY 2014 – Received Annual Reports by OSHA 

Region 

Region 2:

Greater New York FFSHC

Hudson Valley FFSHC

Northern New Jersey FFSHC

Puerto Rico FFSHC

Southern New Jersey FFSHC

Western New York FFSHC

Region 3:

Hampton Roads FFSHC

Metropolitan Washington, DC FFSHC

Region 4:

Atlanta FFSHC

Central Florida FFSHC

Coastal Empire FFSHC

Louisville Area FFSHC

Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

North Carolina FFSHC

South Florida FFSHC

Region 5:

Chicago FFSHC

Detroit FFSHC

Duluth/Superior FFSHC

Region 6:

Dallas / Fort Worth FFSHC

Oklahoma FFSHC

Roadrunner Chapter FFSHC

South Texas FFSHC

Region 7:

Greater Des Moines FFSHC

Greater Kansas City FFSHC

Greater Omaha FFSHC

Greater St. Louis FFSHC

Region 8:

Denver FFSHC

Region 9:

Hawaii FFSHC

Phoenix FFSHC

San Diego FFSHC

San Francisco Bay Area FFSHC

Region 10:

Mt. Rainier Chapter FFSHC

Minneapolis FFSHC

Greater Cincinnati FFSHC
Page 72 

President’s Report 

FFSHCS with Appointed Representatives in CY 2014 by Federal 

Department/Agency 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater Des Moines FFSHC

 Greater St. Louis FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 

 Greater Des Moines FFSHC

 Food Grain Inspection Service

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 Foreign Agriculture Service

 South Florida FFSHC

 Forest Service

 Duluth/Superior FFSHC

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Detroit FFSHC

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

 Defense Contract Management 

Agency

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 US Air Force

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Detroit FFSHC

 Duluth/Superior FFSHC

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 US Air Force Fighter Wing

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 US Air Force Research 

Laboratory

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 US Air Force Reserve 

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Air National Guard 

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Duluth/Superior FFSHC

 Hudson Valley FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 Southern New Jersey FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Army

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 Detroit FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater Des Moines FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Greater St. Louis FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 National Geospatial – Imagery 

Agency

 Greater St. Louis FFSHC

 US Army Corp of Engineers

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Detroit FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Army Medical Department
Page 73 

President’s Report 

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 US Army Reserves

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 US Marine Corp

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 US Naval Special Warfare

 San Diego FFSHC

 US Navy

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 San Diego FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 Western New York FFSHC

 National Nuclear Security 

Administration

 Roadrunner FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES

 Western New York FFSHC

 Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Federal Occupational Health 

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 Food and Drug Administration 

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay Area FFSHC

 National Institute of 

Environmental Health Science

 North Carolina FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Phoenix FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 National Urban Security 

Technology Laboratory

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Science and Technology

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Transportation Security 

Administration 

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Detroit FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 US Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 US Coast Guard

 Detroit FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 US Customs and Border 

Protection 

 Duluth/Superior FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 US Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 US Secret Service 

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC
Page 74 

President’s Report 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 Drug Enforcement Agency

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Federal Bureau of Investigation

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Federal Bureau of Prisons 

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater Kansas City FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 US Marshals Service 

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

 Central Florida FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 Employment and Training 

Administration 

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Federal Contracts Compliance 

Programs

 Central Florida FFSHC

 Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Duluth/Superior FFSHC

 Greater Des Moines FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 Hudson Valley FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Office of Labor Management 

Standards

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Administration and 

Management

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Wage and Hour Division 

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 Hudson Valley FFSHC

 Women’s Bureau 

 Greater New York FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

 South Florida FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Federal Aviation Administration

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Southern New Jersey FFSHC

 Federal Highway Administration

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Detroit FFSHC

 Greater Des Moines FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 Veterans Affairs Medical Center

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 Veterans Health Administration

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Greater St. Louis FFSHC
Page 75 

President’s Report 

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 Bureau of Land Management 

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 National Park Service 

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 US Bureau of Indian Affairs

 South Florida FFSHC

 US Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 US Geological Survey 

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Bureau of Printing and Engraving 

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Internal Revenue Service

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater Des Moines FFSHC

 Greater Omaha FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Duluth/Superior FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD

 Detroit FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater Des Moines FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION 

 Central Florida FFSHC

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater St. Louis FFSHC

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Greater Des Moines FFSHC

 Hudson Valley FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

U.S. FEDERAL COURTS

 South Florida FFSHC

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC

 Detroit FFSHC

 Greater St. Louis FFSHC

 Hudson Valley FFSHC

 Phoenix FFSHC

 Minneapolis FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC
Page 76 

President’s Report 

FFSHCS with Non-Appointed Members in CY 2014 by Federal 

Department/Agency 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 Animal & Plant Health Inspection

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 US Forest Service

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Roadrunner FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

 Louisville Area FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Bureau of the Census 

 Louisville Area FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 South Texas FFSHC

 Armed Forces Retirement Home

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 Defense Contract Management 

Agency

 Western New York FFSHC

 National Reconnaissance Office

 Central Florida FFSHC

 US Air Force

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Central Florida

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Air National Guard

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Louisville National Guard 

FFSHC

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Army 

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 Louisville Area FFSHC

 US Army Corp of Engineers 

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Louisville Area FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Army Training and Doctrine 

Command

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Marine Corps

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Navy

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 US Navy Inspector General

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Navy Reserve

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Navy Commander, Fleet 

Forces

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Navy Commander, Naval 

Region Mid Atlantic

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Navy Commander Undersea 

Surveillance

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Navy Mid Atlantic Regional 

Maintenance Center

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Navy Research Lab

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 Naval Air Station

 Hampton Roads FFSHC
Page 77 

President’s Report 

 Naval Aviation Depot

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Communications

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Environmental and 

Preventative Medicine

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Environmental Health 

Center

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Environmental Training 

Center

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Medical Center

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Ophthalmic Support and 

Training

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Personnel Development

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Safety Center

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Sea Systems

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Shipbuilding 

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Shipyard Safety Office

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Special Warfare 

Development

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Surface Warfare Center

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Naval Training Support Center

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Space and Naval Warfare

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 National Nuclear Security 

Administration

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 Office of Science

 Greater New York FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 Centers for Disease Control

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Federal Occupational Health

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Food and Drug Administration

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health

 Cincinnati FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 South Texas FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 National Urban Security 

Technology Lab

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Science and Technology

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Secret Service

 South Florida FFSHC

 Transportation Security 

Administration

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC
Page 78 

President’s Report 

 US Coast Guard

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 US Customs and Border 

Protection

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 South Texas FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives

 South Florida FFSHC

 Federal Bureau of Investigation

 Puerto Rico FFSHC

 Federal Bureau of Prisons

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 South Texas FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 Employee Benefits Security 

Administration

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 Office of Inspector General 

 Greater New York FFSHC 

 Office of Labor/Management 

Standards 

 Greater New York FFSHC 

 Office of Workers Compensation 

 Greater New York FFSHC 

 Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Administration and 

Management 

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Wage and Hour Division

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 Women’s Bureau

 Greater New York FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 Federal Aviation Administration

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Duluth/Superior FFSHC

 Oklahoma FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Louisville FFSHC

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 Fish and Wildlife Service

 Central Florida FFSHC

 National Park Service

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Central Florida FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Louisville Area FFSHC
Page 79 

President’s Report 

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

 Office of the Special Trustee for 

American Indians

 Roadrunner FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Internal Revenue Service 

 Greater New York FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

FEDERAL EXECUTIVES BOARD

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION

 Hampton Roads FFSHC

 Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY 

BOARD

 South Florida FFSHC

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

 Western New York FFSHC

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

 Western New York FFSHC

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

 Greater New York FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION

 Western New York FFSHC

U.S. FEDERAL COURTS

 Greater New York FFSHC

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Oklahoma FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC
Page 80 

President’s Report 

Departments/Agencies that Appointed New Representatives 

to FFSHCs in CY 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Denver FFSHC

 North Carolina FFSHC

 National Resources Conservation 

Services

 Denver FFSHC

 US Forest Service

 Denver FFSHC

 Roadrunner FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

 Denver FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 US Air National Guard

 Denver FFSHC

 Hudson Valley FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 US Air Force

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 US Army

 Coastal Empire FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Southern New Jersey FFSHC

 US Army Corp of Engineers

 South Florida FFSHC

 US Navy

 Central Gulf Coast FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 Denver FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES

 Centers for Disease Control

 Atlanta FFSHC

 Denver FFSHC

 Food and Drug Administration

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health

 Cincinnati FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

 Denver FFSHC

 Phoenix FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

 Southern New Jersey FFSHC

 Western New York FFSHC

 Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Federal Protective Service

 Denver FFSHC

 Transportation Security 

Administration

 Greater New York FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

 Roadrunner FFSHC

 South Florida FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

 Denver FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 Denver FFSHC

 Mining Safety and Health 

Administration

 Denver FFSHC

 Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration

 Hawaii FFSHC

 Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance 

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

 Bureau of Indian Affairs
Page 81 

President’s Report 

 Phoenix FFSHC

 Bureau of Land Management

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

 National Park Service

 Denver FFSHC

 Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue

 Denver FFSHC

 Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation Enforcement

 Denver FFSHC

 Office of the Inspector General

 Denver FFSHC

 U.S. Geological Survey

 Denver FFSHC

 San Francisco Bay FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Denver FFSHC

 Internal Revenue Service

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Mt. Rainier FFSHC

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 Cincinnati FFSHC

 Denver FFSHC

 Northern New Jersey FFSHC

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

 Central Florida FFSHC

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION

 Denver FFSHC

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION

 Denver FFSHC

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

 Denver FFSHC

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

 Central Florida FFSHC

U.S. POSTAL SERVICES

Denver FFSHC

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

 Denver FFSHC
Page 82 

President’s Report 

Technical Assistance Requests, and Completed Investigations 

by Type, CY 2012 through CY 2014 

Technical Assistance Requests Completed Investigation by Type

Desktop Investigations Field Investigations

Department/ Agency 2014 2013 2012 Total 2014 2013 2012 2014 2013 2012Commerce 2 2 4 1 2 1Defense 2 5 9 16 2 3 5 2 1Energy 2 2Health and Human Services 4 2 4 10 3 5 1Homeland Security 7 2 6 15 4 1 2 2 2 1Interior 3 3 2 8 1 3 1 1Justice 3 1 4 1 1 1U.S. Postal Service 5 2 4 11 3 3 2Social Security Administration 3 3 1 7 4 1 1Transportation 3 3 3Treasury 1 2 3 1 1Veterans Affairs 4 5 3 12 2 5 4Other 3 2 9 14 1 2 4 3 1 1Total 37 31 41 109 26 22 20 8 8 5
Page 83 

President’s Report 

2014 Assistance Requests by Department/Agency and 

Exposure Group14/Health Problem 

 

14 A Request for Technical Assistance, also known as a Health Hazard Evaluation request, may involve an 

investigation under more than one exposure group category. For example, the U.S. Department of the Treasury 

requested an investigation under two exposure groupings: ‘Biologic’ and ‘Indoor Environmental Quality.’ 

Exposure Group Health Problem

Department/Agency Chemical Biologic Indoor Environmental Quality Noise Heat Stress Radiation Subgroup Total Respiratory Viral/Bacterial Cancer Musculoskeletal Mental/Behavioral Sensory Skin Disorder Nervous System Subgroup Total

Commerce 1 1 2 1 1Defense 1 1 2 1 1Health and Human Services 2 3 1 6 2 2Homeland Security 2 2 5 1 1 11 4 2 2 1 1 10Interior 1 1 1 3 2 1 3U.S. Postal Service 1 1 2 1 1 3 5Social Security Administration 3 3 3 1 4Transportation 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 6Treasury 1 1 1 1 1 2Veterans Affairs 1 3 4 3 1 1 5Other 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4Total 10 5 20 1 1 1 5 37 18 5 3 3 4 2 2 6 37
Page 84 

President’s Report 

Federal Executive Branch agencies have a variety of responsibilities with respect to their OSH 

programs as delineated by Section 19 of the OSH Act, E.O. 12196, and Title 29 CFR §1960. 

This section condenses those responsibilities into five subsections: Program, Standards, 

Workplace, Records, and Inspections and Investigations. Each subsection lists the agency 

responsibilities, and provides a discussion of each responsibility along with hyperlinks to the 

specified reference(s).

Program 

Establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive OSH program.

All three documents15 require agencies to establish and maintain OSH programs that 

comply with the program requirements of 29 CFR §1960 and OSHA’s occupational 

safety and health regulations as described in the relevant parts of Title 29 CFR.

Operate an OSH management information system.

E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(j), requires each agency to maintain a system for managing 

its OSH information, which must include maintaining records the Secretary requires. 

While the EO does not mandate an electronic information management system, many 

such systems are available. They can facilitate maintaining, analyzing, retrieving, and 

tracking OSH-related information.

Develop and implement OSH program evaluation procedures.

29 CFR §1960.78 requires agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of their OSH programs 

and include the results of those self-evaluations in their annual reports to the Secretary. 

According to 29 CFR §1960.79, these self-evaluations must include qualitative 

assessments of the extent to which the OSH programs comply with E.O. 12196 and 29 

CFR §1960, and analyses of whether the agency has effectively implemented its OSH 

program in all its field activities.

Appoint a DASHO and other OSH officials at appropriate levels.

E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(c), and 29 CFR §1960.6 require each agency to designate 

an official who will be responsible for managing and administering the agency’s OSH 

program. This Designated Agency Safety and Health Official must have “sufficient 

authority” to effectively represent and support the agency head with regard to the OSH 

program; §1960.6 states that the DASHO should be an Assistant Secretary or equivalent. 

29 CFR §1960.6(c) also requires the agency to designate OSH officials at appropriate 

levels throughout the agency to ensure implementation of an effective OSH program.

 

15 EO 12196, paragraph 1-201(b); The Act, Section 19(a); and 29 CFR §1960.1(a)
Page 85 

President’s Report 

Submit an annual report to OSHA, and include a summary of OSH program selfevaluation findings.

All three documents16 require each agency to send an annual report to the Secretary with 

respect to OSH-related accidents and injuries, and its OSH program. The agency must 

include a summary of its self-evaluation findings in the annual report. It must also 

include any information or data the Secretary requests. OSHA’s Office of Federal 

Agency Programs formulates the annual report request and analyzes the agency reports.

Ensure adequate financial, and other resources for effective OSH program implementation 

and administration.

29 CFR §1960.7 stipulates that each agency must provide the resources to implement and 

administer its OSH program. The standard lists several resources that a federal agency 

OSH program must include, such as sufficient personnel, personal protective equipment, 

hazard abatement, OSH-related sampling and analyses, training, technical information, 

and medical surveillance – but it does not limit the resources to that list.

Include appropriate OSH criteria in managers’ and supervisors’ performance appraisals.

According to 29 CFR §1960.11, agencies must include OSH-related performance 

measures as part of the performance evaluations for any management official-in-charge 

of an establishment, any supervisory employee, or any other appropriate management 

official. The standard further requires that the evaluation must measure the employee’s 

performance “in meeting requirements” of the agency’s OSH program, consistent with 

the manager’s or supervisor’s assigned responsibilities and authority.

Post the OSHA poster or equivalent and provide a copy to the Secretary.

29 CFR §1960.12 requires the agency to “post conspicuously in each establishment” and 

keep posted, a poster informing employees of the “provisions of the Act, Executive Order 

12196, and the agency occupational safety and health program.” The poster must 

include core OSHA-provided text along with other information specific to the agency. 

The agency must also provide a copy of this poster to the Secretary.

Promote OSH-related employee awareness.

Along with conspicuously posting the “OSHA poster,” 29 CFR §1960.12 – specifically 

paragraph (e) – requires agencies to use their ordinary information channels – such as 

newsletters, bulletins, handbooks, website, etc. – to promote employees’ awareness of 

OSH-related issues. While the standard does not define “occupational safety and health 

matters,” nor does it specify the frequency with which an agency must “promote... 

awareness,” simply posting the “OSHA poster” does not satisfy the requirements of this 

paragraph.

Establish anti-discrimination and -reprisal procedures for OSH-related activities.

Both E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(f), and the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 

§1960.46) require agencies to establish procedures assuring that no employee is subject 

to “restraint, interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal” for OSH-related 

 

16 E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(l); The Act, Section 19(a)(5); and 29 CFR §1960.71(a)
Page 86 

President’s Report 

activities. Various OSH-related regulations afford employees rights and privileges 

related to reporting OSH issues and participating in OSH-related activities. Agencies 

must establish procedures to assure that employees can exercise their rights and/or 

participate in OSH-related activities without becoming subject to discrimination or 

reprisal.

Provide CSHCs with all agency information relative and necessary to their duties.

If an agency has established a Certified Safety and Health Committee17 per Subpart F of 

29 CFR §1960, it must provide that CSHC with “all agency information” relative to the 

Committee’s duties. According to the standard, such information can include - but is not 

limited to: OSH policies and programs; available OSH-related human and financial 

resources; accident, injury, and illness data; material safety data sheets; inspection 

reports; abatement plans; and reprisal investigation reports.

Provide OSH training to top management, supervisors, OSH inspectors, collateral duty 

personnel, CSHC members, employees, employee representatives.

E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(k), requires OSH-related training for several levels of 

agency employees. 29 CFR §1960 Subpart H specifies the necessary OSH-related 

training for all levels of agency employees. Agencies must provide at least the listed 

required training for the designated level of employee, but may provide more extensive or 

comprehensive training for any level of employee.

Standards 

Comply with applicable OSHA and 1960 alternate standards.

All three documents18 require agencies to comply with all applicable OSHA standards 

issued under Section 6 of the Act – or an OSHA-approved alternate standard.

Adopt emergency temporary and permanent supplemental standards as necessary and 

appropriate if no OSHA standard exists.

According to 29 CFR §1960.18, if there is no OSHA standard that applies to a particular 

worksite, job, condition, or other workplace exposure, an agency must implement an 

emergency temporary supplemental standard to protect its employees. Subsequent to 

implementing an emergency temporary supplemental standard, the agency must develop 

and implement a permanent supplemental standard to continue to assure a safe and 

healthful workplace and adequate employee protection.

Notify OSHA and the other federal agency if another agency’s standard conflicts with an 

OSHA standard.

29 CFR §1960.19(c) stipulates that, in the unlikely event of another agency’s standard 

interfering with an OSHA standard, the head of the agency discovering such a conflict 

must notify the other federal agency and the Secretary. The agencies will then undertake 

joint efforts to resolve the conflict.

 

17 See Certified Safety and Health Committees for a description of CSHCs.

18 E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(d); The Act, Section 19(a); and 29 CFR §1960, Subpart C
Page 87 

President’s Report 

The standard also requires compliance with the more protective of the conflicting 

standards until after the conflict is resolved.

Workplace 

Provide safe and healthful workplaces and working conditions.

All three previously identified documents require that federal workplaces and working 

conditions be safe and healthful and free from recognized serious hazards. According to 

§1960.2(v), a “serious hazard or condition” is one that has the “substantial probability” 

of causing death or serious physical harm. 29 CFR §1960.1(g) clarifies that federal 

employees who work in private sector establishments are covered by their respective 

federal employer’s OSH program, and the agency is responsible for assuring safe and 

healthful workplaces and conditions for these employees.

Ensure timely response to employee reports of unsafe/unhealthful conditions.

E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(h), requires agencies to respond to employee reports of 

hazardous conditions. It also requires agencies to inspect the situation within 24 hours 

for “imminent dangers,” within three working days for potentially “serious” conditions, 

and within 20 working days for other conditions.

Promptly abate unsafe/unhealthful conditions.

Both E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(e), and §1960 require agencies to promptly abate 

unsafe or unhealthful working conditions. While 29 CFR §1960.28(d)(3) recognizes that 

some hazards can be abated immediately, the Executive Order clarifies that if the agency 

cannot promptly abate the condition, it must develop an abatement plan that includes both 

a timetable for abatement and interim protective measures. 29 CFR §1960.30 provides 

further instructions with regard to abatement and abatement plans.

Acquire, maintain, and require the use of safety equipment, PPE, and other protective 

devices.

Both the Act, at Section 19(a)(2), and 29 CFR §1960.8(d) require federal employers to 

“acquire, maintain, and require the use of approved PPE, approved safety equipment, 

and other devices necessary to protect employees.”

Records 

Keep records per 29 CFR §1904, and allow OSHA access to them.

The Act, at Section 19(a)(3), mandates that agencies maintain “adequate records,” and 

29 CFR §1960.66 clarifies that, at a minimum, agencies must comply with the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 29 CFR §1904, Subparts C, D, E, and G.
Page 88 

President’s Report 

Use the records to identify unsafe/unhealthful conditions and establish OSH program 

priorities.

29 CFR §1960.66(c) requires agencies to analyze the information [including the records 

required by paragraph (b) of the standard] collected through its management information 

system (required by E.O. 12196) to identify unsafe and unhealthful working conditions 

and establish its OSH program priorities.

Provide selected records to OSHA, through the Survey of Occupational Injury and Illness 

reporting system, on an annual basis.

A final rule (78:150 Federal Register, August 5, 2013) amended the basic program 

elements at 29 CFR part 1960 by adding Sec. 1960.72, requiring federal agencies to 

submit information included on the three OSHA recordkeeping forms to OSHA through 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Survey of Occupational Injury and Illness secure webbased reporting system.

Inspections and Investigations 

Require inspections, allow access to OSHA’s inspectors, and establish a procedure for 

issuing Notices. (Refer to page 28 for an explanation of an OSHA Notice.)

Subpart D of Part 1960 covers workplace inspections and abatement of hazardous 

conditions. Among its requirements, agencies must:

 Inspect “all areas and operations...at least annually,” and more frequently if the 

area is hazardous – §1960.25(c);

 Authorize OSHA inspectors to “enter without delay” any agency worksite –

§1960.31(b);

 Immediately abate imminent danger conditions and remove employees who are 

not needed during the abatement process – §1960.26(b)(5); and

 Establish procedures for issuing Notices of Unsafe or Unhealthful Working 

Conditions (Notices) not later than 15 days after completing the inspection for 

safety violations, or 30 days after completing the inspection for health violations –

§1960.26(c)(2).

Allow for employee representatives during inspections.

E.O. 12196, paragraph 1-201(i), requires agencies to assure that employee representatives 

accompany OSH inspectors during workplace inspections. In addition, 29 CFR 

§1960.27(a) provides guidance on the selection of employee representatives.

Allow OSH personnel to use necessary specialized expertise.

29 CFR §1960.8(e) requires agencies to allow their OSH personnel to use necessary 

specialized expertise “from whatever source available,” such as other agencies, 

professional groups, labor organizations, universities, etc.

Investigate all fatalities and catastrophes, keep investigation report copies, and provide a 

summary report to OSHA, and CSHCs.
Page 89 

President’s Report 

According to §1960.29(b) agencies must investigate all fatalities and/or catastrophes 

(hospitalization of three or more employees) and produce a written report of the 

investigation. The report must include specific information [§1960.29(d)] and the agency 

must provide copies to specified parties, including OSHA.

Keep CSHC members advised of reprisal allegations, and provide copies of investigation 

reports.

Among the duties of both local- and national-level CSHCs is the requirement to review 

the agency’s response to allegations of reprisal. 29 CFR §1960.40(b)(8) requires local 

CSHCs to review the agency’s response and, according to §.40(b)(9), if at least half the 

committee is dissatisfied with the agency’s investigation report, they must report their 

dissatisfaction to the Secretary. The same requirements are found at §1960.41(b) and 

§.41(d), respectively, for national CSHCs.

Given these statutory duties for CSHC members, §1960.47 requires agencies to provide 

copies of reprisal investigation reports to their certified committees.

References 

Executive Order 12196 - Occupational safety and health programs for Federal employees, 45 

FR 12769, Feb. 26, 1980.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Public Law 91-596, 84 STAT. 1590, 91st 

Congress, S.2193, December 29, 1970, as amended through January 1, 2004.

Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1960.
Page 90 

President’s Report 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

1330 Kemper Meadow Drive

Cincinnati, Ohio 45240

Customers/Members Phone: 513-742-2020

Administrative Phone: 513-742-6163

Fax: 513-742-3355

E-mail: mail@acgih.org

American Industrial Hygiene Association

2700 Prosperity Ave., Suite 250

Fairfax, VA 22031

Phone: 703-849-8888

Fax: 703-207-3561

E-mail: infonet@aiha.org

American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE)

Customer Service

1800 E Oakton St.

Des Plaines, IL 60018

Phone: 847-699-2929 (8:30 - 5:00 Central Time)

Fax: 847-768-3434 (24 Hours)

E-mail: customerservice@asse.org

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and Related Information19

MSDS Online Library

MSDS Solutions

MSDSs Online

MSDS Exchange

Free MSDSs

 

19 In the Report, these documents are referred to as Safety Data Sheets (SDS). A search on the worldwide web for “Free MSDS” returned nearly 

300,000 links. As a service to federal agencies, a few links have been provided. However, providing the link does not imply OSHA endorsement 

of the website, nor does it imply that any given site is “better than,” or “preferred” to any other site.
Page 91 

President’s Report 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations 

Completed in FY 2013

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3187.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3177.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3167.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3169.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0031-3174.pdf

NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards

NIOSH Chemicals Page

NIOSH Safety and Prevention Topics

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHA Construction Industry Information and Assistance OSHA Website –

www.osha.gov

Laws, Regulations and Interpretations

Laws and Regulations (29 CFR)

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

Safety and Health Management Systems e-Tool

Safety and Health Topics, Technical Links

OSHA Office of Federal Agency Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Rm. N3622

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 693-2122

(202) 693-1685 FAX

OSHA’s Field Operations Manual, Chapter 13, Section VII Agency Technical Assistance 

Request http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-00-150.pdf

OSHA Compliance Assistance eTools and Electronic Products

OSHA’s Fall Prevention Campaign viewable at, 

http://www.osha.gov/stopfalls/index.html

OSHA Regional and Area Offices (map with links)

OSHA Standards

OSHA’s Cooperative Programs

OSH-related Statistics and Data

OSHA Office of Whistleblowers Protection Programs, http://www.whistleblowers.gov/

Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines (2015) (DRAFT), viewable at, 

http://osha.gov/shpmguidelines

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

BLS Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities Program
Page 92 

President’s Report 

Acronym Definition 

ATAR Agency Technical Assistance Request

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CBY Chargeback Year 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSHC Certified Safety &Health Committee

CY Calendar Year 

DASHO Designated Agency Safety & Health Official

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DoD Department of Defense

DOL Department of Labor

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

E.O. Executive Order

FACOSH Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety & Health 

FFSHC Field Federal Safety and Health Council

FY Fiscal Year

GSA General Services Administration

LTCR Lost-Time Case Rate

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet (see SDS)

MVA Motor Vehicle Accident

MVSP Motor Vehicle Safety Programs

NASA National Aeronautics & Space Administration

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health 

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OSH Occupational Safety and Health

OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration

OWCP Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

POWER Protecting Our Workers, Ensuring Reemployment

SDS Safety Data Sheet (see MSDS)

SHARE Safety, Health and Return to Employment

SHMS Safety & Health Management System 

TCR Total Case Rate

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
Page 93 

President’s Report 

Acronym Definition 

USPS U.S. Postal Service