Secretary of Labor’s Report to the 

President on the Status of Federal 

Agencies Occupational Safety and 

Health Programs

Calendar Year 2015

The Secretary of Labor’s Report to the 

President on the Status of Federal 

Agencies Occupational Safety and 

Health Programs

 

Calendar Year 2015 
Table of Contents 

Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1

Preface ................................................................................................................................... 2

Format ................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4

STATISTICS AND TRENDS .................................................................................................................................................. 4

OSHA ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

AGENCY ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

ANNUAL INFORMATION REQUEST ..................................................................................................................................... 8

ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

CY 2016 GOALS ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

AGENCIES FAILING TO SUBMIT ANNUAL REPORTS .............................................................................................................. 12

Section 1 - OSHA Activities ................................................................................................... 14

ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................ 14

OVERSIGHT ................................................................................................................................................................. 20

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 28

Section 2 – Federal Agency OSH Activities ............................................................................ 34

FATALITIES AND CATASTROPHES ..................................................................................................................................... 34

CERTIFIED SAFETY AND HEALTH COMMITTEES ................................................................................................................... 38

OTHER OSH COMMITTEES AND COUNCILS ....................................................................................................................... 39

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ............................................................................................................................................... 40

ANALYZING AND CONTROLLING TRENDS ........................................................................................................................... 44

SAFETY AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM RESPONSE TO THE INSPECTION PROCESS .............................................................. 45

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES OVERSEAS ..................................................................................................................................... 46

OSH TRAINING AND RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 48

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAMS....................................................................................................................... 49

PRODUCT SAFETY PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................ 50

SPECIFIC AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................... 51

Appendix 1: Safety and Health Management System Attributes Evaluated in CY 2015 ......... 54

Appendix 2: Status of Agency Injury and Illness Reporting .................................................. 57

Appendix 3: Field Federal Safety & Health Councils ............................................................. 61

Appendix 4: Agency Requests to NIOSH for Technical Assistance ........................................ 72
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

1 

Abstract 

The Secretary Of Labor’s Report to the President on the Status of Federal Agencies 

Occupational Safety and Health Programs 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) 2015 reporting period. In their reports, agencies identified their 

significant achievements and challenges they 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 improvements in 

federal agency SHMSS, as well as identifies areas needing attention. 

Overall, in CY 2015, federal agencies continued to seek to improve the management and 

functioning of their SHMSs. Outcome evidence of these efforts includes a steady decline in the 

Government’s total illness and injury cases and its total case rate, roughly steady numbers of 

violations per OSHA inspection, and fewer significant cases involving federal agencies. In 

addition, there is consistent interest and participation in the Federal Advisory Committee on 

Occupational Safety and Health, and a substantial increase in attendance at 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 improved 

attention include annual Occupational Safety and Health Reporting, Certified Safety and Health 

Committees, Field Federal Safety and Health Councils, Motor Vehicle Safety Programs (MVSPs), 

and Product Safety. 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

2 

Preface 

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 2015. 

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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

3 

Format

This Secretary of Labor’s Report to the President on the Status of Federal Agencies Occupational 

Safety and Health Programs – Calendar Year 2015 (Report), includes an Executive Summary, the 

two main sections of the Report proper, and four 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 and highlights what efforts OSHA made to support federal agencies. 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 appendices provide information on the attributes included in the tool federal agencies used 

to assess their SHMSs, federal agencies’ response to the electronic records collection initiative, 

agency participation in field federal safety and health councils (FFSHCs), and analyses of 

agencies’ requests for technical assistance. 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

4 

Executive Summary 

During the 2015 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) 2015 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. 

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 2015, the Government’s employment rolls increased by 11,272 employees (0.5 percent) to 

2,166,791 employees. Its total injury and illness cases decreased by 3,657 to 48,447, and its 

total case rate (TCR) decreased from 2.42 to 2.24 (7.4 percent). The Government’s lost-time 

cases decreased by 1,389 to 24,463; and its lost-time case rate (LTCR) decreased from 1.20 to 

1.13 (5.8 percent). 

Workers’ Compensation Costs 

For chargeback year (CBY) 2015, the Federal Government’s workers’ compensation costs (less 

the USPS) were approximately $1.6 billion. This figure illustrates a slight increase in costs over 

CBY 2014’s roughly $1.4 billion. In CBY 2013, costs were approximately $1.6 billion; and in CBY 

2012, costs were approximately $1.7 billion. Workers’ compensation benefits provided to 

 

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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

5 

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 events3 to OSHA in an expeditious manner. According to federal agencies reports, 

26 civilian employee fatalities occurred at work during CY 2015. The Departments of 

Agriculture reported seven fatalities; the Department of Defense reported four fatalities; the 

Departments of the Interior and Justice, and the International Boundary and Waters 

Commission all reported two fatalities; and the Departments of Energy, Health and Human 

Services, and Labor, and the Smithsonian Institution reported a single fatality each. The 

Department of Homeland Security reported 24 catastrophic events, the Department of Defense 

reported 8 events, and the Department of Justice reported one event. 

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 two categories: enforcement 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 2015, OSHA conducted 475 programmed inspections, and 344 un-programmed 

inspections of federal worksites, with an average of 3.99 violations per programmed inspection, 

and 2.23 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 2015, 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 

 

3

 On January 1, 2015, OSHA’s new definition of catastrophic event became effective. The new rule lowered the 

threshold for proactively reporting a catastrophic incident from the hospitalization of three or more employees to the

hospitalization of a single employee.
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

6 

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 2015, OSHA issued a total of seven federal agency significant case reports involving the 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, Justice, and Veterans Affairs. (Please refer to 

SECTION 1 – OSHA ACTIVITIES, Table 2, for specific information on the significant cases.) 

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. OSHA’s 

various field Area Offices perform the vast majority of ATARs and interact directly with the 

federal agency sites requesting assistance. During 2015, the Cleveland, Ohio Area Office 

assisted two Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs sites with 

ergonomics evaluations and assistance. 

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 2015, 35 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. 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 

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 2015 FEDWEEK, OSHA provided nine 

half-day seminars offered twice during the week on topics chosen after surveying federal OSH 

personnel. There were 112 students registered at the beginning of the class week. Since 39 did 

not show up/did not attend, there were 73 attendees. Although the number of attendees was 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

7 

lower than anticipated, those in attendance reported that they were pleased with the training 

offered. 

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, and received 

presentations on federal agencies’ whistleblower responsibilities and the value of OSHA’s 

Voluntary Protection Program. 

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. As of CY 2015, the Secretary had six agencies authorized 

to maintain 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, 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 and General Services Administration 

reported that they no longer had CSHCs. The Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission did not report on their CSHCs for CY 2015. 

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 

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. Most 

agencies reported conducting some type of periodic review of their SHMSs and related OSH 

programs during CY 2015. 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 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

8 

performing self-evaluations indicated 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 fourth consecutive year, OSHA asked agencies to ‘self-rate’ the Operational, 

Managerial, and Cultural components of their SHMSs using a 30-question (attribute) prescribed 

tool. 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 operational component 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 and tracking hazard correction attributes; the managerial 

component’s knowledge, skills, and information and authority to perform attributes; and the 

cultural component’s provided competent staff, resource allocation, process involvement, 

organizational decision-making on resources, and evaluation of OSH performance 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 

report on the most common cause of injuries and their efforts to mitigate that cause. As in 

previous years, most agencies that provided this information noted slips, trips, and falls as the 

leading cause of injuries. Their control efforts included engineering approaches such as 

improving housekeeping and installing slip-resistant flooring and warning signage, along with 

providing prevention awareness training and using safety bulletin boards to heighten employee 

and public awareness of the hazards. This year several agencies also reported participating in 

OSHA’s National Safety Stand-Down for Fall Prevention in May 2015. The purpose of the StandDown was to bring awareness to fall hazards, typical work tasks associated with fall risks, and 

fall protection strategies. 

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 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

9 

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. 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

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

(MVAs) occurred in CY 2015. 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. 

Federal Agency Safety and Health Mission 

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

reported that this organizational function is managed under the auspices of Human Resources, 

some 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 adequate budgets, 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 2016, 35 FFSHCs submitted annual reports detailing their activities during CY 2015. The 

FFSHCs represent OSHA Regions 2 through 10. Due to inactivity, no councils in Region 1 

submitted an annual report. According to the annual reports, approximately 538 appointed 

representatives4 from 65 federal departments and agencies5 participated in FFSHCs across the 

country. Five hundred and forty-four non-appointed members from at least 88 federal 

departments and agencies also participated in the councils along with 607 associate members6

from roughly 287 local businesses, local governments, safety and health associations, and labor 

unions. Eleven FFSHCs (31% of FFSHCs that submitted a CY 2015 annual report) do not have 

any officially appointed representatives on their council. These councils’ memberships consist 

of associate members and non-appointed members. In CY 2015, 24 departments and agencies 

 

4

 The number of appointed representatives participating in FFSHCs decreased 13.37% from CY 2014 to CY 2015. 5

 The number of departments and agencies participating in FFSHCs decreased 14.47% from CY 2014 to CY 2015. 

6

 The number of associate members participating in FFSHCs decreased 14.75% from CY 2014 to CY 2015. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

10 

appointed new representatives to 12 FFSHCs. Of the new appointments, 19 were management 

representatives and 13 were non-management representatives. 

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

Overall, federal agencies reported a moderate improvement in the effectiveness of their selfinspections. Some agencies have increased the frequency of self-inspections while others used 

multiple methods for conducting self-evaluations. Agencies involvement in internal and 

external inspections included correcting minor issues on the spot, abating hazards in 

accordance with corrective action plans, and updating policy and procedural guidance to 

improve the overall effectiveness of their OSH programs. During this reporting period, 60 

agencies indicated conducting some sort of self-inspection activities. Twenty-three agencies 

indicated external inspection activities conducted by an outside source, such as OSHA, GSA, or a 

third party contractor. (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, close to 132,000 government employees worked outside the United States’ border this 

year. This represents a less than one percent decrease from the ~132,291 federal civilian 

employees reported working overseas in CY 2014. Multiple agencies indicated the presence of 

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

employees. While many agencies reported extending their own OSH programs to cover their 

overseas employees, several independent agencies reported that they rely totally on either 

Department of Defense (DoD) or State OSH programs to provide coverage for their overseasdeployed workforce. 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 on-site fitness centers; subsidizing gym memberships; sponsoring health 

fairs; and offering a variety of health-related services, such as health-screenings and physical 

examinations. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

11 

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 allegations. The vast majority of agencies 

indicated awareness of provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 5, U.S.C. § 2302(c), 

and reported having functional protection programs. No agency reported cases of allegation of 

reprisal that occurred during the reporting period. 

Product Safety 

In the CY 2015 information request to federal agencies, OSHA requested that federal agencies 

describe their compliance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1960.34, specifically addressing how 

each agency ensures that the products and services 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 83 responding agencies, 

51 reported their compliance with the standard; 26 indicated that such a program did not exist 

within their respective agencies. For the agencies that indicated such a program did not exist, 

some of the agencies noted that they did not use chemicals so did not have a program. Other 

agencies stated that the provision was inapplicable. OSHA will contact those agencies to ensure 

that they are aware of their OSH responsibilities in this area. Six agencies did not respond to 

this item. 

Accomplishments 

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

federal workers. 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, implementing interactive safety and health information systems to 

collect hazard and abatement information and improving trend analysis. A few agencies 

indicated that they are in the infancy stages of developing SHMSs. Several agencies reported 

training employees in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the use of automatic 

external defibrillators. Agencies also reported implementing policy changes, developing new 

and improving upon existing OSH programs, completing abatement projects, instituting 

mandatory OSH training, and performing safety audits. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

12 

CY 2016 Goals 

There were no significant changes regarding agencies proposed OSH goals for CY 2016 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 conducting 

self-assessments, developing procedures and programs to enhance their SHMS programs, and 

providing employees with OSH training. Agencies reported on plans to reduce the incidence of 

work-related illnesses and injuries and to incorporate more extensive analyses of OSH-related 

information from reports on incidents and near-misses. A few agencies reported an interest in 

participating in local FFSHCs; developing abatement verification processes; implementing data 

management systems to track OSH training, hazards, and/or program performance; and, 

developing a formal OSH training program. 

Agencies Failing to Submit Annual Reports 

OSHA did not receive reports from the following 12 agencies for inclusion in the CY 2015 

Report: 

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

• Broadcasting Board of Governors 

• Central Intelligence Agency 

• Corporation for National Community Service 

• Federal Housing Finance Agency 

• Federal Labor Relations Authority 

• National Credit Union Administration 

• National Endowments for the Arts 

• National Endowments for the Humanities 

• National Science Foundation 

• Presidio Trust 

• Selective Service System 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

13 

 

The Secretary’s Report to the 

President 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

14 

Section 1 - OSHA Activities 

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

and compliance assistance; 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. 

• 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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

15 

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

serious physical harm to the employee(s). 

• Willful: 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 2015, OSHA conducted 475 programmed inspections, and 344 un-programmed 

inspections of federal worksites, with an average of 3.99 violations per programmed inspection, 

and 2.23 violations per un-programmed inspection. According to data obtained through the 

OSHA Information System, of the programmed inspections, 429 (~90 percent) were categorized 

as ‘not in compliance’; and an average of 4.10 violations were issued per inspection. Overall, 

OSHA discovered 1760 violations including: 1088 Serious, 295 Repeat, 3 Failure-to-Abate; and 

371 Other-Than-Serious violations. (OSHA did not identify any willful violations.) 

In CY 2015, 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 2014 OSHA conducted 496 programmed inspections, and discovered 

an average of 3.54 violations per inspection, a slight increase from FY 2013’s 442 violations. 

Overall, for the 2014 reporting period, OSHA discovered 702 violations including: 3 Willful, 476 

Serious, 135 Repeat, and 88 Other-Than-Serious violations. In the 2013 reporting period, OSHA 

discovered 442 violations including: 3 Willful, 714 Serious, 101 Repeat, and 117 Other-ThanSerious violations. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

16 

Table 1. OSHA Federal Agency Programmed, Un-programmed Inspection Activity, FY 2013 

through CY 2015.

CY 2015 CY 2014 FY 2013

Programmed Inspections 475 496 645

Percent in Compliance 10 11 11 

Average Number of Violations 3.99 3.59 3.75

Serious Violations 1088 476 265

Average Number Serious Violations 0.70 0.96 0.57

Unprogrammed Inspections 344 332 304

Percent in Compliance 49 47 22 

Avg. No. of Violations 2.23 3.48 3.38

Serious Violations 345 314 395

Average Number Serious Violations 0.92 0.95 1.30

Total Inspections 819 828 949

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 a decrease in average numbers of violations this year; 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 roughly steady 

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 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

17 

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. 

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; 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 2015, OSHA issued a total of seven federal significant case reports. These cases involved 

the Departments of Agriculture-Forest Service (one case), Defense-U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (one case), Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service (one case), Justice-Federal Bureau of 

Prisons (one case), and Veterans Affairs-Veterans Health Administration (three cases). (Please 

refer to Table 2 for specific information on the significant cases involving federal agencies.) 

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

Department/Agency Inspection Type Program Type of Violations 

USDA – Forest Service – 

John Day and Prairie City 

Oregon 

Planned 

Programmed 

FEDSAFE Serious: 8 

Repeat: 8 

Other-Than-Serious: 8 

OSHA initiated this inspection as part of a regional emphasis program of federal worksites. 

Violations addressed: electrical safety; safety and health training for employees; emergency 

lighting; fire extinguishers; fall hazards; chemical safety, and; personal protective equipment. 

Defense – U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers – Sault 

Sainte Marie, Michigan 

Planned 

Programmed 

LEP Serious: 21 

Repeat: 2 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

18 

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

Department/Agency Inspection Type Program Type of Violations 

OSHA initiated this inspection as part of a local emphasis program of federal worksites. The 

safety violations addressed: hazards associated with crane deficiencies; guarding of floor 

openings; stairway handrails; suspended scaffold; storage of gas cylinders; control of 

hazardous energy; fire extinguisher training; sling inspections; electrical; emergency exits, 

and; openings in electrical panels. Health violations addressed respiratory protection; permit 

required confined space, and; an eye wash station. 

Interior – Fish and 

Wildlife Service – Brimley, 

Michigan 

Planned 

Programmed 

LEP Serious: 11 

Repeat: 1 

Other-Than-Serious: 1 

OSHA initiated this inspection as part of a local emphasis program of federal worksites. 

Violations found included: control of hazardous energy; compressed air; confined spaces, 

and; asbestos and hazardous communication trainings. 

Justice – Federal Bureau 

of Prisons – Yazoo City, 

Mississippi 

Complaint N/A Willful: 2 

OSHA initiated this inspection based on a complaint related to a potentially contaminated 

sharps injury to the hand of a correctional officer. In this incident, a correctional officer was 

stuck with a tattoo sharp while gathering an inmate’s personal belongings. During a previous 

inspection at this facility, OSHA had issued repeat violations for failing to provide sharps 

containers and puncture resistant gloves. When this incident occurred, the agency had failed 

to abate the previous repeat violations. 

The BOP filed an appeal of its case; it is currently in process at the National Office level. 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. 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

19 

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

Department/Agency Inspection Type Program Type of Violations 

Veterans Affairs – VA 

Connecticut Healthcare 

System – West Haven, 

Connecticut 

Planned 

Programmed 

FEDTARG Serious: 7 

Repeat: 12 

Other-Than-Serious: 3 

OSHA initiated this inspection on June 2, 2015 as part of the Federal Agency Targeting 

Inspection (FEDTARG) Program. Violations addressed: walking/working surfaces; machine 

guarding; electrical safety, hazard communication; means of egress; lockout/tagout; machine 

guarding; personal protective equipment and; bloodborne pathogens. 

Veterans Affairs – 

Bedford VAMC – Bedford, 

Massachusetts 

Complaint N/A Serious: 1 

Repeats: 5 

Other-Than-Serious: 1 

OSHA initiated this inspection based on two complaints concerning lead, asbestos, noise, exit 

routes, personal protective equipment, and an alleged structurally unsound building. During 

the course of the inspection, OSHA received three more complaints alleging exposure to 

asbestos (different locations) and mold, no access to SDSs, and one location not meeting the 

exit route requirements. OSHA issued notices addressing electrical, chemical and asbestos 

hazards. 

Veterans Affairs – Hunter 

Holmes McGuire VAMC – 

Richmond, Virginia 

Complaint N/A Willful: 10 

Serious: 2 

Other-Than-Serious: 8 

OSHA initiated this inspection based on a complaint alleging inadequate protections for 

employees exposed to workplace violence hazards while providing patient care. Upon initial 

review of the OSHA 300 logs there were indications of recordkeeping deficiencies. A 

complete 3 year recordkeeping review was conducted. The violative conditions found during 

the inspection were related to recordkeeping, lack of implementation of a workplace 

violence program, and lack of workplace violence training. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

20 

Oversight 

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 July 16, 20157

. The Council received updates 

from its Emerging Issues Subcommittee8 – Field Federal Safety and Health Councils (FFSHCs); 

and on the POWER Initiative, and Whistleblower Protection Programs. It also received an 

informational briefing on OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program from the U.S. Mint. There were 

no motions considered by FACOSH at this meeting. 

Emerging Issues Subcommittee. During the reporting period, the Subcommittee reviewed 

survey data it collected from FFSHC Executive Board members and OSHA’s Federal Agency 

Program Officers (FAPOs) during FY 2015. Based on survey results, the Subcommittee 

determined that the Councils are relevant forums for facilitating exchanges of OSH-related 

information among participating federal agencies, and that the FFSHC program should not be 

replaced. As a result, the Subcommittee was developing a report for FACOSH to identify how 

the councils could be revitalized. 

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 OSHA consultative tool used for private sector businesses, might be 

 

7

 Meeting minutes are available at www.regulations.gov Docket Number: OSHA-2015-0005-0007. 8 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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

21 

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. 

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 Appendix 1 for lists of Attributes by Component.) 

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

the attributes within each of the components are distinct, they are interdependent, crossfeeding into each other. 

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 component, respectively; please refer to Figures 2, 3, and 4 for the 

attributes evaluated in CY 2015) across the three components of a SHMS for the agencies to 

assess. In CY 2014, five new attributes were added to the self-evaluation tool and one 

attribute, from the FY 2012 evaluation tool, was omitted. (In FY 2013, 25 attributes were 

assessed). Agencies were asked to rate each of these attributes, based on their CY 2015 

reporting period experience, and were provided criteria for rating each attribute. Specifically, 

agencies were asked to rate each attribute on an ordinal scale from 0 to 3 with a score of “0” 

indicating that the attribute was not in place at all and “3” indicating the attribute’s complete 

effectiveness and integration into the SHMS without the need for improvement – thereby 

indicating its ‘model’ nature. The middle two ratings of “1” and “2” indicate some portion or 

aspect of the attribute is present, either needing major or minor improvements respectively. In 

addition to scoring each of the attributes, agencies had to provide a detailed narrative, with 

examples to support each self-identified attribute rating. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

22 

Overall Assessment 

For the CY 2015 reporting period, OSHA received responses from 83 out of 969 agencies (an 86 

percent response rate). In evaluating their respective agencies’ SHMSs overall, federal agencies 

had a mean overall rating of 2.1 for CY 2015. Thirty-two agencies (~39 percent), provided a 

rating of “3” for the overall assessment of their SHMSs. Forty-two out of the 83 responding 

agencies (~51 percent) provided a rating of “2” for the 30 attributes used to rate the three 

components of a SHMS; 74 (~89 percent) indicated that their respective SHMSs are in 

compliance with the provisions of 29 CFR §1960. 

Of the 83 agencies that provided input, only six (~7 percent) either did not provide a selfevaluation of their SHMSs, or provided a “not-applicable” rating for the overall assessment and 

respective SHMS’s attributes. As identified earlier, 32 agencies provided an overall score of “3” 

to their SHMSs. However, 25 (~78 percent) of these agencies10 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.) 

Although the attributes of the Cultural Component received the greatest number of “2” or 

higher ratings, multiple agencies provided “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 2014 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; 63 agencies (~76 

percent) rated these attributes a “2” or higher, indicating their surveillance, use of SDSs, 

 

9

 Tables 4a and 4b depict the overall score assigned by federal agencies to the self-evaluation of their respective 

SHMSs for CY 2015. 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 agencies that did not provide an agency report (indicated in the Executive 

Summary) are not included in the Table. 

10 The Armed Forces Retirement Home, Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency, National Transportation 

Safety Board, Office of Personnel Management, and Social Security Administration, provided a “3” rating for the 

overall score and all 30 attributes. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

23 

presence of work rules and practices, and OSHA – mandated programs were well implemented. 

The Department of Agriculture reported providing management with reports detailing 

deficiencies and included hazard abatement plans, after completing inspections. The reports 

are effective safety and health program evaluation tools because agencies are able to collect 

information for trend analysis. Fifty-one agencies (~61 percent) provided a rating of “2” or 

higher for the use of SDSs attribute. The Department of Justice, for example, documents all the 

chemical products used in its workplaces and provides each of its Districts and Divisions with 

binders containing Safety Data Sheets. Seventy-five agencies (~90 percent) rated their agency a 

“2” or higher for the presence of work rules and practices attribute. Similarly, 68 agencies (~82 

percent) rated themselves a “2” or higher for the OSHA – mandated programs. Fifty-two 

agencies (~63 percent of reporting agencies) rated themselves a two or higher for both the 

hazard survey and the tracking hazard correction attributes in CY 2015. 

In CY 2015 some agencies had ratings of “non-applicable” or “not reported” for the hazard 

survey (20 agencies, ~24 percent); self-inspection (8 agencies, ~10 percent); surveillance (18 

agencies, ~22 percent); engineering controls (27 agencies, ~33 percent); work rules and 

practices (6 agencies, ~7 percent); and OSHA-mandated programs (11 agencies, ~13 percent) 

attributes. OSHA will work with these agencies to determine how best to implement these 

programs if needed. 

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 2 Department of Labor 2

Department of the Air Force 2 Department of the Navy 3

Department of the Army 2 Department of State 2

Department of Commerce 2 Department of Transportation 2

Department of Defense 2 Department of the Treasury 2

Department of Education 2 Department of Veterans Affairs 2

Department of Energy 3 Environmental Protection Agency 3

Department of Health and Human Services 2 General Services Administration 2

U.S Department of Homeland Security 2 National Aeronautics and Space Admin. 3

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 3

Social Security Administration (includes 

SSAB) 

3

Department of the Interior 2 Tennessee Valley Authority 3

Department of Justice 3

SHMS Score Explanation 

3 Completely in place

2 Mostly in place with only minor improvements needed

1 Some portion or aspect is present although major improvement is needed

0 No discernible or meaningful indication that portion or aspect is even in place 

NR Data not reported by agency
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

24 

Managerial Component Assessment 

Federal agencies were provided 11 attributes11 to rate the managerial component of their 

SHMSs. Overall, the attributes of the managerial component were rated highly, indicated by a 

“2” or higher rating. For example, the five attributes used to assess the Administration/ 

Supervision subcomponent received the highest number of “2” and “3” ratings during the CY 

2015 reporting period. Some agencies that reported “not applicable” or “not reported” ratings 

for the specific assignment of OSH tasks (seven agencies, ~8 percent); authority to perform

(eight agencies, ~10 percent); and, appropriate resources (sevent agencies, ~8 percent) 

attributes in CY 2015. 

For the reporting period, agencies’ ratings of the three attributes of the Planning/Evaluation 

subcomponent of their respective SHMSs, illustrate the management’s continued involvement 

in SHMSs. Fifty-seven agencies (~69 percent) rated themselves a “2” or higher for the incidence 

data attribute. The majority of agencies rated themselves a “2” or higher for the action plan

and annual SHMS review attributes (66 and 64 agencies, respectively; 80 percent and ~77 

percent, respectively). The Department of Veterans Affairs reported that improved collection 

of incidence data, along with Workers’ Compensation data, enabled them to develop OSH 

training geared to prevent repeat accidents and injuries. Agencies continued to place 

importance on training, at all levels and at all locations, as they pursued excellence in their 

SHMSs. Almost 80 percent of reporting agencies provided a “2” or higher rating of the 

employee training (72 agencies, ~88 percent) new employee orientation (68 agencies, ~ 83 

percent), and supervisory training (65 agencies, ~78 percent) attributes. 

Table 4b. Smaller Independent Agencies’ Overall Safety and Health Management System Selfrating Score (n =61). 

Agency Score Agency Score

Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board (Access Board) 0 National Archives and Records Administration 3 

American Battle Monuments Commission 2 National Capital Planning Commission 3 

Armed Forces Retirement Home 3 National Council on Disability NR 

Committee for Purchase from People Who 

Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Ability One) 3 National Gallery of Art 2 

Commodity Futures Trading Corporation 3 National Labor Relations Board 2 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 2 National Mediation Board NR 

Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency 3 National Transportation Safety Board 3 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission NR 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2 Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission 3 

Export-Import Bank of the United States 2 Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 3 

 

11 For the CY 2015 reporting period, no new attributes were added for federal agency assessment. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

25 

Agency Score Agency Score

Farm Credit Administration 3 Office of Personnel Management 3 

Federal Communications Commission 2 Overseas Private Investment Corporation 2 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 2 Peace Corps NR 

Federal Election Commission 3 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 3 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2 Postal Regulatory Commission 3 

Federal Maritime Commission 3 Railroad Retirement Board 2 

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 0 Security and Exchange Commission 3 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission 2 Small Business Administration 2 

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board 2 The Smithsonian Institution 2 

Federal Reserve Board 3 U.S. African Development Foundation 3 

Federal Trade Commission 2 U.S. Agency for International Development 2 

Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation NR U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board 2 

Institute of Museum and Library Services 2 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 2 

Inter-American Foundation 3 U.S. Commission of Fine Arts 3 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission NR U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum 2 

James Madison Memorial Fellowship 

Foundation 3 U.S. International Trade Commission 2 

Kennedy Center 2 U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board NR 

Marine Mammal Commission 2 U.S. Office of Government Ethics 0 

Merit Systems Protection Board NR U.S. Trade and Development Agency 3 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 3 Vietnam Education Foundation 3 

Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation 2 

SHMS Score Explanation 

3 Completely in place

2 Mostly in place with only minor improvements needed

1 Some portion or aspect is present although major improvement is needed

0 No discernible or meaningful indication that portion or aspect is even in place 

NR Data not reported by agency

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

26 

Table 5. Number of Federal Agencies Assigning Ratings to Safety and Health Management 

System Attributes (n = 82).

 Number of Agencies with the 

Self-assigned Rating 

Component Subcomponent Attribute 3 2 1 0 NA NR 

Operational 

Hazard 

Anticipation/Detection

Hazard survey 30 22 3 8 14 6 

Self-inspection 48 24 1 2 2 6 

Surveillance 40 22 1 2 12 6 

Change analysis 35 23 3 4 12 6 

Use of SDSs 35 16 0 2 24 6 

Hazard 

Prevention/Control 

Engineering controls 36 18 0 2 21 6 

Work rules and 

practices 52 23 0 2 0 6 

OSHA-mandated 

programs 

39 29 0 4 4 7 

Tracking hazard 

correction 38 22 1 4 12 6 

Managerial 

Planning/ Evaluation 

Incidence data 35 22 0 4 16 6 

Action plan 35 31 3 5 3 6 

Annual SHMS review 38 26 4 4 4 6 

Administration/ 

Supervision 

Specific assignment of 

OSH tasks 53 20 1 2 1 6 

Knowledge, skills, and 

information 46 26 1 2 2 6 

Authority to perform 61 12 0 2 2 6 

Appropriate resources 52 21 1 2 1 6 

OSH organizational 

policies 49 25 0 2 1 6 

Safety/Health Training 

Employee training 39 33 2 1 0 8 

New employee 

orientation 40 28 3 1 3 8 

Supervisory training 30 35 6 1 3 8 

Cultural Management 

Leadership 

OSH priority policies 54 15 3 1 2 8 

Provided competent 

staff 52 13 3 1 6 8 

Delegate authority 56 14 1 1 3 8 

Resource allocation 47 21 1 1 5 8 

Safety and health 

training 42 26 4 1 2 8 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

27 

 Number of Agencies with the 

Self-assigned Rating 

Component Subcomponent Attribute 3 2 1 0 NA NR 

Safety/health 

performance 45 24 3 1 1 9 

Employee 

Participation 

Process involvement 46 23 2 1 1 10 

Organizational 

decision-making on 

resources 

27 30 7 3 6 10 

Organizational 

decision-making on 

training 

27 33 4 5 4 10 

Evaluation of OSH 

performance 32 30 4 3 3 11 

SHMS Score Explanation

3 Completely in place

2 Mostly in place with only minor improvements needed

1 Some portion or aspect is present although major improvement is needed

0 No discernible or meaningful indication that portion or aspect is even in place 

NA Not applicable

NR Data not reported by agency

Cultural Component Assessment 

For the CY 2015 reporting period, OSHA provided agencies with 10 attributes12 to rate the 

cultural component of their SHMSs. Overall, 60 federal agencies (~73 percent), provided a “2” 

or higher rating for all 10 cultural component attributes. In CY 2015, 69 agencies (~83 percent) 

provided a “2” or higher rating for the OSH priority policies attribute, while 8 agencies (~10 

percent) provided a “not-applicable” or “not rated” ratings for the same attribute. The two 

lowest rated attributes were organizational decision-making on resources and training, with 57 

and 60 agencies, respectively rating them “2” or higher (~69 and ~72 percent respectively). 

OSHA will continue to assess the responses and reach out to agencies to provide support and 

guidance. 

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 the statutorily-required injury and illness records from all Executive Branch agencies. In 

 

12 In CY 2014 OSHA added five attributes to assess the Cultural component of each federal department’s or 

agency’s respective SHMSs: OSH priority policies; safety and health training; safety and health performance; and 

organizational decision-making on resources, and training. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

28 

addition, the rule clarified and updated some existing provisions of 29 CFR §1960 for better 

application to the Executive Branch. The goal of the rule change was to both assist agencies 

and OSHA in identifying those worksites with the highest injury and illness rates, and better 

target needed training for federal agencies. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects the 

data and provides it to OSHA. 

CY 2015 marked the second completed data collection cycle. OSHA continued to work with the 

BLS to track the data collected and monitor the quality of that data. In addition, OSHA worked 

with OWCP for those agencies using the EComp system to collect the data, providing the 

appropriate establishment codes and communicating with agencies about the procedures for 

getting the data from OWCP and providing it to BLS. OSHA also provided agencies with 

guidance about the data collection process and followed-up with information on errors 

identified in the submitted data. 

During this reporting period, 84 of a possible 96 agencies submitted data on approximately 

12,000 establishments. Of the agencies that submitted data, 75 submitted data on almost 

9,000 establishments and OSHA deemed that data reliable based on error checks. Of those 75 

agencies, 59 submitted data for all of their establishments. The most common error identified 

in the submitted data was the failure to provide the number of employees or hours work for 

each establishment. (Please see Appendix 2 for a table detailing the success of federal 

agencies’ injury and illness reporting.). 

OSHA will analyze the collected data for key findings, and post the aggregate data. In addition, 

the OSHA 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 2015, OSHA did not conduct, nor did federal agencies request, any ATARs at the National 

Office level. However, the Cleveland, Ohio Area Office assisted two Department of Labor, 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs sites with ergonomics evaluations and assistance. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

29 

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. 

When OSHA queried federal agencies regarding the depth of their involvement in the FFSHCs, 

42 federal agencies reported some involvement, 36 reported no involvement in these councils 

and the remainder did not report on this item. Agencies’ 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. 

In CY 2015, 35 FFSHCs actively carried out efforts to improve the effectiveness of OSH functions 

within the Government. (Please see Appendix 3, for a complete listing of active FFSHCs for CY 

2015 and other Council information.) According to the submitted annual reports, 

approximately 538 appointed representativesfrom 65 federal departments and agencies 

participated in FFSHCs across the country, both participation figures representing roughly 15% 

decreases from CY 2014. 

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. 

Due to tie scores in Category I, ten FFSHCs received a Secretarial award for their CY 2015 

council activities. By category, these were: 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

30 

Category I: FFSHCs serving an area with a federal employee population exceeding 

24,000

• Superior Performance – Northern New Jersey 

• Meritorious Achievement – Greater New York 

• Notable Recognition – Dallas/Ft. Worth 

• Notable Recognition – Denver 

Category II: FFSHCs serving an area with a federal employee population numbering 

between 12,000 and 24,000 

• Superior Performance – Minneapolis 

• Meritorious Achievement – Western New York 

• Notable Recognition – Greater St. Louis 

Category III: FFSHCs serving an area with a federal employee population of fewer than 

12,000

• Superior Performance – Mississippi Gulf Coast 

• Meritorious Achievement – Hudson Valley 

• Notable Recognition – Louisville Area 

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 

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, midcontinent ecology, safety engineering and operations, occupational safety and health 

management, and vehicle and fuel emissions. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

31 

Alternate and Supplementary Standards 

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

agency may submit a request to OSHA for an alternate standard.

13 Currently, there are six 

OSHA-approved alternate 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 

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 over the years (Please see Table 6 below.). Similar to previous years’ offerings, at 

the CY 2015 event, OSHA provided nine half-day seminars, offered twice during the week on 

topics chosen after surveying federal OSH personnel. The 93 federal OSH employee 

participants, representing 18 federal agencies, had the opportunity to attend up to six different 

sessions on various topics, including: Asbestos Management and Housekeeping; Construction 

Safety (Focus 4); Electrical; Fire Protection; Forklift and Material Handling; Hearing 

 

13 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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

32 

Conservation; Hazard Communications – Aligning with GHS; Industrial Hygiene Sampling 

Methods; and Safety and Health Management Systems. 

Table 6: FEDWEEK Participation by Attendees and Calendar Year (2015-2013).

Calendar Year 

2015 2014 2013 

Participants 93 109 104 

Seminar Registrants 458 477 496 

Agencies Represented 18 34 31 

Previous years’ seminar topics have included: Confined Spaces; Hearing Conservation; Heat 

Stress; Industrial Hygiene Exposure Assessment; Office Ergonomics; Recordkeeping; 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 information exchange for 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 included 22 individuals 

representing 13 Executive Branch departments and independent agencies (no labor 

organizations were represented). By its fourth meeting, held on September 29, 2014, 

attendance had 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 policy to construction 

at 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 Program Activity; strategies to reduce injuries and illnesses 

among the federal workforce; and OSHA’s federal agency inspection process. 

During the September 25, 2015 meeting the Roundtable participants discussed several issues of 

interest: 

• PEER: Over the last several years, federal Executive Branch agencies have attempted to 

improve OSH performance via successive Presidential OSH-related Initiatives, the latest 

of which is Protecting Employees, Enabling Re-employment (PEER), a replacement for 

the POWER (Protecting our Workers, Enabling Re-Employment) Initiative that ended in 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

33 

FY 2014. PEER has not yet received Presidential approval and has not yet been 

implemented. 

• E-COMP: In August 2016, OSHA ceased using the Safety and Health Information 

Management System (SHIMS) to submit and track injury and illness data and began 

using the Employees’ Compensation Operations and Management Portal (E-COMP). 

• The CY 2014 Secretary of Labor’s Report to the President on Federal Department and 

Agency Occupational Safety and Health Program Activity and changes to the upcoming 

CY 2015 Report. 

• DoD Policy on Lead Exposure – DoD presented its proposed policy to implement more 

stringent methods to protect its workers with occupational exposures to lead. The 

Department proposes to lower the threshold blood lead level for removal of workers 

and use the OEL for airborne exposure measurements. 

• DoD Policy on Vapor Intrusion – DoD presented its recommended policy for managing 

the risk of vapor intrusion in its workplaces. The policy did not include EPA’s 

recommendation for removing workers from buildings where vapor intrusion may 

occur. 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

34 

Section 2 – Federal Agency OSH Activities 

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 2015 reporting period, 

agencies reported 21 federal civilian employee fatalities. This is approximately a 39 percent 

increase from the 13 work-related federal civilian employee fatalities reported for CY 2014, but 

still fewer than the 41 (37 work-related) reported during the previous reporting period. 

The agencies and the respective numbers of fatal/catastrophic events were: 

• Department of Agriculture (USDA): seven fatalities; 

• Department of Defense (DoD)/Department of the Army: three fatalities, two 

catastrophic events; 

• DoD/Defense Logistics Agency: one fatality, four catastrophic events; 

• DoD/Defense Finance and Accounting Service: one catastrophic event; 

• DoD/Department of the Navy: three fatalities, two catastrophic events; 

• Department of Energy: one fatality; 

• Department of Health and Human Services: one fatality; 

• Department of the Interior: two fatalities; 

• Department of Justice: two fatalities, one catastrophic event; 

• Department of Labor: one fatality; 

• International Boundary Waters Commission: two fatalities; 

• Smithsonian Institution: one fatality; and 

• Department of Homeland Security: twenty-four catastrophic events. 

Summary of Agency Fatality/ Catastrophic Reports 

The USDA reported seven fatalities: 

• A contractor-operated helicopter crashed while conducting aerial ignition operations on 

a prescribed burn near Saucier, Mississippi. The contract helicopter pilot and one 

Southern Region Engineering Technician employee were fatally injured while a second 

Forest Service employee from the Northern Region was critically injured. The aircraft 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

35 

was destroyed in the post-crash fire. The National Transportation Safety Board 

preliminary report stated that the probable cause of the accident was a loss of engine 

power for reasons that could not be determined due to post-accident fire damage. 

• A 38 year-old male Black Hills National Forest Engine Captain was entrapped and killed 

while scouting on foot during initial attack of the Frog Fire on the Modoc National 

Forest. The Engine Captain was on a temporary detail assignment to the Modoc 

National Forest when the Frog Fire began. He scouted the fire as initial attack forces 

worked to establish an anchor at the heel of the fire and lost contact with other 

responders shortly after fire activity increased across the fire. The Modoc County 

Sheriff’s Office responded to search and the initial search effort continued until about 

midnight when it was halted due to smoke, poor visibility, and the hazardous fire 

conditions. Efforts began again the following morning; his body was discovered midmorning. 

• Two volunteers were building a corral for livestock on the Sierra National Forest. As 

they were using rigging to move a fallen log back to the top of the sill log, one of the 

volunteers was struck by the log under tension. He was evacuated by air ambulance to 

Fresno, CA, but died of his injuries the following morning. 

• While conducting the initial attack on the Sierra Fire in a remote area south of Echo 

Peak on the border of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and the Eldorado 

National Forest, in Northern California near the Nevada border, a weakened hemlock 

tree struck two firefighters, killing one and injuring the second. Two 

Firefighter/Emergency Medical Technicians provided immediate care on scene, 

immediately beginning cardiopulmonary resuscitation and calling for helicopter 

evacuation. The deceased was a 21-year-old male member of Organized Crew 36 (Hand 

crew). 

• While conducting the initial attack on the Twisp Fire on state forest land in Washington 

State, three members of a Forest Service engine crew from the Okanogan-Wenatchee 

National Forest died when fire overwhelmed their engine. The engine had left the road 

while trying to escape the fire and stopped upright approximately 40 feet down a steep 

wooded embankment. Four additional firefighters were injured: one Forest Service 

employee who was riding in the engine received life-threatening burn injuries and was 

airlifted to Harborview Burn Center, and three Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources firefighters (one contractor and two DNR employees) were transported for 

medical treatment. 

The DoD reported four work-related fatalities, and eight catastrophic events. These included 

one fatality reported by the Department of the Army, one fatality and four catastrophes 

reported by the Defense Logistics Agency, a catastrophe reported by the Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service, and two fatalities and three catastrophes reported by the Department of 

the Navy. 

Department of the Army 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

36 

• An Army employee was changing a recessed ceiling light when he fell through the ceiling 

panel and sustained fatal injuries. 

Defense Logistics Agency 

• A military customer turned in an unserviceable military vehicle containing an Automatic 

Fire Extinguishing System (AFES). The AFES contains two small compressed gas 

canisters. Under normal procedures, the customer turning in the vehicle removes the 

AFES before turning-in the vehicle. While removing the AFES from the vehicle, the 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) employee helped the military customer perform this 

task, and then placed the canisters temporarily on the ground. The DLA employee 

picked up one of the compressed cylinders by the nozzle but then dropped the cylinder. 

When the cylinder hit the ground, it discharged rapidly, becoming a projectile. The 

cylinder/projectile’s impact with the DLA employee caused fatal injuries from blunt 

force trauma. 

• A DLA employee was setting up a machine to punch bolt holes in sheet steel stock. 

While punching the bolt holes, a sliver of metal punctured the employee’s right eye and 

lodged in his sinus. The employee was treated at the hospital but lost sight in his right 

eye. 

• During forklift operations, two pallets (each containing a wooden box) were stacked on 

each other. A DLA employee used a forklift to move both pallets at the same time and 

struck an upright column of the racking system. A pallet and material on the pallet were 

forced back into the employee’s lower left leg, resulting in multiple fractures of the 

employee’s leg and requiring hospitalization. 

• A DLA employee was taking pictures of stored material when he fell off a ladder stand, 

experienced multiple fractures, and was hospitalized. 

• A DLA employee transported an Armored Security Vehicle (ASV) to a designated area. 

After parking the ASV the employee attempted to exit the vehicle via the side doorway. 

Upon reaching up to grab the frame of the doorway, the top hatch inadvertently swung 

shut pinching the employee’s right ring finger between the hatch and the latch, severing 

the tip of the employee’s finger. The finger was subsequently amputated at the 

hospital. 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service 

• A Defense Finance and Accounting Service employee was filing documents in a fourdrawer electronic file cabinet with two drawers open simultaneously. As she began 

opening a third drawer, the cabinet tipped over and landed on her, causing multiple 

pelvic fractures. 

Department of the Navy 

• An employee performing a facility inspection during a high power engine test stood 

adjacent to an operational jet engine to be photographed by a colleague. The suction of 

the engine’s exhaust current sucked the employee into the exhaust stream and through 

the facility augmenter/exhaust duct, killing the employee. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

37 

• A railcar braker/switcher (brakeman) fell from a moving rail flatcar and was run over by 

one of the train car wheels. The brakeman died from hypovolemic shock. 

• A student operator was attempting to repair a Patriot missile launcher system 

(conducting non-standard maintenance). A safety pin became severely jammed and the 

student couldn’t remove the pin using established procedures. The student’s finger was 

caught in a pinch point resulting in amputation of the finger. 

• Two Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians were disassembling a foreign submunition when they experienced a partial detonation. One employee sustained an 

injury to his right hand resulting in bone loss and permanent mobility restriction. 

• During the night shift, a machine tool operator was using a mechanical punch press to 

manufacture rubber spacers. The spacers kept ‘clogging’ in the die and the designated 

tool used to remove the spacers was not working. The employee removed the machine 

guard and began manually pushing the spacers out of the die. The employee 

accidentally activated the foot pedal on the press, while his fingers were pressing out a 

spacer. The press amputated the employee’s left index finger and fractured his middle 

finger. 

The Department of Energy reported one fatality: 

• A security officer found a male employee on the floor of a bathroom stall. The 

employee was unconscious, not breathing, and cyanotic. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation 

(CPR) was initiated along with the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED). 

Medical services, investigative personnel, and the medical examiner were called to the 

scene. There was no obvious evidence of an occupational injury or exposure. 

The Department of Health and Human Services reported one fatality: 

• An employee was deployed to an Anniston, Alabama training site as an instructor in an 

event held at a parking lot. On the day of the fatality the employee complained about 

not feeling well after lunch. About 30 minutes after lunch another instructor examined 

the employee and called for the medics. The employee was transported via ambulance 

to a local hospital where he continued to deteriorate and died of a massive heart attack 

shortly after arriving. The employee was not engaged in hard labor but was on his feet 

for an extended period of time in hot weather. A subsequent investigation indicated 

that the employee had an undisclosed pre-existing medical condition. 

The Department of the Interior reported two work-related fatalities. 

• A Bureau of Land Management employee collapsed of a heart attack after completing a 

required 2-mile fitness run. 

• A U.S. Geological Survey scientist working for the Grand Canyon Monitoring Research 

Center in Flagstaff, AZ died while hiking down a remote trail with a partner in the Grand 

Canyon National Park. An autopsy determined that the employee was a victim of 

exertional heat stress. 

The Department of Justice reported two fatalities and one catastrophe: 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

38 

• A foreign national assigned to the Drug Enforcement Agency died as a result of a 

robbery/shooting. 

• A Deputy U.S. Marshal, part of a team of Marshals, was shot while executing a warrant 

on a fugitive wanted for double homicide in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The team engaged 

gunfire and he was shot in the neck and died in the hospital.

• Three Federal Bureau of Investigation employees were overcome by carbon monoxide 

in a warehouse and had to be hospitalized. The local fire department was brought in to 

conduct air monitoring and to monitor the space. The Bureau provided a safety briefing 

at an all-employees conference.

The Department of Labor reported one fatality: 

• An employee on official travel was found deceased in hotel room of a possible cardiac 

arrest. 

The International Boundary Waters Commission reported two fatalities: 

• The IBWC did not provide any information on the events. 

The Smithsonian Institution reported one fatality: 

• An employee working in a computer department suffered a fatal heart attack. 

The Department of Homeland Security reported 24 catastrophic events: 

• Nine employees, in separate incidents slipped, tripped or fell. Locations included 

boarding boats, climbing a hill, exiting an elevator, training a service dog, and walking 

through a parking lot. 

• Five employees experienced heart attacks. 

• Four employees were injured in ATV accidents. 

• Two employees experienced spider bites. 

• One employee developed rhabdomyolysis during training. 

• One employee was struck by a falling object. 

• One employee was injured when their weapon accidently discharged. 

• One employee’s finger was partially amputated. 

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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

39 

Both E.O. 12196 and 29 CFR §1960, Subpart F discuss the formation, composition, and duties of 

CSHCs. 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. 

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 existed in CY 2015. The 

Secretary recognized 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 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 and General Services 

Administration reported that they no longer had CSHCs. The Central Intelligence Agency and 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did not report on their CSHCs for CY 2015. 

The Department of Energy is reportedly still continuing its efforts to establish a CSHC, and the 

National Archives and Records Administration stated that, while it does not have a CSHC, its 

national OSH committee is “patterned after one in accordance with 29 CFR 1960.” However 

NARA did not communicate any intent to establish a CSHC. 

Other OSH Committees and Councils 

OSHA asked federal agencies to provide information on their involvement with both internal 

and external OSH committees, along with whether their employees participated in local OSH 

councils/committees and organizations. Many agencies reported that they encourage 

employees to participate in local council activities and appropriate OSH professional 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

40 

organizations, such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, the 

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the American Society of Safety Engineers 

(ASSE), and the National Fire Protection Association, as well as, nationally- and locally-oriented 

safety organizations, such as the National Safety Council (NSC). The agencies, listed below, 

encouraged employees to participate in OSH committees, in addition to FFSHCs. 

• 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. To 

enhance and streamline oversight of its safety and health programs and to address 

OSHA compliance related issues, the Army recently chartered the Safety and 

Occupational Health Senior Executive Council (SOH SEC) and the SOH Synchronization 

Oversight Council (SOH SOC). 

• The Department of Commerce reported encouraging its employees to participate in 

professional organizations such as ASSE, AIHA, and NSC. Employees also participate in 

the Department’s semiannual Occupational Safety and Health Council and monthly 

Safety Work Group meetings. 

• The Department of State reported that its DASHO was appointed to the Federal 

Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) in CY 2015. The DASHO 

also participates in the Office of Federal Agency Programs’ OSH Managers Safety and 

Health Roundtable. 

Little change from previous years was noted in federal agencies’ participation in other venues in 

support of their OSH programs. For CY 2015, 73 agencies (~89 percent) reported 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. 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

Collectively, 39 federal agencies provided information on the number of motor vehicle 

accidents (MVAs) their employees experienced during CY 2015. According to those reports, 

roughly 10,012 MVAs occurred during calendar year. Most agencies reported having a motor 

vehicle safety program (MVSP), with the majority 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 effect of MVAs. 

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 encouraging seatbelt use, by placing decals in vehicles, 

reminders on employee websites, or notices in break rooms. While several agencies reported 

tracking seatbelt use after an accident – many using information from police reports – few had 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

41 

any full-time tracking. A number of agencies mentioned performing random compliance 

checks, and more agencies this year reported using camera surveillance inside vehicles to 

monitor compliance. 

One department, Health and Human Services, reported using Drive-CamTM to record events 

inside its vehicles with the intent of achieving two goals: modify driver behavior associated with 

high frequency and risk of accidents; and use telematics, essentially a ‘black box’ for motor 

vehicles, to obtain error free data on HHS fleet performance. The Department found that the 

Drive-CamTM pilot had the effect of “driver coaching” by addressing accidents and “near-miss” 

incidents through training rather than finding fault or enacting disciplinary action. This 

approach encouraged driver community responsiveness through safe driving patterns and 

behavior. The Department cited saving lives while reducing costs through the use of telematics. 

With trials that encompassed over 200 units and venues in the Continental United States, HHS 

learned lessons related to how best to deploy Drive-CamTM units along with assessing issues 

that arose during usage. 

The Department of the Navy’s MVSP is also worth mentioning for its implementation and 

scope. The comprehensive requirements focused on risk management strategies including: 

vehicle design standards, operator duty time limitations, and fatigue management evaluations. 

The program also emphasized training and instruction that addressed issues such as: specific 

vehicle type, installation, host state/nation traffic policies, and refresher courses and their 

frequency. Notably the Navy supplemented its policies and formal training information with 

service-wide promotional material and media campaigns that included permanent road signs, 

electronic marquees, and posters or pamphlets on topics such as seatbelt use, distracted 

driving, driving under the influence, fatigued driving, and aggressive driving. By promulgating 

motor vehicle safety standards, the Department reinforced classroom instruction while 

enforcing compliance via police patrol and citation, along with driver improvement training 

following serious moving traffic violations. 

Thirty-three agencies indicated the lack of a MVSP for a variety of reasons: size and number of 

employees assigned, agency mission - such as not driving in an “official capacity,” not owning 

an agency-dedicated fleet, or that agency employees used mass transit for travel needs to and 

from the workplace. A number of agencies asserted that such a program was “not applicable” 

to their situations, or failed to provide any report on the existence or absence of a program. 

Some agencies deemed to have little to no training stated a mere compliance to E.O.s 13043 

and 13513, with no indication of any further information on safety protocols or measures. 

Those agencies reporting that they did not have a motor vehicle safety program include: Ability 

One Commission, American Battles Monuments Commission, Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board, Commission on Civil Rights, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Maritime Commission, Federal Mediation and 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

42 

Conciliation Service, Federal Reserve Board, Holocaust Memorial Museum, Harry S. Truman 

Scholarship Foundation, Inter American Foundation, International Boundary and Water 

Commission, James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, Millennium Challenge 

Corporation, Marine Mammal Commission, National Capital Planning Commission, National 

Council on Disability, National Labor Relations Board, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 

Office of Government Ethics, Peace Corps, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Postal 

Regulatory Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Selective Service System, Small 

Business Administration, Social Security Administration, Trade and Development Agency, 

Vietnam Education Foundation 

Table 7. Summary of Motor Vehicle Accidents as Reported by Department and Independent 

Agency (Fiscal Year 2013 through Calendar Year 2015). 

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 2015 (CY 

2014/FY2013) 

Department of Agriculture 2,117 (2,321/2,427) 

Department of the Air Force 29 (25/13) 

Department of the Army ? NR (11/11) 

Department of Commerce 102 (141/134) 

Department of Defense ? 485 (NR/515) 

Department of Energy ? NR (NR/90) 

Department of Health and Human Services 88 (80/100) 

Department of Homeland Security 1,127 (1,441/NR) 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 0 (10/0) 

Department of Justice 1,971 (2,493/2,689) 

Department of Labor 487 (384/403) 

Department of the Interior 618 (581/0) 

Department of the Navy 9 (10/NR) 

Department of State 1,692 (1,200/380) 

Department of Transportation ? 50 (NR/28) 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

43 

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 2015 (CY 

2014/FY2013) 

Department of the Treasury 196 (387/316) 

Department of Veterans Affairs 308 (215/43) 

Environmental Protection Agency 39 (37/31) 

General Services Administration 72 (35/38) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 135 (0/201) 

Social Security Administration 16 (15/3) 

Tennessee Valley Authority 160 (157/102) 

Office of Personnel Management 177 (190/218) 

Armed Forces Retirement Home 3 (0/1) 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ? NR (NR/2) 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 2 (6/0) 

Corporation for National and Community 

Service ? NR (1/3) 

Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency 4 (13/14) 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ? 12 (NR/15) 

Farm Credit Administration 0 (2/0) 

Federal Communications Commission 5 (2/4) 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 40 (0/32) 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 0 (0/NR) 

Federal Maritime Commission 0 (0/3) 

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 0 (2/0) 

International Boundary and Water Commission 7 (7/0) 

National Archives and Records Administration 1 (0/7) 

National Capital Planning Commission 0 (0/0) 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

44 

Department/Agency Status Number of Accidents CY 2015 (CY 

2014/FY2013) 

National Labor Relations Board 0 (5/0) 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 (6/0) 

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 0 (0/0) 

Office of the Special Trustee for American 

Indians ? NR (NR/0) 

Small Business Administration 1 (3/0) 

Smithsonian Institution 26 (17/13) 

The Peace Corps 2 (3/1) 

The Presidio Trust ? NR (NR/4) 

U.S. Arctic Research Commission ? NR (NR/0) 

Legend for Table 6 

No change from FY 2014 report NR Not reported 

Decrease from FY 2014 report ? Undetermined from reported data

Increase from FY 2014 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 65 agencies that 

provided information on this topic, 33 (~ 51 percent) specifically reported that the most 

frequent cause of employee injury was attributable to slips, trips, and falls. Other causes 

included materials handling (lifting, caught by/against) and ergonomics. Many of the smaller 

independent agencies reported that none of their employees had suffered any work-related 

injuries or illnesses. And some agencies noted that their statistics were so low that they could 

not identify a “most frequent” cause. Nineteen agencies did not report on this item. 

Agencies included a variety of prevention strategies to counter injurious incidents. Most 

reported relying on the accurate employee reporting of and self-inspections by supervisory 

personnel to identify hazard areas. Other approaches included: installing slip-resistant flooring 

and warning signage; prevention awareness training, including ergonomics and ladder safety 

training; general housekeeping improvement, including the removal of slip, trip, and fall 

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. 

This year several agencies also reported participating in OSHA’s National Safety Stand-Down for 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

45 

Fall Prevention in May 2015. The purpose of the Stand-Down was to bring awareness to fall 

hazards, typical work tasks associated with fall risks, and fall protection strategies. 

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 

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 hazard correction, working with GSA and other entities for hazard 

abatement, consulting with OSHA on abatement methods, and updating policy and procedural 

guidance. Several agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, and 

Labor, along with some of the Defense subagencies, indicated that they encourage employee 

and contractor participation in this inspection process. 

Collectively, 60 agencies affirmed that they perform at least 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, several hundred announced/unannounced 

inspections/audits. The Smithsonian Institution reported that it conducts at least two selfinspections on each of its establishments on an annual basis. Most agencies reported that 

agency OSH personnel conduct the majority of internal inspections, although one agency, the 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

46 

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-related inspections on their establishments. Although most agencies 

that reported outside inspections did not specify the exact number of such inspections/audits – 

from any particular agency – for the reporting period, they did indicate receiving more than 340 

Notices of Unsafe or Unhealthy Working Conditions, or the citing agency’s equivalent, from the 

various external regulatory agencies. The external agencies that issued the Notices (or 

equivalents) included the Joint Commission, OSHA, Mine Safety and Health Administration, the 

United States Postal Service-Inspector General, and various state departments of Worker 

Safety. Commonly cited hazards included deficiencies in egress; electrical and fire safety; 

hazard communication; OSH training, at all levels of responsibility; personal protective 

equipment programs, including respiratory protection; use of energized equipment; and 

recordkeeping. Most agencies reported correcting the hazards immediately or within the 

specified abatement periods. 

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, over 132,000 government employees worked outside the United 

States’ border this year. 

Table 8. Number of Federal Civilian Employees in Overseas Locations by Agency (CY 2015, FYs 

2014 and 2013) (n = 30 agencies). 

Number of Employees 

Agency Status 2015 2014 2013 

Department of Agriculture ~400 ~400 450 

Department of Commerce ? NR NR 785 

Department of Defense 72,638 ~83,000 ~88,000 

Department of Energy ? NR NR 0 

Department of Health and Human 

Services ? NR NR NR 

Department of Homeland Security ~2,100 2,100 NR 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

47 

Number of Employees 

Agency Status 2015 2014 2013 

Department of the Interior ? NR NR 550 

Department of Justice 426 500 1,351 

Department of Labor 30 30 24 

Department of State 57,888 56,104 55,200 

Department of Transportation ? NR NR 645 

Department of the Treasury 46 0 55 

Department of Veterans Affairs 0 0 NR 

Environmental Protection Agency 199 247 179 

General Services Administration ? NR 12 7 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration ? 12 NR 4 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 2 0 1 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 22 22 29 

National Endowment for the 

Humanities ? NR 8 NR 

National Science Foundation ? NR NR 4 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 8 4 

Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation 4 1 1 

Peace Corps 191 181 181 

Postal Regulatory Commission 0 40 NR 

Smithsonian Institution ? NR NR ~1 

Social Security Administration NR 6 6 

U.S. Agency for International 

Development ? NR NR 6,780 

U.S. Trade and Development Agency ? 30 NR 30 

~TOTAL ~132,292 ~132,291 ~142,512 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

48 

Number of Employees 

Agency Status 2015 2014 2013 

Legend for Table 6 

No change from CY 2014 report NR Not reported 

Decrease from CY 2014 report ? Undetermined from reported data

Increase from CY 2014 report 

The Departments of Defense (including the armed services, reported approximately 73,000 

employees), and State (57,888 employees) reported the largest number of overseas employees. 

The DoD, its various components, and the military Departments indicated that they extend 

their OSH programs and coverage to include their overseas federal civilian employees. The 

State Department 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 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-
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

49 

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. While the Agency for International Development is only able to allocate a 

reported $108,000 for its entire OSH program, it is able to provide its employees with an 

extensive amount of training under the auspices of the Department of State. Among larger 

agencies, the Department of Labor noted that its OSH training budget was $752,000. 

EPA continues to excel with its exemplary 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. In 2014 the Agency reported that it was transitioning to a centralized online tracking 

system, and has taken steps to ensure that specific groups receive adequate OSH training. On 

April 16, 2015, EPA posted a system of records notice (SORN) to the Federal Register to 

announce its intent to use the Field Readiness Module to track employee training requirements 

and medical preparedness data. After the SORN’s 30-day comment period closed, the EPA 

encouraged all its regions and program offices to transition their health and safety training and 

medical preparedness data into the Field Readiness Module. By the end of CY 2015, six of the 

agency’s 10 regions and the Office of Land and Emergency Management’s Environmental 

Response Team had already completed this task. According to the EPA, having this information 

available in real time, as the Field Readiness Module will allow, will greatly improve efficiency 

during national response events. 

In addition to the above information regarding federal agency OSH training, federal agencies 

were requested to describe their overall experience with the Occupational Safety and Health 

Training Guidelines for Federal Agencies issued in 2014. OSHA developed and published these 

Guidelines in response to a FACOSH recommendation. While the majority of agencies did not 

address their experience with the Guidelines, a few indicated that their training programs met 

or exceeded the document’s parameters, some noted that they were incorporating or would 

incorporate the information, and others noted that they were looking at the guidelines and 

considering implementing some of the suggestions at a later date. 

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, 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

50 

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. None of the agencies 

reported any allegations of reprisal for the current year. 

Product Safety Programs 

In the CY 2015 information request to federal agencies, OSHA requested that federal agencies 

describe their compliance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1960.34, specifically addressing how 

each agency ensures that the products and services 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 82 responding agencies, 

50 reported their compliance with the standard; 26 indicated that such a program did not exist 

within their respective agencies; six agencies did not respond to this item. 

Most agencies provided few details on their programs, noting program specifics authority 

vested to GSA under 29 CFR 1960, Subpart E. However, the Department of Agriculture noted 

that it addressed product safety through the federal acquisition process and that purchases 

must meet federal product safety guidelines. It also reported that the affected functional 

areas, such as Fleet Management for fleet vehicles, would address any recalls. 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. Among smaller agencies, the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported that it only purchases and uses products that are UL 

(Underwriters Laboratory) listed and used in accordance with manufacturers’ 

recommendations and guidelines. It also noted that it strictly adheres to its Hazard 

Communication Program requirements including the issuance and review of all SDSs, and 

maintains an electronic SDS database for all associated products used at FDIC. The Corporation 

stated that its managers follow product recalls in their program areas. 

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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

51 

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 Assistance14 program, and how 

it affects federal agencies. 

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 both federally-owned facilities and those commercially 

leased to federal tenants. It also reported that its Operations and Maintenance, and custodial 

specifications are current. Similarly, GSA did not note implementation of any significant 

changes within its Products and Services function. It reported zero product recalls for the 2015 

reporting period. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NIOSH reported that in CY 2015 it completed 21 out of 28 technical assistance requests, also 

known as a Request for Health Hazard Evaluation, from federal agencies, including four field 

investigations, and 17 desktop investigations. Federal agency requests varied by exposure 

group and health problem, but continued to remain focused on the issues of concern. For the 

reporting period, the ‘Exposure Group’ category of ‘Indoor Environmental Quality’ and the 

combined categories of ‘Radiological,’ ‘Biological’ and ‘Chemical’ accounted for over 88 percent 

of agency requests for technical assistance under this grouping. The ‘Health Problem’ category 

of ‘Respiratory’ accounted for nearly 40 percent of the investigations, with ‘Cancer’ and ‘Skin 

Disorder’ comprising a further 40 percent of the grouping. 

NIOSH reported similar results for the 37 requests that it received during the 2014 reporting 

period (completing 34 of the 37). For that reporting period, 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 

 

14 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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

52 

grouping. The ‘Health Problem’ category of ‘Respiratory’ accounted for nearly 50 percent of 

the number of investigations conducted under this grouping. (Please see Appendix 4 for 

information on agencies’ requests to NIOSH for technical assistance.) 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

53 

Appendices
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

54 

Appendix 1: Safety and Health Management System Attributes Evaluated 

in CY 2015 

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.

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. 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

55 

• 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.

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 OSH leadership, 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

56 

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.

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

57 

Appendix 2: Status of Agency Injury and Illness Reporting 

Number of Establishments 

Department/Agency Total Submitted 

Data 

Submitted 

Usable Data 

AbilityOne 1 1 1

Access Board 1 1 1

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1 1 1

African Development Foundation 1 1 1

Agency for International Development 5 5 5

American Battle Monuments Commission 1 1 1

Armed Forces Retirement Home 2 2 2

Broadcasting Board of Governors 32 0 0

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 2 2 2

Commission of Fine Arts 1 1 1

Commission on Civil Rights 6 6 6

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 4 4 4

Consumer Product Safety Commission 3 3 3

Corporation for National and Community Service 1 0 0

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 13 13 12

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 1 1 1

Department of Agriculture 2,287 346 334

Department of the Air Force 542 535 0

Department of the Army 692 649 274

Department of Commerce 707 5 5

Department of Defense 522 517 506

Department of Education 27 0 0

Department of Energy 54 54 53

Department of Health and Human Services 2,042 2,041 759
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

58 

Number of Establishments 

Department/Agency Total Submitted 

Data 

Submitted 

Usable Data 

Department of Homeland Security 1,274 566 557

Department of Housing and Urban Development 95 9 9

Department of the Interior 2,044 1 1

Department of Justice 1,580 1,270 1,266

Department of Labor 824 824 802

Department of the Navy 506 1 1

Department of State 397 135 132

Department of Transportation 1,099 1,094 915

Department of the Treasury 1,066 168 0

Department of Veterans Affairs 2,186 1,269 1,144

Environmental Protection Agency 166 166 59

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 54 6 6

Export-Import Bank 13 13 13

Farm Credit Administration 6 1 1

Federal Communications Commission 27 27 27

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 94 93 93

Federal Election Commission 1 1 1

Federal Housing Finance Agency 1 1 1

Federal Labor Relations Authority 7 7 7

Federal Maritime Commission 7 7 7

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 1 1 1

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission 3 3 3

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board 1 1 1

Federal Trade Commission 10 10 10
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

59 

Number of Establishments 

Department/Agency Total Submitted 

Data 

Submitted 

Usable Data 

General Services Administration 579 1 1

Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation 1 1 1

Holocaust Memorial Museum 8 8 8

Institute of Museum and Library Services 1 1 1

Inter-American Foundation 1 1 1

International Boundary and Water Commission 12 12 12

International Trade Commission 1 1 1

James Madison Foundation 1 1 1

Kennedy Center 1 1 1

Marine Corps 56 1 1

Marine Mammal Commission 1 1 1

Merit Systems Protection Board 9 9 9

Millennium Challenge Corporation 17 0 0

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 16 13 13

National Archives and Records Administration 46 42 41

National Capital Planning Commission 1 1 1

National Council on Disability 1 1 1

National Credit Union Administration 6 0 0

National Endowment for the Arts 1 1 1

National Endowment for the Humanities 1 1 1

National Gallery of Art 1 1 1

National Labor Relations Board 55 55 53

National Mediation Board 2 2 2

National Science Foundation 1 1 1

National Transportation Safety Board 7 7 7
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

60 

Number of Establishments 

Department/Agency Total Submitted 

Data 

Submitted 

Usable Data 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 7 7

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 1 1 1

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission 3 3 3

Office of Government Ethics 1 1 1

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 3 1 1

Office of Personnel Management 69 0 0

Office of Special Counsel 1 0 0

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 1 1 1

Peace Corps 78 0 0

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 3 3 3

Postal Regulatory Commission 1 1 1

Presidio Trust 1 0 0

Railroad Retirement Board 54 54 54

Securities and Exchange Commission 12 12 12

Selective Service System 4 1 1

Small Business Administration 188 0 0

Smithsonian Institution 31 31 31

Social Security Administration 1,896 1,896 1,618

Social Security Advisory Board 1 0 0

Tennessee Valley Authority 91 0 0

Trade and Development Agency 1 1 1

Udall Foundation 2 2 2

Vietnam Education Foundation 1 1 1

Total 21,686 12,042 8,927
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

61 

Appendix 3: Field Federal Safety & Health Councils 

Active FFSHCs in CY 2015 – 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 

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC 

Region 4: 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

• Louisville Area FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

• North Carolina FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

Region 5: 

• Chicago FFSHC 

• Detroit FFSHC 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

• Greater Cincinnati FFSHC 

• Minneapolis 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 

• Kansas 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 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

62 

FFSHCS with Appointed Representatives in CY 2015 by Federal Department/Agency 

Department of Agriculture 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC 

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

o Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC 

o Food Grain Inspection Service 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

o Forest Service 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

Department of Commerce 

o National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Detroit FFSHC 

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

Department of Defense 

o Defense Contract Management 

Agency 

o Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

o Defense Contractors Agency 

o Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

o Defense Logistics Agency 

o Northeastern Pennsylvania 

FFSHC 

o National Geospatial Agency

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

US Air Force

• Detroit FFSHC 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

• Greater Omaha FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

o US Air Force Fighter Wing

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

o US Air Force Reserve 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

o US Air Force Retirement Home 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

o US Air National Guard 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

US Army 

• Detroit FFSHC 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

o US Army Corps of Engineers

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Detroit FFSHC 

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

63 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

o US Army Reserves

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

US Navy

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

o US Marine Corps

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

o US Naval Sea Systems Command

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

o Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

o Federal Occupational Health 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

o Food and Drug Administration 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater Kansas City 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

Department of Homeland Security 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

• Phoenix FFSHC 

o Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

o National Urban Security Technology 

Laboratory 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Science and Technology 

• Greater New York FFSHC

o 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 

o US Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

• Greater Omaha FFSHC 

o US Coast Guard 

• Detroit FFSHC 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

o US Customs and Border Protection 

• Detroit FFSHC 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

o US Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

Department of Justice

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

o Federal Bureau of Investigation 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Greater Omaha FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

64 

o Federal Bureau of Prisons 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Northeastern Pennsylvania 

FFSHC 

o US Marshals Service 

• Greater Omaha FFSHC 

Department of Labor 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

o Employment and Training 

Administration 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

o 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 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

• Northeastern Pennsylvania 

FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

o Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration and Management 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Wage and Hour Division 

• Greater Omaha FFSHC 

o Women’s Bureau 

• Greater New York FFSH 

Department of State 

• South Florida FFSHC 

Department of Transportation 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

o Federal Aviation Administration 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

• Greater Omaha FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• Southern New Jersey 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 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

• North New Jersey FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

o Veterans Affairs Medical Center 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

o Veterans Health Administration 

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

Department of the Interior 

o Bureau of Land Management 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

65 

o National Park Service 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

o US Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

o US Geological Survey 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

Department of the Treasury 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

o Bureau of Printing and Engraving 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

o Internal Revenue Service 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC 

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC 

• Greater Omaha FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

Environmental Protection Agency 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

Federal Executive Board

• Detroit FFSHC

• Minneapolis FFSHC

• Western New York FFSHC

General Services Administration

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast 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 

• Western New York FFSHC 

Social Security Administration 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

U.S. Postal Service 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Detroit FFSHC 

• Greater Des Moines FFSHC 

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC 

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

• Phoenix FFSHC 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

American Federation of Government 

Employee

• Northeastern Pennsylvania FFSHC 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

66 

FFSHCS with Non-Appointed Representatives in CY 2015 by Federal 

Department/Agency 

Department of Agriculture 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Kansas FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

 US Forest Service 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Roadrunner FFSHC 

Department of Commerce 

o National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

• Louisville Area FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

o US Bureau of the Census 

• Louisville Area FFSHC 

Department of Defense

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

• South Texas FFSHC 

o Defense Contract Management 

Agency

• Western New York FFSHC 

o Missile Defense Agency

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

o National Reconnaissance Office 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

US Air Force 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

• Kansas FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

• Roadrunner FFSHC 

o US Air National Guard

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Louisville Area FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

U.S. Army 

o US Army Corps of Engineers 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Louisville Area FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

o US Army Training and Doctrine 

Command 

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

US Navy 

• Central Florida FFHSC 

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

o US Marine Corps 

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o US Navy Inspector General

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o US Navy Reserve

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o US Navy Commander, Fleet Forces

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o US Navy Commander, Naval Region 

Mid Atlantic

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o US Navy Commander Undersea 

Surveillance

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o US Navy Mid Atlantic Regional 

Maintenance Center

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

67 

o Naval Air Station

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Aviation Depot

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Communications

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Environmental and 

Preventative Medicine

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Environmental Health Center

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Environmental Training 

Center

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Medical Center

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Ophthalmic Support and 

Training

• Hampton Roads FFSHC

o Naval Personnel Development

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Sea Systems

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Shipbuilding 

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Shipyard Safety Office

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o Naval Special Warfare /Training 

Development Center

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

Department of Education 

• Western New York FFSHC 

Department of Energy 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o National Nuclear Security 

Administration

• Roadrunner FFSHC 

o Office of Science

• Greater New York FFSHC 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

o Centers for Disease Control

• Atlanta FFSHC 

o Federal Occupational Health 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Phoenix FFSHC 

o Food and Drug Administration

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

Department of Homeland Security 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

• South Texas FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

o Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Force Protection Services

• South Florida FFSHC 

o National Urban Security Lab 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Secret Service 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

o Transportation Security 

Administration 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Kansas FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

68 

o US Coast Guard 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

o US Customs and Border Protection 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

o 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 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

• South Texas FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

o Federal Bureau of Investigation

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Puerto Rico FFSHC 

o Federal Bureau of Prisons

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

Department of Labor 

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

• South Texas FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

o Bureau of Labor Statistics 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

o Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Hampton Roads FFSHC 

• Louisville Area FFSHC 

o Office of Inspector General 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Office of Labor/Management 

Standards 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Office of Workers Compensation 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Administration and Management 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

o Wage and Hour Division 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

Department of Transportation 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

o Federal Aviation Administration 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Louisville Area FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

o National Cemetery Administration 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Mississippi Gulf Coast FFSHC 

o Veterans Benefits Administration 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

69 

Department of the Interior 

• Greater Kansas City FFSHC

• Roadrunner FFSHC

o Bureau of Indian Affairs 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Roadrunner FFSHC 

o Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

o National Park Service 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Louisville Area FFSHC 

Department of the Treasury 

o Internal Revenue Service 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

Environmental Protection Agency 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• San Francisco Bay FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

Federal Executives Board 

• South Florida FFSHC 

General Services Administration 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

• Central Florida FFSHC 

• Greater New York 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 

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

• Greater New York FFSHC 

• Oklahoma FFSHC 

• Western New York FFSHC 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

70 

Departments/Agencies that Appointed New Representatives to FFSHCs in CY 2015 

Department of Agriculture 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

Department of Commerce 

o National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

• Denver FFSHC

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC

Department of Defense 

o US Air Force Reserve 

• Western New York FFSHC 

US Army 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

o US Army Corps of Engineers 

• Greater St. Louis FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

o US Army Support Activity 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

U.S. Navy 

o US Naval Air Systems Command 

• Southern New Jersey FFSHC 

Department of Energy 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

o Centers for Medical and Medicaid 

Services 

• Denver FFSHC 

Department of Homeland Security 

o Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Federal Protective Service

• South Florida FFSHC 

o US Coast Guard 

• Duluth/Superior FFSHC 

o US Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

• Dallas/Ft. Worth FFSHC 

• Greater New York FFSHC 

o Transportation Security 

Administration 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

• South Florida FFSHC 

Department of Labor 

• Atlanta FFSHC

o Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC

o US Bureau of Labor Statistics 

• Atlanta FFSHC 

Department of the Interior 

• Denver FFSHC

Department of the Treasury 

o Internal Revenue Service 

• Mt. Rainier FFSHC 

Environmental Protection Agency 

• Northern New Jersey FFSHC 

General Services Administration 

• Western New York FFSHC 

Small Business administration 

• Western New York FFSHC 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

71 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

o National Cemetery Administration 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

o Veterans Benefits Administration 

• Minneapolis FFSHC 

• Denver FFSHC
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

72 

Appendix 4: Agency Requests to NIOSH for Technical Assistance 

Technical Assistance Requests, and Completed Investigations by Type, CY 

2013 through CY 2015 

 Technical 

Assistance 

Requests 

Completed Investigation by Type 

 Desktop Field 

Department/ 

Agency 2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013

Agriculture 3 1 

Commerce 2 1 1 

Defense 3 2 5 1 2 3 1 2 

Energy 2 

Health & 

Human 

Services 

2 4 2 3 5 

Homeland 

Security 4 7 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 

Interior 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 

Justice 3 1 1 

U.S. Postal 

Service 4 5 2 3 3 3 

Social Security 

Administration 2 3 3 1 4 1 1 

Transportation 1 3 3 

State 1 1 

Treasury 1 1 2 1 1 

Veterans 

Affairs 5 4 5 5 2 5 

Other 3 2 1 2 3 1 

Total 27 37 31 15 26 22 8 8 

 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

73 

2015 Assistance Requests by Department/Agency and Exposure Group 

Exposure Group* 

Department/Agency 

Chemical Biologic Indoor Environmental Quality Noise Heat Stress Radiation Ergonomics 

Agriculture 2 1 

Defense 3 1 

Health Human Services 1 1 

Homeland Security 1 1 1 1 

Interior 1 

State 1 

U.S. Postal Service 1 2 

Social Security 1 1 

Transportation 

Treasury 1 

Veterans Affairs 1 3 1 1 

All 10 3 9 2 3 

* A Request for Technical Assistance, also known as a Health Hazard 

Evaluation request, may involve an investigation under more than one 

exposure group category. This is illustrated by the single request by the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury to investigate two exposure groupings: 

‘Biologic’ and ‘Indoor Environmental Quality.’ 
The Status of Federal Agencies Occupational Safety and Health Programs – CY 2015 

74 

2015 Assistance Requests by Department/Agency and Health Problem 

 Health Problem 

Department/Agency 

Respiratory Viral/Bacterial Cancer Musculoskeletal Mental/Behavioral Sensory Skin Disorder Nervous System 

Agriculture 1 1 

Defense 2 1 1 1 

Health Human Services 1 1 1 

Homeland Security 1 3 1 

Interior 1 1 

State 2 1 

U.S. Postal Service 1 1 1 

Social Security 

Transportation 1 1 

Treasury 4 3 1 

Veterans Affairs 1 1 1 1 1 

All 14 2 7 3 7 5